Skip to main content

RFC answers

Check out this NNSA answer to one of the DRFP questions published on the government solicitation https://energy.gov/nepa/ea-2076-proposed-increase-weight-explosives-detonated-lawrence-livermore-national-laboratorysite:


Question 168. Section J, Appendix A, Chapter III, Paragraph 2.3, page 31: Comment: The DRFP indicates an expectation by the NNSA to achieve culture change at LANL. Yet this expectation ignores the importance of lower-tier management buy-in because the winning contractor may only replace Key Personnel and their immediate directs, giving the right of first refusal to every incumbent position below that level. Recommendation: Enhance the culture change likelihood of success by allowing the incoming contractor the latitude to evaluate and replace personnel, if deemed necessary, at up to 2 management levels below the Key Personnel position.


Answer 168. Please review the Final RFP and responses provided herein regarding right of first refusal. Although initially the right of first refusal is offered to incumbent personnel below the level of the direct reports, it remains the responsibility of the New Contractor to meet the requirements of the contract and properly manage and operate the Laboratory. There is no contractual requirement prohibiting the new contractor from taking appropriate personnel action against individuals with adverse performance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

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...

Trump is to gut the labs.

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.

Rumor corner

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.