Janet makes news at LANL by declaring that UC will bid for the continuation of the M&O contract
For all of the lab employees that started under the UC system, this is welcome news to hear. She was not forthcoming in her talk about who else would be brought in to run the lab. As everyone that survived the LANS years knows, the choice of corporate partners is what determines the workplace quality. Last time around, UC was so desperate to hang on to the contract that they chose partners unwisely and the result didn't turn out well for the workforce.
Now the most important questions are what has UC learned from this mistake and how are they positioned this time around to make a better choice? Janet avoided these issues in her upbeat talk, but the employees deserve to have clarity on what UC has planned to address the gaping failure that was LANS.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
Tax dollars gone to waste for the "chili cookoff" http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/100730.html Rumor has it this project didn't a...
49 comments:
LANS produced the extremes in lab directors, and that has shaped the discussion around the current and prior contract transitions with UC involvement. Anastasio was the best director since Hecker and McMillian was the worst ever, even worse than Nanos. What we heard yesterday from UC was that McMillian was perfect and flawless in all ways and so UC will go on from here. For those that survived both the McMillian and Nanos eras, best hope is for the next director to be someone like Hecker or Anastasio. UC had some credibility last time, because they fired Nanos before the contract competition started. What is baffling is how Charlie is still in charge and UC is making public claims that they are competent to lead another bid team.
"What is baffling is how Charlie is still in charge and UC is making public claims that they are competent to lead another bid team."
Perhaps it is baffling to you because you have not worked at the labs for many years and may be lacking in knowledge about the kind of work done at the labs or what DOE wants in the next contract. Your statements on this blog in the last several weeks indicate that you may not understand how the labs are managed or who takes the profit. This could explain some of your general and overall confusion. Perhaps you should read up about LANL or LLNL, there are plenty of on-line sources. If you did work at the labs perhaps you still know a few people and could talk with them, you might find this more informative the posting on the blog.
"or who takes the profit."
What is this profit taking you speak of? Is that when a stock broker sells a holding at a higher price than when it was purchased? Please, oh wise one, enlighten the masses on this 'taken profit' of the labs which you seem to have understanding.
"or who takes the profit."
What is this profit taking you speak of? Is that when a stock broker sells a holding at a higher price than when it was purchased? Please, oh wise one, enlighten the masses on this 'taken profit' of the labs which you seem to have understanding.
"What is this profit taking you speak of? Is that when a stock broker sells a holdingat a higher price than when it was purchased? Please, oh wise one, enlighten the masses on this 'taken profit' of the labs which you seem to have understanding.
August 22, 2017 at 5:33 PM"
I have my doubts about "masses", perhaps only a single "baffled" person. In any event the both LLNL and LANL are for profit. Profit is money that one gets in return beyond what is invested. In the case of LANL and LLNL, certain members members of the LLC make a profit, other members of the LLC reinvest the money back in the lab and do not make a profit. People paying the extra money that got used for profit expect something in return. I cannot go into all the details on this blog but one of the expectations was that by paying this extra money that certain industrial partners promised that they would improve business practices, introduce industrial effectiveness and so on which would actually save lots money in the long run. At least that was the claim, however this not only did not happen but things become much more expensive and less efficient. Of course one could argue what certain industrial partners wanted to really "maximize" their profit by doing absolutely nothing and not investing anything at all. Let us go through a simple exercise, suppose you come across a lemonade stand that claims it sells lemonade. You say " that sounds good I would like to have some lemonade!". The person at the stand says that will be 1$ for lemonade. You give them 1 dollar and the person does not give you any lemonade and you say I want my lemonade. The person at the stand says it would cost them 30 cents to make the lemonade so they would get a profit of only 70 cents if they did that but if they did nothing they would get a profit of 1 dollar. Did you know that 1 dollar is more than 70 cents? Now you may think this is short sighted and such a lemonade stand would go out of business in a day which is true in most cases, however for something like an LLC this is not true and for 10 years you can make a metaphorical 30% more "profit" by not investing a single cent to fulfill the promises you said would happen when you got the contract in the first place. Now I will not fill in all the gaps as that is for you to figure out but this is why the contract is changing, why DOE is rather shall we say unhappy with certain members of the LLC and so on because when and if you figure it out it will be a moment of pure zen for you. Not only will this explain LLNS/LANS for you but it may also help you understand how banks, supermarkets, the stock-market, and other business work and in some cases fail. Now go think about this for several days. Best of luck to you.
