Skip to main content

LANS gets 6 month extension to run EM contract

Image
By scooby

It is starting to appear that the current team of LANS will get to keep all the contracts for the future.

 https://energy.gov/em/articles/doe-extends-los-alamos-national-laboratory-cleanup-bridge-contracthttps://energy.gov/em/articles/doe-extends-los-alamos-national-laboratory-cleanup-bridge-contract

Comments

Anonymous said…
The article doesn't say that LANS will keep the contracts into the future at all. What it does say is the clean-up BRIDGE contract was extended. The bridge contract WILL expire as will LANS.
9/26/2017 5:49 PM
Anonymous said…
It just means that additional procurement time is required to award the contract. A new cost type contract requires many preaward activities that can take months to finalize and also, there aren't that many NNSA contracting people.
9/27/2017 9:52 AM
Anonymous said…
Your fonts are broken again... Very bigly type...
9/27/2017 2:13 PM
Anonymous said…
The new cleanup contract will be though the Office of Environmental Management, not NNSA. But I agree, the original poster has completely exaggerated what the announcement means.
9/27/2017 2:26 PM
Anonymous said…
Lots of confusion shown in some of the posts here. The original LANS contract included EM work, and that was split out as a separate contract after the WIPP drum explosion. The oversight of the prime contract, minus the EM work, remains with NNSA. Meanwhile, the DOE EM office issued a short term contract (called the bridge) to continue the work that was on-going under the original NNSA prime contract. LANS also won this bridge competition from EM. EM proceeded to have a RFP for long term management of the legacy LANL waste, it has now concluded the open period and DOE has not yet made a selection for the new contractor. All the press release indicated is that LANS will keep the bridge for another 6 months.

With all that out of the way, there is a good chance that the delay in the EM contract will cascade and cause a delay in the prime contract.
9/28/2017 7:40 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

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