Ok folks here it is the draft RFP call for LANL.
Document 1
Lots of stuff, some of the wording seems very very different from the last contract call. I am not a lawyer but maybe LANS can say they "reject" this call as being unfair to them and not keeping in the spirit of the original call from 2006. It also says the word "science" 40 times in a 50 page document which many in LANS will no doubt find insulting as that word should have only appeared 1 or 2 times. On the other hand the word "capabilities" only appears 24 times. Overall the words used in this document are rather different than the typical words used by LANS. It is rather obvious it comes from outside of the lab and has a different vision for the lab than what LANS had envisioned. Also one does not need to read a LANS purpose statement from an overpaid Saatchi and Saatchi guy to figure out what the possible purpose of the lab, as the purpose is laid out rather clearly in this document.
What is not clear from a novice reading is how much the possible pay out per year the contractor can make such as if it is 100 million or so.
Document 2
Document 3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
One thing is loud and clear in the document and that is that NNSA is demanding "culture change" at LANL by the next contractor.
Well if there was any chance of LANS having a shot at the new contract, this section in document 3 will kill that, and maybe a major role by Bechtel or UC in any other LLC too. Since Bechtel was in charge of LANL site operation activities, it probably hurts it more than UC which was the lead for science activities.
----
Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award
M-4 Technical and Management Criteria
(a) Criterion 1: Past Performance
The Government will evaluate the Offeror's relevant past performance during the last five-years, as submitted by the Offeror through the completion and submission of Past Performance Information Forms, performance assessments, small business achievement, as well as relevant past performance information that the Government may obtain from any other sources, to determine the degree to which the relevant past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the Statement of Work (SOW). Only past performance which was performed for at least nine months during the five years preceding the due date for proposals specified in this solicitation will be considered current and will be evaluated....
Past Performance which arises from or relates to the performance of another DOE or NNSA Management and Operating Contract (M&O contract), or similar contract by companies affiliated with any offeror(s) (or team members thereof), such as joint ventures affiliated with one or more of the same corporate parents or sister companies as any of the offerors (or of any team members), shall be automatically imputed to all affiliated offerors (or affiliated team members) on an equal basis (positively and negatively), regardless of the roles or responsibilities of the affiliated company under the other M&O contract. All other past performance of affiliated companies shall be imputed to the offeror (or team member) only to the extent that the past performance of such affiliated companies is likely to affect the performance of the contract as demonstrated in the proposal or as otherwise may be determined by the Government.
----
It is indeed a killer clause for everybody. This is just the draft, if this language persists into the actual RFP it kills all LANS team members equally dead.
It is indeed a killer clause for everybody. This is just the draft, if this language persists into the actual RFP it kills all LANS team members equally dead.
July 13, 2017 at 5:53 AM
Very good point, by the way does this also effect Lookhead and could one argue
past performance may knock them out as well?
>One thing is loud and clear in the document and that is that NNSA is demanding >"culture change" at LANL by the next contractor.
It looks like to wants changes to management and the approach to management. I am not sure what you mean by culture and doubt you have any idea either. In any case the document is out for everyone to read so if you say some nonsense about what it says it can be quickly checked and refuted.
7:49 check it your self and then write an apology for your assumption that it was not in there, when in fact it is in there in multiple locations for anyone that has eyes to read.
It is indeed a killer clause for everybody. This is just the draft, if this language persists into the actual RFP it kills all LANS team members equally dead.
July 13, 2017 at 5:53 AM
Correct and you can bet that UC will spend a lot of money on lobbyists and PR firms to try to get this language changed before it goes final.
7:49 check it your self and then write an apology for your assumption that it was not in there, when in fact it is in there in multiple locations for anyone that has eyes to read.
July 13, 2017 at 8:17 AM
No you have no idea what you are talking about, please define culture and what they mean by culture, I mean really mean and if you actually look at the document you will see it is used very differently in different places for specif things. Now define what you mean by culture and you will see that you definition is different, very very different. Ok here is you task for this week now read the document again, reread, and than reread again. Try this and than we can try again.
Personally the RFP looks very promising for the future of the lab and the US. For you and your type not so good.
Reading Document 1, Chapter III section 4 on benefits, it looks like there's not hard fast requirement that the new contractor can only offer 401K type defined contribution retirement plans, and could go back to a defined benefit pension plan.
Also looks like the new contractor has to maintain both TCP-1 and TCP-2 plans, regardless of what the propose for new employees hired after transition.
Mr. than and not then is back!
While the proposed RFP language would appear to limit future participation by the current LANS management team (an assumption that depends on both the final language being close to the draft AND that the award is actually reflective of the RFP) there are still many shortcomings in the draft RFP.
