This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Monday, December 11, 2017
Wager
With proposals due (today),any sporting posters ready to make wagers on the outcome? Webster or Sarrao? UC or UT? Some solid money is on NNSA throwing it back open and declaring that they were not satisfied with any of the offerings
17 comments:
Anonymous
said...
"With proposals due (today),any sporting posters ready to make wagers on the outcome? Webster or Sarrao? UC or UT? Some solid money is on NNSA throwing it back open and declaring that they were not satisfied with any of the offerings"
Very interesting, some random numbers
UT-consortium, 35%, it is new it has a large university consortium, Texas is near NM.
UC-Texas AM, 35%, they have the experience and now are adding a new partner. Also from what I have heard NNSA was not happy with the for-profit bonus model and the industrial partners not with UC.
Battelle/Honywell, 20% chance a bit of a dark horse but I think they may have a chance.
Bechtel-Other, 2% at best but something would have to go really wrong. The wording of the call seems to target them specially in terms of prior results so the odds are zero. A better question is if they will actually put in a bid at all, I have heard they might but I give it only a 20% chance they are putting something in.
Other, 7% who knows, it is a unknown unknown as they say.
NNSA not being happy and starting over, 1%
Rumors are NNSA are very happy with potential bidders and are getting exactly the teams that they wanted to get.
I think Battelle has a much better chance than 20% if they are truly in. These things go in waves and Battelle and Honeywell seem to be in the sweet spot for NNSA. I would say 50% chance.
"I think Battelle has a much better chance than 20% if they are truly in. These things go in waves and Battelle and Honeywell seem to be in the sweet spot for NNSA. I would say 50% chance.
December 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM"
This one is hard to call, but I would not be surprised if they do get it, however I don't even know if they put in a bid.
"The wording targets UC, not Bechtel. After all, UC is/was in charge of LANS. Bechtel manages less than 10% of the contract."
False, it targeted Bechtel, this has now been pretty much confirmed. UC was also strongly encouraged to apply. I know you hate UC but that that is a personal problem that does not concern any one else nor is relevant to anyone else. Where on earth did you get the crazy 10% number?
9:41 is COMPLETELY WRONG. The language in the RFP targeted LANS (for poor prior performance). UC is in charge of LANS, NOT BECHTEL, by contract with the NNSA. In writing. Signed.
Tough luck to all the UC apologists. All one of them.
9:41 is COMPLETELY WRONG. The language in the RFP targeted LANS (for poor prior performance). UC is in charge of LANS, NOT BECHTEL, by contract with the NNSA. In writing. Signed.
Tough luck to all the UC apologists. All one of them.
December 12, 2017 at 10:26 PM
It was targeted at Bechtel, lots and lots of rumors/talk from people that probably would know, lets just leave at that as they say. With that the 40-50% UC is probably about right.
Really? Again with the rumors? Somehow we're to believe that a putative rumor that you've supposedly heard is a sufficient reason to believe NNSA is targeting Bechtel and not UC?
Get real.
The written criteria takes precedence over your supposed rumor that you likely just made up.
Here are the facts; NNSA has targeted previous poor performance by a contractor in the scoring criteria. In this case, the current contractor is LANS. LANS is a poor performer, especially in the management category, as scored by NNSA itself. LANS is led by UC. Therefore, UC will take a hit in the bid scoring.
Look you are not at Los Alamos, you have not been at Los Alamos for many many years, you don't seem to know anyone who currently works at Los Alamos. I am just telling you what the rumors and talk have been no more or no less. These are persistence rumors and some of the people who have said this seem pretty credible. The fact that UC is bidding, and it is bidding without Bechtel should tell you something and is consistent with what people have been saying. Is it true? Who knows.
Battelle and NNSA have some recent history that is relevant to the "past performance" grade in the competition. While the 82 y.o. nun broke into Y-12 a few years ago, the security contractors for Y-12 at the time were under Battelle, through ORNL. Check the dates find out that the window for "past performance" in the LANL RFP includes the nungate episode that falls square on Battelle.
17 comments:
"With proposals due (today),any sporting posters ready to make wagers on the outcome? Webster or Sarrao? UC or UT? Some solid money is on NNSA throwing it back open and declaring that they were not satisfied with any of the offerings"
Very interesting, some random numbers
UT-consortium, 35%, it is new it has a large university consortium, Texas is near NM.
UC-Texas AM, 35%, they have the experience and now are adding a new partner. Also from what I have heard NNSA was not happy with the for-profit bonus model and the industrial partners not with UC.
Battelle/Honywell, 20% chance a bit of a dark horse but I think they may have a chance.
