LANS (Bechtel-UC) is breaking up for the re-bid of the LANL contract, and UC and Bechtel re-teaming with different partners, what does this mean for LLNS?
Bechtel really has no appreciable involvement in LLNL operations and management (other than the Deputy Director being a Bechtel position), would UC drop Bechtel for the LLNL contract bid in a few years?
Given that UC is the official "managing" partner (aka lead) in LLNS, could it restructure LLNS and drop Bechtel before the next LLNL contract bidding
24 comments:
I heard that Bechtel was rebidding but I am not sure who the partner is. The idea is that they will claim UC was the bad hombre that caused so much problems. I think the plan is to also keep the same managers. Crazy stuff but we get even more Bechtel at LANL.
DOE/NNSA should have banned (or barred) Bechtel for re-bidding due to gross negligence and incompetence running LANS.
DOE/NNSA should have banned (or barred) Bechtel for re-bidding due to gross negligence and incompetence running LANS.
July 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM
There was indeed gross negligence and incompetence running LANS and indeed DOE/NNSA should bar the lead partner not just from re-bidding on LANL, but from all future bids on all contracts for a period of several years.
You do know that UC was the lead partner in LANS, right?
You do know that UC was the lead partner in LANS, right?
July 7, 2017 at 12:54 PM
You keep saying that but that just not appear to the be case on the ground, there seems to be no sign of UC at all at LANL. One possibility is that you are right but they than handed the keys over to Bechtel.
You keep saying that but that just not appear to the be case on the ground, there seems to be no sign of UC at all at LANL.
July 7, 2017 at 1:07 PM
You seem to forget (or never knew) that there was "no sign of UC at all at LANL" during all the decades when UC was the (only) LANL manager. Nothing new there.
No sign of UC at LANL? COUGH. Only the Director, the PADs, and most ADs.
No sign of UC at LANL? COUGH. Only the Director, the PADs, and most ADs.
Well to be fair no ever sees the Director, PADs or ADs. They keep interactions with others at the lab to an absolute minimum.
Sorry, not true. They are the face of LANL with NNSA upper management, DOE, Congress, other stakeholders, and regulators.
These UC managers have been seen so frequently it's actually been bad for LANL.
If you think the UC has no presence at LANL you must be a peon locked up in a dark cave at work.
Warring former partners who failed together will fail to impress anyone in any new partner do over.
Together they failed. How can either be trusted in the future? Together they were rejected. Neither can win unless there is no other choice.
As it is, unless it can be shown that the whole business is a NNSA failure of contract management, the failure of LANL puts the whole of the future of the complex in question...
...can the blundering US continue to make weapons or does it simply fail.
That this is conceivable in 2017 suggests a shameful national disaster within NNSA.
Together they failed. How can either be trusted in the future? Together they were rejected. Neither can win unless there is no other choice.
However UC by itself seemed to do just fine for 50 years before the contract change for both labs. Hmmm tells you something.
However UC by itself seemed to do just fine for 50 years before the contract change for both labs.
July 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM
While they did ok for LLNL from start to end, and were also ok at LANL for the first 40 or so years. However UC was a failure during their final decade at LANL.
However UC was a failure during their final decade at LANL.
July 8, 2017 at 2:34 PM
How so? The WHL thing was completely hyped up by external forces this was followed by the non-stolen mustangs and so on. If you look carefully you will see that these had nothing to do with UC management but everything to with making both LANL and LLNL for profit. So again the statement stands that UC did just fine before the contract change. I have yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.
July 8, 2017 at 3:27 PM
Read some history.
After Hecker, UC management of LANL was just not up to the job.
A convincing argument? One word: Nanos.
Shutting down the lab for months, under false pretenses, at the cost of $400 million to the taxpayer. Abusing staff who had dedicated their careers to the NW complex, destroying morale for decades to come, precipitating a massive brain drain. Triggering the contract change. All courtesy of one unscrupulous individual, brought to you by UCOP and the Regents.
Yes, Nanos knew the disks weren't missing. It was a hit job. Nanos was pushed on LANL by the Admirals' club. A suspicious person might even think he was sent to produce enough dirt that the Labs could be made for-profit so some members of Congress could get big donations from contractors vacuuming up giant, unearned profits.
How come for profit works at every place but LANL? The rest of the complex converted near three decades ago. Most of the complex was run by major industrial partners since the beginning (DuPont, etc). The science side of LANL truly hasn't been bad under the current contract. It has been the operations side (PF4, Waste cleanup, etc.).
I don't think the workers at LANL are up to the task of managing nuclear materials. That seems to be the difference.
A convincing argument? One word: Nanos.
This is one argument that I have to coincide to is correct and points to any other contractor being better than UC. Nanos created long term damage to the labs and the nation that still persists. UC could have stopped this, NNSA could have stopped this, DOE could have stopped this but they did not. It is amazing how much damage one person can have. History has warned us about such situations, Judas Iscariot, Brutus, Fawkes, Rosenberg, and Benedict Arnold. Pete Nanos may well join these villains.
How come for profit works at every place but LANL?
Excuse me but it has failed at most DOE labs, ever hear of Hanford, Y12 LLNL, LANL and Sandia? The British even tried it with there nuclear capabilities and they have realized it has failed.
"The science side of LANL truly hasn't been bad under the current contract. It has been the operations side (PF4, Waste cleanup, etc.). "
Odd, the operation side worked just fine under UC until the contract change. Failure is way of telling perception that realty actually matters. Now just think about this for a minute, do we really want future failures...think about it. During the cold war UC ran LANL and LLNL why because no one wanted things to fail because failure had real and I do mean real consequences . Now UC now longer runs the labs, with this now ask yourself how much confidence do you have that "things" wont fail? I am just saying that anyone can read the NYT and this blog and come to their own conclusion about the NNSA labs. Every empire ends and most end due to corruption so why do think the United State will be the first exception to this rule?
How come for profit works elsewhere but not at LANL?
NNSA.
They are incompetent. They are willing to destroy the complex to get sybarites to manage the lab.
Watch how the core competence, the science, facilities and know how fade away under another new contractor as the so called business operations and assurances scores rise.
NNSA types like Bodman, Pryzbylek and DAgostino, Nanos willingly and knowingly damage the US weapons complex to satisfy their petty egos more than all of the foreign intelligence efforts in US history.
They are traitors.
When UC ran LANL the country had Rocky Flats. Now that LANL has a production mission, no university would be a good choice to lead.
LANL's so-called, "production mission" is no Rocky Flats.
If the US needs pits, LANL is the only possible source. End of story.
If the US needs pits, LANL is the only possible source. End of story.
July 9, 2017 at 9:22 AM
For now, but not for long. SRS will take it.
Post a Comment