I think that whoever bids for the contract, the proposal should include a view of how the holder of the contract will make the laboratory a better place when they leave as opposed to when they started. That is fundamentally one of the problems with LANS. Those folks came in and destroyed people in the name of milestones and award fee. They didn't care how they divided and conquered people, ruined people's careers, ruined families. It was all in the name of the almighty buck. They left, laughing all the way to the bank. They really didn't care about quality, how they achieved the end state, etc. It was a milestone that equated to fee. "Make 10 pits and get $20,000,000". In their wake they desiccated the place. Criticality resources left, people moved on and the "named people" in the contract left. They B team picked up where they left off, squeezed all the blood they could get from the turnip and left as well. Now all that is left is the C team who are just holding on to get through the next year. Certainly LANL is left in a far worse situation than even Nanos put it in. A friend of mine told me that all LANS brought to the table was "how to fire people", "how to cover up poor performers", and "how to fix sidewalks". Well, they certainly suck at the first two, and so I guess that I hope th sidewalks will leave LANL as a better place.
August 22, 2017 at 7:17 PM obviously is still confusing "profit" as in revenue above expenses for a private business or corporation engaged in normal economic activity, with "award fee" earned by a made-up company that engages in no private economic activity but exists solely to run a government owned facility, and for no other reason. LANS and LLNS have no existence outside running LANL and LLNL. They can earn no "profit" beyond the award fee the government grants them based solely on performance against specific contract objectives. There are only "allowable" (i.e., paid by the government) or "unallowable" (paid by the LLC) costs. The LLCs avoid unallowable costs like the plague, for obvious reasons. There are no "people paying the extra money that got used for profit." This is nonsense. This poster has a very skewed idea of economics and of government contracting in general. But he'll never get it, and seems satisfied with his ignorance, so oh well...
August 22, 2017 at 7:34 PM I never confused the terms profit and award fee in my posting. Never even used the word profit. You decided to comment on my post with a complete lack of understanding in what you actually wrote. Words still continue to have meaning, but I have to wonder if you can even read? Alas, you decided to write fiction, comment on what you think is a firm grasp of basic economics and offered little value to the subject of the Blog.
August 22, 2017 at 7:34 PM
It is just not that complex. Look Bechtel said they would do certain things for the fee. That fee may or may not be profit depending on how much they invest into the place. The investments looks something like this. We need someone who knows how to make efficient purchase orders, this person can save 25% on the current model, oh wait that person is too valuable to move to LANL, I know there is that random guy doing a contract job in Bolivia but that just ended and we have no where to place him until something opens up Columbia, I know dump him in LANL for a few years, it will save us money and we will still get our fee. Ok see how this works, not too hard and yes this has been an issue that DOE noticed. It has even been stated by several prominent people if you care to look on the web which of course you will not. LLNL and LANL or just pure profit for Bechtel nothing more and nothing less, the get 30 mill or year and invest..."NOTHING" and do "NOTHING". Pretty sweet if you can get away with it as long as they have. DOE wants something for that 30 mill a year but they get nothing. Say what you want about UC but they just put the fee back in the labs as research. Now tell me who do think DOE has a problem with? Does it make sense why UC is putting in a bid but Bechtel is not.
