This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Monday, July 1, 2019
LLNS CONTRACT
Should LLNS be awarded another contract after September 30, 2023, or will the NNSA favor a Triad like contractor model?
23 comments:
Anonymous
said...
If LLNLS wins another round expect the gloves come off and all the money to disappear. Bechtel knows how to leverage money, if they are told that they have another 5-7 years they will calculate that it will be worth their while to bleed the place dry before they are out. Bechtel has always been and will always be about the leveraged money, not the fee.
Many years after the for-profit contractors LANS and LLNS were awarded NNSA contracts, former Associate Deputy Energy Secretary Bruce Held was questioning the "large fees" paid to lab contractors and wished to "motivate all players involved" (see command and control topic). This can be distilled down to a mission performance to award fee ratio that upon reflection, has proven to be too expensive for the services and achievements provided. I don't think LLNS will be awarded another long term contract to manage LLNL. The new contractor will likely be less expensive and will have a genuine appreciation for scientists, engineers, and "all players involved". Having fewer accidents than LANS had, won't be reason enough to award LLNS another contract.
"The reviews from the NNSA and reflected award fee each year suggests they will get further extensions."
Despite poor LANS reviews by the NNSA before and after the WIPP incident, it didn't prevent LANS from acquiring contract extensions. The 2012 LLNS PER numbers were "cooked" upward to permit another LLNS contract extension to run LLNL.
The NNSA has demonstrated it doesn't have a credible track record for objective contractor evaluations or for contract extension criteria. How this will impact the next bid cycle to run LLNL is an open question. What we do know is LANS was dumped in favor of Triad, a non-profit contractor.
"The LANS reviews clearly reflected a concern with performance in the years leading up to transition. So far, there is no indication of this at LLNL."
Fair enough. I would point out that LANS and LLNS had very similar corporate partners, and LLNS didn't have to deal with long term high impact high volume radioactive waste disposal. This is not an excuse for LANS, but some normalization of site to site evaluations might be in order. The bottom line is if you were the NNSA, would you roll the dice with LLNS again and risk a comparable incident or failed milestone(s) from virtually the same LLC corporate members as LANS, the LLC you just deselected to manage LANL? Or, would you select a less expensive non-profit contractor like Triad, to run LLNL, that has a different mix of corporate players, with perhaps a different understanding of mission objectives and how best to get there that is in better alignment with NNSA expectations?
"I would choose one without UC and see how it went since we are experimenting and not basing our decision on relevant evidence."
Perhaps you don't want to acknowledge it, but the relevant evidence is in. LANS was an expensive failure and the NNSA gave them the boot. Now its sister LLC LLNS, wants to claim it is an "only child", and desperately wants to hold on to their West Coast NNSA cash cow. Wake up NNSA.
The fact is that LLNS has performed it's measured contract items with very high scores. There is no contractual performan bbasis for a change. NNSA, national and internationa politics is a different matter.
The evidence through NNSA’s own words and fee paid says otherwise. As for which university, it is apparent that the UT system wants to give it a go. I would also try to attract the Michigan system, personal preference, but in reality that is what Battelle brings to the table. I have little idea why Battelle needs UC now that they have broken into the NNSA. They have a strong presence at the non NNSA labs without UC.
UC May have unwittingly brought the fox into the hen house. At least in their world. I think BATTELLE will do more good for LANL in the long run than UC has done in the past 30+ years.
"UC May have unwittingly brought the fox into the hen house. At least in their world. I think BATTELLE will do more good for LANL in the long run than UC has done in the past 30+ years."
Hopefully TRIAD does well, and if it does it will make UC look great and strengthen their hand. UC was very smart to pick BATTELLE. UC won get over it.
UC get many great things in the last 20 years that I am sure swayed DOE to keep UC involved. They got rid of Walp, Dorn, Mechels, and Montano. They dealt with Hook, got rid of Nanos and his minions, outlasted Bechtel, and never gave up the good fight.
Why defend UC? All these things you say were actually done by the LANL populous. UC for a long time now has just been along for the ride. What leadership or vision have they brought? What talent have they brought in science? What great leader has come from the UC system?
UC get many great things in the last 20 years that I am sure swayed DOE to keep UC involved. They got rid of Walp, Dorn, Mechels, and Montano. They dealt with Hook, got rid of Nanos and his minions, outlasted Bechtel, and never gave up the good fight.
7/11/2019 7:42 AM
You are delusional. UC did none of those things. Walp was fired by Browne and Busboom, not UC. Doran (NOT "Dorn" you idiot, please quit that) was fired with Walp. Nanos was hired by UC, not fired by them until DOE said get rid of him. Your continued rewriting of history might sway some people, but I was there. You are very confused.
Look at this from a business perspective. Let's say you own a company that requires 1/2 ton trucks at different sites in different states that are dependable, safe, and a good value. In 2009, you bought 20 Sierra 1/2 ton 5.3L trucks for one site, and 20 Silverado 1/2 ton 5.3L trucks for your other site.
