Skip to main content

Is LANL interim management possible?

Is there ANY accident, incident, or frequency of mismanagement occurrences at LANL, that would trigger the loss of the LANS contract within ~90 days and insertion of an interim management team while the contract is rebid?
February 14, 2016 at 8:39 AM

COMMENTS:
Delete
Anonymous
I doubt it, in principle we should have lost the contract already but as Charlie pointed out NNSA gave us an extension. Apparently they have no mechanism to suddenly change the contract.
February 14, 2016 at 9:38 AM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Apparently they have no mechanism to suddenly change the contract.

February 14, 2016 at 9:38 AM

Actually, it is just that they have no mechanism or capability to rebid two contracts (SNL, LANL) at one. SNL first.
February 14, 2016 at 11:42 AM
Delete

Comments

Anonymous said…
The correct answer is Yes.

The Government [NNSA] could terminate the LANS contract for managing and operating LANL in accordance with clause I-115 of the contract. However it is an all or nothing approach if you are talking about the full LANL M&O contract. In other words it would have to transition to a new M&O, not an "interim" M&O - as this is not a legal concept under federal procurement rules. The government can't just hand LANL ($2.2 Billion/yr) operations over to another entity without a competitive bidding process. NNSA would have to issue a new RFP for LANL management and award it to a new M&O, so LANS would continue running the lab until a new contractor took over. LANS could replace senior key management with "interim" management to handle the transition to the new contractor, but technically LANS would still be in charge of LANL. LANS can (and would) appeal the termination, which would probably take at least a year (see Y-12 contract fight from a few years ago) thus extending the whole process by a year before an RFP could be released. Given that LANS is already done at LANL, terminating the contract now would actually keep LANS at LANL longer.

----------
I-115

(a) The Government may terminate performance of work under this contract in whole or, from time to time, in part, if-
(1) The Contracting Officer determines that a termination is in the Government's interest; or
(2) The Contractor [LANS] defaults in performing this contract and fails to cure the default within 10 days (unless extended by the Contracting Officer) after receiving a notice specifying the default. "Default" includes failure to make progress in the work so as to endanger performance.

http://www.lanl.gov/about/_assets/docs/conformed-prime-contract.pdf
Anonymous said…
"...Given that LANS is already done at LANL..."

There is also the chance that one (or more) of the losing bidders to operate LANL will protest. In such a case, until the protests are fully resolved, the current contractor keeps on operating the lab. So even if NNSA could get their act together and publish a RFP sometime in the next few weeks, it might not translate to a new contractor taking over next year.

Remember, it ain't over til the fat lady sings, and there are no signs that she is warming up to perform anytime soon.
Anonymous said…
THe LANS contract will be rebid after the SNL contract rebid is done, not before. There is just no way NNSA can handle the two at once. It really is that simple, and there is no one who can or will second guess NNSA on this decision. Dream up all the conspiracy theories or complicated scenarios you want, it is just the way it is. There is no "emergency" here, in NNSA's mind.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!