"Say what you want about UC but they just put the fee back in the labs as research"
The actual budget for UCOP lab operations was posted on this blog not that long ago. They do put a fraction of their fee back in the lab, but not a large fraction.
The budugets for the other LLNS/LANS partners are not on the web, but some of them also put portions of their fee back.
Janet is a fool and a politician leading the rats off the cliff like the piper. Remember it was People like Janet who gave us Charlie.
Bechtel will bid. I would not if I were them but they will bid. They will partner with Battelle. For those of you who missed it, Bechtel is in on the NNSA consolidation plan and got awarded Y-12 and Pantex not too long ago. Watch the tea leaves at Savannah River. If Bechtel gets that then it is over.
UC is out. They should have been out 10 years ago.
All of you hopeful UC lifers are wrong because you do not truly understand what the NNSA is trying to do at the complex level.
Furthermore, you mistake that the NNSA is rooted in science. It is not. It is rooted in production. Your science is old. It is like paying somebody to prove that baking soda and vinegar make a kindergarten volcano. It has been done. Reproving it adds no value.
Furthermore, you mistake that the NNSA is rooted in science. It is not. It is rooted in production. Your science is old. It is like paying somebody to prove that baking soda and vinegar make a kindergarten volcano. It has been done. Reproving it adds no value.
August 23, 2017 at 4:03 AM
Pure fantasy, you have no idea what you are talking about. By the way Bechtel is not bidding and from what I hear Battelle is likely to go with UC. I think it is you that failed to understand what NNSA wants or have any understanding of what is done at the labs or why it is done. There is something very wrong with.
UC is the principle partner in LANS and they have failed, abysmally.
Napolitano is under investigation for her illegal slush fund.
DOE certainly knows that UC is incompetent and maybe even corrupt.
It's a new era with a new Administration in charge, an Administration that has no love for anything related to California, like it or not.
UC is out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant nutcase.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant nutcase.
August 23, 2017 at 8:06 AM
The irony is stunning, just stunning.
August 22, 2017 at 8:16 PM, sorry I copied the wrong date. I was replying to a post that has since been removed. My mistake.
UC is the principle partner in LANS and they have failed, abysmally.
Napolitano is under investigation for her illegal slush fund.
DOE certainly knows that UC is incompetent and maybe even corrupt.
It's a new era with a new Administration in charge, an Administration that has no love for anything related to California, like it or not.
UC is out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant nutcase.
August 23, 2017 at 8:06 AM
1, 2 and 4 look to be factual statements.
While 3 may also be correct, it doesnt have as much supporting evidense.
Meanwhile 5 is probably misplaced, since there appear to be several of those types running around.
3 is supported by the fact that DOE is not renewing the LANS contract. DUH.
UC is the principle partner in LANS and they have failed, abysmally.
Napolitano is under investigation for her illegal slush fund.
DOE certainly knows that UC is incompetent and maybe even corrupt.
It's a new era with a new Administration in charge, an Administration that has no love for anything related to California, like it or not.
UC is out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant nutcase.
August 23, 2017 at 8:06 AM
1, 2 and 4 look to be factual statements.
While 3 may also be correct, it doesnt have as much supporting evidense.
Meanwhile 5 is probably misplaced, since there appear to be several of those types running around.
1 they feel Bechtel was the problem and failed to deliver what was promised.
2 It is not clear that it was illegal, that anything will come from the investigation or that would have any bearing on the bid.
3 Doe may feel that UC did a good job for 60 years and it was the partnership with Bechtel that led to the problems. This is what the rumors. The fact that UC is putting in bid Bechtel is not leads credence to this.
4 The administration may play little or no role in this.
5 You have no idea if this is true. If UC is out why would they put in a bid. Again all the talk is that Bechtel has been considered the problem and that DOE wants UC to put in a bid.
you forgot point 6
You have no idea what you are talking about have been out of the lab for 20 years. You have a agenda against UC that is driven by personal hatred which completely clouds and taints anything and everything you say. You have been wrong about LANL, LLNL, Sandia, DOE, NNSA and New Mexico. Give it up and go away.
