Thursday, December 22, 2005
On the subject of yesterday's announcement
From Anonymous:
___________________________
On the subject of yesterday's announcement, and the cost figures that
were subsequently published which identified each competitor's bid amount:
Basically, what this means is that LAA won... but lost over a lousy
87M. What this says to me is that DOE needed a justification (a weak
one) for sticking with UC, when the LM-UT team had the stronger
proposal. I had a bad feeling when they announced the delay. I just
knew it was going to get yanked from underneath them.
What a message to send as they put the LLNL contract out to bid: don't
bother spending the money on a proposal, since we're just going to let
UC retain control anyway. They'll never get a response to their RFPs
again, except from UC.
___________________________
On the subject of yesterday's announcement, and the cost figures that
were subsequently published which identified each competitor's bid amount:
Basically, what this means is that LAA won... but lost over a lousy
87M. What this says to me is that DOE needed a justification (a weak
one) for sticking with UC, when the LM-UT team had the stronger
proposal. I had a bad feeling when they announced the delay. I just
knew it was going to get yanked from underneath them.
What a message to send as they put the LLNL contract out to bid: don't
bother spending the money on a proposal, since we're just going to let
UC retain control anyway. They'll never get a response to their RFPs
again, except from UC.
Comments:
<< Home
If true, it looks like LLNL will be in great shape as far as their pensions and benefits go. Much like LBNL.
Post a Comment
<< Home
XML Site Feed