NNSA Awards Nevada National Security Site contract

New Lockheed subsidiary, "Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corporation", will manage the Nevada Site,

http://www.ladailypost.com/content/nnsa-awards-nevada-national-security-site-management-operating-contract-nvs3t

No official word on who else bid on the contract, other than NSTEC run by Northrop Grumman that will soon cease to exist.

Comments:

Anonymous said...

This is more evidence that Lockheed is out of Sandia and will get LANL. The question is who is going to get Sandia, Northrop Grumman or Boeing? Since Northrop Grumman had NSTEC I would think the deal is that they are going to get Sandia. Another question is how will Lockheed run LANL? Science has pretty much died at LANL during last 10 years. Lockheed could try and make LANL a sort of Sandia northeast which would mean getting rid of the last little bits of science at LANL, but the bigger question is if LANL can do engineering or how long would it take to get LANL up to speed as an engineering lab. Another issue is that LANL would than be competing with Sandia.

A good strategy would be move as much stuff off from Sandia and transfer it to LANL at the contract change so that LANL could have a chance to compete with the new Northrop run Sandia. I would think this may be toughest on Sandia at first since Lockheed will push to move engineering programs to LANL which will mean a drop in funding for Sandia. A bone to be thrown to Bechtel and LLNL will be to move some non-engineering programs from LANL to LLNL and beef up the bonuses pay for them, also this might add some legitimacy to keeping LLNL afloat. It is in NNSA best interest to keep the complex as large as possible and every lab open, you know too big to fail and the bigger the object you manage the more money for high up managers, also you have to make sure that every corporate player gets some piece of the pie.

August 28, 2016 at 9:21 PM

Anonymous said...

Northrop Grumman did a lousy job managing Nevada, which is why they lost. Lockheed meanwhile has a pretty good record managing Sandia, so they won. A new LANS minus Bechtel could be a contender for LANL, but there's no reason to think Lockheed won't keep Sandia just because they also manage Nevada. After all, look at Bechtel in LLNS and LANS.

August 28, 2016 at 11:02 PM

Anonymous said...

Sandia will move move it's Senior Management Team to LANL when Lockheed wins the contract there. An aerospace company leading nuclear facilities. These folks have no idea what they are in for, Lockheed couldn't

A UC-Lockheed Martin owned LLC to bid on the LANL contract makes the most sense for UCOP if they want to continue major involvement in LANL. Making Bechtel the fall guy for the operational ills at LANL is UC's best and most logical move.

August 29, 2016 at 5:46 AM

Comments

Anonymous said…

This was sent to Congress Friday night. Lockheed Martin displays its usual high ethical standards.

Subject: NNSS contract award notification

Dear Colleagues,

On August 26, 2016, DOE/NNSA awarded the contract for the management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) to Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corporation (NVS3T). The winning proposal identified NVS3T as a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. In making the award, NNSA evaluated past performance and other factors based upon the proposal as submitted.

After the award, DOE/NNSA learned that Leidos Innovations Corporation had acquired NVS3T from Lockheed Martin. NNSA was not notified of the change in ownership and control of NVS3T prior to the award as required by the request for proposal (solicitation). NNSA considers this to be a material change to the offer and is currently evaluating its options regarding the contract award in light of this development.

The current contract with Nevada Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) will remain in place until performance begins on a new contract. This development will not have an impact on NNSS' workforce or on its ability to execute its national security missions. We will keep you apprised of our progress in this matter

Cordially,

Orfa Torres-Jaen
Deputy Director of Congressional Affairs
National Nuclear Security Administration

8/29/2016 9:09 AM

Anonymous said…

Well that is an entertaining turn of events. Does this mean that the Friday announcement is voided?

8/29/2016 5:47 PM

Anonymous said…

If this is true NNSA should disqualify NVS3T and go to number 2. This will certainly generate protests.

8/29/2016 6:27 PM

Anonymous said…

There were many people hoping and praying that the winning bidder included BWXT/Bechtel or some combination. The hope was that they would take Jeff Yarbrough and Wendy Baca to Nevada as a way to begin to rebuild the staff at the Plutonium Facility. They have managed to destroy the place after years of an unnecessary waste of money and time. Experience and knowledge have left and in its place is a truly work-free safety space. Many have left for other parts of LANL, to find a place to recover from their PTSD.