"Furthermore, you mistake that the NNSA is rooted in science. It is not. It is rooted in production. Your science is old. It is like paying somebody to prove that baking soda and vinegar make a kindergarten volcano. It has been done. Reproving it adds no value.
August 23, 2017 at 4:03 AM"
??!!!??? What on earth are you on? Production is just one part of many many things that NNSA is focused and rooted in. In case you have not noticed we no longer test and that is why NNSA has such a large investment in various science and computing programs throughout the complex. Do you have any familiarity with any of the NNSA labs, do you know much they invest in science, tech, and computing or why thee even do this and why they absoutly must do this? How do you come to such crazy conclusions? All you have to do is go to some NNSA public online sites and you will see how utterly out of touch you are.
PAY ATTENTION, 2:21PM, UC DID NOT RUN THE LAB WELL FOR 60 YEARS. THAT IS A FLAT LIE. NANOS. Nothing more needs to be said.
In fact, the DOE put the LANL contract up for bid IN 2005 PRECISELY because UC was mismanaging LANL. DOE correctly determined that the UC did NOT have all the expertise needed, and they still don't.
Why is UC bidding? DUH. We have already established that UC is incompetent. Incompetent people often are deluded, just like you.
As for the rest of your insane post, did you hear that crazy, completely false stuff from your voices?
You do know there is more than one person correcting your lies, don't you?
You do know there is more than one person correcting your lies, don't you?
August 23, 2017 at 6:20 PM
Prove it. I'm not 2:23 or "2:21" or 2:29 or any previous poster. Your replies are discrediting you.
I don't need to prove it, I know, because I only write a fraction of the responses when you post crazy stuff.
You claim you know stuff that you would have no way to know. Like the completely crazy stuff about me not working any more. Crazy stuff like I've been away from the lab for 20 years.
You know what mental illness makes people think they know stuff that they would have no way to know?
Schizophrenia.
You know what mental illness makes people repeat lies over and over (like the lie you keep writing about how UC ran LANL just fine for 60 years)?
Schizophrenia.
Sorry, dude. We can see right through you.
>PAY ATTENTION, 2:21PM, UC DID NOT RUN THE LAB WELL FOR 60 YEARS. THAT IS A FLAT >LIE. NANOS. Nothing more needs to be said.
ACTUALLY MUCH MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID. UC did in fact run LLNL and LANL very well for
60 years. Your only counterpoint is Nanos who was at LANL not LLNL. This happened very recently and in fact UC did remove him. If UC ran the labs so badly as you say than during the cold war when it was crucial that we had well run labs UC would have been removed in an instance, however they where not which shows that everyone thought they well run during this time period Lay of the dam caps will you, it makes look even crazier than you already are.
>In fact, the DOE put the LANL contract up for bid IN 2005 PRECISELY because UC was >mismanaging LANL. DOE correctly determined that the UC did NOT have all the >expertise needed, and they still don't.
Few believe your interpretation. LANL and LLNL where put up for bid to create a for profit enterprise. The for profit craze swept up all sorts of things. The simplest argument is why was LLNL also put for bid? Now if you care to read the many articles on what went wrong with LANL and LLNL you will clearly see that many feel
that it was the for profit model that led to failure not UC. Also how is it that
UC did have all the expertise it needed for 60 years previously for both LLNL and LANL? Your view just does not make any sense. You simply hate UC so much you are completely blinded.
>Why is UC bidding? DUH. We have already established that UC is incompetent. >Incompetent people often are deluded, just like you.
I think UC is bidding because they have been encouraged to do so and many in NNSA
and DOE realized what a mistake the contract change was.
>As for the rest of your insane post, did you hear that crazy, completely false >stuff from your voices?
