Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Some new/old rumors.
More talk that John Sarrao is the head of the UC lead bid. Webster is head of U Texas, and somebody named Perry is head of the Texas AM team. I presume this is not Rick Perry. Also there is probably a couple of other for profit teams with Lockheed, Bechtel and who knows. Some other rumors is that the UC team is worried, apparently they thought that no one else would bid and did not expect Texas or Texas AM to put something in. Also if history is any guide the Director must be a weapons guy. Wallace of course has been the only exception but he is just a lame duck.
Predictions (1) it will go down like Sandia, some completely unexpected team will win.
(2) Bechtel lead team wins.
(3) The Perry guy is in fact related to Rick Perry and Texas AM takes it.
My bet is on 1, something like Northrop Grumman, or Leidos and the Director will be an ex General. The motto will be "Modernization Through Compliance MTC" or " Compliance alone sets minds in motion.", "New Mexico, yes we are part of the United States".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
UC partnered with Batelle and Texas A&M and Webster is on the team, but not as the leader. The three partners are all equal on the team.
Bechtel will win the bid...not likely since the current Bechtel folks are leaving LANL like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
Bechtel partnered with Purdue and they have a 4 star General as their lead
From what I've observed, John Sarrao is a "good guy". It would be nice if someone of his calibre and character could be LANL's next director. It would certainly be a refreshing change from "Show Me the Money" McMillan.
"Bechtel partnered with Purdue and they have a 4 star General as their lead
February 3, 2018 at 9:07 AM"
We have a winner!!! Ding ding ding ding. I would give this one 90%. Bechtel plays to win.
Look the UC bid is a hard sell because of what happened, they have now lost the contract twice. Bechtel has been pushing hard that the failures at LANL had to do with UC and Bechtel was not allowed to do what had to be done to the scientists and engineers but let this time the gloves are coming off and a General is just the kind of leader to carry this out! Not to mention that this bid is a for profit so New Mexico will push for this.
"Bechtel partnered with Purdue and they have a 4 star General as their lead"
The army will finish what the navy could not. If this bid goes through look out, Bechtel will go FULL BECHTEL, nothing will stop from getting every single dime any which way they can. Bechtel managers at LANL and elsewhere have also been very vocal that that contract failed because of the lack or respect by the scientists, they never explain how that argument actually works, but the relevant point is this what they believe and if they win which I believe they will than they are going to carry through with what they believe. Unfortunately this team has the highest probability of winning for several reasons.
Reasons:
UTexas is another bidder however it is clear they do not really want to do this and from what I hear they are already backing away. The head of the UTexas system that pushed this had to "retire" recently and now that he is gone they are just letting the bid sort of die. U-Texas sent a couple of people to Los Alamos last week but judging by the level of people they sent they are simply not serious.
UC-Texas AM: Has several problems and again some have people have said the team members are not very optimistic, not exactly sure why or if they have some other information. The first issue is that UC has now lost the contract twice which no matter how you look at it is not good. Bechtel can claim it turned LLNL around and made it the model lab and the issues at LANL have to do with UC. Webster would be a credible team head but if it is Sarrao it will be a tough sell to have a non weapons guy as your potential lab head and other people have said it is an odd choice and may indicate that the UC bid is also not serious and are just going through the motions. Sarrao is a good guy as one poster puts it but a General probably sounds more credible for a weapons lab to average congressman than a scientists who has never been involved with weapons.
Lastly there is the issue of New Mexico and the tax windfall that comes with a for profit model. New Mexico is not giving this up and is even trying to change the laws to keep the money. The UTexas and UC teams are not for profit and New Mexico could create all sorts of problems for LANL and NNSA if a non-profit gets it and it may just be easier for NNSA to go with a for profit bid to avoid any headaches with the state of New Mexico. The Bechtel team most certainly will be for profit.
So we have three teams, the U Texas team already appears to be essentially out, the UC-Texas AM team may or may not be serious however they sort of have an uphill battle with past performance. The Bechtel-Purdue team has a lot going for it.
