Tuesday, September 12, 2017
What is it about LANL that is turning off the major defense contractors?
Look at the recent SNL competition and Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrup Grumman each put together a team for the bid. From all accounts none of them are expressing interest in running LANL in the present round. Without making a claim if this is good or bad, it represents a complete U-turn from the SNL case and is worth considering what caused the change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
The only problem is that most of these groups are in fact interested. I am not sure how you heard differently, but don't let a good rant against LANL stop you.
Who would want to run LANL? Long history of very public safety and security issues, high risk of losing fee due to more issues, uncontrollable cowboy culture of arrogance. Might make a little money, high risk of bad PR and a lot less money.
September 12, 2017 at 3:05 PM
Your endlessly repetitive claptrap is getting very, very old. You have repeated it nonstop since around 2006. Give it up already, no one listens to you and no one thinks you know what you are talking about. If you ever did, it was over 10 years ago. Go get an old man's hobby. Bocci? Mah Jong? Checkers? Cigar smoking? You'll be much happier.
Yes, 3:05, you are full of baloney. You are a bandwagon of one. Get a life.
September 12, 2017 at 3:05 PM
Sounds good, but again it is wrong considering are up to 10 different groups who are interested in running LANL, so got that one wrong...again. Man you are broken record of crap, what the hell is your problem?
^^That crazy guy triple-posting.
The fact is no one other than UC knows crap about nuclear weapons physics, chemistry, forensics, intel, intergration, testing, modeling z, ,history.
Few qualified candidates. Boeing and Lackheed and Bechtel don't know bupkis.
September 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM
So UC in the win!
September 12, 2017 at 6:58 PM
The Sunday funnies must have come early this week for information of such high content. No NNSA competition in history, none, has garnered 10 teams. There is no possible way that you have valid information.
The fact is no one other than UC knows crap about nuclear weapons physics, chemistry, forensics, intel, intergration, testing, modeling z, ,history.
Few qualified candidates. Boeing and Lackheed and Bechtel don't know bupkis.
September 12, 2017 at 10:16 PM
This is bogus, but most people already know that. "UC" hasn't had any knowledge in these areas since the era of Lawrence or Seaborg. The knowledge resides in the staff of LLNL, and perhaps even LANL. The staff of B Division, and others as well, worked for LLNL before LLNS, they work for LLNL under LLNS and many of them will still work for LLNL under whatever comes next.
The staff at SNL are still doing their jobs well after L-M left earlier this year and Honeywell took over. All that happened was that the top and middle level management turned over. Not much changed at all in the day-to-day operations of the place, other than a new logo on the paychecks.
It will be the same way at LANL once LANS is gone next year, and no matter the new contractor, the knowledge base will remain in the staff. Being a shill for UC is not helpful to the serious discussion of who will be in the lead for the new M&O contract.
The knowledge resides in the staff of LLNL, and perhaps even LANL.
????, what on earth is you problem, why do you hate LANL so much. Did you get fired and now you are going to hold a grudge for the rest of your life. Your rants are just deranged at this point and it is beyond clear by now that you have no idea what you are talking about.
" Being a shill for UC is not helpful to the serious discussion of who will be in the lead for the new M&O contract."
The best reason for UC to win is that it will personally piss you off. You are fighting so much against because you are really afraid it is going to happen, well guess what life works that way sometimes. Perhaps it is time for you to realize that the world does not revolve around you, just because you want something does not mean it is going to happen.
6:35 dangled a bit of bait, and 7:22 took it hook, line and sinker!
September 13, 2017 at 6:35 AM
OK, could have done without the backhand slap to the excellent weapons designers in X Division at LANL; however, your comment is factual.
The staff of B Division, and others as well, worked for LLNL before LLNS, they work for LLNL under LLNS and many of them will still work for LLNL under whatever comes next.
September 13, 2017 at 6:35 AM
Just totally wrong on all counts. No one at LLNL has ever "worked for LLNL." All you have to do to understand this is look at who signed (and signs) their paychecks. It isn't "LLNL." It was "UC" and then it was "LLNS." LLNL is a facility made up of buildings, plants, and laboratories, that are owned by DOE/NNSA, but are run by, and whose employees are employed by, whatever contractor wins the M&O contract. Pretty simple, but apparently so are you.
September 13, 2017 at 6:25 PM
You are so beyond gone and useless it is sad and apparently beyond you. Everyone on this blog knows what they are talking about not you. You hate LANL, LLNL, the American people and humanity, Please go away, no one will miss you, no one cares about what you have to say and you have been wrong about everything. It is beyond obvious who you are and you got fired because you deserved it, LLNL, LANL, DOE, UC, the United States, and humanity have nothing to do with why your life sucks now, it has to do with you and you alone. Please consider this and work on this as it is a personal issue not an issue that has anything to do with the world. Best of luck.
I agree with the original premise of this topic, too much downside risk with no upside reward. Everyone must at least agree that the NNSA beating the heck out of whoever is running the lab, especially if it is a non-profit, does not equate to a strong bidding pool. Why bid is the real question? What is there to gain? Reputation? Money? Service to the country while taking your beating?