That is pretty funny coming from you are you are obsessed with hating UC. Come on
come clean with your agenda. By the way do you hear voices saying "hate UC", "UC is to blame for all your personal problems", "UC is baaaad". If you do than you might consider that you have a problem. But I guess part of having such a problem is that you cannot recognize that you have such a problem.
>You do know there is more than one person correcting your lies, don't you?
Nope it is just one utterly bitter nutcase with issues against UC due to some perceived slight. Also most of the conversation is simply opinion or interpenetration including everything you have said so there are no "lies" to correct. But let us consider something that almost certainly is true: UC is putting in a bid, UC has a chance to win and you will be utterly obsessed with this which will drive you even more insane.
"You claim you know stuff that you would have no way to know. Like the completely crazy stuff about me not working any more. Crazy stuff like I've been away from the lab for 20 years."
Not buying it. Let us consider a few things, (1) You post during what would be work hours so I would guess that you are not at work but at home. (2) Your extreme hatred of UC implies something personal. A possible scenario is that you stopped working at the lab sometime before the contract change. There was a RIF in 1994 when UC was in charge so perhaps that is how long you have been out of the lab. Perhaps you like to say retired ;)(3) Many of your screeds sound exactly like a few mediocre ex-lab employees that are known to be completely crazy and bitter. All you have to do is read some of the letters from Santa Fe Magazines to see the same rants about UC being bad and should not run LANL from the same nutcase. We could take some of these posts from the Santa Fe reporter and compare them it will be pretty clear but I will leave it at that.
Schizophrenia.
Sorry, dude. We can see right through you.
August 23, 2017 at 8:39 PM
"We"...hmmm, multiple personality disorder? You seem to know a few things about
schizophrenia, could it be that you are "familiar" with it?
1) You said "I would guess". You just admitted that your claim is based on nothing more than a guess. LAUGHABLE!!!!!
2) I don't hate UC. Unlike you, you guesser, everything I post is based on facts. The facts add up to UC is in charge of LANS and LANS has failed. Therefore, UC has failed. Only a dumb-ass nutcase can't understand that. You said "A possible scenario"? Another one of your statements turns out to be nothing more than another one of your guesses. I'll clear this up. I have never been RIFed, ever. You guessed wrong, but even worse you presented your guess like it was a fact. That's being dishonest.
3) You think I'm the only one who responds to your lies, but I'm not the only one. There is at least one other, probably many more. Only a mentally-ill person, such as yourself, can't grasp that there are many other people who post here.
4) You claim what I write could be compared to some unspecified letter writer but you didn't compare anything. You didn't name the letter writer, you didn't post an example of their writing. You just blathered - that's what you do almost all of the time. You never present any facts or logic, you make statements based on guesses, speculation, and sometimes outright lies. You claim you could do a lot of things but you never actually do any of what you claim.
LISTEN UP, CRAZY PERSON. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN AND WHAT WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. On the other hand, I can tell what you have written because you misspell the same words all the time, you blather incessantly, and your writing is pathetic.
It's time to come clean, you've been diagnosed with a mental illness, haven't you? The last time I asked you this question you responded with pages of rambling, twisted nonsense. Be truthful this time, it might be the first step to your recovery.
" I'll clear this up. I have never been RIFed, ever."
That kind of gives you away because you always say retired, but everyone from around that time knows what a poor performer and crazy drama queen you are. Prone to extreme histrionics as they say. Be honest did you retire under ideal conditions?
" You claim what I write could be compared to some unspecified letter writer but you didn't compare anything. "
I doubt the mods would let me post your name but the letter C and M are in it ;) but as I said all one has to do look for letters in local Santa Fe and see the exact same rants about UC and LANL, not mention dozens of additional bizarre rants on other topics as well. You are one really messed up dude. Look you are not considered a credible person when it comes to LANL, DOE, UC, or "big computers" as your biases, hate, and weirdness are rather well known. As for the "other" poster that would be the one that shills his "book" on occasion on this blog, and is considered a total joke. Look it is kind of obvious who you guys are and it all pure personal agenda.