It is for profit: which New Mexico wants, it is probably serious since Bechtel never goes halfway with anything, they may be sleazy but they never stop and always go for it, the idea of a General could be considered a good thing particularly if the plan is to expand the weapons program for new things and who better than a military man to lead the charge. As for past performance Bechtel has lost the contract once as compared to UC that lost it twice so they have the edge in that case as well. 90 percent may be a bit high but 75 precent or more is about right. This may also explain all the gloomy faces of the rumored UC lead team members.
If so it is going to be one hell of ride, if you thought Nanos was bad, you ain't seen anything yet. If Bechtel wins it knows it will have at least 10-15 years before they get thrown out again so they will be brutal in leveraging every single dime out of the place any way they can. LANL will be no more, although some would say that LANL is pretty close to that right now after the last 15 years.
That was ridiculously over-analyzed given we don't even know who the partners are on each bid team. A few things for consideration:
1) The State of New Mexico doesn't get a vote so they are not a consideration.
2) Just because the prime bidder is a non-profit doesn't mean the that team is non-profit. Look at LANS, for example.
3) A team "losing interest" is not a rumor making the rounds, it's just some phony spew that was made up by people who have a bias against one of the bid teams.
If it was ridiculously over-analyzed, Why do you keep analyzing Eh ?
There's a big difference between phony analysis and correcting misleading and false statements.
1) The State of New Mexico doesn't get a vote so they are not a consideration.
February 4, 2018 at 12:19 PM
If they vote to impose the State GRT on non-profits, as looks probable, then their vote will change everything, Some bidders may drop out.Some may get a stronger hand. This is not beanbags, it is political hardball.
1:49 PM
Just out of curiosity but how would know the difference between phony analysis and real analysis? You just stating it is phony is not very convincing. It would also appear that it simply your opinion that anything stated by 7.07pm is false. Yes it could be speculation but you simply cannot say anything is false. It is telling that you state that we do not even know who the partners are now which means that you also do not know who the partners and hence cannot know for sure if anything is false.
>1) The State of New Mexico doesn't get a vote so they are not a consideration.
It is true that NM does not vote but is rather clear that their opinions are being considered. For example
several of the bidding teams have meet with NM representatives to hear their concerns. It is reasonable to assume
that they did this because they know that they have some influence on the process.
2) Just because the prime bidder is a non-profit doesn't mean the that team is non-profit. Look at LANS, for example.
There are several rumors that the University lead teams are non-profit, could and or could not be true, however in the past UC has not been interested in profit nor does it keep the profit, a previous poster even had a link with the break down of how it i spent. Universities generally do no manage things for profit since that is not what motivates them. Bechtel on the other hand has reputation as being profit driven and extremely aggressive about this as documented in several books on them, one is in fact titled the "Profiteers" by S. Denton so is almost for certain that any team they are on will be for profit.
>3) A team "losing interest" is not a rumor making the rounds, it's just some phony spew that was made up by people who >have a bias against one of the bid teams.
This is a rumor "making the rounds", it really got going last week after some representative from U Texas came to the town of Los Alamos last week and several attendees have said it was clear that they have not done their homework on the lab or even the mission to much extent and the people sent did not seem very serious. This is on top of the fact that they almost did not even bid as regents had been almost split on the vote and add to this that Bill McRaven the U Texas Chancellor who was the one pushing for this is now resigning. How is any of this bias against this team?
All these things have elements of speculation however there is some argument for each case, I guess it is matter of opinion at which point something a phony analysis. It could be bad analysis but not phony and how is any of this misleading or false.
7:03 AM
Phony analysis relies on false claims, illogic, and pure speculation. Like saying the State gets a vote in who runs the lab. That's totally false. Like saying if the prime is a non-profit then the team is non-profit. That's not necessarily true. Like saying that some bidders spent millions on developing their bids but they really don't want the contract. That's illogical. That was the whole point of my post. It is a simple concept.
Taxing non-profits isn't the same as choosing who will run the lab. Don't forget, it's not constitutional to pick a single entity as the only one that gets targeted with a specific tax. If the State votes to tax non-profits it must tax every single non-profit that meets the criteria. Every non-profit bid team would be hit exactly the same, so nobody is going to drop out. The net effect is that it would level the playing field for the for-profit teams. It's probably not going to happen anyway because there would be a huge uproar from all the non-profits not related to the bid.