Bechtel-Other, 2%
at best but something would have to go really wrong. The wording of the call seems to target them specially in terms of prior results so the odds are zero. A better question is if they will
actually put in a bid at all, I have heard they might but I give it only a 20% chance they
are putting something in.
Other, 7% who knows, it is a unknown unknown as they say.
NNSA not being happy and starting over, 1%
Rumors are NNSA are very happy with potential bidders and are getting exactly the teams that they wanted to get.
The wording targets UC, not Bechtel. After all, UC is/was in charge of LANS. Bechtel manages less than 10% of the contract.
I think Battelle has a much better chance than 20% if they are truly in. These things go in waves and Battelle and Honeywell seem to be in the sweet spot for NNSA. I would say 50% chance.
"I think Battelle has a much better chance than 20% if they are truly in. These things go in waves and Battelle and Honeywell seem to be in the sweet spot for NNSA. I would say 50% chance.
December 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM"
This one is hard to call, but I would not be surprised if they do get it, however I don't even know if they put in a bid.
"The wording targets UC, not Bechtel. After all, UC is/was in charge of LANS. Bechtel manages less than 10% of the contract."
False, it targeted Bechtel, this has now been pretty much confirmed. UC was also strongly encouraged to apply. I know you hate UC but that that is a personal problem that does not concern any one else nor is relevant to anyone else. Where on earth did you get the crazy 10% number?
6:41 AM
Just what part of Battelle does work for NNSA? For OS, sure. But for NNSA, not so fast.
9:41 is COMPLETELY WRONG. The language in the RFP targeted LANS (for poor prior performance). UC is in charge of LANS, NOT BECHTEL, by contract with the NNSA. In writing. Signed.
Tough luck to all the UC apologists. All one of them.
The 10% number is the ratio of Bechtel to UC managers in LANS.
You can claim otherwise but you'd be lying.
Just what part of Battelle does work for NNSA? For OS, sure. But for NNSA, not so fast.
December 12, 2017 at 10:38 AM
PPNL gets 30-40% of their budget from NNSA - mostly through NA20. PNNL is NA20's biggest site split.
9:41 is COMPLETELY WRONG. The language in the RFP targeted LANS (for poor prior performance). UC is in charge of LANS, NOT BECHTEL, by contract with the NNSA. In writing. Signed.
Tough luck to all the UC apologists. All one of them.
December 12, 2017 at 10:26 PM
It was targeted at Bechtel, lots and lots of rumors/talk from people that probably would know, lets just leave at that as they say. With that the 40-50% UC is probably about right.
9:01 AM,
Really? Again with the rumors? Somehow we're to believe that a putative rumor that you've supposedly heard is a sufficient reason to believe NNSA is targeting Bechtel and not UC?
Get real.
The written criteria takes precedence over your supposed rumor that you likely just made up.
Here are the facts; NNSA has targeted previous poor performance by a contractor in the scoring criteria. In this case, the current contractor is LANS. LANS is a poor performer, especially in the management category, as scored by NNSA itself. LANS is led by UC. Therefore, UC will take a hit in the bid scoring.
Really? Again with the rumors?
Look you are not at Los Alamos, you have not been at Los Alamos for many many years, you don't seem to know anyone who currently works at Los Alamos. I am just telling you what the rumors and talk have been no more or no less. These are persistence rumors and some of the people who have said this seem pretty credible. The fact that UC is bidding, and it is bidding without Bechtel should tell you something and is consistent with what people have been saying. Is it true? Who knows.
PNNL is a good EM site.
It has not much to do with DP, which is NNSA mission for the Nation.
Just what part of Battelle does work for NNSA? For OS, sure. But for NNSA, not so fast.
December 12, 2017 at 10:38 AM
You do realize that Battelle is a key part of LLNS and Battelle CEO Jeff Wadsworth was Deputy Director of LLNL for many years.
Battelle and NNSA have some recent history that is relevant to the "past performance" grade in the competition. While the 82 y.o. nun broke into Y-12 a few years ago, the security contractors for Y-12 at the time were under Battelle, through ORNL. Check the dates find out that the window for "past performance" in the LANL RFP includes the nungate episode that falls square on Battelle.
UC and Bechtel are both stinky because of LANL.
Get ready for a dark horse winner with unqualified leaders. The Sandia outcome should give you insight into how this is going to go.
"give you insight into how this is going to go."
This is not going to go the way you think.
Teams:
BBH (Battelle-Bechtel-Honeywell)
UC
Texas-AM or UC and Texas AM,
UTexas.
Perhaps Lockheed, or have they just flipped the bird to NNSA now?
Place you bets, this is three card Monte and the house always win since the game is just a big cheat anyhow.
Post a Comment