Skip to main content

LLNS contract expiration

Image
By scooby

 The “Prime Contract” DE-AC52-07NA27344 with LLNS, began on October 1, 2007, and is scheduled to end on September 30, 2026 (~3 years from now).


Who are the material contenders to manage LLNL when LLNS is out? What actions have been taken thus far to make the transition to the next federal contractor to manage LLNL, occur with minimum delay due to failure to prepare?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Do you remember the British officer in Dr. Strangelove? Why don't we have the British run the lab?
9/11/2023 10:55 AM
Anonymous said…
Hopefully the NNSA doesn’t repeat what happened at LANL when LANS was rewarded with contract extensions after numerous failures.

“Los Alamos contract extended for another year”

from commenter:

“UC ran these labs for decades at a tenth of the overhead cost. Without the conspicuous accidents and loss of talent. Go back to them.”

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/online/9534/Los-Alamos-contract-extended-for-another-year
9/11/2023 11:22 AM
Anonymous said…
FYI: For those fairly new to LLNL or LANL, LLNS and LANS, were appropriately termed LANSLLNS on this blog since their LLC members were almost identical.
9/11/2023 6:21 PM
Anonymous said…
“FYI: For those fairly new to LLNL or LANL, LLNS and LANS, were appropriately termed LANSLLNS on this blog since their LLC members were almost identical.”

Yes, former LANS and still surviving LLNS are same same. Time to finish the removal of any smell of LANSLLNS from these NNSA Laboratories for good.
9/14/2023 5:50 PM
Anonymous said…
The current contractor LLNS and the next contractor to manage LLNL, will only offer a 401k plan for new employees, just like most other companies do across the USA.

The NNSA wants to attract and retain credentialed and experienced employees that have real career choices beyond the National Labs. To do so, the NNSA could create a TCP1 like pension system, but they won’t. However, it should be self evident to the NNSA by now, that:

1. A for-profit contractor is significantly more expensive than a non-profit contractor
2. A for-profit contractor brings NO value added for their additional expense (history confirms this)
3. In hindsight, many past DOE officials prefer a non-profit project and workforce oriented contractor model

Easy peasy
9/16/2023 10:16 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