Sunday, October 1, 2017
UC makes solo bid?
From much of what has leaked out in the past weeks, seems that UC made a rush to announce that they would be leading a bid team. With it now coming down that no one wants to team with UC in the next round, does this mean that LANL can finally return to being a UC only institution?
My avatar is taken from a favorite scene in the TV series "Supernatural". I may not be one of the Four Horsemen, but I play one in most combat games... :-)
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.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
24 comments:
No, they are partnering with at least for other smaller industrial partners but UC will be the lead. Apparently they are still trying to get Battelle on board however Battelle may go with Texas or go alone.
UC ran the labs well for 60...count them 60, count it again 60, yes we said 60, you heard it right 60 years, during the cold war no less, 60 years, let that sink in 60 years... 60 years! How is that for past performance? Looks good and damm good at that as they are now saying in the DOE and you know and better believe this is what they are saying in DOE. So solo UC it might be, as it was when it mattered and it may matter again.
In the end, name one positive thing that the for profit model has brought to LANL or LLNL or one thing good that Bechtel has done for the labs, one thing...one thing and now compare that to 60 years of excellence and the best and brightest during the cold war. Once you put it in these terms everything becomes clear.
Wasn't 60 years. Not even close. You have conveniently forgotten the Browne, Nanos, and Kuckock years.
Best and the brightest? Quintana. Wen Ho Lee. Bussolini. Marquez. Hook. On and on and on.
"... it's hard to imagine that conditions at LANL could get much worse", NATURE 2005. That was when UC was in charge, wasn't it?
UC was also in charge over the last 11 miserable years.
1943-2001
That would be 58 years. The rest has been witch hunt and hype. You know and DOE knows it, So once again 60, count them 60 years of running the lab well now how is that for prior service. The last 11 years is all Bechtel.
October 3, 2017 at 10:49 PM
It was, at best, 40 years.
Name one single positive from UC for LANL in the past 25 years.
It was, at best, 40 years.
Name one single positive from UC for LANL in the past 25 years.
October 4, 2017 at 4:31 PM
UC was out since 2006, but from 1995-2005 they pushed back against the WHO nonsense, they stood by the lab against the utterly false claims of a culture of theft, they got rid of Nanos, they fired Walp and Dorn, they helped the lab during the fires, they stood by the lab against which hunt and witch hunt, they provided a name with credibility. In other words during the utter craziness of the early 2000s things could have been much much worse. 1995-2005 still have some great science at the labs since 2005 it as been all downhill.
So again we are left with the conclusion that UC did run the lab well for 60 years.
None of what you wrote is true.
UC HIRED Nanos. LANL staff ran him off with help from the New Mexico Congressional delegation.
UC fired Walp and DORAN but lost their lawsuit for wrongful termination and were forced to HIRE them back. Instead of accepting UC's employment offer, Walp settled for almost a million dollars. DORAN was rehired and put in charge of security at ALL UC facilities (including LANL at the time). UC issued a public apology for their wrongdoing in the case.
UC DID allow a culture of theft. A million and a half dollars of equipment and supplies turned up missing and UC was found to have asked managers to keep quiet. It's all there in the Inspector General's report. Geez, Pete Bussolini went to prison for stealing $350,000.
UC WAS in charge the last 11 (miserable) years, both by their contract with the minor partners (including Bechtel) and by the overwhelming numbers of UC managers, including a UC lock on the Director position. Over 90% of all LANL upper managers were (and still are) UC.
People who mislead and even lie in their feckless attempts to defend UC are actually hurting UC's chances. This dishonest behavior only solidifies UC's reputation as an inept, disreputable organization.
>UC HIRED Nanos. LANL staff ran him off with help from the New Mexico Congressional delegation.
False, UC fired Nanos as well.
>UC fired Walp and DORAN
Yes and if you have ever seen the TV interview with this guys you would understand just how toxic these guys are not to mention that 16 years later these guys are still trying to make a buck of the labs. Disguising and shameful.
