Three bidders gave their presentations to NNSA/DOW this week. Lots of missing managers at LANL this week. The UC team was one of the presenting teams so yes it did make it to the finals. The announcement of the bid will be on time be the start of the contract will be delayed a few months. Lots of managers are saying this this change will only effect managers and not the work force, nothing will change and so on. Other rumors is that Wallace is not part of a team. I am a bit surprised that it is coming down to three teams which means that they must have down selected or next will have more presentations.
Another rumor is that the labs could be getting more money with the latest stuff going on in Russia, but who knows when a budget will be passed.
The change over in environmental cleanup from LANL to the new contractor has been a total disaster. The change at Sandia has also had some issues and everyone seems to agree that things have not improved but gotten somewhat worse/more expensive. But hey don't worry the change in the contract at LANL will totally smooth. Maybe it is like an old photo-copier, every time you copy it gets worse.
Comments
Despite not yet starting the actual work, somehow, the new contractor is already a disaster? Sounds like somebody invented a phony rumor.
Why would someone make phony rumor about this?
1) UC / Texas A&M
2) Texas
3) Bechtel
Three teams. That is it. Leidos did not bid.
The rumor is indeed phony and the attempt to defend the phony rumor is even more phony.
2) Texas
3) Bechtel
Wow, only three teams, anyone want to make some odds? Possible non-profits are Texas and UC, while Bechtel will certainly be for profit. The state of New Mexico and the town members will than want Bechtel which could sway things.
Another possibility is tat the UC/Texas-AM is actually some mix of for profit and non-profit. Perhaps this is the clever bid part, they will have a for profit in charge of manufacturing.
If past record is a key factor than U Texas may have the edge.
The word for some time is that Bechtel has been pitching that UC caused all the problems every and the scientists did not respect Bechtel. There is also talk that LANL needs to be an engineering/production lab so Bechtel could do that not UC.
Now you you are just making up more phony rumors. LANS does not control anything LANL, DOE does and will direct LANS to deal with the new EM contract. Your third phony rumor is the worse yet. You are not fooling anyone throwing out things like contract law which you have no knowledge of. All this had to be taken care of by LAW, before the contract was even BID, as confirmed by CONTRACT LAW. You troll somewhere else.
LANS' employment contracts for the EM contract are null and void come April 29. You see, the LANS contract stipulates that they can terminate any employee for any reason whatsoever, including the loss of a contract. The new contractor will choose which current LANS employees will be offered employment and which ones will be left crying. LANS can pick up EM employees on their remaining contracts, but they probably won't pick up many as LANS is not long for this world.
LANS does NOT have the procurement contracts, LANS acted as an agent for the Government on those contracts. The Government owns those contracts and DOE will transfer those contracts to N3B Los Alamos.
LANS will cease to exist as an EM contract entity shortly after April 29.
Sorry if this is a shock to you but LANS, the whole LLC, will cease to exist shortly after the new contractor takes over the M&O contract. LANS won't own employment contracts, LANS won't own procurement contracts. LANS will be gone as LANS is an LLC that exists solely to service the LANL M&O contract.
No matter what happens with the contract bid, in every single case LANS will no longer have a contract.
Before coming to LANL, I helped manage a Government M&O contractor switch-over, I know what I'm talking about.
March 25, 2018 at 11:29 AM"
Hey phony, stop trolling this blog with your lies. Everyone can see straight through them and everyone knows the transitions is going very smoothly without a single problem, everyone on the EM side is very happy with moving to the new contractor, and the new contractor has made it clear they will maintain the pensions. These are facts that everyone knows which just make you look like a fool when you say they are having issues.
It's obvious that you invented the phony rumor that the EM contractor has been a disaster but you didn't know that they haven't yet taken over. You dug a big hole for yourself. So what did you do? You dug yourself in deeper by inventing a phony story about the new contractor asking LANS for resources. You didn't know that LANS owns no resources and new contractors all ask the Government for these Government-owned resources during the contract transition phase.
Your attempts to invent a defense for your phony rumor ran headlong into a brick wall named reality, so now you descend to insults and sarcasm. Weak.
