• About
    • About Us
    • What We Cover
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Our Advertisers
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Send News
  • Subscribe

Oak Ridge Today

  • Home
  • Sign in
  • News
    • Business
    • Community
    • Education
    • Government
    • Health
    • Police and Fire
    • U.S. Department of Energy
    • Weather
  • Sports
    • High School
    • Middle School
    • Recreation
    • Rowing
    • Youth
  • Entertainment
    • Arts
    • Dancing
    • Movies
    • Music
    • Television
    • Theater
  • Premium Content
  • Obituaries
  • Classifieds

 

Parts of Y-12, Pantex contract protests upheld; GAO says procurement should be re-opened

Posted at 1:48 pm April 29, 2013
By John Huotari Leave a Comment

Y-12 National Security Complex

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has upheld parts of two protests filed over the January award of a five-year contract to manage and operate the Y-12 National Security Complex, pictured above, and Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas. (Submitted photo)

A federal agency has upheld parts of two protests challenging a five-year contract to manage two nuclear weapons plants in Tennessee and Texas.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office also recommended re-opening the contract procurement, raising questions about the status of the $22.8 billion contract awarded to Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC, or CNS, in January. CNS was one of three bidding teams who competed for the contract to manage and operate the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge and Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas.

At the heart of the GAO decision, announced Monday, were questions about proposed savings. In particular, the agency seemed to question whether the National Nuclear Security Administration, which awarded the consolidated contract to CNS on Jan. 8, had properly evaluated the expected savings.

“NNSA failed to follow the publicly stated solicitation criteria, which provided that the agency would evaluate the feasibility and size of each offeror’s proposed cost savings resulting from the consolidation of the management and operation of these sites,” Ralph O. White, GAO managing associate general counsel for procurement law, said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

“Specifically, GAO concluded that NNSA failed to meaningfully assess the majority of each offeror’s proposed cost savings, and based its source selection decision on the unsupported assumption that all cost savings proposed by every offeror would be achieved,” White said. “The protesters raised various other protest allegations, which were denied.”

Earlier this year, federal officials said CNS had promised to help the federal government save $3.27 billion during the next decade, but many of the details would have to be announced later. The expected savings of the other two bidding teams have not been publicly disclosed.

On Monday evening, Jason Bohne, a spokesman for Bechtel National Inc., which is part of the CNS team, said the $3.27 billion in savings was a credible number. But the company will provide more details as a result of the GAO decision, he said.

“Based on the information we have, we’re encouraged,” Bohne said. “We feel that the opportunity to provide additional information will confirm that the NNSA made the right decision when it picked Consolidated Nuclear Security.”

The CNS team also includes Lockheed Martin Services Inc., among others.

The two losing teams—Nuclear Production Partners LLC, of Lynchburg, Va., and Integrated Nuclear Production Solutions LLC of Oak Ridge—had filed the bid protests. The first was filed Jan. 17, and the GAO had 100 days to issue a decision.

On Monday, the GAO said the NNSA should re-open the procurement, request more information from the bidders about their proposed cost savings, and evaluate the relative size of each team’s proposed cost savings. If the procurement were re-opened, it would only be open to the three teams that have already bid.

The U.S. Department of Energy and NNSA have 60 days to respond. They’re not bound by the decision, but agencies usually follow the GAO’s recommendations.

If they don’t, the GAO could notify the House and Senate appropriations committees and other appropriate committees. Under federal law, the Comptroller General reports annually to Congress on federal agencies that do not fully implement a recommendation made by GAO in connection with a bid protest decided the prior fiscal year.

In a short statement, the NNSA said it was reviewing Monday’s decision.

“We appreciate the GAO’s advice,” NNSA spokesman Josh McConaha said. “We’re going to take some time before settling on our path forward, but we are committed to reducing costs for the American taxpayers and strengthening our nuclear security capabilities at Pantex and Y-12.”

Meanwhile, CNS could challenge the decision in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., which hears a small percentage of the 2,500 protests filed with the GAO each year. But it’s not clear that they would.

“The ball is in the NNSA’s court now,” Bohne said. “We’ll be prepared to follow any directive that the NNSA gives.”

The consolidated contract is the first for the NNSA, and it’s been in the works for several years. NNSA officials have said the consolidation could save money in part by eliminating redundancies in such areas as human resources, purchasing, finance, and information technology.

The bid protests had already put on hold the transition to CNS, which had initially been scheduled to take over operations at Y-12 and Pantex on May 1.

Babcock and Wilcox Co., the current lead managing and operating contractor at Y-12 and Pantex, said it was pleased with the GAO decision. B&W is part of the the Nuclear Production Partners team, which also includes URS, Northrop Grumman, and Honeywell. B&W said the team’s proposal was a “very strong choice for moving closer to the National Nuclear Security Administration’s vision of a consolidated nuclear security enterprise and for continuing the tradition of excellence B&W has maintained at both Y-12 and Pantex over the past 12 years.”

Besides consolidating management and operations at Y-12 and Pantex, the contract awarded in January also included construction of the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12, and it could have added the management and operation of NNSA’s Savannah River Tritium Operations, located near Aiken, S.C.

