Questions and Answers to Draft RFP, second set, Q&A's 12 thru 110 (yes 110), posted 9/20/17
List of interested parties - Notable attendees include University of Texas and University of California; Leidos, Bechtel and General Dynamics - notably missing: Lockheed
Readers will be interested in the clarification of (1) current employees have right of first refusal and (2) pension considerations are covered by ERISA and NNSA anticipates new contractor will continue current pension plans for retirees and future retirees. All years of service and leave balances carry forward to new contract.
37 comments:
There is some good stuff. NNSA is taking this seriously this time. Some of questions
are just outrageous shameless grabs at money without a thought for LANL or the Nation, but NNSA is holding strong.
Question
NNSA should consider revising the language in this
section to increase the dollar threshold associated with Past Performance requirements for small
business team m
embers. We recommended this dollar amount be increased to $200 million of $250
million over the base period of the contract. This will facilitate NNSA’s evaluation of small business
participation that is considered
Answer 29.
The NNSA notes the recommendation.
NNSA has determined
the current threshold of $10
million to be adequate.
Translation: FU.
Question 32 MONEY MONEY MONEY PAST PERFORMANCE: Feedback: Suggestion: NNSA should
provide further guidance on the importance of the management and business operations sections of
the RFP and note that the
y will be weighted equally with science & technology in evaluation and
scoring of proposals. This should be coupled with both evaluation of past performance, as well as
the evaluation of key personnel and the approach to change management
Reply: The offerors’ past performance will be evaluated based on strengths and weaknesses
associated with delivering mission as well as mission support.
Each Offeror should specifically
demonstrate in detail how the proposed past performance is relevant and how it qualifies the offeror to
successfully perform the applicable sections of the Statement of Work.
Translation. LANL is a science lab not a f*ing Walmart business
Question 32.
Is there any preference provided for Northern NM companies? Was there last time
the contract was bid? We feel NNM businesses should get a preference.
Answer 3
Reply Thank you for
your question and recommendation. It is under review for consideration in the
final solicitation. We will choose the best company possible as it should be. Ishort
Translation: NO
Question 34
-16 last para, p. 22: The DRFP as written discourages inclusion of small businesses
as integrated subcontractors by virtue of requiring their fee be constrained to the overall team’s fee
pool. This is a departure from prior procurements.
Answer 34
Please see
answer to Question 33. Small businesses are excluded from the fee pool. No translation needed.
Here is a big ones the most important for the future of LANL and possibly LLNL
Question 35
. L
-16(b), Fee for Management and Operation of LANL, page 22: The draft states that
the proposed fixed fee shall not exceed 1% of estimated costs and the proposed award fee shall not exceed 0.5% of estimated costs. There is concern that these fee percentages are not commensurate with the risk associated with this work (reputation, liability, expected return). We believe that such ee levels may result in bids primarily from not-for -profit and university institutions. For a broader participation in the re-comp etition, we believe the fee should be raised significantly
Question 36
. Section L, Paragraphs L
- 16(b) and L
-16(c), page 22: Comments: The fee structure in the DRFP poses challenges for best
-in-class corporations considering management and performance of the LANL work scope. Available fee should be commensurate with risks incurred. Significant portions of LANL’s work are nuclear-production oriented, and expected increases in
production rates will be extremely challenging to achieve. Similar NNSA production sites have fees in the 4%-5% range. The winning M&O entity is expected to assume command of some of the most historically problematic work in the Complex and to accept the associated brand risk that comes with it. Included among the problem areas are Capital Projects, which have been a sustained challenge for years yet are evaluated as if they were integral with the other site and mission work.
Separating Capital Projects from science and nuclear production efforts will allow for increased clarity, focus and accountability to the Government. Finally, the
DRFP requires that the winning contractor bring to bear Key Personnel and Past Performance that demonstrate the ability to change the culture. In short, the DRFP is asking the winning bidder to perform at a higher level than has been demonstrated in recent history, for less than half the financial return. The fee structure should encourage the desired operational improvements. Recommendations: Increase the
Fixed Fee cap amounts for both CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 from 1.0 % to 1.5% to allow a higher level of security to bidders assuming the difficult task of culture change and site-wide process
improvement, and increase the Award Fee cap from 0.5% to 1% to acknowledge future nuclear production expectations and to reward improvements in capabilities and throughput. Additionally, create a separate operational CLIN having a separate and distinct fee pool for Capital Projects, with fee assignment appropriate to the portfolio of Cost and Fixed Price-type projects.