Who on earth could the anti UC troll be? Also all around crazy person. I am only showing the anti UC ones, the ones on the police are even more crazy.
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/federal-audit-finds-more-management-problems-at-lanl/article_bb9add0f-cc21-5306-ad42-fa02c9630d91.html
"Chris Mechels, a former lab employee, blamed the lab’s ongoing management problems on the fact that its primary player — the University of California — hasn’t changed.
“The University of California is responsible because they control LANS, they appoint the lab’s director and they control the facilities,” Mechels said. “I’m hoping very much that the University of California won’t be allowed to bid in 2017. The feds shouldn’t have let University of California bid the last time because they had already failed.”
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/a-history-of-innovation-and-dysfunction-at-los-alamos-national/article_6bde4aee-077f-56a6-836b-eab1d289271e.html
Chris Mechels
Glad to see the piece, and hats off to Staci for trying to wrap her arms around this beast. That said, I believe that trying to show "balance" tends to obscure the major failings of the UC/LANL relationship, which go back to the very founding of the Lab.
For instance, the Hecker quote; "“The government’s interest in accomplishing high-risk research at minimum cost was served by the university’s commitment to public service with no profit or fee.” As I described to Staci, in fact the UC wanted NO PART of managing LANL after WWII. The agreed to the deal however, in exchange for AEC funding for E.O. Lawrence. UC was "hands off" at LANL, as detailed in the 1970 Zinner Report (available online). This report should have led to UC leaving LANL, but did not. The UC mismanagement detailed in Zinner continues to this day.
Between the utter disinterest of UC in LANL management, and the mindless blocking of oversight by Senator Domenici, it finally took a major screw up to cause the "bidding" of the contract. Walp/Doran was the event. Even UC and Domenici couldn't make that right. The U.S. Congress finally intervened, and the game was up. Director Browne resigned in 2003, and the bid "should" have gone to "anyone but UC", but Senator Domenici again intervened, first in the bidding criteria, then in the evaluation, and UC, in the guise of LANS, and UC "won" the right to continued mismanagement of LANL. For reform at LANL to have any chance, UC must go.
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/feds-cite-lanl-for-serious-health-safety-violations/article_e2a58470-2f39-589e-a8f3-d5beacf6931b.html
My "solution"? Give LANL over to Sandia Lab management. If anyone CAN fix LANL it's Sandia, as they understand them. If Sandia CAN'T fix LANL, close it.
Oh, and don't let the University of California bid on the contract. Seventy years of failure is ENOUGH!!! The Zinner Report of 1970, which you can Google, shows that UC failure was known even then. If only we had listened....
"Good riddance to Moniz, long a "hanger on" and finally DOE Secretary. A servant to the complex.
It might, in fact, be wise to eliminate the DOE, as Perry suggests. At least the attempt to eliminate it might lead to clarification of its mission. Created out of the Atomic Energy Commission, which was notoriously corrupt, the DOE has long struggled for independence from those like Senator Domenici who bullied the DOE to funnel cash to New Mexico.
Perhaps NNSA, the nuclear weapons side of the DOE, should be reformed, reduced, and given to the DOD. Then, perhaps the remnant of the DOE could be eliminatated, with the valid research diverted to universities. "
I am not Chris Mechels and I have never once written a letter to the Santa Fe New Mexican. I don't even read it because it's a rag. Seriously dude, you are delusional.
August 24, 2017 at 6:56 AM
Mechels even uses the same all caps on occasion.
Compare the troll posts
"1) You said "I would guess". You just admitted that your claim is based on nothing more than a guess. LAUGHABLE!!!!!"
"In fact, the DOE put the LANL contract up for bid IN 2005 PRECISELY because UC was mismanaging LANL. DOE correctly determined that the UC did NOT have all the expertise needed, and they still don't."
