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

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Judge rules against NSTec and Honeywell in Leidos case

Judge rules against NSTec and Honeywell in Leidos case

As expected, this was over fast and went against the intervention. Next up is likely to be the Court ruling against DoE and in favor of Leidos.

"Contractor teams looking to plead their cases on a contract dispute between Leidos Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) and the Department of Energy won’t be able to, with a federal court denying their motions to intervene last Thursday, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

Court of Federal Claims Judge Loren Smith ruled that the contractor teams looking to get in on the dispute “have no real interest in this dispute, as 'interest' is legally understood,” according to court documents."


http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/best-in-business/2016/09/u-s-court-denies-competitors-motion-to-intervene.html

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Someone here either loves Leidos or hates NNSA.

Anonymous said...

Or, it could have been decided on the legal merits. Imagine.

Anonymous said...

"Someone here either loves Leidos or hates NNSA."

Well everyone hates NNSA so that does not narrow it down very much, so I would guess a Leidos lover.

Anonymous said...

The decision had nothing to do with the Leidos protest. It was a narrow ruling addressing the standing of other bidders to intervene in the case (effectively allowing them to support the Department of Justice with free legal services). Because the case centers on the rescission of the contract, the judge ruled that the other bidders do not have standing.

Anonymous said...

Because the case centers on the rescission of the contract, the judge ruled that the other bidders do not have standing.

October 3, 2016 at 7:57 AM

False, this meant that DOE was wrong and Leidos should get the contract plus extra money for any inconvenience. This is how I want to see it, this is how I need to see it, and this this how I will see it. I have no interest in reality and do not recognize it's authority. I have my vision of the world and that is that.

Anonymous said...

Asshole

Anonymous said...

I have no interest in reality and do not recognize it's authority. I have my vision of the world and that is that.

October 11, 2016 at 7:00 PM

SO you obviously realize that your vision isn't real.

Anonymous said...

My guess: NNSA wanted to award the contract to the LLC now owned by Leidos, knowing that ownership had changed or was in the process of changing. Then one of the other bidders threatened to sue because they found out that Lockheed did not follow the official notification rules. NNSA rescinded the award because their lawyers told them to, Leidos sued, NSTEC and Honeywell sued, and now it's in the courts. But NNSA still wants to award the contract to Leidos as the best of the "anyone but NSTEC" crowd.

Blog Archive