Answer 35 and 36
The NNSA is implementing recommendations from the Commission to Review the
Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories (CRENEL) and the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (MIES
-Augustine Report), which emphasizes the public service model as opposed to fee being the main driver of performance. Employing this model
under the recent Sandia Labs competition still resulted in robust competition.
So there it is it says that NNSA wants to emphases a public service model as opposed to a fee being the main driver. Also we tried this before with Sandia and it worked
so eff off you freaking pigs.
There is also so dumb stuff.
Organizational change also needs to be focused on those areas that most need changing. The SOW states that “The Contractor shall, with the highest degree of vision, quality, integrity, efficiency and technical excellence, maintain a strong multi-disciplinary scientific and engineering capability...”. We recommend that the specific characteristics desired (as stated above or others), be clearly identified as the ones driving the requisite organizational change.
Answer 5
NNSA will clarify the evaluation criteria as it relates to Organizational Cultural Change in the final RFP
Translation: We never thought about that before.
Question 64. L-15(a), p. 17 and L
-15(b), p. 19: Given the focus in the DRFP on organizational culture change, what are the specific outcomes that are being sought and in what time frame are
they required? Answer 6
4
Answer: NNSA will provide clarification in the Final RFP.
Translation: We had no real idea and still don't.
Section L
-16: The last paragraph of this section provides exceptions to the limitations
on separate fee for subcontractors who are members of the Offeror’s team. An exception for small
business team members is not currently provided. Please clarify that the fee restriction does NOT
apply to small business teaming subcontractors.
Answer 75.
Small businesses are excluded from the fee pool.
Translation: No you cannot get even more money beyond what you are suppose to be paid to do you job.
Question 79. Money Money Money The fee structure should be reevaluated to accurately balance the risks and rewards inherent in the proposed contract.
(a)Given the significant challenges associated with the upcoming LANL contract and NNSA performance expectations for mission-critical elements (i.e. production and manufacturing, laboratory operations, management and leadership, and culture change), we suggest the fee structure be adjusted upward to a
ccount for these challenges and risks, encouraging
increased competition.
(b)We note that several NNSA contracts have significantly higher fee-earning potential, including Combined Pantex/Y-12, Kansas City Plant, Nevada National Security Site, and the present LANL contact.
Answer 79.
Please see the answer to
question 35. The point is not to make money, it should be a service oriented model just like it was for 60 years.
Overall the questions cam across as beyond pathetic and makes New Mexico look horrible. It is all about a cash grab. At least NNSA is standing firm against most of this nonsense.
From reading the list
1/5 of the questions were about if small business can get some of the fee.
1/10 about why the fee must to be increased.
1/10 how exactly do you judge past performance, i.e can Bechtel still get some cash?
1/10 how will culture be changed, i.e we are managers and want to keep our jobs
1/10 on how we should have education for New Mexico, and outreach programs, ect
1/10 on the pensions.
1/10 on random inane crap
Oh yes, maybe 1/10 on things like excellence in the workforce, importance of the mission, how best to get things done. You know the stuff that matters.
The multiple requests to "please elaborate on what is meant by organizational culture change" are transparent. These comments are coming from potential bidders not currently associated with the current contractor. Their goal is to influence the RFP language to have greater emphasis on culture change, thinking that would increase their own chances to win.