You can talk about "issues" all you want. The previous poster is absolutely correct - new contract for managing LANL = good bye LANS. And good riddance. The LANS LLC establishment papers are clear. They dissolve when the existing contract dissolves. No question.
I thought it was a UC / Texas A&M / Battelle team. Is this still correct?
Bechtel team of course. There was a reason he was picked to be the Director at this time so there will be a smooth transition to FULL BECHTEL...FULL BECHTEL. We will go clear at that point.
FULL BECHTEL
---------------
You could not be more wrong. Test your theory. Send you bills for goods and services to the DOE LASO office and see if they get paid. or easier yet, just look at the top of the check that you get for providing goods or services and it says "Los Alamos National Security LLC" (i.e LANS). Yes, DOE-NNSA can direct LANS to take an action and pay LANS for that action accordingly, but they have not.... Want to know why? simply put, DOE-EM has the contract with N3B and DOE-NNSA has the contract with LANS... Good luck with that.
As a LANL scientist, it became clear very early in the LANS contract that the Bechtel folks were here to make lots of money and sit on their asses until their next big gig sent them packing. They did not want to understand the laboratory and it’s culture, or even try to change that culture. If you look at those things that Bechtel was given responsibility for during the LANS contract, everything was overrun, behind schedule, or greatly exceeded costs in the planning phase because of stupid solutions to engineering problems. Let’s be real. Bechtel cannot do engineering. Look no further than Hanford and the glass vitrification facility. Bechtel has zero production experience. All it does is construction and look at the shape of its construction projects for the DOE/NNSA.
This is exactly why Bechtel NEEDS to win anydwhy NNSA WILL PICK Bechtel for the win. NNSA is sick of the people at the NNSA labs defining who are the "BEST" people. This is just arrogance and is exactly the reason that labs have had so many problems. Bechtel is going to get rid of these people as it should. NNSA does not need the headaches of prima donnas who think ty are so great and are the "best people". Bechtel is going to WIN, they would not have put in a bid otherwise and LANL is going to change, than LLNL is going to change, and finally Sandia will change, so many people will be vindicated when this happens.
From a few years ago...
Battelle ‘intrigued’ by NNSA possibilities
February 25, 2015
Ron Townsend, Battelle’s executive vice president for global laboratory operations, was in Washington, D.C., last week for the 7th annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, and it was very much a business trip. Townsend was there to better understand the challenges facing the National Nuclear Security Administration and evaluate what roles Battelle might play in the nuclear weapons complex and what it might be able to contribute.
“We’re intrigued,” Townsend said in an interview. “We have a very strong science and energy portfolio. We manage three Science labs (Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest and Brookhaven) and both Energy labs — Idaho and NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab). We don’t have a significant presence in the weapons area, the national nuclear security arena. But we’re intrigued by that.”
Currently, Battelle’s only work in the weapons complex is a subcontracting role at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “We’re responsible for work for others in the nonproliferation, counter-terrorism area. It’s a small role, but it’s an active role,” he said.
Townsend said it’s premature to say Battelle aspires to a greater role. “We’re assessing whether or not we ought to aspire,” he said.
But he said he thought that skills developed in managing five Department of Energy laboratories could prove valuable in the nuclear security enterprise.
“They translate directly,” Townsend said. “We believe that the best-practices principles that we’ve developed at the other laboratories translate directly, and it’s a question of is it something we really want to do.”
There’s a lot of talk swirling these days about changes in contractor governance and the introduction or re-introduction of in-the-public-interest contracting in the weapons complex. Townsend said that’s very much a Battelle thing.
“We love it,” he said. “Battelle embraced the public-service model before the public-service model was even known. That’s who we are. I think it’s a great idea.”
Townsend said he’s not really a fan of award-term contracting, where the contract is extended on an annual basis based on the year’s review.
“We believe in performance-based. We believe we ought to be accountable. That means if we screw up that we get hammered and when we do good we ought to get rewarded. And so we think that individual team management members ought to, their compensation ought to be performance-based. We think our contract ought to be performance-based.”