Several concerned scientists, administrators, technical workers, and other LANL employees have contributed to a "Framework" document being disseminated by the University Professional & Technical Employees (UPTE) union. Please have a look at this document and other materials available at the UPTE LANL Contract website for information.
We are asking that all current LANL employees concerned with the ability of LANL to do serious science, engineering, and other work in the service of national security make comments to the NNSA on the draft proposal by emailing their comments on its current draft text to SEB7@nnsa.doe.gov.
The draft language is direct in its words related to some of the failings of the current LANS management team, taken to be everyone at or above the Division Leader.
"The Contractor is also responsible for improving and sustaining healthy communications with DOE/NNSA Senior Leadership, including the Los Alamos Field Office (LFO) on issues and decisions, and demonstrating better partnering, particularly regarding stakeholder discussions and messaging."
"An overall rating of unsatisfactory in one evaluation criterion may also result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration regardless of the rating of the other criteria."
So if LANS scores unsatisfactory in one area, safety, for example, it will be cut from further consideration, despite the fact that it scores 100 in science.
This type of go, no go evaluation criterion (go to the next level of competition, such as the Olympics in which the three fastest runners or swimmers get to participate; no go if you are a slower runner or swimmer, bottom of the pack, you are eliminated from the Olympics) makes business sense. Why spend hours evaluating LANS proposal, for example, if they fail at safety and it is a critical criterion. The LANS runners or swimmers do not have any chance of winning the competition because they are eliminated early in the competition, kind of no soup for you (LANS)
BTW, the term "go, no go, is a common procurement term and it is used at LANL procurement, eliminating vendors with poor safety records, early in the best value source selection process.
A few more rumors. One is that Charlie could be out, the other is that many of the LANS managers feel hurt by the wording of the new call and think that many of the phrasings are personally directed at them or their actions.
Charlie sent out a message today to say that the draft call is out and to remember to be safe, secure and in compliance. Nothing was said about doing actual work. The point of the lab is to do work and to do that work safely, securely, in compliance and do ALL these things very well. It all goes together if the lab cannot do work safely and securely than we should not have a lab, however if you cannot do work than by definition you should not have a lab. This is a point that is utterly missed by LANS and hence is what lead to all the problems, which is kind of obvious if you think about it but nobody thinks about it. If LANS only cares about safety, security and compliance than it means that the lab has no value whatsoever since a an empty parking lot on Mars can satisfy all these criteria. If these are the only things that matter than people cannot matter since they are liabilities. If on the other hand you need to actually accomplish things under these conditions than people matter and matter alot. This is the key point that LANS missed, if they think that lab has no actual value than the people think it has no actual value which leads to
decay and hence the utter mess we have now. Everyone is responsible but no one is accountable.
LANS has a very good record with small business results so it will score 100 in this area. It received a national award from NNSA - the LANL small business manager is highly regarded in the complex.
Interesting that past performance and key personnel are equal in value. So LANS will need to propose key personnel that ARE NOT the current key personnel at LANL.
"LANS has a very good record with small business results so it will score 100 in this area. It received a national award from NNSA - the LANL small business manager is highly regarded in the complex."
It is weird how the draft keeps going on about small business stuff. What on earth does this have to do with the lab doing its job and doing it safely and securely. If local small business can contribute than great but under no circumstances should they be given special treatment or really have any role in who gets the contract. If anything this could seriously comprise safety and security. The reality is in a place like New Mexico many local small business are just not going to be up to these standards. The ones that are will do well but why the hell should we compromise the quality of the work and compliance issues for local small business? This is dangerous, stupid, and short sighted. The same goes for every lab in the US. You cannot insist that a lab should not hire the best but to hire incompetence because it is local and than slam the lab when this very thing leads to problems. This is a serious issue that DOE should reconsider for the final draft.
"The lanl small business manager is highly regard in the complex" I think the complex has some better things to worry about. By the way I thought the small business engagement part of the lab was also part of the directorate that just had some serious shipping issues. If this is the case they should get their priorities straight, but hey if small business is a PBI than it should be focused on just as much as worrying about airmail shipments of certain materials.
Remember: the current LANL managers of every level are viewing this RFP as the next tremendous opportunity, to advance and enrich themselves. After all, the last contract change made most of them fabulously wealthy. Until I see explicit language in the RFP saying "throw the bums out", I will assume that they will figure out how to stay on and continue leeching, perhaps changing their stripes and even presenting themselves as the rescuers of the lab from the decade of LANS. These guys are extremely resourceful!
NNSA is incompetent.
This change is perhaps the greatest threat to national security.