The value proposition of running LANL isn't very high. With SNL, aerospace companies get exposure to engineering services and products for the government that is synergistic with their business. Despite claims on this blog, there is essentially no private market for nuclear weapons, so there aren't a long line of contractors that want to run LANL. If I am Lockheed or Boeing, I get some value out of selling the government a new B61 and F-35 to go with it. But there isn't a contractor that is in the business of selling physics packages and pits.
The value proposition of running LANL isn't very high. With SNL, aerospace companies get exposure to engineering services and products for the government that is synergistic with their business. Despite claims on this blog, there is essentially no private market for nuclear weapons, so there aren't a long line of contractors that want to run LANL. If I am Lockheed or Boeing, I get some value out of selling the government a new B61 and F-35 to go with it. But there isn't a contractor that is in the business of selling physics packages and pits.
September 13, 2017 at 10:05 PM
Agreed but as we have seen UC ran both LLNL and LANL very well for 60 years so why not go back to that model? What is the downside?
Agreed but as we have seen UC ran both LLNL and LANL very well for 60 years so why not go back to that model? What is the downside?
September 13, 2017 at 10:11 PM
Two flaws in the above. Without trying to start a firestorm, there definitely differing opinions in the government on your statement. If there were not, we would not have had to suffer LANS. Second, the government is not known for going back to a former model when they push for change. We could sit here a while trying to remember the last time our government did something of this sorts in contracting space. They will typically go for "change for change sake...."
Lastly, while I have no specific issue with UC, I do not believe that UC will make any difference in the day to day operation of the Lab. In fact, a UC win would likely preserve most of the management team (PADs, ADs, Division Leaders...) we have now which many believe is the root of many issues at the Lab.
"Lastly, while I have no specific issue with UC, I do not believe that UC will make any difference in the day to day operation of the Lab. In fact, a UC win would likely preserve most of the management team (PADs, ADs, Division Leaders...) we have now which many believe is the root of many issues at the Lab.
September 13, 2017 at 10:19 PM"
I have no evidence for this but I think you may be right. In fact one possibility that UC and Bechtel will put in a bid for the contract again, with UC say at 75 percent with essentially the same people but with a different director. Again I have no evidence for this other than enough craziness is going on in DC that DOE simply does not want to deal with any of this nor take any chances. They will essentially say, we had to put the contract up for bid due to wording of the contract but we just don't have time for this so you keep it.
If there is one thing we have learned since 1999 is that no mater what happens LANL will keep going. Why, because nothing can happen in the current government system, things can be added but nothing can be undone. Once you have Obama care, you will always have Obama care, once you have troops in Afghanistan you will always have troops in Afghanistan, once you start torturing prisoners, you will always torture prisoners. Minor things can change, like troop levels, the amount of benefits but fundamentally nothing is going to change.
Minor correction to September 13, 2017 at 6:35 AM, who gets it almost correct.
TSM worked at LLNL as a facility and worked for AEC, ERDA, DoE-DP, NNSA and whatever government agency comes along next. In the sense that they were contractors who worked for the government, at LLNL. They never really worked for UC or for LLNS, that was just the logo on the paycheck. This is all well understood by those in GOCO operations and is not a new concept.
So yes, post-Cold War UC was not the resident center of nuclear weapons knowledge, nor is LLNS. That knowledge was and remains in the TSM at both LLNL and LANL. That is why the government has GOCO setup, contractors come and go, but the skills and knowledge remain with the facility in the employees.
September 14, 2017 at 7:51 AM
You spent a long time refuting your own argument, which was actually "once things change, they don't change back," not "nothing changes."
You spent a long time refuting your own argument, which was actually "once things change, they don't change back," not "nothing changes."
September 14, 2017 at 8:13 AM
Yes, you are right but it was meant to be more of flow of thought not an argument since I have no evidence either way. It is just that there is rumor that UC and Bechtel may team up again. They could take the old bid, change a few names, send it in, DOE could meet for an hour and say, good now lets go golfing, see on in 10 years for the next bid.
Geez.
It's okay to hate LANL and UC and still shut the $%^@ up about it.
TSM worked at LLNL as a facility and worked for AEC, ERDA, DoE-DP, NNSA and whatever government agency comes along next. In the sense that they were contractors who worked for the government, at LLNL. They never really worked for UC or for LLNS, that was just the logo on the paycheck. This is all well understood by those in GOCO operations and is not a new concept.
So yes, post-Cold War UC was not the resident center of nuclear weapons knowledge, nor is LLNS. That knowledge was and remains in the TSM at both LLNL and LANL. That is why the government has GOCO setup, contractors come and go, but the skills and knowledge remain with the facility in the employees.
September 14, 2017 at 7:59 AM
Sounds about right.
LANS has the plan for making LANL grand.... again.
Really, trust me this time.
Super VUCA.
Post a Comment