8/29/2016 7:19 PM

Anonymous said…

Well that is an entertaining turn of events. Does this mean that the Friday announcement is voided?

August 29, 2016 at 5:47 PM

Wow what the hell is going on? If Lockheed cannot keep NTS than they must be given LANL especially if they lose Sandia which again it looks like they must. The NNSA complex is just getting weirder, stranger and more corrupt by the day.

8/29/2016 9:05 PM

Anonymous said…

There were many people hoping and praying that the winning bidder included BWXT/Bechtel or some combination. The hope was that they would take Jeff Yarbrough and Wendy Baca to Nevada as a way to begin to rebuild the staff at the Plutonium Facility.

August 29, 2016 at 7:19 PM

The ONLY good that Wendy has done at TA-55 was rid itself of Bad Storey. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE crosses her path at TA-55. Truly the "wicked witch of the west".

8/30/2016 4:03 AM

Anonymous said…

This most recent debacle can be added to the long list of NNSA contract failures. These government flunkies couldn't run a proper contract competition for mowing the grass, let alone operating complex nuclear weapon manufacturing facilities.

8/31/2016 12:02 PM

Anonymous said…

Contract Award Rescinded: http://www.ladailypost.com/content/nnsa-rescinds-contract-award-nnss-management-nvs3t-following-discovery-new-ownership

8/31/2016 1:22 PM

Anonymous said…

This mean a "do over"?

8/31/2016 1:29 PM

Anonymous said…

A do-over without Lockheed, it sounds like. All this can't help their rebid proposal for Sandia.

8/31/2016 2:01 PM

Anonymous said…

How can they rescore without going back to the bidders and give them an opportunity to modify their bid? These bid were submitted in late December 2015. The current bids expire end of September.
They going to ask the rest of the bidders if they are going to sell their LLC's?
Big implications for SNL (3 bidders including LM). LANL impact?
Hard to understand what LM is doing. Going back to core business? Airplanes and Missiles and Space?

8/31/2016 2:55 PM

Anonymous said…

Lockheed presumably made money on the sale of their LLC to Leidos. They will probably now be sued by Leidos for selling them something that they knew or should have known would drop to zero value as soon as they sold it. Lockheed will probably sue.... someone, maybe NNSA, just because they can. Lawyers will argue, meetings will be held, and meanwhile the bids will expire, leaving no one standing except NSTEC. Brilliant.

8/31/2016 3:11 PM

Anonymous said…

August 31, 2016 at 3:11 PM

Lockheed should have waited to before they sold the LLC. This does open up many possibilities, how about Bechtel selling LANS to the Chinese for the last couple of years. Good way to make some money, or better yet threaten to do this unless they get contract renewal. The whole idea of running these labs as LLCs was bad from the beginning but it did make lots of people very wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer. We are all f*d now.

8/31/2016 5:16 PM

Anonymous said…

Contract rescinded!

8/31/2016 7:30 PM

Anonymous said…

us-rescinds-contract-operate-nevada-national-security-site

8/31/2016 7:31 PM

Anonymous said…

People up the street think this will drag on for a year, and I have to believe it will. Major catastrophe for the whole concept of contract bidding and re-bidding by single-purpose corporate-owned LLCs, that will ripple down to sandia and then lanl after that.

8/31/2016 7:57 PM

Anonymous said…

i also heard that there could further delays at Sandia and LANL. NNSA can not do anything right.

8/31/2016 9:25 PM

Anonymous said…

Leidos used to be SAIC which had to ties to Yucca Mountain and Bechtel. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/military/us-rescinds-contract-operate-nevada-national-security-site

9/01/2016 4:07 AM

Anonymous said…

Just another reason the Lab LLC model including NNSA need to be eliminated.

9/01/2016 4:32 AM

Anonymous said…

So much for "better quicker cheaper procurements". Heads should roll in the Forrestal, Lockheed and maybe Leidos.

9/01/2016 6:42 AM

Anonymous said…

All we need is a tie to the Clinton Foundation.

9/01/2016 6:43 AM

Anonymous said…

9/01/2016 7:19 AM

Anonymous said…

This might have raised concerns more than six months ago. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/01/26/leidos-lockheed-it-merger-fashions-federal-services-powerhouse/

9/01/2016 7:24 AM

Anonymous said…

This whole FUBAR is on DoE contracting. When L-M bought the helicopter unit a couple years ago, the government required them to split off their IT unit. They did this by selling it to the former SAIC, in order to comply with the government requirement! Now DoE comes to the party, late as usual, and complains about the sale.