As other posters have commented on, the NNSA has placed some strong phrases in several locations in the RFP draft to address the failures of the current lab leadership. While it is to be expected that each of the present corporate partners in the team would be scored at the lowest possible score on past performance, this move by the NNSA has more of a sense of total and complete change for LANL. The new SNL M&O was done this way and there was not any overlap between the old contractor team and the new contract team, as well as being no member of the new lab leadership that came from within SNL.
After careful reading of the DRAFT RFP it would indicate that Charlie has taken the entire crew of LANS PADs and ADs down with him. Will be most interesting to observe if this wording sticks or is softened up before going final.
1. During a new contract, employees and management compete. Management promises efficiency measures that cost employees money and benefits.
2. It is incredibly important that employees somehow strongly express a collective voice to say," Do not take away anything that we currently have in this new contract or we will be angry, hurt and we will not perform the mission well.
A kind of "Please kind Sir, don't rape us again" campaign.
3. UC and LANS both did the scientific mission well enough. In practice, neither performed the
a. Safety snd Security and
b. Bow to the NNSA idiots
tasks well enough.
The risk now is that the new contract is so flawed or impossible that in seeking to improve the deficiencies the NNSA destroys/debilitates the lab and with it the $3 T US nuclear stockpile.
Not worth the risk, but there you have it. Another dumber that dirt NNSA decision. 3rd in 10 years.
So sad that NNSA waterboards LANL employees again this way. So soon after the last gang rape in 2007.
The foolish legacy of Bodman, lying Tyler Pryzbylek, declining judgement of tired and mentally deficient Senator Domenici, and the conniving destruction, duplicity and envy of Congressman Dingle rain again, hellfire, confusipn and despair onto the hard working, dedicated and irreplaceable LANL staff.
Shameful. Incompetent.
You deserve MUCH better.
"3. UC and LANS both did the scientific mission well enough. In practice, neither performed the
a. Safety snd Security and
b. Bow to the NNSA idiots
tasks well enough."
They severally eroded the scientific mission as well.
"The risk now is that the new contract is so flawed or impossible that in seeking to improve the deficiencies the NNSA destroys/debilitates the lab and with it the $3 T US nuclear stockpile."
How is the new contract flawed? Can you please point to some issues?
"Not worth the risk, but there you have it. Another dumber that dirt NNSA decision. 3rd in 10 years."
What is the risk? We are so low now and so bad, how can it can worse? In general your post was a bit strange could you please elaborate on what you mean?
"So sad that NNSA waterboards LANL employees again this way. So soon after the last gang rape in 2007."
How is NNSA waterboarding the LANL employees again? If anything most LANL employees want this change. When you are at the bottom the only place is up. I have yet to hear a non-manager say this is bad.
This change is perhaps the greatest threat to national security.
July 14, 2017 at 3:02 AM
How? It probably will increase national security.
The draft LANL M&O RFP is largely a cut-and-paste from the Sandia M&O RFP. The major difference, other than the background mission description, is in Section M, evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are important because DOE acquisition folks will be evaluating all proposals and selecting the winning team solely based on these criteria. The 3 Technical and Management Criteria are identical to those used to select the SNL M&O contractor, but for the SNL RFP past performance was worth more than key personnel and small business participation combined. For the LANL RFP,the past performance and key personnel evaluation criteria are weighted equally, with small business participation weighted less. In the SNL RFP, management team cost was the criteria. In the draft LANL RFP, transition cost, not management team cost, is the criteria. So the question is, "why did DOE make these changes?"
So the question is, "why did DOE make these changes?"
July 14, 2017 at 8:56 AM
One reading of this is that DOE followed their own rules for SNL bid evaluation and found out that they were stuck with a C- set of key personnel on the most highly rated past performance team.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So the question is, "why did DOE make these changes?"
July 14, 2017 at 8:56 AM
Doesn't matter why they changed it, what matters now is that the consequence of the change is that all of the current parent LANS companies as well as all of the current LANL ULM down to the division level will be scored as negative numbers on the proposal rating forms. That should be a strong statement about how NNSA thinks about the current situation.
From the Sandia RFP, past performance instructions, interchange with LANL RFP:
Insert the name, title, company/agency, address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available) of the Contracting Officer, Purchasing Agent, or other customer Request for Proposal No. xx Section L, Attachment E, Page 4 contracting or purchasing representative who is most familiar with your work under the contract
Robert Poole, issued $54M deduction to fee for WIPP, withdrew options for future years
Describe any unusual circumstances of performance or problems that may be relevant to the work that is to be performed and how those problems were addressed. Also describe any regulatory fines or Notices of Violation, if applicable. Tell your side of the story of any conflicts with the customer concerning adverse remarks about your performance. Describe any actions that you have taken or plan to take to correct any shortcomings in your performance.
