Ok folks here it is the draft RFP call for LANL.
Document 1
Lots of stuff, some of the wording seems very very different from the last contract call. I am not a lawyer but maybe LANS can say they "reject" this call as being unfair to them and not keeping in the spirit of the original call from 2006. It also says the word "science" 40 times in a 50 page document which many in LANS will no doubt find insulting as that word should have only appeared 1 or 2 times. On the other hand the word "capabilities" only appears 24 times. Overall the words used in this document are rather different than the typical words used by LANS. It is rather obvious it comes from outside of the lab and has a different vision for the lab than what LANS had envisioned. Also one does not need to read a LANS purpose statement from an overpaid Saatchi and Saatchi guy to figure out what the possible purpose of the lab, as the purpose is laid out rather clearly in this document.
What is not clear from a novice reading is how much the possible pay out per year the contractor can make such as if it is 100 million or so.
Document 2
Document 3
Document 1
Lots of stuff, some of the wording seems very very different from the last contract call. I am not a lawyer but maybe LANS can say they "reject" this call as being unfair to them and not keeping in the spirit of the original call from 2006. It also says the word "science" 40 times in a 50 page document which many in LANS will no doubt find insulting as that word should have only appeared 1 or 2 times. On the other hand the word "capabilities" only appears 24 times. Overall the words used in this document are rather different than the typical words used by LANS. It is rather obvious it comes from outside of the lab and has a different vision for the lab than what LANS had envisioned. Also one does not need to read a LANS purpose statement from an overpaid Saatchi and Saatchi guy to figure out what the possible purpose of the lab, as the purpose is laid out rather clearly in this document.
What is not clear from a novice reading is how much the possible pay out per year the contractor can make such as if it is 100 million or so.
Document 2
Document 3
Comments
----
Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award
M-4 Technical and Management Criteria
(a) Criterion 1: Past Performance
The Government will evaluate the Offeror's relevant past performance during the last five-years, as submitted by the Offeror through the completion and submission of Past Performance Information Forms, performance assessments, small business achievement, as well as relevant past performance information that the Government may obtain from any other sources, to determine the degree to which the relevant past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the Statement of Work (SOW). Only past performance which was performed for at least nine months during the five years preceding the due date for proposals specified in this solicitation will be considered current and will be evaluated....
Past Performance which arises from or relates to the performance of another DOE or NNSA Management and Operating Contract (M&O contract), or similar contract by companies affiliated with any offeror(s) (or team members thereof), such as joint ventures affiliated with one or more of the same corporate parents or sister companies as any of the offerors (or of any team members), shall be automatically imputed to all affiliated offerors (or affiliated team members) on an equal basis (positively and negatively), regardless of the roles or responsibilities of the affiliated company under the other M&O contract. All other past performance of affiliated companies shall be imputed to the offeror (or team member) only to the extent that the past performance of such affiliated companies is likely to affect the performance of the contract as demonstrated in the proposal or as otherwise may be determined by the Government.
----
July 13, 2017 at 5:53 AM
Very good point, by the way does this also effect Lookhead and could one argue
past performance may knock them out as well?
>One thing is loud and clear in the document and that is that NNSA is demanding >"culture change" at LANL by the next contractor.
It looks like to wants changes to management and the approach to management. I am not sure what you mean by culture and doubt you have any idea either. In any case the document is out for everyone to read so if you say some nonsense about what it says it can be quickly checked and refuted.
July 13, 2017 at 5:53 AM
Correct and you can bet that UC will spend a lot of money on lobbyists and PR firms to try to get this language changed before it goes final.
July 13, 2017 at 8:17 AM
No you have no idea what you are talking about, please define culture and what they mean by culture, I mean really mean and if you actually look at the document you will see it is used very differently in different places for specif things. Now define what you mean by culture and you will see that you definition is different, very very different. Ok here is you task for this week now read the document again, reread, and than reread again. Try this and than we can try again.
Personally the RFP looks very promising for the future of the lab and the US. For you and your type not so good.
Also looks like the new contractor has to maintain both TCP-1 and TCP-2 plans, regardless of what the propose for new employees hired after transition.
Several concerned scientists, administrators, technical workers, and other LANL employees have contributed to a "Framework" document being disseminated by the University Professional & Technical Employees (UPTE) union. Please have a look at this document and other materials available at the UPTE LANL Contract website for information.