7:27 AM
Who did "some representative" from U Texas meet with when they came to the town of Los Alamos? Anyone who has a role in evaluating the proposals? Yeah, didn't think so.
Here are some more facts that run counter to the supposed rumor that nobody has heard.
* UT did bid. They spent about $4 million developing the bid.
* Bill McRaven was NOT the only one at UT pushing the bid, to suggest that is just dishonest.
* McRaven didn't lead the bid effort, the bid was led by Deputy Chancellor David Daniel. Daniel is still there.
* The Chairman of the UT Board of Regents, Sara Martinez Tucker, said “Los Alamos requires exceptional leadership and management. Our nation deserves no less. Therefore, we are directing Chancellor McRaven and the UT System to prepare the strongest possible case to assume this role,” Tucker added. “We want to put the System’s best foot forward and pursue the opportunity vigorously.” Tucker is still there.
* All of the other Regents that voted to bid, the majority of the Regents, are still at UT.
See, a real analysis would call out these factors as well as the cherry-picked stuff written above. By leaving all of these important factors out, it's clear that the writer is more trying to influence the decision than to lay out all the factors in an unbiased way. That makes it a phony analysis.
" By leaving all of these important factors out, it's clear that the writer is more trying to influence the decision "
So a random post on the LLNL blog can influence the decision on who is best to run LANL? Wow this blog has way more power than we thought, it would also mean that Scooby may be much more power than we thought since he has the ultimate say on if a post does or does not get posted. Scary stuff.
As for the rumor it is just that a rumor and yes it is going around. But one piece of data or cherry you decided not to pick was that the voting by the regents was a "rare split vote"
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/regents-vote-pursue-los-alamos-nuclear-weapons-lab-contract/E48ROkdBqlLjMH5x3pKzaM/
" It was a rare split vote for a board that normally is unanimous, especially on important matters.
It was a rare split vote for a board that normally is unanimous, especially on important matters. Nonetheless, the regents who voted against making a bid — Kevin Eltife, Janiece Longoria and Steve Hicks — all said they respected the others’ position. Regents Ernest Aliseda, David Beck, Jeffery Hildebrand and Paul Foster voted in favor. Chairwoman Sara Martinez Tucker did not vote, and Regent Rad Weaver was not on the line for the meeting by telephone.
Still, it was apparent that the supporters and opponents held sharply divergent views.
Longoria said the safety and financial risks aren’t worth it, citing the lab’s checkered safety record in recent years. She said operating a nuclear weapons lab lies outside the system’s core mission and could even put its multibillion-dollar endowment “at risk in a catastrophic event.” She added that the system’s flagship, UT-Austin, wasn’t in favor of the initiative.
System Chancellor Bill McRaven brushed off the implications of the split vote. “The larger the issue, the more you’re going to get divergent views,” he told the American-Statesman, adding that UT-Austin would undoubtedly play a role in running the lab if the system wins the contract.
You would have to utterly naive to think that with Bill McRaven leaving it would not influence how this whole thing goes down.
There is also something you may not know that there are several people who are now faculty at UTexas and UTexas system that used to be staff at LANL and they do not have a positive view of what has happened to LANL.
So the the only one using phony analysis is you.
By imposing a GRT on a non-profit manager of LANL, NM absolutely is exercising a say in who runs the lab. The idea that this may be unconstitutional, while interesting academically, ignors all the unconstitutional and corrupt things the NM legisature has gotten away with over the years.
7:26 PM,
Are you claiming that had McRaven left earlier it would have changed the vote? Is that what you're claiming? Based on what?
You just made that up based on nothing, didn't you? No interviews of any of the Regents have said that, there has been no statement by the opposing Regents, there has been no statement by the Vice Chancellor, no statement by the Chairman of the board has said that - in fact her statement was quite the opposite.
There's nothing real that supports your claim. Nothing at all. An opinion that you can't back up with reason isn't worth anything at all.
'Are you claiming that had McRaven left earlier it would have changed the vote?"
Yep.
"An opinion that you can't back up with reason"
Come on, the reason is pretty obvious, almost half the regents and the flagship university are against this. Knowing that one of the major players behind this going to be gone soon could most certainly change things. Also if McRaven had been gone a year ago the whole thing would have never gone to a vote in the first place.
