BLOG purpose

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

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE


Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues.

All submissions are screened first for compliance with blog rules. Blog moderator checks queue roughly every 2 to 3 hours daily between 8:00 and 20:00.

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Is it time for collective bargaining?

Is it time for large scale collective bargaining to address eroding benefits with LLNS?

I understand why scientific, engineering, and technical staff might feel collective bargaining is not necessary in a true private sector company, but LANS and LLNS are no such thing. They are for-profit LLCs with training wheels. Meaning LANSLLNS has "no skin in the game" if there is low employe morale, high employee turn over, or underperforms with respect to mission goals. LANSLLNS wins anyway, by spinning all such occurrences into new NNSA assessed "challenges". In the true private sector, you can't spin your leadership failures to retain market share. Blog comments that suggest only under-performing "losers" want representation, are either ignorant of basic market share economics or are shills for LANSLLNS. 

Contract stress

LANL Contract Transition Seems to be Causing Much Stress These Days

To: LANL-All

From: Terry C. Wallace, Jr., DIR, A100

Phone: 7-5101

Symbol: DIR-18-069

Date: April 18, 2018



Subject: Sad News

I am sad to report that an employee collapsed and died this morning while walking into work at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility (CMR) at TA-3. I know all of us feel the pain and loss when a member of the Laboratory family passes, and our thoughts are with his loved ones during this difficult time. Out of respect for the family, we are not releasing the employee’s name at this time.

Tragic events such as these are a reminder of the importance of taking care of ourselves and each other. Please remember to take time for you and your family. LANL is a large and complex place and this is a poignant reminder that our people are the heart of the institution.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

FY2019 NIF budget

Any news of the FY2019 NIF budget ? Will workforce reductions be required ? What about the funding for collaborative work with LLE students/scientists at the NIF ?

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

NNSA are you paying attention ?;

NNSA are you paying attention to what is going on at LANL?

This is what you can expect to have more of if the next contractor is also a university led group. Time to put industrial companies in charge of operations at the rad and nuc facilities to improve safety.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1160470/lanl-partially-evacuated-over-bulging-waste-drum.html

Wyden presses Perry over Hanford possible cleanup

"Wyden Presses Energy Secretary over Possible Hanford Cleanup Cover-up"

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/videos/watch/wyden-presses-energy-secretary-over-possible-hanford-cleanup-cover-up

Two Top NNSA Slots Still Empty

Two Top NNSA Slots Still Empty "Over 400 days into the Donald Trump administration, two of the four National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) leadership slots requiring Senate confirmation remain empty..." https://www.exchangemonitor.com/half-senate-confirmed-nnsa-slots-still-empty/

Monday, April 16, 2018

Contract award criteria

Now that we apparently know from various sources the three teams competing for the LANL contract are
Team A = Bechtel/Purdue
Team B = University of California/Texas A&M/Battelle
Team C = University of Texas/BWX Technologies

I wonder how folks think they score relative to each other on the evaluation criteria in the RFP:
-------
M-3 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government intends to award one contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is responsive to the solicitation and is determined to be the best value to the Government. Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria described below. The Technical and Management Criteria in M-4 will be adjectivally rated. The Cost Criterion M-5 will not be adjectivally rated, but will be used in determining the “best-value” to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Technical and Management Criteria, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost Criterion.

M-4 TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

The following criteria are listed with degrees of importance. Criterion 1 and 2 are of equal importance and, when combined, are significantly more important than Criterion 3.

(a) Criterion 1: PAST PERFORMANCE
The Government will evaluate the Offeror's relevant past performance during the last five years to determine if the relevant past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the Statement of Work (SOW). Past performance that is determined to not be relevant will not be evaluated. Relevant past performance is past performance that is similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements in the Statement of Work...In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available, the Offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably in this criterion, and will be assigned a neutral rating... The Government will not apportion past performance under a DOE, NNSA, or other contract differently among parent companies that have teamed for the purposes of said contract; all parent companies under a contract will be equally credited (positively and negatively) for past performance for that contract.

(b) Criterion 2: LABORATORY ORGANIZATION AND KEY PERSONNEL
The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Laboratory Organization, Key Personnel resumes, and information provided by Key Personnel references...

(c) Criterion 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror's approach in using small businesses...

M-5 COST CRITERION

The Transition Price, Fee for Management and Operation of LANL and Fee for Strategic Partnership Projects (Section L, L-17) will be evaluated for price reasonableness.
-------

I personally give Team B the edge

Saturday, April 14, 2018

RFP language

What specific language or criteria is in the RFP to manage LANL, that is meant to address NNSA detected failures in LANS management? 

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Safety failures

Two more recent safety failures at LANL disclosed by DNFSB

What will Wallace and the UC team have to say about these?


http://www.lamonitor.com/content/lanl-struggles-fission-materials-issues-march

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Bizarre reasons

The LANL PAD Alan Bishop has suddenly stepped down. Very odd, lots of crazy speculation as to why since the reason he gave is so bizarre that no one understands it. 

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Third violation in the past week.

This is the report of the third separate violation at LANL on waste in the past week. In this case, they sent the wrong waste to the wrong facility in Colorado. Report is that this also happened on two previous occasions. News says the fine in this case is only a million dollars, and that is not "real" money to Wallace and LANL.


http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/lanl-sent-waste-to-wrong-facility-after-mislabeling-issue-last/article_0ab55e57-9d56-5b26-aa70-1399f255b2da.html

Blog Archive