WIPP fiasco, shut down for three years, cost $1B to reopen, LANS side of the story, well, duh, we had a kitty litter typo, all is good again signed Charlie
We had a safety standdown at PF-4 for several years, all is good again, signed Charlie
We shipped SNM via Fed X Air to highly populated cities, we fired a technician and all is good again, signed Charlie BTW, I didn't lose my job through any of this, I am wonderful and wealthy and I am told handsome
OMG. Oppenheimer. Lilienthal. Bush. Lawrence. etc. ad infinitum. All spinning in their graves. The whole (real) concept of "national lab" is demonstrably gone, devolved into the fickle nonsense that is this RFP, LANS, NNSA, etc. One can only hope that no existential crisis arises, wherein the lack of true national labs ends up being the want of a nail.
Perhaps the culture of a true national lab should be the one full of Cowboys and butt heads. That attitude is what leads to great discoveries and solves insurmountable problems. The issue isn't the lab. Rather the issue is DOE and the NNSA. Those do nothing bureaucrats want no risk, accept no responsibility, blame the management, and have no accountability when things go bad. Sure some of us at LANL are embarrassed by dome of the dumb things that have happened. But for every bad thing that happens about every 18 months, the hundreds of great things never get communicated. We always focus on the bad; never on the good, or great.
But when the gatekeeper is unwilling to accept true cost, true schedules and true teaming with the M&O, then failure is guaranteed.
The future of the US nuclear weapons program is at risk if no US people are competent and dedicated who understands the science, importance, strategy and technical issues. This cannot be Congress or DOE. NNSA personell lack depth and focus, their mission is to swim in the swamp without getting killed.
Pick the wrong contract form and contactor and this precarious endeavor withers....witness the declines under the current contact vs. The first one.
Thid is neither trivial nor easy.
Make another pot of coffee and read the document as if you wanted to win the competition with the rules set as they are. Rather than complain about the rules, seek how to win within them. When studied through this lens, it is possible to find ways to maximize chances of winning.
For example, join a team that refuses to have any part of the current LANS parent partners or any of the current LANS ULM associated with it.
Have to wonder, how did this document wind up on someone's google drive, and then get posted on a public web site? Does NNSA, or LANL, or some other entity that had access to the drafts, have a problem with a leaker? I cannot imagine that this draft document was intended for broadband public consumption.
July 16, 2017 at 8:58 AM
Easy enough to check on this, since lanl.gov is a federal gov web host and all of the e-mails in and out of it are stored as part of federal records keeping requirements.
Unless someone was using a non .gov email account for it. That is a VERY different kind of "leaker" that demonstrates intent to circumvent the federal system.
July 16, 2017 at 8:58 AM
They were actually released by NNSA and on their public website.
https://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ouroperations/apm/majcontrsolicitation/los-alamos-national-laboratory-management-and
Have to wonder, how did this document wind up on someone's google drive, and then get posted on a public web site? Does NNSA, or LANL, or some other entity that had access to the drafts, have a problem with a leaker? I cannot imagine that this draft document was intended for broadband public consumption.
July 16, 2017 at 8:58 AM
NNSA and LANL both operate on .gov web servers and all incoming and outgoing email is retained as part of the official records requirements of the feds. If you are suggesting that someone at NNSA or LANL is using another email address that is not a .gov one, then that is indeed a different 'leaker' problem.
Charle's arrogant and incompetent upper level management at LANS is totally purged from the next contract..... PRICELESS !
The rank and file employees at LANL won't be crying into their coffee over this move.
What I remember the most of the first two years after Bechtel brought their senior management team was how hung over they were every Monday morning. We quickly learned not to schedule meetings or discussions on Mondays. There was one AD who wore teeny tiny high heels who we thought was a little tipsy most of the time and who was one step away from breaking her ankle. You could only be a part of that in crowd if you golfed and/or drank like a fish.
We often wished that security would require a breathalyzer for all these folks. Those first round of managers were so arrogant with regard to their drinking habits and were oblivious that we could still smell the liquor coming out of their pores, never mind the blood shot eyes and questionable hygiene.
What I remember the most of the first two years after Bechtel brought their senior management team was how hung over they were every Monday morning.
July 17, 2017 at 8:55 AM
Not just Mondays, the current FOD (Bob) at TA-55 was coming in to work during the week snookered, we all know he lost clearance due to a DWI and was being escorted into TA-55, mind you. No worries, he's back "at work" improving TA-55.
July 18, 2017 at 4:00 AM
Bob isn't Bechtel....
Post a Comment