Skip to main content

Statement from Purdue President

Image
By scooby


In response to the news on Friday (June 8) that the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration awarded the contract to run the Los Alamos National Laboratory to Triad National Security, a team composed of the University of California, Texas A&M and Battelle, Purdue President Mitch Daniels issued the following statement:

“While we are disappointed to have not been selected, it was a tremendous privilege to be among the strong group of finalists competing to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory. The management of Los Alamos is a solemn responsibility for U.S. national security and the protection of our citizens, and we wish the very best to those involved in that essential mission.”

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/purduetoday/releases/2018/Q2/los-alamos-national-lab-bid-awarded-to-triad-national-security.html

Comments

Anonymous said…
Too bad you chose Bechtel as your partner...
6/15/2018 10:25 PM
Anonymous said…

The blog has been kind slow so lets stir the pot. So what are the odds there will be a protest, how many teams and the odds of it being overturned?

Odds Bechtel-Purdue.

This would be the highest bet, Bechtel may think that by causing some problems with NNSA that they can get some kind of under the table cash grab to go away. Odds of protest 25% odds of overturned 5%. Tomas may also want to do what he can to try and screw NNSA since they dumped him. I am sure he was on the team. They 5% chance they would win would depend on who they bribe.

U-Texas, I think the odds are low on this maybe 5% they would protest.

Jacobs-New Mexico, maybe 10% they would protest.

So my guess is that if there is a protest it will be from the Bechtel team, so perhaps we are not out of the woods yet. The questions is what will be the grounds for the protest. They could
say prior record but UC is 1/3 of the team while Bechtel would have been 2/3-1/2. The other is that like it or not UC probably had a better team and bid. I think NNSA really wanted Bechtel out of LANL.

I know that many Bechtel people at LANL are not happy with the outcome.
6/20/2018 11:31 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