White said the protest decision itself contains proprietary and sensitive information, so its release is currently limited to NNSA personnel and certain outside counsel. However, the parties have been directed to submit proposed redactions so a public version of the decision can be prepared, White said. It could be available in a few weeks at www.gao.gov.

In the meantime, the B&W contracts for Y-12 and Pantex have been extended to May 31, said Steven Wyatt, public affairs manager for the NNSA Production Office in Oak Ridge.

The Integrated Nuclear Production Solutions team includes Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and Fluor Federal Services Inc. A Jacobs spokeswoman did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Note: This story was last updated at 12:10 a.m. April 30.

Filed Under: Federal, Government, National Nuclear Security Administration, Top Stories, Y-12 National Security Complex Tagged With: B&W Y-12, Babcock and Wilcox, Bechtel National Inc., CNS, consolidated contract, Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC, cost savings, Fluor, GAO, Integrated Nuclear Production Solutions LLC, Jacobs, Josh McConaha, Lockheed Martin Services Inc., National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, Nuclear Production Partners LLC, Pantex Plant, Ralph O. White, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Y-12 National Security Complex

Advertisements

 


Join the club!

If you appreciate our work, please consider subscribing. Besides helping us, your subscription will give you access to our premium content.

Some of our stories are free, brought to you by Oak Ridge Today with help from our members—advertisers, subscribers, and sponsors.

But some are premium content, available only to members. Those are in-depth, investigative, or exclusive stories that are available only on Oak Ridge Today. They generally require significant time to report, write, and publish.

You can subscribe for as little as $5 per month.

You can read more about your options here.

We currently offer five primary subscription options to readers, and they include benefits.

Basic

  • Basic monthly subscription ($5 per month)—access premium content
  • Basic annual subscription ($60 per year)—access premium content

Pro

  • Pro monthly subscription ($10 per month)—access premium content, get breaking news emails first, and submit one press release or public service announcement per month
  • Pro annual subscription ($100 per year)—save $20 per year, access premium content, get breaking news emails first, and submit one press release or public service announcement per month

Temporary

  • Temporary access ($3 per week for two weeks)

We also have advanced subscription options. You can see them here.

We also accept donations. You can donate here.

If you prefer to send a check for a subscription or donation, you may do so by mailing one to:

Oak Ridge Today
P.O. Box 6064
Oak Ridge, TN 37831

Thank you for your consideration and for reading Oak Ridge Today. We appreciate your support.

Commenting Guidelines

We welcome comments, but we ask you to follow a few guidelines:

1) Please use your real name, including last name. Please also use a valid e-mail address.
2) Be civil. Don't insult others, attack their character, or get personal.
3) Stick to the issues.
4) No profanity.
5) Keep your comments to a reasonable length and to a reasonable number per article.

We reserve the right to remove any comments that violate these guidelines. Comments held for review, usually from those posting for the first time, may not post if they violate these guidelines. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Thank you also for reading Oak Ridge Today and for participating in the discussion.

More information is available here.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Government News

Residents discuss Dollar General in Marlow

A handful of Anderson County residents have expressed mixed opinions in government meetings about a reported proposal to build a Dollar General store next to Oliver Springs Highway in Marlow, but the Anderson County … [Read More...]

Read city manager’s retirement letter

This is a copy of the January 17 retirement letter from Oak Ridge City Manager Mark Watson to the seven Oak Ridge City Council members. Since August of 2010, I have been proud to serve the City of Oak Ridge as its … [Read More...]

Oak Ridge Public Library

Library restrooms will be renovated

The restrooms at the Oak Ridge Public Library will be renovated starting February 1. The renovations are expected to be completed by June 1. The renovations will result in increased accessibility under Americans … [Read More...]

Breakfast with Legislators resumes Monday

Breakfast with the Legislators begins this year on Monday. The monthly breakfasts are scheduled each year while the Tennessee General Assembly is in session. They are hosted by the League of Women Voters of Oak Ridge, … [Read More...]

Former AC Commissioner Hitchcock dies

Note: This story was updated at 11:30 a.m. Harry "Whitey" Hitchcock, who represented part of Oak Ridge in three terms on Anderson County Commission, died January 10. A former teacher, he was 76. Hitchcock served on … [Read More...]

More Government

Recent Posts

  • Basketball: Wildcats beat West in rematch
  • Basketball: Lady Wildcats undefeated in district
  • Obituaries: Jan. 23-27, 2023
  • Speakers mostly support TRISO-X fuel facility at meeting
  • UPF construction could cost more, take longer
  • Y-12 celebrates new fire station, emergency operations center
  • One person seriously injured in Wednesday crash
  • Oak Ridge EM prepared for cold weather to prevent failures
  • Covenant Health donating land for Roane State health science center
  • School board approves aviation career path

Search Oak Ridge Today

About Us

About Oak Ridge Today
What We Cover

How To

Advertise
Subscribe

Contact Us

Contact Oak Ridge Today

Copyright © 2023 Oak Ridge Today