“Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition LLNL MO Contract Extension - signed” (dated May 28, 2024)
“XI. STEPS TO FOSTER COMPETITION
Consistent with statute, regulation, and DOE policy, DOE/NNSA has determined it is appropriate to noncompetitively extend the current LLNI M&O contract as there is no expectation of meaningful improvement in performance or cost resulting from competing the contract and replacing the incumbent contractor. However; DOE/NNSA will continue to foster competition for each of its M&O contracts and utilize tools such as draft solicitations, comment workshops, one-on-one meetings, pre-proposal conferences, and websites to provide information to interested parties for future actions.”
https://www.highergov.com/document/nnsa-2024-002371-attachment-1-justification-for-other-than-full-and-open-competition-llnl-mo-contract-extension-signed-pdf-3ec221/
7 comments:
“Consistent with statute, regulation, and DOE policy, DOE/NNSA has determined it is appropriate to noncompetitively extend the current LLNI M&O contract as there is no expectation of meaningful improvement in performance or cost resulting from competing the contract and replacing the incumbent contractor.”
Really? So a ~10% reduction in operating expenses (no CA sales tax) by moving to a non-profit LLNL contractor, is not an improvement in cost reduction? This cost savings advantage, was clearly communicated by NNSA Leadership to NM residents when Triad, a non-profit contractor, was selected to manage LANL (?).
10% comes out to over a billion dollars over the lifetime of the extension, they are saying that isn't "meaningful" given the importance of the mission, and considering the government's vast ability to tax the American public and borrow money, or debase the currency and create inflation thereby reducing debt to GDP by inflating away debt and collecting more capital gains taxes as well.
Besides, this money is given to California which evidently needs more money to help solve the numerous problems there, which will enhance US competitiveness overall. As you know silicon valley is now the most important part of the US economy, and thus the Federal government will recover perhaps all of the 10% via income tax, and tax on investment capital gains, while this will help lower debt to GDP by growing the economy.
Given the Triad contractor of LANL cost model, by what set of metrics was it determined that there would be no cost savings to award the LLNL contract to a non-profit, given a likely lower annual award fee, and 501(c)(3) non-profit exempt status from county and state tax?
10/24/18
NNSA Won’t Rule Out Forcing LANL Manager to File for Tax-Exempt Status
“Gordon-Hagerty’s office believes Triad is required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation to seek any cost savings possible, including 501(c)(3) status, Burgess said."
https://www.exchangemonitor.com/nnsa-wont-rule-forcing-lanl-manager-file-tax-exempt-status/
1/20/19
County Fears GRT Loss If LANL Gets Nonprofit Status
https://ladailypost.com/county-fears-grt-loss-if-lanl-gets-nonprofit-status/
NNSA officials probably recognize the under the table kick backs and the ol' boys club is more profitable - to them.
That is why I left LLNL IN 2008. No one can say with a straight face, that LLNS contract is more cost effective than UC's.
Remember, UC is part of LLNS, and they get more money in that partnership than they did when they ran it alone as a non-profit.
“…no expectation of meaningful improvement in performance or cost resulting from competing the contract…”
The profit amount of UC or other LLNS LLC members was already baked into the cake when the NNSA no bid determination was made. In 2019, Los Alamos County Officials feared losing “tens of millions of dollars a year” in tax revenue. Livermore, CA sales tax in 2024 is 10.25%, and Los Alamos, NM is 7.07%.
By 2018 NNSA standards, a 10.25% LLNL cost savings would appear to qualify as a Gordon-Halferty “any cost savings possible” expectation and goal. So what really happened?
“Those in power are so afraid of losing it, they will do anything to keep the world under their control. Even when ‘anything’ means ignoring dangerous truths that threaten to grow more powerful the longer they’re unaddressed.”
-Romina Russell
In 2024, is employee morale, retention, and an objective cost of LLNL operations, “dangerous truths” compared to pre-October 2007?
Post a Comment