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. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The suits are already piling up

The suits are already piling up and the courts have not yet ruled on Liedos NNSS protest. Looks like the contract losers from NSTec have turned the lawyers loose on the NNSA.


http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2016/09/21/contractor-teams-seek-to-challenge-leidos-nuclear.html

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course. They have a war chest of money they saved up by not paying their employees decent wages.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the contract losers from NSTec have turned the lawyers loose on the NNSA.


NNSA is gonna fight this to the bitter end, they have to since there is more at stake here than the NSTC. What is at stake is the value of having NNSA, and they know that so they do what they need to do to win.

Anonymous said...

If NNSA claims are correct and documented, I don't see a fight. The bid language either did or did not state that NNSA must be notified in case of a transfer of ownership, and Lockheed either did or did not notify NNSA. There is nothing else to battle about, and the documentation is what the courts will look at.

Anonymous said...

September 27, 2016 at 9:34 PM

You are way too logical and fact-based for this blog. But thanks.

Anonymous said...

The battle will be in a different court, when Leidos sues Lockheed for selling them a worthless legal entity.

Anonymous said...

September 27, 2016 at 9:34 PM

Your opinion is not supported by the preponderance of the case law on this topic.

Anonymous said...


Your opinion is not supported by the preponderance of the case law on this topic.

September 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM

The 9:34 PM poster sounds correct to me.

Blog Archive