Skip to main content

Bid extension request

DOE asked bidders for the NNSS contract to extend their bids until 30 June 2017. Are they applying lessons learned form the Sandia transition?

Comments

Anonymous said…
It seems not. Sandia bids were collected, NNSA decided in a reasonable time frame and awarded and did not rescind the new contract, and the new contractor is now in place. Meanwhile the NNSS drama has been dragging on for coming up on 2 years.
Anonymous said…
It appears that the NNSS bid was part of a failed strategy that depended on keeping Lockheed in the Complex but not at Sandia. Lockheed and Liedos threw a monkey wrench in this strategy and NsTec seems to be the winner in the whole scenario. Anybody believe they will make a decision and announcement by June 30? Combine NNSS in one of the lab contracts? Maybe Perry will make the decision. Texans are good at this. I am sure Charlie M blew in his ear.
Anonymous said…
May 11, 2017 at 7:40 AM

Lockheed will be staying in the complex as they will be getting Los Alamos. Not sure about NNSS or if it can be tied to Los Alamos.
Anonymous said…
Lockheed will be staying in the complex as they will be getting Los Alamos.

May 11, 2017 at 5:43 PM

What a putz. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Anonymous said…
What a putz. You have no clue what you are talking about.

May 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM

Sure, but how is it that every predictably bad thing seems to come true?
Anonymous said…
Excellent chance Lockheed will wind up with LANL. LANS is dead for sure, and UC would be foolish to get involved in any bid for a new contract. They are not that foolish. So, Lockheed will get LANL, and some UC-led LLC will keep LLNL when it eventually goes up for bids.
Anonymous said…
Lockheed SOLD their bid for NNSS to Leidos. Lockheed SOLD their share in CNS (the LLC at Pantex) to Leidos. Lockheed TRIED to SELL their contract for Sandia to Leidos two years ago and almost did not bid for Sandia.

Just why do you believe Lockheed wants to be in the complex?
Anonymous said…
They may not want to be, and I couldn't blame them. Not much money involved, and high risk of getting a lot less for any of a large number of reasons beyond your control.
Anonymous said…
I guess they were waiting to give the contract to Honeywell, which is now the major partner at both Sandia and NNSS.
Anonymous said…
7:58, spot on. LANL is not worth the trouble. Let it rot.
Anonymous said…
7:58, spot on. LANL is not worth the trouble. Let it rot.

May 12, 2017 at 3:45 PM

7:58 brings up a good point, in order for Lockheed to have other perks with the government it may have to run LANL. There is is really no downside you get some money and when there is a screwup you can blame scientists, it is a win win. Anyway with Lockheed out of NNSS it is now almost for certain they must get LANL. NNSA wants them in the complex. Lockheed is in really good shape now, they can completely call the shots on what they want order to run LANL.
Anonymous said…
Lockheed has plenty in the DOD coming up. They don't need it and may not want it.
Anonymous said…
There is a chance that Rick Perry may actually have the license to reform the NNSA, unlike the past several DOE secretaries. I imagine he is inclined to further privatization a la Honeywell, but you never know. Maybe in exchange for cutting all of the distracting WFO science and ARPA-E work, they will boost funding for nukes and LEPs and restore the labs to some caricature of their former glory.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!