DoE contracting could screw up a one car parade.

All this does is provide years of billing for the lawyers and more delays for the SNL and LANL rebids.

Thanks DoE.

9/01/2016 8:57 AM

Anonymous said…

Another interesting twist is that Mim John, mentor and friend of Jill Hruby,is on the Leidos Board of Directors. Was Sandia influencing the Lockheed Martin-to-Leidos transition? This blunder somewhat reminiscent of the Sandia Heather Wilson debacle and can't bode well for the future of LM at Sandia, and thus the current Sandia execs.

September 1, 2016 at 7:19 AM

Interesting observation. Neither John nor Hruby is technically deep and this points to the dangers of permitting such folks to move into leadership. The complex was much better off when it was led by the country's top science talent.

9/01/2016 9:02 AM

Anonymous said…

9/01/2016 9:07 AM

Anonymous said…

Hard to say when the Leidos / LM swap went down, but interesting tidbit here seems to illustrate they knew at least a month ahead: http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2016/08/31/lockheed-martin-subsidiary-nevada-site-contract.html

9/01/2016 11:36 AM

Anonymous said…

September 1, 2016 at 11:36 AM

Do try to keep up. July 28 posting on this web site had the first break of that story.
Thank you, Scooby!!

9/02/2016 8:46 AM

Anonymous said…

So whose left for Nevada?

9/02/2016 12:53 PM

Anonymous said…

So whose left for Nevada?

September 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM

Bechtel Baby! Bechtel now,, today, and forever! Show me the money baby and show me Bechtel! Ca Ching$$$

9/02/2016 10:37 PM

Anonymous said…

I don't think there has been any official announcement on who else bid on the contract. Northrop Grumman was one, and we know Lockheed was another, but I think the rest are rumors. I've heard Bechtel and also Honeywell.

9/03/2016 8:50 AM

Anonymous said…

DoE contracting could screw up a one car parade.

All this does is provide years of billing for the lawyers and more delays for the SNL and LANL rebids.

Thanks DoE.

September 1, 2016 at 8:57 AM

Well said.

9/03/2016 10:54 AM

Anonymous said…

Looks like a NG, Bechtel, Honeywell, Lockheed (Now Leidos) and one other team left in the competition. NNSA touted the fact they got 5.BWXT maybe?

9/03/2016 6:13 PM

Anonymous said…

With the looming change in administration (new SecEnergy?), discombobulated Congress after November, and bidder hanky-panky, you can bet that Sandia and LANL contract awards will be delayed by at least one or two years. That makes it 2020 for LANS, which is better than they would have done by scoring 100% on every report card category for the entire time they have fumbled LANL. Message: You can always count on Federal bureaucratic incompetence to win the day for private industry, a lesson learned long ago by Bechtel and others.

9/04/2016 1:28 PM

Anonymous said…

September 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM

What drivel. Make a completely speculative statement and then draw a conclusion from it. Do you work at NIF?

9/05/2016 7:34 AM

Anonymous said…

9/05/2016 2:30 PM

Anonymous said…

LMT, LDOS and FLR closing prices over the past week do not indicate a problem that shareholders or investors consider important. "September 1, 2016 at 8:57 AM" is the only poster who is rational about this, the rest is what has unfortunately become typical DoE complex echo-chamber whining. Strangely enough, NSTe

Gotta disagree with you on this, DOE has issues but they are right on this and 8:57 AM is not rational about this as they do not know what they are talking about. NSTec may end up a winner but they have done better at running a facility than LLNLS, LANS and even LM at Sandia. NST did not illegally lobby congress, fire hundreds of people, fail at making a fence, blowing up WIPP, electrocuting people, failing to reach ignition and so on. NST in many ways is the new poster child for the complex especially after the decline and fall of Sandia.