The existence of any award fee at all is just a stop to those who think it matters to Lab leadership. George Miller, Parney, and Bill G at llnl, and Mike A and Charlie at lanl, have said repeatedly that award fee had zero influence on how they operated the Labs. Ive heard them each say that they never even participated in a meeting where award fee came up. I I know Parney would ask his deputy before the Board meetings what the number was. He sincerely didn't know. And 0.5% does not move any needle. They should have just got rid of it, and all the work required to come up with the number. On the other hand, NNSA has been pushing more and more risk down to the Labs, and so the 1% may really not be enough. For example, nnsa has made settlement coats for even the most frivolous discrimination suits unallowable. That is a sharp departure from practice a decade ago. There are lots of other examples. So it will really matter what nnsa means by implementation of recommendations from the studies.
The existence of any award fee at all is just a stop to those who think it matters to Lab leadership. George Miller, Parney, and Bill G at llnl, and Mike A and Charlie at lanl, have said repeatedly that award fee had zero influence on how they operated the Lab
They may have said that but the actions at the both labs after the contract change has been 100% focused on fee and leveraged profit. The whole culture of the labs changed after the contract change from serving that nation to being a cash scam. Despite all the screw ups lots of people because very wealthy after the contract change and that has been the ONLY driver in management.
Bechtel, BWX, etc. practice is to bring excess employees to LANL to put them on LANL's overhead so that has been the benefit of having this large contract for over 10 years to dump employees who are excess when other corporate work dries up. So LANL covers their relocation costs, salary and benefits and LANL gets to claim it has hired 1000's of new employees. And I heard that employees from these companies bring their years of service to LANL for purposes of tenure for the pension and for leave.
Bechtel, BWX, etc. practice is to bring excess employees to LANL to put them on LANL's overhead so that has been the benefit of having this large contract for over 10 years to dump employees who are excess when other corporate work dries up. So LANL covers their relocation costs, salary and benefits and LANL gets to claim it has hired 1000's of new employees. And I heard that employees from these companies bring their years of service to LANL for purposes of tenure for the pension and for leave.
September 27, 2017 at 3:02 PM
Total BS. You probably think there are thousands of Bechtel, AECOM, and BWXT people at LANL when there are only around 300 total.
and Mike A and Charlie at lanl, have said repeatedly that award fee had zero influence on how they operated the Labs. Ive heard them each say that they never even participated in a meeting where award fee came up.
While this was indeed true for Mike during his time at LANL, such was not the case for Charlie. Look into your facts and you will find that Charlie, as well as the UCOP, were involved in the issues in great detail.
"Total BS. You probably think there are thousands of Bechtel, AECOM, and BWXT people at LANL when there are only around 300 total."
So those 300 are responsible for LANS losing the contract? These 300, aka the LANS 300, mismanaged the contract and provided poor oversight of operations, security and safety?
Total BS. You probably think there are thousands of Bechtel, AECOM, and BWXT people at LANL when there are only around 300 total.
September 27, 2017 at 9:23 PM
Actually there is a large number of these people who have transferred directly to LANS so they are no longer Bechtel, AECOM ... etc employees. Over the years I would estimate we now have 1200-1500 of these people. Also if you work at LANL you will see during the last year that lost of new people have appeared out of nowhere and 1000 more will before the contract is up. The plan is simple, Bechtel wants to get rid of problem people or people that simply no longer need from their complex. By offloading them they avoid firing these people which could lead to lawsuits, severance packages and so on. One thing that you have repeatedly failed to realize is the concept of "leveraged profit" this is a well known phenomena in corporate run places and it means that you get all sorts of additional money beyond the fee, one tactic is charging all the travel to one place but go to multiple places, storing people at certain locations, making sure you subsidiary companies get subcontracts, using LANL is the reward for 3 years before you retire and so on. If you read the book "The profiteers" on Bechtel you will see that Bechtel is the master at this kind of sleazy stuff.
You can go on about UC all you want but the fact remains that UC ran the labs very well for 60 years, after the contract change it has been nothing but problems so the
questions is what changed and Bechtel is the clear key. I will leave you with this which is can you name a single improvement that Bechtel has brought to LANL?
If UC wants to bid they need to dump Bechtel.
Thank you poster at 9:07 am. For many years, the common slang at LANL has been "oh, he or she is the C or D student from Bechtel", as employees complain that those individuals are brought in at high salaries, dumped at LANL, with the contract covering all their transfer costs, and they are employed for three years so that they can get their high 3 for retirement purposes.
