Skip to main content

UC bid

Image
By scooby
UC has not yet been informed that UC has submitted a competitive bid for the LANL contract. 

Transition to new contractor is on schedule.

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar18/n1.pdf

Comments

Anonymous said…
The UC team is interviewed next week.
3/14/2018 3:50 PM
Anonymous said…
"It is still anticipated that the four-month transition period will start on June 1, 2018 to facilitate an October 1, 2018 start date of the follow-on LANL M&O contract. Accordingly, it remains the expectation that contract award would be announced in April or May of 2018."

Oh, really?
3/14/2018 4:16 PM
Anonymous said…


I have no idea what this means but during several division meetings mangers are saying, " there are lots of rumors of very bad things concering the upcoming management change but these are just rumors as no one knows anything, to be assured that no one actually knows anything and it is only rumors". The implication is be afraid, be very very afraid. Something really crazy could be coming with the new contract.



3/15/2018 4:02 PM
Anonymous said…
March 14, 2018 at 3:50 PM

Maybe so, maybe not. You have your sources?
The UCOP is clear that the UC team has not yet been informed by NNSA that their proposal is compliant with the RFP.
3/16/2018 3:47 AM
Anonymous said…
The management has almost always been “scary”.
3/16/2018 7:44 AM
Anonymous said…
4:02 PM

More crazy than UC putting a second-rate geologist in charge of LANL?
3/16/2018 9:13 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more