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

Monday, May 15, 2017

UC bid for LANL

  1. What will the UC bid for LANL look like? With the PAD level (all?) retired, what does UC have to offer in competition? Who are the new PAD and AD levels? Who will be the Director? LLNL people coming in again or not?

    After the Sandia winner any team with any players can win. How can UC win?

  2. Comments
  3. Very simple... UC drops all the current LANS/LLNS industrial partners and then UC teams with Honeywell for a LANL bid and with Battelle for a LLNL bid. These are its best shots, not say these LLC would win, but UC has zero chance if it stays with Bechtel.

  4. After the Sandia winner any team with any players can win. How can UC win?

    May 14, 2017 at 11:05 PM

    You may be right that anything can happen. I have heard that there is UC team with team leaders that are internal LANL people who expect that if they win they will be the next high up managers, director etc. Judging from who these people are and lack of weapons experience I say the odds are slim. To be honest it seems like UC will be putting a bid as a favor and doing as little as possible on their end and are letting the LANL side put the whole thing together. Could it work, who knows.

    One could try the pitch that LANL is soo utterly different than anything else that only internal LANL who have been there for 25 years can possibly hope to run it.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good god, please pull your heads out of the sand. UC has no chance of leading a successful bid for LANL, none. It will be anyone but UC, most likely Lockheed if they choose to bid. LANL is the poster child of the whole complex for poor management, leading to a long list of highly publicized and expensive mistakes. Anyone who looks remotely like LANS is dead on arrival.

Anonymous said...

The UC-Bechtel LLC at LANL (LANS) is definitely dead on arrival for any chance of winning the next LANL bid.

UC teaming with Lockheed-Martin might happen but considering that LM lost both the Sandia and Nevada competitions that seems like a losing partnership. A UC-Honeywell team makes the most sense, especially now that Honeywell has the M&O contracts for both NTS and Sandia.

If Bechtel wants any hope of staying involved with LANL it will have to team with UNM or Univ of Texas, that would be their only option.

It will be interesting to see if Lockheed-Martin dusts off its 2006 LANL bid that had them teaming with Univ of Teams.

NNSA will never award one of the physics science lab M&O contracts (LANL or LLNL) to any contractor team that doesn't have a major research university as a part of the LLC management leadership.

So which one if these LLC teams looks the best for taking over LANL:

A. UC-Honeywell
B. Lockheed-Martin/University of Texas
C. Bechtel/University of New Mexico

Anonymous said...

May 15, 2017 at 10:18 AM


I have heard that UC is part of a bid but not with Bechtel. I have heard nothing about Bechtel planning a bid but there some rumors many months that Bechtel might try and go it alone and claim UC was the bad hombre in the whole thing. I would think they would need some kind of University partner.

Anonymous said...

For those of you who aren't good a paying attentilon, despite nearly the same four letters in their names, LANL and LLNL are not the same place. They actually are even in different states.

One of the two confusingly named places, LLNL, is not even being rebid.

Despite widely held pronouncements by the confused, it has quietly and methodically even well satisfied all contract terms and has earned every available contract extension for 3 years with the possibility of 7 more.

LANL, the other one for those having a hard time with the alphabet, is on it's own in the contract rebid world, this time.

This is different than during the last debacle in 2008 when an piqued, jealous and addlepated prankster who never visited LLNL in 25 years but had an office at LANL, a senile, vidictive, gangsta named "Domenici" dictated to the somnambulent DOE, "if my state gets reamed for our percieved wrongs, that other place, whereever it is, gets reamed for our percieved wrongs.

Clean the swamp.

Anonymous said...

"This is different than during the last debacle in 2008 when an piqued, jealous and addlepated prankster who never visited LLNL in 25 years but had an office at LANL, a senile, vidictive, gangsta named "Domenici" dictated to the somnambulent DOE, "if my state gets reamed for our percieved wrongs, that other place, whereever it is, gets reamed for our percieved wrongs. "

I partially agree with your statement and you are one of the few to get this point. It is this if LANL was sooo bad than why did LLNL also have to be put up for bid? Now here is where I disagree with you, Domenici had nothing do with nor was there any serious issues at LANL, it was all about money, it was profiatble to many that LLNL also get privatized. As for LLNLs doing well, that may be true but few would argue that LLNL as a lab is anywhere near its former self before the contract change.

Anonymous said...

7:14 appears to be an opinionated, know-nothing. All labs get periodically rebid. LLNL too. LANL was last rebid in 2006, not 2008.

Dominici's main contribution in 2006 was to protect the interests of LANL workers. Dominici NEVER made the statements that 7:14 falsely claimed. 7:14 is a deranged liberal liar.

Anonymous said...

Presuming that UC is making an attempt to hang on to LANL, who could be the credible internal leaders of the proposal? Last time around it was all imported from LLNL.

Anonymous said...

Last time around it was all imported from LLNL.

May 17, 2017 at 4:46 PM

Not true. Most upper and mid managers were left over from UC. Anastasio, Mara, and Mcmillan were the initial LLNL imports. More came later.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps 6:38 PM thinks the last re-bid was led by someone other than Anastasio.

Anonymous said...

Why would you say that? 6:38 clearly said the initial imports included Anastasio.And it is certainly true that most of the mid and upper managers after LANS took over were left over from UC. I was one of them.

Anonymous said...

Just for consideration, who could L-M possibly pick that would have credibility for the top positions?

Anonymous said...

most of the mid and upper managers after LANS took over were left over from UC. I was one of them.

May 18, 2017 at 10:10 AM


Good to know that LANL management is UC "left-overs" That explains a lot!

Anonymous said...

You'd rather that they were all Bechtel imports?? Obviously you don't work at LANL. Your choice to misconstrue and mislead in your misuse of the term "left over" from the previous poster shows your lack of honesty and knowledge. Please try to avoid such sophomoric rhetorical stupidity in the future.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't take a lot of bait to catch fish on this blog.

Anonymous said...

More trolling...

Anonymous said...

Each of the LANL PADs are already positioning. It's hilarious. Personally, I think the winning bidder will be Battelle / UT / Bechtel with Bechtel playing a smaller role.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think the winning bidder will be Battelle / UT / Bechtel with Bechtel playing a smaller role.

May 24, 2017 at 9:07 PM

Since they are not even bidding, that's pretty out there.

Anonymous said...

Who is not bidding? The RFP isn't even out yet.

Blog Archive