BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Purdue, Bechtel team bids to run LANL

https://www.abqjournal.com/1137074/purdue-bechtel-team-bids-to-run-lanl.html

21 comments:

newmexicopanda said...

I fail to come to the same conclusion ("Purdue, Bechtel team bids to run LANL") when I read the article. It just states that Bechtel teamed up with Purdue.
Can you give more details ?

Anonymous said...


Bechtel baby you know they are going to win. LANL management wants it, New Mexico wants it, the town of Los Alamos wants, it will be. Too much money is at stake for this not to happen.

Anonymous said...



The other rumor is the the Bechtel-Purdue lead is a 4-star General. This could be good, in a very bad way. Remember Nanos. Bechtel would only put in a bid if they felt they had good chance of getting it. So far we know three teams, UC-Texas AM, U Texas, and Bechtel-Purdue. The safe bet for who will win is the Bechtel team for a number of reasons. Crazy stuff.

Anonymous said...

General Anson was rumored name for director on bid.

Anonymous said...

General Anson was rumored to be director on bid.

Anonymous said...

February 28, 2018 at 4:24 PM

Interesting pick.

Anson was the second son of Thomas Anson, 1st Viscount Anson, and his wife Anne Margaret, daughter of Thomas Coke, 1st Earl of Leicester of Holkham Hall, Norfolk. Thomas Anson, 1st Earl of Lichfield was his elder brother. He was educated at Eton College.Anton entered the Army in 1814 as an Ensign in the 3rd (Scots Fusiliers) Guards and served at an early age in the Napoleonic Wars and fought at the Battle of Waterloo. He later sat as a Member of Parliament (MP) for Great Yarmouth from 1818 to 1835, for Stoke-upon-Trent from 1836 to 1837, and for Staffordshire South from 1837 to 1853 and served as Storekeeper of the Ordnance under Lord Melbourne from 1835 to 1841 and as Clerk of the Ordnance under Melbourne in 1841 and under Lord John Russell from 1846 to 1852.

Oh, maybe you mean this guy:

As the keynote speaker during a full general session luncheon at the ESA 2014 Leadership Summit on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2014, retired Major General Doug Anson will share his thoughts on the evolution of national security since 9/11 and the effect these events have had on him, his family and the nation. Anson has had the privilege of serving our country in several capacities – in uniform on the battlefield, in the hallways of the Pentagon, and as a science and technology manager at a national security laboratory.

Anson is currently the Director for Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Development in the Strategic Outcomes Office at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Anson has worked at LANL for 20 years. Anson served more than 33 years in the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserves (USAR) including 23 years of active duty. He is a graduate of West Point, and holds two masters degrees from Stanford University in Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, as well as a master’s degree from the US Army War College in Strategic Studies. He recently retired as a Major General, US Army Reserves, after serving as the Director of Operations at the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).

This guy is at Los Alamos? Never heard of him. I think the last thing LANL or any NNSA lab would need is rah-rah military guy coming to kick scientists gum and chew ass. That worked out well with Nanos. Does anybody know anything about him, being a lab DIrector seems way out of his league. His rank is not very impressive either since half of the people in the Army are generals now.

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/JFQ/Joint-Force-Quarterly-87/Article/1325984/are-there-too-many-general-officers-for-todays-military/

There are approximately 900 Active-duty general/flag officers (GO/FOs) today of 1.3 million troops. This is a ratio of 1 GO/FO for every 1,400 troops. During World War II, an admittedly different era, there were more than 2,000 GO/FOs for a little more than 12 million Active troops (1:6,000). This development represents “rank creep” that does not enhance mission success but clutters the chain of command, adds bureaucratic layers to decisions, and costs taxpayers additional money from funding higher paygrades to fill positions.

Anonymous said...

UC/A&M/Battelle
UT/Jacobs
Purdue/Bechtel

Anonymous said...

If as the RFP states past performance issues at LANL are equally attributed to the LANS members, then I can't really see how a Bechtel-Purdue team beats a UC-Texas A&M-Battelle team.

Anonymous said...

"If as the RFP states past performance issues at LANL are equally attributed to the LANS members, then I can't really see how a Bechtel-Purdue team beats a UC-Texas A&M-Battelle team."

It is real simple: Let me drop some maths on you...as follows

UC lost the contract twice, twice = 2,

Bechtel lost the contract once, once = 1.

Now let do the maths

2 > 1...so...yes...maths don't lie...Bechtel wins Baby

thus Bechtel = $$$$ Ya, all.

Easy and how it is gonna go, ya all need to learn to math before ya all post.


Anonymous said...

Do you honestly believe the RFP has anything whatsoever to do with which contractor is chosen? This deal was sealed long before the bids were in.

Anonymous said...

