Saturday, August 19, 2017
Will any competent contractors be willing to bid on LANL?
The indications are that several incompetent ones (UNM and UC come to mind) have signaled their intent to bid, and now would be a good time for DoE to make it worthwhile for competitive alternates.
http://www.lamonitor.com/content/low-contract-fee-could-spell-trouble-northern-new-mexico-advisor-warns
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
NO, too risky. Reward vs risk isn't even in the ballpark and patriotism is dead.
The best model would require DOE/NNSA indemnifying the contractor against all losses at the current 0.5-1.0% profit level.
Who are the competent contractors? This is a serious question.
Flour?
Honeywell?
Battelle?
Flour is a decent company to clean up environmental messes, but since EM has been removed from the prime LANL contract and turned into a stand alone effort, they really don't belong in the equation.
Makes one think if you posted the question so you could answer it yourself as both the question and the answer misspelled Fluor.
Battelle?
That could work with the right University partners.
Yeah, August 20, 2017 at 6:13 PM and August 20, 2017 at 5:13 PM are obviously the same person. And probably the OP too. Anyone who thinks UC is "incompetent" has a very distinctive ax to grind. No use paying any attention to this one.
^^^ that crazy bitter fellow who thinks there is only one other person posting on this blog.
So there are no competent contractors?
So there are no competent contractors?
August 21, 2017 at 5:37 AM
UC
Battelle
U Texas
Honeywell
UNM-UColorado
Lockheed.
These all seem very competent and are also the same names are hear are putting in bids.
The only one of those listed by August 21, 2017 at 6:47 AM that has recently been successful with NNSA is Honeywell. All the rest (Battelle, U Tx, UNM, U Colorado) either have no NNSA contracting history or poor performance reviews (UC, Lockheed) on recent NNSA contracts. Study the RFP details before posting nonsense like this.
UC, Lockheed) on recent NNSA contracts. Study the RFP details before posting nonsense like this.
Some say the RFP is worded to be against Bechtel not UC, and yes UC is putting in a bid. Why would they do that if they think they cannot win? Again UC ran the labs well, and very well most would say for 60 years. Perhaps the contract change was a mistake.
Some say the RFP is worded to be against Bechtel not UC, and yes UC is putting in a bid. Why would they do that if they think they cannot win? Again UC ran the labs well, and very well most would say for 60 years. Perhaps the contract change was a mistake.
August 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Do not know anyone that has actually read the RFP that would agree with you.
Some say the RFP is worded to be against Bechtel not UC, and yes UC is putting in a bid. Why would they do that if they think they cannot win? Again UC ran the labs well, and very well most would say for 60 years. Perhaps the contract change was a mistake.
August 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Do not know anyone that has actually read the RFP that would agree with you.
Do not know anyone that has actually read the RFP that would agree with you.
It is just what people say but it is just speculation on their part and on your part as well.
August 21, 2017 at 9:54 AM
It is posted on the web for review by anyone inclined.
August 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Please provide the language in the RFP that could support your claim.
Thank you.
UNM cannot even run a university correctly, so choosing them to manage LANL would show everyone how incompetent DOE and the NNSA have become. That said, I can see a UC and Boeing tie up or perhaps a UC and Lockheed tie up. Friends in places tell me that NNSA is looking for manufacturing skills for complex systems and both companies fit that ilk.
UNM cannot even run a university correctly, so choosing them to manage LANL would show everyone how incompetent DOE and the NNSA have become. That said, I can see a UC and Boeing tie up or perhaps a UC and Lockheed tie up. Friends in places tell me that NNSA is looking for manufacturing skills for complex systems and both companies fit that ilk.
August 21, 2017 at 6:08 PM
This is a very good point, however it could be UNM/Texas/Purdue rather than just UNM. I agree UNM alone with a company is not going to fly. If I had to guess I think it will be Lockheed/UC, besides the political issues at Sandia they did a find job on the technical side of things, at least from what I have heard.
Is Lockheed still interested in the NNSA market? I thought they sold some NNSA contracts.
August 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Please provide the language in the RFP that could support your claim.
Thank you.
August 21, 2017 at 11:14 AM
Still waiting on any evidence to shore up this claim that the RFP is worded against Bechtel and not UC.
Thank you.
Still waiting on any evidence to shore up this claim that the RFP is worded against Bechtel and not UC.
Thank you.
August 22, 2017 at 6:23 AM
Read it, it says past performance will play a major role. It is open to interpretation what that means but everyone knows who they are talking about. Considering that UC is putting in a bid and Bechtel is not kind of gives it away.
Read it, it says past performance will play a major role. It is open to interpretation what that means but everyone knows who they are talking about. Considering that UC is putting in a bid and Bechtel is not kind of gives it away.
August 22, 2017 at 8:08 AM
Here it is and you read it and tell what about it is "open to interpretation". "Any" "all" and "equal" don't leave much "to interpretation".
Request for Proposal No. DE-SOL-0011206
Section M, Page 5
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.
Why would this negatively affect Bechtel but not UC?? UC has been in charge of LANS from the beginning.
Why would this negatively affect Bechtel but not UC?? UC has been in charge of LANS from the beginning.
August 22, 2017 at 7:48 PM
Well this is just the way NNSA and DOE have seen things. We have had the LLNL and LANL blog blog for what 10 years now perhaps you should go back and read some of it to get an idea of why everyone has such a negative view of Bechtel. By the way did you just arrive at this blog a few weeks ago?
If the NNSA has such a negative view of Bechtel then why did they award Y-12 and Pantex to them a couple years ago? SRS will award soon, how much you want to wager that Bechtel get a peice of that too? If they do, will you panic? I would if I were you. You are stuck in the LANL prism and are missing the big picture. Nuke weapons science is not the focus of the NNSA, production is. Weapons science is in sustainment mode, at best. It is old science, not worth paying for anymore.
Well this is just the way NNSA and DOE have seen things.
August 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM
If you honestly believe that to be true, then there is no hope for you to face the reality of the words in the draft RFP. If you have a desire to understand the words and their application, seek out someone with current experience in DOE contracting and ask them to help. It might be useful to take a copy of the recent SNL RFP and do a side by side comparison with the LANL one. Then you will discover that certain clauses were changed specifically and deliberately to apply the scores of LANS for the past 5 years to each and every LANS partner, equally and without exception. Since most all of those scores have been judged as failures by NNSA, that assigns the same M&O contract failure Past Performance rating to both Bechtel and UC. This may not be what you want to believe, but it is factual and clearly and unambiguously stated in the draft RFP.
Well this is just the way NNSA and DOE have seen things.
August 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM
If you honestly believe that to be true, then there is no hope for you to face the reality of the words in the draft RFP. If you have a desire to understand the words and their application, seek out someone with current experience in DOE contracting and ask them to help. It might be useful to take a copy of the recent SNL RFP and do a side by side comparison with the LANL one. Then you will discover that certain clauses were changed specifically and deliberately to apply the scores of LANS for the past 5 years to each and every LANS partner, equally and without exception. Since most all of those scores have been judged as failures by NNSA, that assigns the same M&O contract failure Past Performance rating to both Bechtel and UC. This may not be what you want to believe, but it is factual and clearly and unambiguously stated in the draft RFP.
August 23, 2017 at 5:32 AM
Do you know anyone who works for DOE? I think not so lets just leave it that.
We have had the LLNL and LANL blog blog for what 10 years now perhaps you should go back and read some of it to get an idea of why everyone has such a negative view of Bechtel. By the way did you just arrive at this blog a few weeks ago?
August 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM
OK, now I get it, blog opinions define reality for you. Yep, got it.
Post a Comment