Other long-term LANL employees lose out on his or her own promotion, the LANL employees with advanced degrees and are the A and B students of their profession, and suddenly, they have to take orders and direction from these transferred C and D employees, who cannot spell engineer or project management but hey, they are Black sigma.
This has impacted morale in ways that cannot be measured and has caused highly skilled long term LANL employees to retire or ask to be reassigned if possible, while this formerly great scientific institution continues to spiral downward in morale and quality of work. It is ultimately our country who loses these highly skilled, dedicated and tenured employees who become disengaged, and they are who know what to do, how to do it, with a high regard for their country, as they are sacrificed for the profiteers of Bechtel et al.
"they are employed for three years so that they can get their high 3 for retirement purposes."
This is more BS. Annual TCP1 tax forms report the number of members on the pension plan. There were roughly 6200 TCP1 members when LANS took over. Today this number remains roughly the same. We are talking one or two dozen TCP1 members added under LANS.
The fraction of posts that contain false information on this blog is well past the 50% mark. And it's only getting worse.
Actually there is a large number of these people who have transferred directly to LANS so they are no longer Bechtel, AECOM ... etc employees. Over the years I would estimate we now have 1200-1500 of these people. Also if you work at LANL you will see during the last year that lost of new people have appeared out of nowhere and 1000 more will before the contract is up.
September 28, 2017 at 9:07 AM
More BS. Again, there are only around 300 Bechtel, BWXT, AECOM, etc and only around 150 are Bechtel. This is a fact. There is no benefit to people to "directly transfer to LANS" from Bechtel, BWXT or AECOM so this also does not occur. The truth is 90% of the management at LANL has nothing to do with Bechtel, BWXT, or AECOM. Furthermore, 97% of the professionals have nothing to do with Bechtel, BWXT, or AECOM. This is again a fact. Put the blame where you want but don't make up a bunch of lies. It undermines your position.
dedicated and tenured employees....
September 28, 2017 at 1:33 PM
I have seen the results of such employees at LANL and I am not impressed. I would like to better understand what they are dedicated to (their pocketbook?, their cousin in Espanola making money off the Lab, etc.). Oh and thank you for adding tenured to the discussion because this is the root of many of the issues. One, you can't get rid of poor performers at LANL, period. Two, some people (not all) act as if their job is owed to them and they should be promoted for breathing. "A and B students" is also a great example of the thought processes at LANL. A degree does not make you a leader, manager, or even a good coworker.
September 28, 2017 at 9:07 AM
A simple question to ask is what percent of the current LANL workforce is former Bechtel employees? I think the answer is between 15-25 percent or shockingly high.
Another thing is that many of these people are in the "engineering side" and guess what this is why there has been so many problems, WIPP, critically, closed faculties, safety issues, no pit production, and so on all has to to with the extremely poor quality management and people brought in from you can guess from. A huge amount of talented staff have lest because of them. Think about it this is a company that cannot dig a tunnel or build a bridge anymore. Even through own employees will tell you how utterly sleazy they are. It is clear what has happened to LANL.
More BS. Again, there are only around 300 Bechtel, BWXT, AECOM, etc and only around 150 are Bechtel. This is a fact. There is no benefit to people to "directly transfer to LANS" from Bechtel, BWXT or AECOM so this also does not occur. The truth is 90% of the management at LANL has nothing to do with Bechtel, BWXT, or AECOM. Furthermore, 97% of the professionals have nothing to do with Bechtel, BWXT, or AECOM. This is again a fact. Put the blame where you want but don't make up a bunch of lies. It undermines your position.
September 28, 2017 at 6:43 PM
Sorry but I have to call counter BS to you, if you work at LANL you could easily confirm than that many Bechtel people have transferred over to LANL, they are not Bechtel people anymore but now LANL people that number is around 1200-1500 by now. Even high level managers say this. You have no idea where you 97% number came from you simply made that up and have no idea what you are talking about. A number of "tenured" LANL employees particularly criticality experts left and every one knows why. What is your deal how do you come with with the total nonsense numbers that you spew out. In sum you have no freaking idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you have no qualifications about it since it is very obvious that you have not been working at the lab for many many years. I think you bitterness is is getting the better of you yet again. You may not be knowledgeable but you are predictable.
