LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
Comments
The best model would require DOE/NNSA indemnifying the contractor against all losses at the current 0.5-1.0% profit level.
Flour?
Honeywell?
Battelle?
That could work with the right University partners.
August 21, 2017 at 5:37 AM
UC
Battelle
U Texas
Honeywell
UNM-UColorado
Lockheed.
These all seem very competent and are also the same names are hear are putting in bids.
Some say the RFP is worded to be against Bechtel not UC, and yes UC is putting in a bid. Why would they do that if they think they cannot win? Again UC ran the labs well, and very well most would say for 60 years. Perhaps the contract change was a mistake.
August 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Do not know anyone that has actually read the RFP that would agree with you.
August 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Do not know anyone that has actually read the RFP that would agree with you.
Do not know anyone that has actually read the RFP that would agree with you.
It is just what people say but it is just speculation on their part and on your part as well.
It is posted on the web for review by anyone inclined.
Please provide the language in the RFP that could support your claim.
Thank you.
August 21, 2017 at 6:08 PM
This is a very good point, however it could be UNM/Texas/Purdue rather than just UNM. I agree UNM alone with a company is not going to fly. If I had to guess I think it will be Lockheed/UC, besides the political issues at Sandia they did a find job on the technical side of things, at least from what I have heard.
Please provide the language in the RFP that could support your claim.
Thank you.
August 21, 2017 at 11:14 AM
Still waiting on any evidence to shore up this claim that the RFP is worded against Bechtel and not UC.
Thank you.
Thank you.
August 22, 2017 at 6:23 AM
Read it, it says past performance will play a major role. It is open to interpretation what that means but everyone knows who they are talking about. Considering that UC is putting in a bid and Bechtel is not kind of gives it away.
August 22, 2017 at 8:08 AM
Here it is and you read it and tell what about it is "open to interpretation". "Any" "all" and "equal" don't leave much "to interpretation".
Request for Proposal No. DE-SOL-0011206
Section M, Page 5
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.
August 22, 2017 at 7:48 PM
Well this is just the way NNSA and DOE have seen things. We have had the LLNL and LANL blog blog for what 10 years now perhaps you should go back and read some of it to get an idea of why everyone has such a negative view of Bechtel. By the way did you just arrive at this blog a few weeks ago?
August 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM
If you honestly believe that to be true, then there is no hope for you to face the reality of the words in the draft RFP. If you have a desire to understand the words and their application, seek out someone with current experience in DOE contracting and ask them to help. It might be useful to take a copy of the recent SNL RFP and do a side by side comparison with the LANL one. Then you will discover that certain clauses were changed specifically and deliberately to apply the scores of LANS for the past 5 years to each and every LANS partner, equally and without exception. Since most all of those scores have been judged as failures by NNSA, that assigns the same M&O contract failure Past Performance rating to both Bechtel and UC. This may not be what you want to believe, but it is factual and clearly and unambiguously stated in the draft RFP.
August 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM
If you honestly believe that to be true, then there is no hope for you to face the reality of the words in the draft RFP. If you have a desire to understand the words and their application, seek out someone with current experience in DOE contracting and ask them to help. It might be useful to take a copy of the recent SNL RFP and do a side by side comparison with the LANL one. Then you will discover that certain clauses were changed specifically and deliberately to apply the scores of LANS for the past 5 years to each and every LANS partner, equally and without exception. Since most all of those scores have been judged as failures by NNSA, that assigns the same M&O contract failure Past Performance rating to both Bechtel and UC. This may not be what you want to believe, but it is factual and clearly and unambiguously stated in the draft RFP.
Do you know anyone who works for DOE? I think not so lets just leave it that.
August 22, 2017 at 9:42 PM
OK, now I get it, blog opinions define reality for you. Yep, got it.