March 1, 2018 at 8:53 PM:

Here's the real "math"...

The RFP states; "The Government will evaluate the Offeror's relevant past performance during the last five years to determine if the relevant past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the Statement of Work (SOW).... The Government will not apportion past performance under a DOE, NNSA, or other contract differently among parent companies that have teamed for the purposes of said contract; all parent companies under a contract will be equally credited (positively and negatively) for past performance for that contract."

So in the last 5 years

UC lost the contract once, once = 1

Bechtel lost the contract once, once = 1

And the last time I checked; 1=1. Thus you have to look at the other partners in the bidding teams.

Battelle is involved in management and operations of seven national labs - DOE (BNL, INL, PNNL, ORNL, NREL, LLNL) and DHS (National Bio Defense Lab). Texas A&M supports LLNS in management of LLNL. So if you say UC and Bechtel cancel each other out due to past issues at LANL, then the edge still goes to the UC/Texas AM/Battelle team over the others.

Lets about your math now...

UC = 0
Texas A&M = 1
Battelle =1
UT = 0
Jacobs = 1
Purdue = 0
Bechtel = 0

So....

UC/Texas A&M/Battelle = 0+1+1= 2
UT/Jacobs = 0+1= 1
Bechtel/Purdue = 0+1=1

2>1 Thus the winner is UC/Texas A&M/Battelle

You need to know both the math and the "rules."

Anonymous said...

I call BS. UC & Battelle are part of LLNS, Texas A&M is not. Nice try

Anonymous said...

Oops... I inadvertently gave Purdue a 1 instead of 0 to reflect no past involvement in management of DOE or NNSA sites... Jacobs Engineering is a partner in the LLC running the Nevada Test Site... so correcting this we see its...

UC/Texas A&M/Battelle = 0+1+1= 2
UT/Jacobs = 0+1= 1
Bechtel/Purdue = 0+0=0

2>1 or 0

And the winner is still UC/Texas A&M/Battelle

Anonymous said...

March 2, 2018 at 1:55 PM:

I did not say that Texas A&M was part of LLNS. I wrote "Texas A&M supports LLNS in management of LLNL."

Check the LLNS website - http://llnsllc.com

It states....

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC
(LLNS) offers a team of five world-class organizations whose primary objective is to deliver the National Nuclear Security Administration mission for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Our team includes Bechtel National, University of California, Babcock and Wilcox, the Washington Division of URS Corporation, and Battelle. Our cutting-edge science is enhanced through the expertise of the University of California and its ten campuses and our team's affiliation with The Texas A&M University System.

Anonymous said...

An the winner is UC/Texas A&M/Battelle


The problem with this that it will be a non-profit bid, the state of New Mexico will now allow this. In fact they are changing the law to make sure that the GRT will continue no matter what. If they do that they why not just go with for profit Bechtel team.

Anonymous said...

2 > 1...so...yes...maths don't lie...Bechtel wins Baby

March 1, 2018 at 8:53 PM

What!! Someone auctioned off a baby?? That is really disgusting, and illegal too. What did Bechtel do with the baby they won?? I hope it got a good home.

scooby said...

This is the funniest comment !

Anonymous said...

"Oops... I inadvertently gave Purdue a 1 instead of 0 to reflect no past involvement in management of DOE or NNSA sites... Jacobs Engineering is a partner in the LLC running the Nevada Test Site... so correcting this we see its...

UC/Texas A&M/Battelle = 0+1+1= 2
UT/Jacobs = 0+1= 1
Bechtel/Purdue = 0+0=0

2>1 or 0

And the winner is still UC/Texas A&M/Battelle"


Ok lest see, past successful operations = +1, no operations = 0. How about past failed operations = -1.

UT/Jacobs = 0 + 1 = 1
Bechtel/Purdue = -1 + 0 = -1
UC/Battelle/TexasAM = -1, +1, 0 = 0

So UT/Jacobs wins.

Also "For profit = +1" due to the pressure from New Mexico, while non-profit = 0

That would give a tie between Bechte/Purdue, and UT/Jacobs. Could go either way.

Who the hell knows, but there are a couple of new rumors.

The contract change WILL be delayed, maybe 6 months or more, with no announcement until Oct. This is due to state tax reasons.
Wallace is part of a bid team and it may be the Bechtel-Purdue team thats.

Anonymous said...

From the tone of the above pro-TAMU comments, could be concluded that they have a blog writer on the payroll. Let's hope that this one is brighter than the university rep Hutardo came off at regional meeting, which is a lowbar to pass!

Anonymous said...

So far, the wannabe mathematicians on this blog have scored an F. Probably because they learned how to add by calculating ignition for NIF and Z.

Anonymous said...

Is there any data that Battelle is with UC. I have not heard such.

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...