Townsend said Battelle is currently part of an award-term contract at Brookhaven. “And we’ve enthusiastically embraced it, but it’s not my preference.”
He explained: “The reason I don’t like the award-term approach is it’s a tactical decision based on one-year performance and, typically, that’s relegated to a lower level in DOE . . . Award term means if you perform well in a given year that you earn another year on your contract. And typically how well you perform is determined by individuals who are lower in the management chain within the Department of Energy. You might mess up a conference management something, you might mess that up and it results in a lower score that precludes you from getting (an award term). Whereas, the five-year decision, like we just went through at Oak Ridge, that’s a strategic decision made by the Secretary of Energy based on a body of work over five years. And so I think it’s more important to have a performance-based contract and have extend/compete decisions based on a longer period of work.”
Townsend didn’t specify any upcoming NNSA contracts of interest to Battelle, but he also didn’t seem to place any limits on possible roles.
“There’s a lot of churn in the NNSA complex in terms of potential management opportunities, whether it be the laboratory or (other) . . . I’m just curious.”
http://knoxblogs.com/atomiccity/2015/02/25/battelle-intrigued-by-nnsa-possibilities/
As for the rest, TLDR.
You seem to be struggling with the fact that LANS is going away. As in LANS will be totally gone. Defunct. There will be nothing left of them except a bad memory. Every EM asset will be the responsibility of N3B to manage. Every EM liability (mortgage, contract obligation) will be administered by N3B. Every asset not part of EM will be managed by the new M&O. Buh bye, LANS. Don't let the door hit you in the ...
So how will this work post April 29? All costs that can be closed out will be and LANS will be reimbursed for those in-scope and allowable costs that were already incurred. That leaves the open expenses like ongoing subcontracts originally signed by LANS. Those contracts will be transferred to and paid by the new Contractor, N3B. After the LANS EM contract expires on April 29, N3B will be paying the bills and getting reimbursed by the Government.
Try submitting your bill for EM work to LANS after they no longer have an EM contract with the Goverment. See if you get paid. Better yet, try submitting your bill to LANS after LANS no longer exists. See if you get paid.
Who decides who is part of EM or not part or EM. It is not our decision who the contractor is or how if it will work. There is only perception in the end, no right or wrong, there is never right or wrong only what makes profit for the LLC, that is the only thing that matters, that is they only thing that can matter, so it is the only that ever will matter.
Do you have any news that would indicate a change in their interest? If not, then a valid assumption is it is the same a noted in the article 3:27 PM posted.
March 28, 2018 at 6:26 PM
These are all good points, and should have been addressed at the time of the split of the EM contract from the prime LANS contract from NNSA. If, as some posters have claimed, this was not done at that time, that could form a strong case for a waste, fraud and abuse case against LANS. Congress specifically allocated funds for NNSA work, which were then awarded to LANS. If LANS was caught using those resources for EM work, that is pretty clear violation of federal contracting. Thus, if this turns out to be the case, LANS could be on the hook for some significant fines, and in the case it was a willful violation it exposes the LANS leadership to personal prosecution as well.
March 29, 2018 at 5:40 AM
Maybe, the fact that they were highly public in being embarrassed over the SNL loss?
I don't care about Bechtel. N3B is another "for profit" corporate greed company that looks like they are already screwing it up and DOE-EM is no better than NNSA.
Why would the Government continue to pay LANS, a bunch of complete amateurs who have screwed up everything they have "managed" when you could hire experienced people to manage the EM work?
April 3, 2018 at 10:35 PM
Right, especially since LANS WILL CEASE TO EXIST AS AN ENTITY as soon as the follow-on contract is signed. People should really educate themselves about their subjects before posting their drivel. LANS is history on the day NNSA/DOE signs the next contract. POOF!!
You completely misread the comment.
April 4, 2018 at 9:21 PM
Yep and then the contracts LANS has to perform the M&O work will be transitioned to a new contractor. Many of which the new contractor will want to cancel or renegotiate anyways. Including any agreements made with N3B for M&O support. Any real team that has done a transition knows how to do this but it is not "poof". You have to have some skills....