In my experience, knowledge of what companies are part of each bid are not publicly published until the contract is awarded, and even then only for the company selected to do the work.
IDIQ contracts are commercial contract frameworks under which task orders are placed. This isn’t the first time IDIQ contracts have been used as Savannah River has one also. The competition involves evaluation of experience in similar work, key personnel, reviews of test problems submitted etc. All of the competitors have previous DOE experience. There were submissions from Bechtel, Westinghouse , Jacob’s etc. as well.
An awfully weak, nebulous form of competition. You would think 40 years in that DOE could define the clean up job well enough so that it could be bid on a firm,fixed price basis. But that would mean there is an end to the gravy train. And besides defining the job properly would reveal that it is largely unnecessary.
The only competition here was which pig pushed his way to the trough. I am going to leave the wording as is.
Sorry to see that. Competition is very strong with very qualified and experienced contractors. Firm fixed price isn’t a good approach for complex projects and doesn’t create any sense of certainty. Open book, open schedule with award fees is most likely the best approach. The task order approach requires bidders to detail expected cost and schedule on discrete tasks.
Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn't work on either corrupt people or zealots, something the nuclear or should I say the anti-nuclear industry has in spades. Thanks for bringing this boondoggle to light.
There will be some in the anti-nuclear movement who will have taken note and will trot out this expenditure in due course as a proof that nuclear power is dangerous ... just as they do with the cost of the Fukushima "cleanup".
For sure. That's why the Catastrophic Harm Lie (any release of radiation is unacceptable) is doubly debilitating. Not only does it result in ridiculously wasteful expenditures like the Hanford cleanup ripoff, but those costs in themselves become arguments against nuclear. The piece should have finished up by making this point, rather than the silly crack about anti-nukes.
The other point that should have been made is that contracts like this one are precisely why the nuclear establishment will not renounce the Catastrophic Harm Lie. If they did, they would no longer be able to extract scores of billions of dollars from the taxpayers.
Sorry, but the Hanford contract you mention was competitively awarded. You were incorrect.
Jim,
Thanks for the correction.
Who were the competitors?
How does one compete for an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract.
This is actually the 2nd time around for this contract. The previous contract to replace WRPS was the Tank Closure Contract, which was awarded to Hanford Work Restoration in 2020 (https://www.energy.gov/em/articles/doe-awards-hanford-tank-closure-contract), but later cancelled by DoE after some GAO action (https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/business/13-billion-hanford-contract-canceled-feds-to-restart-bidding-process/article_1e072f00-4925-11eb-b93e-ffe8110b943c.html).
In my experience, knowledge of what companies are part of each bid are not publicly published until the contract is awarded, and even then only for the company selected to do the work.
This webpage: https://www.emcbc.doe.gov/SEB/HanfordITDC/ has links to the Request for Proposal, as well as other documents related to the contract. The DoE contracting rules can be found here: https://www.acquisition.gov/dears .
IDIQ contracts are commercial contract frameworks under which task orders are placed. This isn’t the first time IDIQ contracts have been used as Savannah River has one also. The competition involves evaluation of experience in similar work, key personnel, reviews of test problems submitted etc. All of the competitors have previous DOE experience. There were submissions from Bechtel, Westinghouse , Jacob’s etc. as well.
An awfully weak, nebulous form of competition. You would think 40 years in that DOE could define the clean up job well enough so that it could be bid on a firm,fixed price basis. But that would mean there is an end to the gravy train. And besides defining the job properly would reveal that it is largely unnecessary.
The only competition here was which pig pushed his way to the trough. I am going to leave the wording as is.
Sorry to see that. Competition is very strong with very qualified and experienced contractors. Firm fixed price isn’t a good approach for complex projects and doesn’t create any sense of certainty. Open book, open schedule with award fees is most likely the best approach. The task order approach requires bidders to detail expected cost and schedule on discrete tasks.
It's worked well so far. Better than 60 billion dollars gone, and not much to show for it.
Not true at all. You need to check your facts.
Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn't work on either corrupt people or zealots, something the nuclear or should I say the anti-nuclear industry has in spades. Thanks for bringing this boondoggle to light.
There will be some in the anti-nuclear movement who will have taken note and will trot out this expenditure in due course as a proof that nuclear power is dangerous ... just as they do with the cost of the Fukushima "cleanup".
For sure. That's why the Catastrophic Harm Lie (any release of radiation is unacceptable) is doubly debilitating. Not only does it result in ridiculously wasteful expenditures like the Hanford cleanup ripoff, but those costs in themselves become arguments against nuclear. The piece should have finished up by making this point, rather than the silly crack about anti-nukes.
The other point that should have been made is that contracts like this one are precisely why the nuclear establishment will not renounce the Catastrophic Harm Lie. If they did, they would no longer be able to extract scores of billions of dollars from the taxpayers.