Now its 2019, and you have experienced reoccurring drivetrain problems with both the Sierra and Silverado. There were many more mechanical problems that impacted your business related to Silverado breakdowns and highway accidents. However, over the past 10 years your Silverado trucks were driven 5x more miles than the Sierras in bad weather situations carrying hazardous materials. On the other hand, not only were your Sierras driven shorter distances in mild climates, they only had to deliver 1 gallon jugs of drinking water.
You clearly decide not to purchase any more 1/2 ton Silverado 5.3L trucks given your past experience with them, and instead purchase 1/2 ton trucks that are less expensive and a better value from another company. You wouldn't have waited this long to dump the 1/2 ton Silverado 5.3L trucks but you just weren't prepared to act sooner.
Now its time to decide what to replace your 1/2 ton Sierra trucks with. Your Sierra dealer quickly points out that most your past drivetrain problems were largely with Silverados not Sierras. However, you are not fooled by nameplates. You've done your research and know the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado drivetrains, both GM brands, are very similar.
As a businessman, do you elect to buy Sierras again knowing they still have unresolved drivetrain problems? Or do you seek out a more business need appropriate 1/2 ton truck company that are less expensive, a better value, and that can handle future expectations?
7/18/2019 5:43 PM You give yourself away all too easily. You might think that people like Doran, Walp or Montano will not exactly be honest about what happened. It least it is good to know where you are coming from, but it kills your credibility. Have a nice day.
"I don't care whether you think they are honest. I was there through the entire episode, I don't have to guess.
7/21/2019 6:57 PM"
The problem is that I was also there through the entire episode and you narrative is flat wrong. Oddly your narrative is the same narrative Walp , Montano and Dorn spin. We already know that they are totally full of it so guess where that leaves you.
If you think I was supporting Walp or the others, you are sadly mistaken. I saw Walp close up. He had no clue about his position or his environment at LANL. His hiring by Busboom and Tucker was a really big mistake.
23 comments:
If LLNLS wins another round expect the gloves come off and all the money to disappear. Bechtel knows how to leverage money, if they
are told that they have another 5-7 years they will calculate that it will be worth their while to bleed the place dry before they are out. Bechtel has always been and will always be about the leveraged money, not the fee.
Many years after the for-profit contractors LANS and LLNS were awarded NNSA contracts, former Associate Deputy Energy Secretary Bruce Held was questioning the "large fees" paid to lab contractors and wished to "motivate all players involved" (see command and control topic). This can be distilled down to a mission performance to award fee ratio that upon reflection, has proven to be too expensive for the services and achievements provided. I don't think LLNS will be awarded another long term contract to manage LLNL. The new contractor will likely be less expensive and will have a genuine appreciation for scientists, engineers, and "all players involved". Having fewer accidents than LANS had, won't be reason enough to award LLNS another contract.
The reviews from the NNSA and reflected award fee each year suggests they will get further extensions.
"The reviews from the NNSA and reflected award fee each year suggests they will get further extensions."
Despite poor LANS reviews by the NNSA before and after the WIPP incident, it didn't prevent LANS from acquiring contract extensions. The 2012 LLNS PER numbers were "cooked" upward to permit another LLNS contract extension to run LLNL.
The NNSA has demonstrated it doesn't have a credible track record for objective contractor evaluations or for contract extension criteria. How this will impact the next bid cycle to run LLNL is an open question. What we do know is LANS was dumped in favor of Triad, a non-profit contractor.
The LANS reviews clearly reflected a concern with performance in the years leading up to transition. So far, there is no indication of this at LLNL.
"The LANS reviews clearly reflected a concern with performance in the years leading up to transition. So far, there is no indication of this at LLNL."
Fair enough. I would point out that LANS and LLNS had very similar corporate partners, and LLNS didn't have to deal with long term high impact high volume radioactive waste disposal. This is not an excuse for LANS, but some normalization of site to site evaluations might be in order. The bottom line is if you were the NNSA, would you roll the dice with LLNS again and risk a comparable incident or failed milestone(s) from virtually the same LLC corporate members as LANS, the LLC you just deselected to manage LANL? Or, would you select a less expensive non-profit contractor like Triad, to run LLNL, that has a different mix of corporate players, with perhaps a different understanding of mission objectives and how best to get there that is in better alignment with NNSA expectations?
7/04/2019 12:22 PM
Well stated.
I would choose one without UC and see how it went since we are experimenting and not basing our decision on relevant evidence.
"I would choose one without UC and see how it went since we are experimenting and not basing our decision on relevant evidence.
7/06/2019 7:30 AM"
So which university would you add instead?
"I would choose one without UC and see how it went since we are experimenting and not basing our decision on relevant evidence."