>UC DID allow a culture of theft.
BS this was all shown to be complete nonsense. It was shown that compared to other institutions of comparable size that the such rates of the theft are far far lower at LANL than elsewhere. Most of the 1.5 million turned out to be completely false. Bussolinni was one guy out 110000 employees and he was caught, Walp and Dorn by the way had nothing to do with him being caught either. There was no Mustang. Culture means everyone has to be in on it or know it was going on which was clearly not the case, you should know what the word culture means before you use it.
>UC WAS in charge the last 11 (miserable) years,
Sorry no one, I mean no one believes this. Bechtel has been in charge, Bechtel was made to believe that UC blew it before so they came in to punish UC and take over and this is what NNSA wanted. Turned out it was a disaster.
>People who mislead and even lie in their feckless attempts to defend UC are actually hurting UC's chances.
Total BS, DOE and NNSA have realized that they made a big big mistake with the contract change. All the things that Bechtel promised did not come through. If you had any connection to LANL or DOE you have some idea of this. UC has been strongly "encouraged" to apply. Bechtel has not been encouraged to apply. Tells you all you need to know
Your posting just shows how bitter and agenda driven you are. Your defense of Walp of Dorn kind of gives you away, since I can think of only three people who would defend them. You have a problem with UC that clouds everything you see. Why the press goes to people like you is beyond me since you are so utterly comprised that you have no intention of ever telling the truth.
10:56 PM has it mostly right and 6:17 PM joins the ranks of the defenders of the failure, as opposed to owning the failure and pointing a way out of the mess.
10 of the 11 ADs at LANL are UC.
4 of the 5 PADs are UC.
The LANL Director is UC.
Yeah, right, Bechtel is in charge. Only in your twisted, hall of mirrors world. In the real world, UC is in charge.
More lies from 6:17.
LA Times, Fraud Confirmed at Los Alamos Laboratory, January 31, 2003.
"Employees stole or lost at least $1.5 million in government property at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and lab supervisors later warned their staff to "resist the temptation to spill your guts" about the wrongdoing, according to an Energy Department investigation released Thursday.
The probe by the Energy Department's Office of Inspector General represents the first official confirmation of widespread financial fraud at the New Mexico nuclear weapons research lab and management's failure to address it. The facility is operated by the University of California under contract with the Energy Department."
"Employees stole or lost at least $1.5 million in government property at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and lab supervisors later warned their staff to "resist the temptation to spill your guts" about the wrongdoing, according to an Energy Department investigation released Thursday.
First of all what time period was this 1.5 million stolen, a single year or a 10 years? With a 2 billion dollar a year budget this this hardly a culture of theft. In top of that I thought most of the 1.5 million as never actually stolen when all the accounting was done. In case you have not noticed the MSM has been very inaccurate when it comes to LANL. There as never "widespread"
finical fraud at Los Alamos.
And yes Bechtel runs the show, everyone knows that, everyone. You sure have a problem with UC, why would that be? Hmmm perhaps you should come clean with your agenda.
Although our troll poster has a link to the LA times if one looks around you can also find many reports stating that most of
the so called stolen property was accounted for. For example media went on on about the stolen Mutang but it turned it never existed, the same is true for most of the other 1.5 million and so on. The idea that there was ever a culture of theft is total nonsense and I have never bet a single DOE official who says that that LANL ever had a culture of theft, even they know this assertion is nonsense.
http://www.nuclearactive.org/news/072303.html
http://www.tscm.com/tscm-l/121102.txt
Not even a good try. If you would actually read the article you would see that it's about the official investigation by the DOE Inspector General. The IG report is available to anyone, even you, and it concluded just what the article said; there WAS widespread fraud at LANL and it was covered up by the UC management. The article reflects what happened in the real world. What you wrote was dishonest, revisionist history.
Oh, and Bechtel is not in charge of LANL. NOT one sane person who actually knows anything about the LANL management believes that lie. I suspect that you don't even believe your own lie because if you did you would have invented some (insane) explanation for how Bechtel could be in charge when almost all of the managers are UC.
