Skip to main content

The suits are already piling up

Image
By scooby
The suits are already piling up and the courts have not yet ruled on Liedos NNSS protest. Looks like the contract losers from NSTec have turned the lawyers loose on the NNSA.


http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2016/09/21/contractor-teams-seek-to-challenge-leidos-nuclear.html

Comments

Anonymous said…
Of course. They have a war chest of money they saved up by not paying their employees decent wages.
9/27/2016 4:26 PM
Anonymous said…
Looks like the contract losers from NSTec have turned the lawyers loose on the NNSA.


NNSA is gonna fight this to the bitter end, they have to since there is more at stake here than the NSTC. What is at stake is the value of having NNSA, and they know that so they do what they need to do to win.
9/27/2016 8:53 PM
Anonymous said…
If NNSA claims are correct and documented, I don't see a fight. The bid language either did or did not state that NNSA must be notified in case of a transfer of ownership, and Lockheed either did or did not notify NNSA. There is nothing else to battle about, and the documentation is what the courts will look at.
9/27/2016 9:34 PM
Anonymous said…
September 27, 2016 at 9:34 PM

You are way too logical and fact-based for this blog. But thanks.
9/27/2016 9:51 PM
Anonymous said…
The battle will be in a different court, when Leidos sues Lockheed for selling them a worthless legal entity.
9/28/2016 7:23 AM
Anonymous said…
September 27, 2016 at 9:34 PM

Your opinion is not supported by the preponderance of the case law on this topic.
9/28/2016 11:24 AM
Anonymous said…

Your opinion is not supported by the preponderance of the case law on this topic.

September 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM

The 9:34 PM poster sounds correct to me.
9/28/2016 8:20 PM
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

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more