Skip to main content

Post award rumour

Word leaking out of DC late today is that there may be as many as three different protests to the LANL award decision. Some may be based on the qualifications of the key personnel, so this could take awhile to settle out.

Comments

Anonymous said…
If this is as solid as all of the quality intel in the run up to the decision that appeared on this blog, everyone buckle your seatbelts. 🙄
Anonymous said…
Well, word leaking out of DC was that Purdue won the bid, and that Bechtel won the bid.

Now you’re telling us that word leaking out of DC is...obvious speculation about protests to the award.

Are you a troll? If so...we’ll, you can guess what I’m thinking.

If not, then please substantiate your post (who said it? what position do they have to suggest it is anything more than their own speculation or wishful thinking? etc.)

Honestly, add some value or STFU.
Anonymous said…


I really doubt this, I heard that they waited so long just to make sure that there would be no protests. I could believe Bechtel would put one in as a shakedown. Even if one is put in it seems unlikely that it would work, the NTS was a bit special in what happened.

The "tell" that the rumor is bs is that the post says one of the points of the protest says the personal on the winning team are not credible. First of that does not even sound like a criteria for protest from another team, the other is that the team is indeed credible.
Anonymous said…

Some more evidence that this rumor is bogus.

"Word leaking out of DC late today is that" Word would not leak out of DC, it would leak out of local team members at LANL, not DC. I would guess this rumor is made up or is posted by someone who has an agenda.
Anonymous said…
"As many as three". How many bidders were there? Four? One won and the other 3 are protesting? Not credible. Phony rumor. Dishonest OP.
Anonymous said…
There’s no value to this blog rumor-wise. The rumors had more of an impact in the Parney, Moses, Diaz de la Rubia days.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

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...

Trump is to gut the labs.

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.

tcp1 looking good

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...