Skip to main content

National Nuclear Security Administration rescission of Contract Award

Image
By scooby
Leidos protested the rescission of the NNSS contract on Friday. They're not wasting time--straight to federal claims court.

Today the Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corporation (NVS3T) protested the Department of Energy’s, National Nuclear Security Administration rescission of Contract Award DE-NA0003379 for the management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site. The protest was filed with the United States Court of Federal Claims

Comments

Anonymous said…
Link?

Unwise if true, if Leidos wants a future with NNSA.
9/12/2016 10:31 PM
Anonymous said…
This one will be over before it ever gets very far and DoE is just wasting tax money fighting a losing cause.

Read about Abacus in the press release and then speak with an attorney experienced in government contracting to understand that DoE has no legal support for their rescission.


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/july/it-technical-service-exchange-offer.html


9/13/2016 7:28 AM
Anonymous said…
If true, DOE will lose swiftly in court.


http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2016/09/12/leidos-ceo-lockheed-told-doe-nuclear-site-biz.html
9/14/2016 7:59 AM
Anonymous said…
Not by my reading. They failed to notify the contract officer of the change of ownership, as they were required to do, so they have no case. Putting in wording that the ownership might change in the future does not meet that requirement.
9/14/2016 12:35 PM
Anonymous said…
Don't bet on NSTec staying put just yet.....


If true, this post from another thread may be the end of the protest.

Anonymous 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

September 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM

9/14/2016 5:13 PM
Anonymous said…
I work in procurement and the most common phrase regarding competition of contracts is that a protest only costs the company the price of postage. That is an oversimplification of the process but the burden of proof is on NNSA. NNSA will have to show the federal judge how the government's interests are harmed by the sale. That will be a tough standard for NNSA to prove.

I've had many contracts in which we wrote that the key personnel listed in the proposal could not change throughout the multi year performance of the contract - guess what? Most of them were no longer on the contract by the end of year 1 of the multi year contract. It's all a shell game and both sides know this.
9/29/2016 6:40 PM
Anonymous said…
"NNSA will have to show the federal judge how the government's interests are harmed by the sale. That will be a tough standard for NNSA to prove."

September 29, 2016 at 6:40 PM


At long last, finally someone that knows what they are talking about has commented!
9/30/2016 9:19 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
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!
79 comments
Read more