We are asking that all current LANL employees concerned with the ability of LANL to do serious science, engineering, and other work in the service of national security make comments to the NNSA on the draft proposal by emailing their comments on its current draft text to SEB7@nnsa.doe.gov.
"The Contractor is also responsible for improving and sustaining healthy communications with DOE/NNSA Senior Leadership, including the Los Alamos Field Office (LFO) on issues and decisions, and demonstrating better partnering, particularly regarding stakeholder discussions and messaging."
So if LANS scores unsatisfactory in one area, safety, for example, it will be cut from further consideration, despite the fact that it scores 100 in science.
This type of go, no go evaluation criterion (go to the next level of competition, such as the Olympics in which the three fastest runners or swimmers get to participate; no go if you are a slower runner or swimmer, bottom of the pack, you are eliminated from the Olympics) makes business sense. Why spend hours evaluating LANS proposal, for example, if they fail at safety and it is a critical criterion. The LANS runners or swimmers do not have any chance of winning the competition because they are eliminated early in the competition, kind of no soup for you (LANS)
BTW, the term "go, no go, is a common procurement term and it is used at LANL procurement, eliminating vendors with poor safety records, early in the best value source selection process.
A few more rumors. One is that Charlie could be out, the other is that many of the LANS managers feel hurt by the wording of the new call and think that many of the phrasings are personally directed at them or their actions.
Charlie sent out a message today to say that the draft call is out and to remember to be safe, secure and in compliance. Nothing was said about doing actual work. The point of the lab is to do work and to do that work safely, securely, in compliance and do ALL these things very well. It all goes together if the lab cannot do work safely and securely than we should not have a lab, however if you cannot do work than by definition you should not have a lab. This is a point that is utterly missed by LANS and hence is what lead to all the problems, which is kind of obvious if you think about it but nobody thinks about it. If LANS only cares about safety, security and compliance than it means that the lab has no value whatsoever since a an empty parking lot on Mars can satisfy all these criteria. If these are the only things that matter than people cannot matter since they are liabilities. If on the other hand you need to actually accomplish things under these conditions than people matter and matter alot. This is the key point that LANS missed, if they think that lab has no actual value than the people think it has no actual value which leads to
decay and hence the utter mess we have now. Everyone is responsible but no one is accountable.
Interesting that past performance and key personnel are equal in value. So LANS will need to propose key personnel that ARE NOT the current key personnel at LANL.
It is weird how the draft keeps going on about small business stuff. What on earth does this have to do with the lab doing its job and doing it safely and securely. If local small business can contribute than great but under no circumstances should they be given special treatment or really have any role in who gets the contract. If anything this could seriously comprise safety and security. The reality is in a place like New Mexico many local small business are just not going to be up to these standards. The ones that are will do well but why the hell should we compromise the quality of the work and compliance issues for local small business? This is dangerous, stupid, and short sighted. The same goes for every lab in the US. You cannot insist that a lab should not hire the best but to hire incompetence because it is local and than slam the lab when this very thing leads to problems. This is a serious issue that DOE should reconsider for the final draft.
"The lanl small business manager is highly regard in the complex" I think the complex has some better things to worry about. By the way I thought the small business engagement part of the lab was also part of the directorate that just had some serious shipping issues. If this is the case they should get their priorities straight, but hey if small business is a PBI than it should be focused on just as much as worrying about airmail shipments of certain materials.
2. It is incredibly important that employees somehow strongly express a collective voice to say," Do not take away anything that we currently have in this new contract or we will be angry, hurt and we will not perform the mission well.
A kind of "Please kind Sir, don't rape us again" campaign.
3. UC and LANS both did the scientific mission well enough. In practice, neither performed the
a. Safety snd Security and
b. Bow to the NNSA idiots
tasks well enough.
The risk now is that the new contract is so flawed or impossible that in seeking to improve the deficiencies the NNSA destroys/debilitates the lab and with it the $3 T US nuclear stockpile.
Not worth the risk, but there you have it. Another dumber that dirt NNSA decision. 3rd in 10 years.
