Sunday, September 25, 2005

Disagreements between Bechtal / UC on how one felt the labs should be run

From Anonymous:

I have heard from a person that was sitting in the audience while UC / Bechtal and U of T / Lockheed was giving their proposal that one group outdid the other by a long shot. I heard that there were many disagreements between Bechtal / UC on how one felt the labs should be run , while the U of T / Lockheed presentation went as smooth as ice. To me this is a no brainer. They had their chance and blew it. Now it is time to award the winner.

Personally I hope Lockheed Martin wins at LLNL. I have a ton of reason why which I am sure no one wants to hear.


I don't believe this comment at all. The SEB and observers are absolutely sworn to secercy, and comments like the poster say would lead to an appeal of the whole process. This is typical LM wishful thinking, and should be treated as such. BTW, the LM-Texas Team really LM with UT window dressing, sort of like SNL is now.
Yeah, right 9:37. Absolutely sworn to secercy[sic].

The wishful thinking, I'm afraid, is illustrated by your comment.

Oh, and also BTW: the UC component of the Bechtel/UC/BWXT, etc. consortium would have just been window-dressing as well. UC never actually did manage LANL, after all.
The original post simply can’t be true, and the poster is either the gullible recipient of information, or simply fabricated the exchange. What audience is the poster talking about? Only DoE officials are present in every SEB I have participated in, and even then, their participation is quite limited. So, DoE is telling this to the poster? I have been in 6 competitions, and never have I seen or heard anything like this that was factual. To be sure, there always in rumor, and that rumor is usually driven by the hope to influence the outcome of the selection process. Note that the poster states that “Personally I hope Lockheed Martin wins at LLNL”. Guess what, the battle is over LANL not LLNL! So, is
This post from POGO?
10:24, you sound more ignorent with each submission.

The battle is for LANL today, LLNL next year. I (LANL employee of some long standing) truly do wish that LM wins the contract for LANL. Clearly, some LLNL staff are looking ahead to their laboratory's fate as well.
"10:24, you sound more ignorent (sic) with each submission. DOE talking to you directly? I am not a UC employee, but a member of one partners. I simply do not believe you when you say you talked to a member of the audience. I also don't believe you on the LLNL comment.
You have me confused with someone else, 10:49:26 AM. I am not the original poster.
10:49:26 AM, assuming that you actually do work for Bechtel, or BWXT, or the Washington Group, you no doubt realize that you swallowed a large bitter poison pill in deciding to partner with UC. If, as Bob Dynes adamantly promised to LANL staff during one of his "all-hands" meetings a few months ago, UC will retain 51% of the decision-making responsibilities regarding the running of LANL, you have very little reasonable expectation of winning the bid.

I suppose that it is entirely possible that Dynes and the UC regents conceded their 51% responsibility in the process of putting together the bid package with the rest of you, and that he just "forgot" to let us LANL people know this. But even so, what possible benefit can you LANS partners see in being associated with UC? They have made a shambles of running LANL these past 60 years.
I'm starting to believe the original post.I heard this story a week or two ago. The story I heard was that UC and Bechtel were actually arguing with each other in front of the board about who was going to be in charge. At first I didn't believe it but judging from the lack of professionalism and the blatant incompetence displayed by UC it's starting to ring true.
OK, people. Let's all start spouting hearsay about the oral
presentations. That way, the losing party, having invested
huge sums on the competition, can then proceed with litigation
in an attempt to over-turn the award due to the leaks. LANL
would then be adrift for years and years with no one knowing
what their future would hold. Sound like fun? Not to me.
I've got news for you, LANL has been adrift for years.
Unfortunately, this story has the ring of truth. UC seems to be intent on continuing to demonstrate their complete and total lack of professionalism.

Think back to that meeting last May where Dynes introduced Kuckuck to LANL staff at the main TA-3 auditorium. Now remember UC "Director IN Charge of LANL" Foley's unprofessional behavior towards LANL staff.

It takes no great imagination to picture UC and Bechtel bickering in front of the SEB over who was going to be top dog at LANL should LANS win the bid.
The way I heard this rumor. It was that LM/UT could not even figure out what was in their proposal since none of the management team had written it., it was written by two ghost writers. So when it came to leadership vision there was none.
LM would not bid when the fee was ~60 million. A call from Bodman got them to bid as long as the fee was +75 million. The RFP requires the fee to come out of program.....hummm, so all you people that are waiting for LM to "fix" LANL better be part of the lab that LM keeps when the fee + GRT is paid. That part of the lab would be PIT MANUFACTORING.

You may not like UC, but LANS, a whole new company, apparently has somewhat less profit motivie.

Oh, today LANS donated 25,000 dollars to kick off the United Way campaign. LM declined to participate.
I don't see a problem with LM not contributing to the United Way campaign. Especially since they are only bidders and have no responsibilities here until told so by the SEB.

In fact, I wish LANL management(UC) would stop wasting taxpayer dollars, bandwidth and paper on the United Way campaign. If people want to contribute to UW, then fine. Don't force taxpayers to unwittingly contribute to an organization that they may or may not wish to support. I work at LANL to accomplish a mission, and that mission does not include the United Way. anybody in the DOE IG paying attention here????
06:20:04 PM sounds like Gary doing his wishful reality-avoidance thing again.
The "LM is greedy and only doing this for money" angle has
little creedence with me. Does anyone seriously think that
UC's partners (Bechtel, Washington Group, BWXT) are in this
thing for free? They are just as eager as LM to be paid
for their work. Poster 7:07 pm is pulling mighty hard
for reasons to discount LM. Regardless of this, I think
everyone is going to be a bit shocked when the management
bills come due and are paid out from our operating budgets.
This is coming regardless of who wins the RFP.
"Disagreements between Bechtal / UC on how one felt the labs should be run"

Now, the spelling of UC's senior partner ("bidness" partner, mind you, as we say in Texas) is BECHTEL. Yeah, sure, it RHYMES with "rectal," but it's spelled "Bechtel." (Common mistake--pronouncing it like it was French.)
No matter how it is spelled I have heard from people who have actually worked with bechtel that they are very slow and take about four times longer to get something done then we currently do. This doesn't sound like anyone that I want to work for. It will make for a very long work day and a boring career. So lets hope that we get a contractor that run the labs as if they were there to make a profit.
Sounds like Foley messed up again ...

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?