9/05/2016 4:12 PM

Anonymous said…

September 5, 2016 at 4:12 PM, The DoE may think they are right, but the dust has not settled yet. If you want to make this about “ethics” then you could take a look at NOC, the largest partner of NSTec, and are just as dirty when it comes to lobby efforts as LMT (although LMT has over 60 years demonstrated a talent for this). NSTec does not have the same mission that the national labs do, so the comparison is not really applicable. LLNL has 5800 employees, LANL has 10,500, SNL has ~10,000 employees, and their annual budgets are $1.5 billion, $2.45 billion and $2.8 billion respectively. NSTec has an annual budget of $600 million, with 2900 employees. The labs have 9 times the employees, and 11 times the funding that NSTec has, so of course they will be at higher risk, they are measurably and demonstratively doing more work than NSTec.

9/05/2016 5:32 PM

Anonymous said…

"September 1, 2016 at 8:57 AM"

Spot on.

9/05/2016 6:53 PM

Anonymous said…

9/05/2016 8:03 PM

Anonymous said…

"September 1, 2016 at 8:57 AM"

Spot on

False, missed the mark completely just as you have.

9/05/2016 10:34 PM

Anonymous said…

If Nestec is the poster child for the complex, how did they not get the new contract award? The fact that NNSA awarded it to Lockheed says a lot, even if they rescinded it upon learning it wasn't Lockheed anymore. Even if Nestec winds up with the new contract, it is a huge slap in the face.

September 5, 2016 at 8:03 PM

Good point, I think the broader issue is that NNSA seems very unhappy with how all the labs are now managed. Perhaps there is some common theme that all the NNSA labs exhibit that create such issues, I am sure NNSA will not see it that way.

9/05/2016 10:37 PM

Anonymous said…

9/06/2016 11:10 AM

Anonymous said…

Perhaps 10:34 PM has an alternate agenda, one that is not supported by facts; however, both 8:57 AM and 2:30 PM are correct about the background. This entire fiasco was uncalled for and is 100% on DOE.

September 6, 2016 at 11:10 AM

What facts are on your side? It seems like pure speculation on your part. DOE may have some issues however they do have lawyers and they knew this one spelled major trouble. I think a better question is just what is your agenda and why?

9/06/2016 7:01 PM

Anonymous said…

All anyone has is speculation, beyond what NNSA publicly released. How all this happened, we may never know for sure. But I really doubt it's as simple as it seems, "DOE are a bunch of fools".

9/06/2016 11:27 PM

Anonymous said…

What facts?

1. RFP for NTS was due in December 2015
2. The LM - Leidos merger was made public in January 2016
3. This action was required by the US government, as a consequence of approval the LM purchase of the helicopter subsidiary from United Technologies a couple years ago.
4. DoE got around to announcing their decision on the NTS contract in August 2016
5. In accord with standard notifications, DoE informed the winners and the losers of their decision and the winning LM team started making plans to transition the contract
6. The merger had to be approved by the stockholders of both LM and Leidos, which occurred in late August 2016
7. In accord with standard notifications, the newly named - but otherwise unchanged - company informed all of the government sponsors of the final step in the merger. This could not have come as a surprise to any sponsor, since it was in the works for over nine months and had numerous highly public intermediate steps in the process.
8. DoE rescinded the contract award.

Speculation would be that someone from a losing bid team got to a DoE lawyer and complained.

9/07/2016 7:44 AM

Anonymous said…

Your list of "facts" is trivial or not as clear as you make them.

1. RFP for NTS was due in December 2015

Ok

2. The LM - Leidos merger was made public in January 2016

Depends on what you mean by merger

3. This action was required by the US government, as a consequence of approval the LM purchase of the helicopter subsidiary from United Technologies a couple years ago.

So what
4. DoE got around to announcing their decision on the NTS contract in August 2016

So what

5. In accord with standard notifications, DoE informed the winners and the losers of their decision and the winning LM team started making plans to transition the contract

How do you know

6. The merger had to be approved by the stockholders of both LM and Leidos, which occurred in late August 2016

So what

7. In accord with standard notifications, the newly named - but otherwise unchanged - company informed all of the government sponsors of the final step in the merger. This could not have come as a surprise to any sponsor, since it was in the works for over nine months and had numerous highly public intermediate steps in the process.

Ah, this is the only point that that matters and you have no idea if it remained "unchanged" and this is the entire crux of the issue. End of story.

8. DoE rescinded the contract award.

Again issue 7 is all that matters.

A better speculation is that you don't know what you are talking about.