The foolish legacy of Bodman, lying Tyler Pryzbylek, declining judgement of tired and mentally deficient Senator Domenici, and the conniving destruction, duplicity and envy of Congressman Dingle rain again, hellfire, confusipn and despair onto the hard working, dedicated and irreplaceable LANL staff.
Shameful. Incompetent.
You deserve MUCH better.
a. Safety snd Security and
b. Bow to the NNSA idiots
tasks well enough."
They severally eroded the scientific mission as well.
"The risk now is that the new contract is so flawed or impossible that in seeking to improve the deficiencies the NNSA destroys/debilitates the lab and with it the $3 T US nuclear stockpile."
How is the new contract flawed? Can you please point to some issues?
"Not worth the risk, but there you have it. Another dumber that dirt NNSA decision. 3rd in 10 years."
What is the risk? We are so low now and so bad, how can it can worse? In general your post was a bit strange could you please elaborate on what you mean?
How is NNSA waterboarding the LANL employees again? If anything most LANL employees want this change. When you are at the bottom the only place is up. I have yet to hear a non-manager say this is bad.
July 14, 2017 at 3:02 AM
How? It probably will increase national security.
July 14, 2017 at 8:56 AM
One reading of this is that DOE followed their own rules for SNL bid evaluation and found out that they were stuck with a C- set of key personnel on the most highly rated past performance team.
So the question is, "why did DOE make these changes?"
July 14, 2017 at 8:56 AM
Doesn't matter why they changed it, what matters now is that the consequence of the change is that all of the current parent LANS companies as well as all of the current LANL ULM down to the division level will be scored as negative numbers on the proposal rating forms. That should be a strong statement about how NNSA thinks about the current situation.
Insert the name, title, company/agency, address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available) of the Contracting Officer, Purchasing Agent, or other customer Request for Proposal No. xx Section L, Attachment E, Page 4 contracting or purchasing representative who is most familiar with your work under the contract
Robert Poole, issued $54M deduction to fee for WIPP, withdrew options for future years
Describe any unusual circumstances of performance or problems that may be relevant to the work that is to be performed and how those problems were addressed. Also describe any regulatory fines or Notices of Violation, if applicable. Tell your side of the story of any conflicts with the customer concerning adverse remarks about your performance. Describe any actions that you have taken or plan to take to correct any shortcomings in your performance.
WIPP fiasco, shut down for three years, cost $1B to reopen, LANS side of the story, well, duh, we had a kitty litter typo, all is good again signed Charlie
We had a safety standdown at PF-4 for several years, all is good again, signed Charlie
We shipped SNM via Fed X Air to highly populated cities, we fired a technician and all is good again, signed Charlie BTW, I didn't lose my job through any of this, I am wonderful and wealthy and I am told handsome
But when the gatekeeper is unwilling to accept true cost, true schedules and true teaming with the M&O, then failure is guaranteed.
Pick the wrong contract form and contactor and this precarious endeavor withers....witness the declines under the current contact vs. The first one.
Thid is neither trivial nor easy.
For example, join a team that refuses to have any part of the current LANS parent partners or any of the current LANS ULM associated with it.
Easy enough to check on this, since lanl.gov is a federal gov web host and all of the e-mails in and out of it are stored as part of federal records keeping requirements.
Unless someone was using a non .gov email account for it. That is a VERY different kind of "leaker" that demonstrates intent to circumvent the federal system.
They were actually released by NNSA and on their public website.
https://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ouroperations/apm/majcontrsolicitation/los-alamos-national-laboratory-management-and
July 16, 2017 at 8:58 AM
NNSA and LANL both operate on .gov web servers and all incoming and outgoing email is retained as part of the official records requirements of the feds. If you are suggesting that someone at NNSA or LANL is using another email address that is not a .gov one, then that is indeed a different 'leaker' problem.
The rank and file employees at LANL won't be crying into their coffee over this move.
We often wished that security would require a breathalyzer for all these folks. Those first round of managers were so arrogant with regard to their drinking habits and were oblivious that we could still smell the liquor coming out of their pores, never mind the blood shot eyes and questionable hygiene.
July 17, 2017 at 8:55 AM
Not just Mondays, the current FOD (Bob) at TA-55 was coming in to work during the week snookered, we all know he lost clearance due to a DWI and was being escorted into TA-55, mind you. No worries, he's back "at work" improving TA-55.
Bob isn't Bechtel....