BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email

Monday, September 12, 2016

National Nuclear Security Administration rescission of Contract Award

Leidos protested the rescission of the NNSS contract on Friday. They're not wasting time--straight to federal claims court.

Today the Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corporation (NVS3T) protested the Department of Energy’s, National Nuclear Security Administration rescission of Contract Award DE-NA0003379 for the management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site. The protest was filed with the United States Court of Federal Claims


Anonymous said...


Unwise if true, if Leidos wants a future with NNSA.

Anonymous said...

This one will be over before it ever gets very far and DoE is just wasting tax money fighting a losing cause.

Read about Abacus in the press release and then speak with an attorney experienced in government contracting to understand that DoE has no legal support for their rescission.

Anonymous said...

If true, DOE will lose swiftly in court.

Anonymous said...

Not by my reading. They failed to notify the contract officer of the change of ownership, as they were required to do, so they have no case. Putting in wording that the ownership might change in the future does not meet that requirement.

Anonymous said...

Don't bet on NSTec staying put just yet.....

If true, this post from another thread may be the end of the protest.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look into it and see that three comparable cases have gone to US Court in past three years. Government lost two of them and in the other one it only prevailed due to “as a result of the sale . . . the original proposal, upon which the award decision was based, no longer reflects the intended approach to performance”

The following is far more likely outcome from this case'noting that a corporate reorganization did not appear “to have any significant cost or technical impact on performance of the requirements”'

September 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM

Anonymous said...

I work in procurement and the most common phrase regarding competition of contracts is that a protest only costs the company the price of postage. That is an oversimplification of the process but the burden of proof is on NNSA. NNSA will have to show the federal judge how the government's interests are harmed by the sale. That will be a tough standard for NNSA to prove.

I've had many contracts in which we wrote that the key personnel listed in the proposal could not change throughout the multi year performance of the contract - guess what? Most of them were no longer on the contract by the end of year 1 of the multi year contract. It's all a shell game and both sides know this.

Anonymous said...

"NNSA will have to show the federal judge how the government's interests are harmed by the sale. That will be a tough standard for NNSA to prove."

September 29, 2016 at 6:40 PM

At long last, finally someone that knows what they are talking about has commented!

Blog Archive