To CM post. Notice anything similar?
My "solution"? Give LANL over to Sandia Lab management. If anyone CAN fix LANL it's Sandia, as they understand them. If Sandia CAN'T fix LANL, close it.
Oh, and don't let the University of California bid on the contract. Seventy years of failure is ENOUGH!!!
August 24, 2017 at 1:44 PM
Same guy for sure. It will go dark for awhile but the troll always comes back he cannot help himself. You can say some bad things about UC but during the time that they alone controlled LANL they insured that only the BEST AND BRIGHTEST could work at LANL and that is the reason people like Mechels HATE LANL and UC!!! Jealousy is one of the seven deadly sins and we just observer how much it can consume and destroy certain people.
Caps are used as emphasis. Some people use caps, some put the emphasized word inside asterisks. Exclamation points are also used to add emphasis.
These are ALL very commonly used in writing, especially writing for blogs, but Mr. Crazy here thinks that Chris Mechels is the only person who has ever written using these COMMON emphasis markers. What a moron. An *ABSOLUTE* MORON.
I am NOT Chris Mechels!!!!! *GET IT?*
You said " UC..... insured (sic - the word is ensured) only the BEST AND BRIGHTEST could work at LANL". Tell us, O Crazy One, was NANOS one of the "BEST AND BRIGHTEST"? How about Rich Marquez? Jessica Quintana? Wen Ho Lee?
How about YOU? You're an idiot but didn't you used to work at LANL?
I am NOT Chris Mechels!!!!! *GET IT?*
If you are not Mechels than you sure as hell are an exact clone of the guy. But odds are that it is in fact Mechels as it is hard to imagine two people that crazy that believe, say, and post the exact same things. Mechels also goes off the rails whenever anyone says UC had the best and brightest.
as it is hard to imagine two people that crazy that believe, say, and post the exact same things.
August 25, 2017 at 7:19 AM
Have you never seen videos of a Trump Rally? HUNDREDS of people crazy enough to ...
UC has no chance and we should want someone different. What has UC contributed to the daily conversation at the lab? What is their recent record on picking lab directors? Can't we do better? Be open.
UC has no chance and we should want someone different. What has UC contributed to the daily conversation at the lab? What is their recent record on picking lab directors? Can't we do better? Be open.
August 26, 2017 at 6:56 AM
UC definitely has a chance and that is why they are bidding. The point right now is that Bechtel is in control and sets the tone. Again the UC ran the labs very well for 60 years. The contract changes and it all goes to hell at both labs. What is the common feature...Bechtel.
Sorry Chris but you are just too bitter to see reality.
not Chris, and Bechtel isn't in charge either...Convenient scapegoat but the RFP won't let UC off the hook as currently written. You better lobby for changes.
not Chris, and Bechtel isn't in charge either...Convenient scapegoat but the RFP won't let UC off the hook as currently written. You better lobby for changes.
August 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Hey RFP can be interpreted various ways, one way is that it is for Bechtel. The word is that DOE
wants UC to put in a bid and has been happy with them. Maybe all this talk is wrong but the fact is UC is putting in a bid and they would only do so if they thought they could win. Your argument that they are putting in a bid because they are incompetent is just bs. Don't be surprised if UC does win. Ya sure your not Chris you just happen to play someone exactly like him on the blog.
"Interpreting" a RFP is a sure way to get a protest and a winning bidder thrown out. There is no interpreting. All bidders and the selection team will have to conform. and no, I am not named Chris.... I am just a salty old DOE guy and did not say UC is incompetent. They will be held to account though.
"I am just a salty old DOE guy and did not say UC is incompetent. They will be held to account though."