Perhaps you don't want to acknowledge it, but the relevant evidence is in. LANS was an expensive failure and the NNSA gave them the boot. Now its sister LLC LLNS, wants to claim it is an "only child", and desperately wants to hold on to their West Coast NNSA cash cow. Wake up NNSA.
The fact is that LLNS has performed it's measured contract items with very high scores. There is no contractual performan bbasis for a change. NNSA, national and internationa politics is a different matter.
The evidence through NNSA’s own words and fee paid says otherwise. As for which university, it is apparent that the UT system wants to give it a go. I would also try to attract the Michigan system, personal preference, but in reality that is what Battelle brings to the table. I have little idea why Battelle needs UC now that they have broken into the NNSA. They have a strong presence at the non NNSA labs without UC.
UC May have unwittingly brought the fox into the hen house. At least in their world. I think BATTELLE will do more good for LANL in the long run than UC has done in the past 30+ years.
"UC May have unwittingly brought the fox into the hen house. At least in their world. I think BATTELLE will do more good for LANL in the long run than UC has done in the past 30+ years."
Hopefully TRIAD does well, and if it does it will make UC look great and strengthen their hand. UC was very smart to pick BATTELLE. UC won get over it.
UC get many great things in the last 20 years that I am sure swayed DOE to keep UC involved. They got rid of Walp, Dorn, Mechels, and Montano. They dealt with Hook, got rid of Nanos and his minions, outlasted Bechtel, and never gave up the good fight.
Why defend UC? All these things you say were actually done by the LANL populous. UC for a long time now has just been along for the ride. What leadership or vision have they brought? What talent have they brought in science? What great leader has come from the UC system?
I give no credit to UC. I give that credit to us.
UC get many great things in the last 20 years that I am sure swayed DOE to keep UC involved. They got rid of Walp, Dorn, Mechels, and Montano. They dealt with Hook, got rid of Nanos and his minions, outlasted Bechtel, and never gave up the good fight.
7/11/2019 7:42 AM
You are delusional. UC did none of those things. Walp was fired by Browne and Busboom, not UC. Doran (NOT "Dorn" you idiot, please quit that) was fired with Walp. Nanos was hired by UC, not fired by them until DOE said get rid of him. Your continued rewriting of history might sway some people, but I was there. You are very confused.
"LLNS isn't LANS": A nameplate argument
Look at this from a business perspective. Let's say you own a company that requires 1/2 ton trucks at different sites in different states that are dependable, safe, and a good value. In 2009, you bought 20 Sierra 1/2 ton 5.3L trucks for one site, and 20 Silverado 1/2 ton 5.3L trucks for your other site.
Now its 2019, and you have experienced reoccurring drivetrain problems with both the Sierra and Silverado. There were many more mechanical problems that impacted your business related to Silverado breakdowns and highway accidents. However, over the past 10 years your Silverado trucks were driven 5x more miles than the Sierras in bad weather situations carrying hazardous materials. On the other hand, not only were your Sierras driven shorter distances in mild climates, they only had to deliver 1 gallon jugs of drinking water.
You clearly decide not to purchase any more 1/2 ton Silverado 5.3L trucks given your past experience with them, and instead purchase 1/2 ton trucks that are less expensive and a better value from another company. You wouldn't have waited this long to dump the 1/2 ton Silverado 5.3L trucks but you just weren't prepared to act sooner.
Now its time to decide what to replace your 1/2 ton Sierra trucks with. Your Sierra dealer quickly points out that most your past drivetrain problems were largely with Silverados not Sierras. However, you are not fooled by nameplates. You've done your research and know the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado drivetrains, both GM brands, are very similar.
As a businessman, do you elect to buy Sierras again knowing they still have unresolved drivetrain problems? Or do you seek out a more business need appropriate 1/2 ton truck company that are less expensive, a better value, and that can handle future expectations?
"Your continued rewriting of history might sway some people, but I was there."
Dorn, Walp and Montano where also "there" and want to rewrite history. Just saying.
It's "Doran," not "Dorn." Just saying.
Original thread answer: yes
It's "Doran," not "Dorn." Just saying.
7/18/2019 5:43 PM
You give yourself away all too easily. You might think that people like Doran, Walp or Montano will not exactly be honest about what happened. It least it is good to know where you are coming from, but it kills your credibility. Have a nice day.
I don't care whether you think they are honest. I was there through the entire episode, I don't have to guess.
"I don't care whether you think they are honest. I was there through the entire episode, I don't have to guess.
7/21/2019 6:57 PM"
The problem is that I was also there through the entire episode and you narrative is flat wrong. Oddly your narrative is the same narrative Walp , Montano and Dorn spin. We already know that they are totally full of it so guess where that leaves you.
7/22/2019 12:14 PM
If you think I was supporting Walp or the others, you are sadly mistaken. I saw Walp close up. He had no clue about his position or his environment at LANL. His hiring by Busboom and Tucker was a really big mistake.
Post a Comment