Complain all you want, but the Q&A for the RFP are clear and remain fully consistent with the draft text regarding how NNSA plans to treat the incumbent contractor. Each and every one of the current partners are going to be scored exactly the same on prior performance, no matter how loud some of them complain about it. You may not like what you see in front of you, but NNSA is sending a loud message that they want to see fresh, not recycled, management at LANL.
"The existence of any award fee at all is just a stop to those who think it matters to Lab leadership. George Miller, Parney, and Bill G at llnl, and Mike A and Charlie at lanl, have said repeatedly that award fee had zero influence on how they operated the Labs. Ive heard them each say that they never even participated in a meeting where award fee came up."
September 27, 2017 at 1:05 PM
Mcmillan and Pattiz were the main drivers behind the massive increase in the final years fee for LANS. The fixed fee had been 16-18M per year in recent years and after the WIPP drum explosion the LANS contract was going to be terminated. NNSA could not get out of the contract immediately as they desired and so the 2016-2018 term had to be fixed. UC held a gun to the head of NNSA and threatened to walk away if the fee was not doubled. Anyone interested can check and confirm that the most recent contract modification for LANS increased the fixed fee to 35M per year each year for the years ending October 2017 and October 2018.
Another thing is that many of these people are in the "engineering side" ....
September 28, 2017 at 7:27 PM
More Troll spewing. Name one, just one, Engineering Division leader, group leader, etc. that is Bechtel. Read an org chart some time. Name this massive population of Bechtel or former Bechtel engineers or even the specific group they work in.
Some big news.
UC is NOT teaming with Bechtel. Apparently UT and UC are considering Battelle but Batelle may have a bid of its own. This means BECHTEL IS GONE!!!!!! Na na na na
Na na na na Hey hey hey Goodbye Na na na na Na na na naHey hey hey Goodbye
No Bechtel people at all in ADW. None. And that is the largest engineering organization at LANL. None in ADE either, the second largest engineering organization.
So where is "the engineering side" you speak of?
Apparently somebody hit a nerve by pointing out that Bechtel is nothing but a parasite.
Bechtel is nothing but a parasite.
Bechtel is gone UC is NOT teaming with them and neither is Texas. Both want to partner with Batelle.
Unfortunately, the above is not correct and if you are concerned you should be. UC IS talking to Bechtel and negotiating a new structure for the bid. They have already had the first meeting and the second will be during the BOG. Battelle is not in the mix, yet. Ugh...
Apparently somebody hit a nerve by pointing out that Bechtel is nothing but a parasite.
September 30, 2017 at 7:51 AM
Not really worried about the "parasite" argument. In fact, the numbers favor that argument. The BS is that there are 1500 Bechtel or former Bechtel people at LANL, the TCP1 dumping, hidden organizations full of Bechtel people, etc. There are only 150 Bechtel people including only one PAD, one AD, and around 5 division leaders. There are only around 300 total "Industry Partner" employees at LANL. All others are previous UC employees or direct hires to LANS that have nothing to do with "Industry Partners".
So the parasite argument holds water with these numbers (300 total). The rest is just BS that undermines credibility to the point trying to be made.
Unfortunately, the above is not correct and if you are concerned you should be. UC IS talking to Bechtel and negotiating a new structure for the bid. They have already had the first meeting and the second will be during the BOG. Battelle is not in the mix, yet. Ugh...
September 30, 2017 at 11:17 AM
False as of last week, US has decided not to team with Bechtel so there is no second talk. Battelle has not committed to anything yet. You have old info.
Not really worried about the "parasite" argument. In fact, the numbers favor that argument. The BS is that there are 1500 Bechtel or former Bechtel people at LANL, the TCP1 dumping, hidden organizations full of Bechtel people, etc. There are only 150 Bechtel people including only one PAD, one AD, and around 5 division leaders. There are only around 300 total "Industry Partner" employees at LANL. All others are previous UC employees or direct hires to LANS that have nothing to do with "Industry Partners".