9/07/2016 11:55 AM

Anonymous said…

September 7, 2016 at 11:55 AM

You come off as a sore loser, unable to accept that you were beaten badly and publicly.

9/07/2016 1:00 PM

Anonymous said…

WOW!
Talk about a sore loser!!

9/07/2016 3:53 PM

Anonymous said…

Sore loser indeed. LDOS is not too concerned:

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2016/09/07/moody-s-loss-of-nuclear-security-site-contract-not.html

The DoE/NNSA will continue to do their thing (change mission statements faster than Kleenex, perform virtue signaling, etc.), NSTec will stay in the game a bit longer, ironic considering that they were all but dis-invited on this bid. Not earth shattering, or even news worthy, apparently. At least in the real world.

9/07/2016 6:04 PM

Anonymous said…

NSTEC will undoubtedly win the next round, but thoroughly chastised. For what, I wonder? They have not been stars, but they didn't do anything horribly wrong either. Boxy, but safe. Maybe NNSA wants to see stars running that show.

9/07/2016 7:07 PM

Anonymous said…

"September 7, 2016 at 7:07 PM", sure, why not? Maybe they can get a discount on emblem design and bus etiquette.

9/07/2016 7:50 PM

Anonymous said…

"September 7, 2016 at 7:07 PM", sure, why not? Maybe they can get a discount on emblem design and bus etiquette.

September 7, 2016 at 7:50 PM

You are one sore loser, you are in the same camp as Hope Solo. Get over it.

9/07/2016 9:23 PM

Anonymous said…

"September 7, 2016 at 9:23 PM" Oh my, touched a nerve have I? Feel strongly about it do ya? Get used to it.

9/08/2016 11:21 AM

Anonymous said…

Get used to it. Indeed you need to get used to the fact that LM is not getting NSTEC.

9/08/2016 6:44 PM

Anonymous said…

"September 8, 2016 at 6:44 PM" No one "gets" NSTec, they compete for the NNSS M&O contract. In the end it matters little, because the new boss will look like the old boss after a while. Looks like a terminal case of LMT derangement syndrome y'all got there. Enjoy the ride.

9/09/2016 6:53 AM

Anonymous said…

Hard to see any winners except lots of legal types in the mess that DoE has created, however one clear loser emerges. No matter which team ultimately wins the NNSS M&O contract the employees lose in the meantime. If this plays out anything like the Pantex Y-12 contract award dispute, then there will be several years of protests and counter protests before the award is final. Until then, the NNSS employees will be forced to continue to suffer under NSTec.

Before anyone starts to scream that this is not the case, consider that DoE has just said as much. Go back, read the press release and see that the selected team was the best value. NSTec was denied the chance to continue to operate the site under the rules of the competition. NSTec is disappointed that they didn't win, and now that a glitch has left them in charge for the time being, the NNSS employees are stuck working for a boss that everyone knows was fired for poor job performance.

9/09/2016 8:54 AM

Anonymous said…

A fish rots from the head down.

9/09/2016 9:58 AM

Anonymous said…

September 7, 2016 at 7:44 AM

Facts, continued

9. Leidos files suit in US court against DOE for the contract pull back after announcement of winning

9/12/2016 12:15 PM

Anonymous said…

Not many legs to stand on, if the LLC was really sold to Leidos and if the bid rules really did require notification of changes of ownership. Anyone can sue anyone, but a lawsuit won't get very far.

9/12/2016 5:47 PM

Anonymous said…

Look into it and see that three comparable cases have gone to US Court in past three years. Government lost two of them and in the other one it only prevailed due to “as a result of the sale . . . the original proposal, upon which the award decision was based, no longer reflects the intended approach to performance”

The following is far more likely outcome from this case'noting that a corporate reorganization did not appear “to have any significant cost or technical impact on performance of the requirements”'

http://govcon.mofo.com/protests-litigation/department-of-energy-rescinds-5-billion-award-due-to-contractor-sale-after-bid-submission/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

9/13/2016 12:44 PM

Anonymous said…

2 years wasted. This will be a rebid. The other competitors will protest otherwise and drag this out for another 18 months.

9/16/2016 8:00 PM

LLNL - The True Story -

Search This Blog

NNSA Awards Nevada National Security Site contract

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Trump is to gut the labs.

LLNL un-diversity