Look I will come clean I do have bias in that I think the United States will be better served by a not for profit University lead team
just as it had been successfully managed by one for 60 years during the cold war. The last contract change was a disaster for both labs and the nation. So with that I am really hoping UTexas puts in great bid, I don't know the details but my understating is that this is a non-profit team so UT or UC sound very good. I am however being realistic about how it may actually play out. You have to remember that back in 2005 on the old LANL blog that people had warned very specially that the worst case scenario would be a for profit sleazy company run entity like Bechtel to win and that is EXACTLY what happened and you have seen the results. I just remember when they had to do the RIF at LLNL and the VSP at LANL that management was saying how they did not anticipate the large cost increase with the new contract. I really don't want any of may "claims" or predictions be to true and hope everything you are saying is right, but I have seen this go down before. I remember what LLNL and LANL used to be like and have seen what they have become. A U Texas winning bid would be a good scenario which is precisely why it may not happen.
Bechtel DID NOT win in 2005. LANS, a team led by UC, won. Bechtel was, and is, a minor player.
"Bechtel DID NOT win in 2005. LANS, a team led by UC, won. Bechtel was, and is, a minor player.
February 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM"
Beside yourself no one believes this. NO ONE. Bechtel is not a minor player and runs the show. If Bechtel is not in charge than why did the lab culture change so much after the contract change? You never address this.
February 9, 2018 at 12:48 PM
Address this.
Everyone knows that the DOE contract puts UC in charge of LANS. Everyone but you. Everyone knows that UC has 10 of the top 11 management positions at LANL. Everyone but you.
Actually, you know these things too but you prefer to continue with your feckless attempts to mislead.
You know UC is in charge because UC fired the top Bechtel person. TWICE.
Your culture characterization is simply not true.
In the years after Sig up to the contract change LANL had a culture of hardworking staff trying their best to overcome grossly incompetent UC management (Browne, Nanos, Cuckoo, et. al.).
In the years after the contract change, LANL has had a culture of hardworking staff trying their best to overcome grossly incompetent LANS management, led by UC, (Anastasio, McMillan, Wallace).
Bechtel, in their limited role, has never even been engaged at LANL. Two of Bechtel's Deputy Directors were fired by UC and at lower levels of both management and staff Bechtel has been running a revolving door. Bechtel swaps out their personnel as soon as they can find a job for them on a project Bechtel cares about.
Cuckoo, nice nickname.
What was so bad about Cuckoo? No one had any real problem with Browne either, Nanos on the other hand is more than a fair point. A question I always have is how did Nanos get in, it would seem very bizarre that UC would have backed that guy and at the time everyone said it was pushed by the newly formed NNSA. Does anybody really know?
>Everyone knows that the DOE contract puts UC in charge of LANS. Everyone but you. Everyone knows that UC has 10 of the top 11 >management positions at LANL. "
That's one opinion but why on earth do the vast majority of people at LANL think Bechtel is in charge?
BOTH UC AND Bechtel have done a terrible job with LANL in the last two decades. DOE has been as bad or worse. These facts drive home a few obvious things. Academics, Beltway bandits, and bureaucrats are horrible at managing meaningful scientific endeavors. There are gigantic cultural mismatches. Publication records have nothing to do with national security. Nuclear weapons should never be a for profit enterprise. Rule making pinheads are not leaders.
" There are gigantic cultural mismatches. Publication records have nothing to do with national security. Nuclear weapons should never be a for profit enterprise. Rule making pinheads are not leaders.
February 10, 2018 at 6:56 AM"
Gotta call BS on you again. How is it that UC managed LLNL and LANL very well for 50-60 during the cold war?. You also do not understand what exactly how exactly the labs do national security. The labs do science for national security and the scientific method to carry out this work must be broad by definition, and science will always include publications, exchange of ideas, and so on in order to flourish, this was always understood at the labs and had to be in order to achieve the mission and was exactly how the labs ran during the cold war. Many specific things did not get but broader issues did and the people working at the labs had to also have the ability to read literature, interface with outside science, know the questions, and ask questions. You seem very ignorant of how the labs started and how they functioned during the cold war, you have no idea what it takes to carry out the mission, and why it must be this way.