So the parasite argument holds water with these numbers (300 total). The rest is just BS that undermines credibility to the point trying to be made.
September 30, 2017 at 11:26 AM
You have completely misunderstood the point. Every year since the start of the contract a number of Bechtel employees officially leave Bechtel and become permanent LANL employees HR knows the numbers and over the years that has added up to around 1200 people. This not some big hidden mystery and is fairly well known. If you worked at the land you know some ex-Bechtel people since there are so many. But you do not work at the lab and have not for some time which is why you keep making such utterly incorrect statements about the lab which has undermined any credibility you have.
You have completely misunderstood the point. Every year since the start of the contract a number of Bechtel employees officially leave Bechtel and become permanent LANL employees HR knows the numbers and over the years that has added up to around 1200 people. This not some big hidden mystery and is fairly well known. If you worked at the land you know some ex-Bechtel people since there are so many. But you do not work at the lab and have not for some time which is why you keep making such utterly incorrect statements about the lab which has undermined any credibility you have.
September 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM
I do work at the lab and what you say makes no sense. Where are they? Why would they do what you say? They, the employee, gets no benefit from what you say has occurred. You can be a "Regular" employee at the lab and still be affiliated with Bechtel, AECOM, etc. So, this is simply not true. Now if instead you said 1200 people from Bechtel, AECOM, and BWXT have at some point worked at the lab between 2007-2017 and then left the lab (to other jobs, retired without TCP1, etc.), this would make sense. This point has been made before (i.e the revolving door argument). I can absolutely guarantee you that there are not 1200 current or former Bechtel people working at the lab today.
False as of last week, US has decided not to team with Bechtel so there is no second talk. Battelle has not committed to anything yet. You have old info.
September 30, 2017 at 8:43 PM
We will see in time who was right but my info is still current.
" I can absolutely guarantee you that there are not 1200 current or former Bechtel people working at the lab today."
You do not work at the lab if you did you would know some of these people and maybe know a person or two in HR. It is more like 1500 by the way. Why are you so insistsent with your ignorance, you have some strange agenda against UC but you will not come clean with the reasons. I think it has utterly clouded.
We will see in time who was right but my info is still current.
October 3, 2017 at 12:22 AM
You have been wrong about latterly everything you have said. UC is not teaming with Bechtel. Bechtel is seen as utterly toxic at this point. NNSA knows what went down at LANS for the last 10 years.
UC ran the labs very well for 60 years, the contract change happens UCs role is substantially reduced and Bechtel comes in. The lab falls apart, LLNL fires hundreds of people and so on. What is the common feature, Bechtel and even people at NNSA can see it.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
UC ran the labs very well for 60 years, the contract change happens UCs role is substantially reduced and Bechtel comes in. The lab falls apart, LLNL fires hundreds of people and so on. What is the common feature, Bechtel and even people at NNSA can see it.
October 3, 2017 at 7:31 AM
Hate to tell you but the NNSA likes when Bechtel lays off people. That is why they hire Bechtel. "Cost savings" remember the RFP?
Hearing 18 month delay for prime RFP beyond EM award announcement.
Hearing 18 month delay for prime RFP beyond EM award announcement.
October 6, 2017 at 4:19 PM
I have heard about a delay as well. 18 months seems like long time but maybe that is the way it is since I am also hearing NNSA is afraid to do anything since things at Sandia have not been going very smoothly after the last contract change. I remember about year ago that LANS was pushing hard for another year extension maybe they will end up getting this for free since NNSA is so utterly messed up. Some issues they are worried about are getting rid of the pension but doing it in a way that will not cause problems, accountability if problems continue after the next contract and everyone knows something will surely go wrong in the future so somebody will have to be blamed. If you keep LANS around than anytime something does go wrong you can always say that they are being replaced so everyone is off the hook. LANS may be around for 3-5 years since it is in everyones interest. LANS gets money and NNSA avoids accountability what is not to like?
Post a Comment