What specific language or criteria is in the RFP to manage LANL, that is meant to address NNSA detected failures in LANS management?
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...
Comments
The RFP is online. It took me less than a minute to find it. Seriously. It's sad that you didn't put in even one minute of homework before you asked others to answer your question. You must be a millennial.
What is sad is that you non-millennials think insulting others is acceptable. Must be the toxic masculinity of the non-millennials.
Millennials are not the generation that embraced patriarchy, racism, win at all cost, and being privileged, owning guns, etc, but they are the first generation to vocally oppose this.
Did it ever occur to you the idea of cooperation? The poster thought that the blog represented a community of mindful and respectful people who are glad to help. I guess they are wrong.
The RFP is online. It took me less than a minute to find it. Seriously. It's sad that you didn't put in even one minute of homework before you asked others to answer your question. You must be a millennial.
April 15, 2018 at 5:03 AM
-------------------------------------------------------
Above is what we call the douche comment. It is found frequently on blogs containing people who think they are better than others yet are social rejects.
Now to provide a real answer to the post... No additional language or features were added to the RFP or the selection criteria that, in my opinion, will end in the selection of a better performing contractor or create an incentive to the contractor's behavior toward a positive outcome for the mission.
Most government contracts shy away from these criteria and stipulations on fear of being challenged during the award cycle or be unenforceable during execution of the contract. It is a fallacy though because the few times I have seen them used, they worked fairly well as long as they were designed well.
https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/los-alamos-mo-contract-competition
The link to the actual RFP is
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/migrated/nnsa/2018/01/f46/de-sol-0011206_rfp_body_lanl.pdf
The Original Poster may find an answer in section H-20 and H-17
"H-20 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE CHANGE
The contractor shall improve the organizational culture by proactively balancing the conduct of operations in every aspect of executing the statement of work (e.g. integrating a research environment with a production environment and integrating construction and operations in a high hazard environment). This balance should allocate resources and leadership focus to ensure mission deliverables and desired outcomes are achieved in a timely manner with operations that are safe, secure and efficient. In addition, organizational culture change should promote an improved safety culture as described by the focus areas and attributes described in Department of Energy Guide 450.4-1C, Attachment 10. The Contractor shall include organizational culture improvement as part of its strategic planning activities."
"H-11 ACCOUNTABILITY
The Contractor is responsible for the quality of its products and services and for assessing its operations, programs, projects and business systems and identifying deficiencies and implementing needed improvements in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract, regardless of whether NNSA has evaluated the Contractor’s performance in any area of the Contract. The Contractor is encouraged to collaborate with its corporate parent (as applicable) to ensure corporate leadership, the parent’s systems, processes and independent assessments are used to assess the Contractor’s performance. The purpose of NNSA oversight is for assessing the Contractor’s performance in meeting its obligations under this Contract, in addition to measuring progress toward NNSA missions. The Contractor’s accountability described in this clause is not reduced by the fact that NNSA conducts oversight activities."
Easy. It is clear to all that the poster is simply asking what "lessons learned" have shaped the NNSA requirements for the next contractor. Is that so difficult to understand or appreciate? Only someone indifferent to the flurry of preventable accidents linked to LANS management, would push back at the posters questions with such animosity.
That's simply not correct. Each and every generation has had many individuals who were vocal opponents of your issues. In fact, previous generations have been successful in bringing about dramatic social change. Ever hear of Abolitionism? The Women's Suffrage Movement? Repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1943)? Civil Rights act of 1964? The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? The list goes on and on.
In the interest of furthering a collegial exchange of knowledge, ideas, and positions, it's important to be clear. Many will find your comment to be age bigoted, ignorant, self-aggrandizing, and even offensive.
There will certainly be social change in the future and the Millennial generation will have the opportunity to contribute **by standing on the shoulders of those who came before them**. However, Millennials haven't brought about any significant change yet and they will be less likely to if they are as ignorant of what came before them as you seem to be.
These errors highlight just how foolish it was to ask random people to evaluate what shaped the RFP. If you really want to know, there is simply no substitute for interviewing people who worked on the RFP and actually know something about the history.
Sure, go ahead and try to flush out answers to those embarrassing LANS performance questions, then pick up your last LANS paycheck.
"Nothing will change."
Correct with the exception of the name on paychecks. The problem is NNSA's view of M&O contracting. A multi-partner LLC has no culture of its own. There's not even a single HR or policy approach flowing out of this type of LLC. Everything is done at the LANL level, as opposed to coming out of a corporate office. For example when LANL was run by UC, any policy out of UCOP was automatically applicable to the Lab - unless the Lab could show that it was not allowed by DOE directives or federal laws.
Out of 10,000 employees at LANL how many will actually be changed due to the contract? Maybe 1%.
If Google or Amazon won the contract, they would be able to change the culture either. Too many DOE and NNSA rules, orders, directives on how things are to be done and what is allowed.
April 17, 2018 at 5:35 PM
Absolutely correct, and it is on its way. Fasten your seatbelts, America. Extreme turbulence is ahead.