You don' understand science, you don't understand how science goes in to building things, you don't understand how science goes into maintaining things, you don't understand how the world and since itself are always advancing. These issues are beyond you so your opinion is totally worthless on these topics. You have some weird agenda or seem to think very highly of yourself. It takes a special person to say academics should have nothing to do wit running the labs when history has proven you be wrong. Do you you have any idea that labs started in 1943 and 1951, you seem to thinking they have only existed since 1999. All you have to to is read a book or even use google, all the information is available.
Your argument that UC must be good because they used to be good is just plain silly.
How is it that the LA Lakers dominated the NBA for 5 to 6 decades but are now the worst team in the league? How could it be that they did so well for so long but now they're beyond terrible?
First, it isn't true that the Lakers did well for 50-60 years. They had bad years and good during that period. Just like you and your phony claim about UC managing the labs well for 60 years, the claim simply isn't true. Browne had to resign over financial mismanagement. Nanos was kicked out after he nearly single-handedly destroyed LANL. Kuckuck was a caretaker, at best.
Second, recent Lakers teams don't have the same personnel that they had during their good years. None of their current players can hold a candle to Chamberlain, West, Abdul-Jabbar, Worthy, or Magic. DUH. Just like the quality of Laker players, the quality of the latest UC managers has plummeted. Oppenheimer, Bradbury, Agnew, and Sig were great Directors but that doesn't have ANY bearing on the competence of Browne, Nanos, Anastasio, McMillan, and Wallace - men who, comparatively, can barely tie their own shoes.
11:45 is tilting at windmills. Amusing as it is, it adds nothing to the debate to put up straw man after straw man and refuting the ideas of others with revisionist history and ad homininem attacks.
Your argument comparing UC the Lakers is just plain silly but still fun. A basketball team is only as good the players, the number of players is maybe 20 people with average active time with the team 3-10 years at most in a 10 year time the team is completely differently and not even the same ball team.
An organization like UC is thousands of people with long term people up to 40 years, for length of 60 years UC ran LANL well with very strong Directors and than WHL hits and suddenly it is total freewill staring with Nanos, followed by the list of completely less than stellar Directors or barley tie their own shows, I am not sure about that either since McMillan tried to about having shoe laces.
The change at LANL was just too sudden. I can agree with a slow long time change but at LANL it was extremely rapid. Even though LANL had issues before Nanos, it was still vibrant. After Nanos and LANS the lab totally changed. The possible counter is that UC was essentially out right after WHL, I would bet DOE said that they will throw you out or close the lab, but we are now in control and when LANS came in the said you do exactly what Bechtel says. I simply think that UC has no say at all, this also jives with all the rumors.
There are some other reasons the comparison to the Lakers is not correct. Now you can say the Lakers do not have the same quality of players in the past, however there is no reason why LANL could not have better Directors than they have had recently. They do not have to be at Agnew levels, but there are literally hundreds or even thousand of people that could have been better than the recent people that have become Directors. These guys are so bad that it can be no mistake that they have been deliberately chosen because they have been so weak. Why on earth would UC do that? The Lakers may not be able to get the top players anymore but they don't deliberately pick the worse players they can find and that is why the comparison fails. Something is behind this, hell maybe the Russians have infiltrated DOE, I mean how do you go from Abdul-Jabbar, to a legless comotose, blind, player, unless you are trying to lose.
This brings me to next reason why the comparison is bad. The Lakers want to win, you could say they want to make money, but in sports winning means more money. Now that the cold war is over what is LANL trying to do? During the cold war, the goal was to win which means you need the place to run well and the top people working or running it, just as the Lakers try to get the best players and the best coaches. The mission of the Lakers has not changed but it appears the mission of LANL has changed, now it is about making profit for LANS, creating more well funded bureaucrats that do no work, keeping money for New Mexico, in other words it is a scam that benefits many people, but falls very short of serving that nation to the level it should. In other words it has some other purpose than it should.
In the end of the day saying UC did all this seems to fall far short, something else has happened that has lead to extreme decline of LANL that you see today.
Post a Comment