"there WAS widespread fraud at LANL and it was covered up by the UC management. "
Prove it, sorry there is no evidence for widespread fraud, there never was and you know it.
"Oh, and Bechtel is not in charge of LANL. NOT one sane person who actually knows anything about the LANL management believes that lie. "
Yet how is it that literally everyone at LANL says Bechtel has been in charge and is the driver of the culture. That lab dramatically changed after 2006 and the common theme is Bechtel. You seem so utterly out of touch that it is obvious you do not work at LANL. Also you have refused to come clean about your clear agenda with UC. It seems personal and you are not denying this so come on lets hear it.
Read the IG's report. Learn something for a change.
I suspect you have been fired and you blame Bechtel. Why do I suspect this? 1) Because I know well over a hundred current LANL employees and not one I've polled believes Bechtel is in charge. NOT ONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. So you've been lying when you claim that everyone has the (false) impression that Bechtel is in charge when they clearly, clearly are not. Liars often get fired. 2) Your pathetic writing skills put you near the top of the list for a termination.
October 7, 2017 at 9:41 AM
I gotta call BS on you. There is simply no way you know 100 people at LANL that believe Bechtel is not in charge. Lets see if any posters chime in to confirm you view which I doubt any will since no one believes this. As for you I would guess you got fired around 2002 and have an agenda against UC.
I call B.S. on you. You don't know a single person (other than yourself) who thinks Bechtel is in charge of LANL. NOT ONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Why? Nobody is that stupid. When well over 90% of LANL's management is UC, including the Director, 4 of the 5 PADs, and 10 of the 11 ADs, Bechtel CANNOT POSSIBLY BE IN CHARGE. EVERYONE knows that. Even you know that. Anyone who knows anything about the contract between the LANS partners knows that the contract explicitly puts UC in charge. You know that too.
I have never been fired from any job, including my job at LANL. I wasn't fired in 2002 or any year either before or after 2002. YOU?
"I call B.S. on you. You don't know a single person (other than yourself) who thinks Bechtel is in charge of LANL. NOT ONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE."
Sorry pal, everyone thinks Bechtel is in charge. If you worked at LANL you would know this but you do not. Lets see how many people post to back up your claim which will be none. As for you being fired, lets just say some people "parted ways" with LANL and very bitter about it which seems to fit with you. It is rater obvious you are not currently working at LANL. You also appear to be very naive about DOE.
When did you work for LANL and what were you fired for?
You know that Bechtel is not in charge and you're a very slow learner. If even slow learners know that UC is in charge, why are you deluded into thinking that other people think Bechtel is in charge when nobody actually does, not even you?
Face facts that LANS is run by UC, perhaps not 100% but very close to that.
Face facts that LANS is run by UC, perhaps not 100% but very close to that.
October 10, 2017 at 10:57 AM
So there is exactly one poster with some agenda who wants to say UC runs the lab when everyone else says it is Bechtel. Fine lets hear from other posters or even the blog moderators, anybody other than the one troll who who has an agenda against UC. The troll says he knows 200 people, ok come on lets hear from some. Look the realty is that everyone knows it has been Bechtel. Both LLNL and LANL changed drastically when the contract changed. The idea that UC is still in charge does not make any sense in light of how much things have changed for the worse. It simply makes no sense that UC can run LLNL and LANL fairly well for 60 years and that suddenly change so much. All the fingers point to Bechtel, but hey please find some of those LLNL and LANL workers who insist that UC runs things. I have never met one so one of of us lying.
Well we have not seen all those posters chiming to agree with UC is in charge. I thought 10:57 AM said everyone agrees UC is in charge. I claim everyone thinks UC is not in charge.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Face facts that LANS is run by UC, perhaps not 100% but very close to that.
October 10, 2017 at 10:57 AM
This poster called it the way it is....not the way some WANT it to be, but the reality of how it is.
Post a Comment