What exactly is a DOE guy? You work for a lab, you do work or you do not. Most "DOE" guys I know did science or engineering in the first part of their career and than went to the DOE because they thought it was the best way the could serve the county or they went there for some time and than came back. I know a fair number of these people but none of them after retirement would ever describe themselves as a "DOE guy". They describe themselves as scientists or engineers who spent some time working for DOE. You are the the first and only person I know who worked for DOE and describes themselves as a "DOE guy". Very odd, the other question is that since you are just a "DOE guy" why do you care about LANL, you appear to know very little about the work done at LANL, why it needs to be done, why it is done at LANL, and what is needed for it to be done. The people who I know at the DOE know and deal with LANL know all of these things, yet you do not. So what is your deal, did you ever actually work for the DOE, to be honest that seems very doubtful. In any case it is beyon clear that are extremely bitter about something to do with LANL and UC.
Perhaps the issue is with you and not UC.
What did I say that was bitter or negative toward UC? It seems you just attack anyone for no reason. I am a DOE, DOE guy and yes an engineer. We do actually exist and we do take a lot of crap on this blog. Please help me describe myself since you are so wise. LAst, if you would like to ask questions to ensure I know LANL, please do, but this is just a pointless attack.
"I am a DOE, DOE guy and yes an engineer. We do actually exist and we do take a lot of crap on this blog. Please help me describe myself since you are so wise. LAst, if you would like to ask questions to ensure I know LANL, please do, "
Gotta call BS on this, the DOE people that I know are intelligent hard working and dedicated. Some the ODE management has some issues but you are right that DOE does take much undeserved hits on the blog and elsewhere. Another small point is that the DOE people I know are generally very supportive of UC and they also feel that a disservice was done to LANL. Also the DOE folks I know take any criticism with a grain of salt coming from any DOE or NNSA labs, it is the criticism from DC that actually irks them.
You on the other hand seem to have none of these qualities I know from my DOE friends and colleagues and you just post attack after attack on LANL, the people that work at LANL, and UC. I suspect that you are not someone associated with DOE or ever was and you clearly do have some kind of agenda with LANL. If you really are some DOE guy why on earth would you be posting to this blog or have such agenda? Why are yo so different than the other DOE people? It simply does not add up.
Ok this is test, how many directorates are there that do science at LANL and name the PADs. Not hard.
PADs are easy but you can look that up on the website. Science "directorates" is a trick question based on how many years at LANL (also on the websites I'm sure) so old division names still used:
T, X, W(X) / D(X), J, B (old B), C, MST etc.... experiments count...
and you can add in some of the new ones like
EES, etc...
So Mary, Nan, John, NJ (to a point), Michael, Jeff (to a point), and the new guy(s) in Weapons. You can pick this apart or just accept that I do oversight at the lab.
And again, you are conflating me with some other person (or persons) attacking LANL/UC....
UC indeed has done a good job with LBL, but that is almost an extension of UCB. UC did ok for the first 50 or so years with LANL, and in the start it likely was due to active involvement of key national science leaders that were faculty at UCB. However, in the post-Seaborg years, there was none of this. As someone else pointed out in some other thread, the insight and knowledge of why UC did what they did from the UCOP level has been absent for well over 25 years.
Ya sure your not Chris you just happen to play someone exactly like him on the blog.
August 27, 2017 at 11:23 AM
Your use of "ya" instead of the common "yeah" and your use of "your" when you mean "you're" has given you away for years here on this blog. You can't disguise or pretend - we all have read your posts and know you for who and what you are. An uneducated, failed employee with an axe to grind.
An uneducated, failed employee with an axe to grind.
August 29, 2017 at 5:21 PM
Failed employee? This is coming from someone who obsessively attacks UC and LANL and defends the likes Walp, Dorn and Montano. I think it is beyond obvious who the "failed" or "fired" employee is. Your attacks on the lab and UC are very personal you know it and everyone else knows it. The only axe grinding is coming from you. Come clean with your agenda against the lab, what happened to you?
Who the hell is Chris? Wait a minute, who cares!
Post a Comment