NukeWorker Forum

Facility & Company Information => Region II (South East) => Paducah => Topic started by: Rennhack on Jan 28, 2003, 07:11

Title: Paducah
Post by: Rennhack on Jan 28, 2003, 07:11
Don't forget to vote.  Keep your comments civil.
Title: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Rennhack on Jan 28, 2003, 07:19
Please reply to this topic if you have (or know who has) a contract at this facility.  If you (they) have multiple contracts (i.e. QC & NDE) please mention all of them.  Also, please remember to post company contact information, including but not limited to company phone number, email and web site address.  Also, if there is a specific person at the company people should ask for, you should mention their name and extension. We maintain a chart of contracts, the information posted here will be added to the contract chart.

This includes any information on Local Unions!
Title: Paducah
Post by: Camella Black on Apr 08, 2004, 11:25
If anyone has a favorite hang out, place to shop, or local information for this area please post it here.
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Shonkatoys on Jul 06, 2004, 06:25
I hear that Bechtel is out of Paducah,  What is the deal at Paducah???  Is SEC  staying??
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Druid on Jul 07, 2004, 06:05
Paducah is in the same situation as Portsmouth. Bechtel Jacobs is leaving (currently scheduled for 1 October 2004). Two new contracts will be issued, one for remediation and one for infrastructure, the contractors should be annouced by mid to late August.

Until they are announced no one know exactly how HP will work.

Each contractor could set up their own HP department, or they could each subcontract their HPs, or one could set up an HP department and subcontract some of their HPs to the other contactor. Or some combination of the above. Possibly even something that I haven't thought of.

In any case all indications (at least at Portsmouth) are that SEC will be leaving soon after Bechtel Jacobs does. Senior HP management at Portsmouth have been leaving like rats off the Titantic.
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: thenukeman on Sep 10, 2004, 08:15
I  heard Bechtel  Jacobs  has  been  extended  till  March 2005  and  so  has  SEC.  Is  this  true???

Also  I  heard  that  both  Paducah  and  Porthsmouth  are  coming  out  from  the  control  of  the  Oak  Ridge  office  but  will  be  controlled  out  of  Lexington  KY.  Is  this  True.

Who  are  the  bidders  on  this??  I  heard  Bechtel  is  not  bidding.  Is  this  true??
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Druid on Sep 11, 2004, 09:16
Yes, to all your questions. But the actual time frame for any of these things is impossible to say. There are political and legal issues involved with the new contracts and the splitting of DOE control from Oak Ridge. All of these changes were supposed to happen months ago, but they keep getting pushed back.
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Dave Warren on Sep 15, 2004, 07:38 will give you some assistance in answering those questions. Look around that site and you will find some good information.

Last word was that the remediation contracts would be awarded or announced  in January 2005.
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Fast Fission on Sep 17, 2004, 05:56
Is it typical for DOE to have this much trouble issuing a contract?
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Dave Warren on Sep 17, 2004, 08:37
The contract issuance is not usually this much of a hassle. There are many factors involved here.

Portsmouth Remediation is a 5 to 7-year job. That's big for any company.

The DOE is opening up a "Central Office" in Cincinnati around April or May to control all of the DOE sector. Centralizing that many people can be a logistics nightmare. That is on their plate right now.

You are seeing small companies throwing their hats in the proverbial D&D ring. Our company was the first "small business" to get a baseline schedule approved by the DOE. There were only 3 other times a baseline was approved, and those were all by "large companies".

Politics, red tape, bureaucratic holdups, palm-greasing, etc.

The DOE is trying to do Damage Control with the Fernald/Yucca Mountain public relations nightmare. This is referring to their Silo waste.

All these factors need to be weighed before the awarding of the contract. I surely wouldn't want their job. These statements are all based on hearsay, rumor, supposition and pure facts.
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Fast Fission on Sep 17, 2004, 10:27
The DOE contract website has a request for the bidders to agree to a 60 day extension on the bids. This puts it past Nov. 2. Is the administration putting off a decision until after the election?
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: Dave Warren on Sep 17, 2004, 11:24
This is what the DOE releases to the public.
 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking expressions of interest from small businesses or small business joint ventures or teams to perform environmental remediation services at the Portsmouth and Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant sites in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky, respectively.  The two sites were originally administered by the Oak Ridge Reservation but will come under the oversight of the Portsmouth and Paducah Project Office, located in Lexington, Kentucky by October 1, 2003.  Significant portions of both sites are leased to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) that operates the Gaseous Diffusion Plants at each site.  The Paducah plant is currently in an operating status while the Portsmouth plant is currently being maintained in cold stand-by status.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code for this effort is 562910, Remediation Services, which has a size standard of no more than 500 employees.  The current contract, DE-AC05-98OR22700, is being performed by Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC.  The approximate annual value of the remediation services will be $95 million for Paducah and $90 million for Portsmouth.  Two completion cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts with periods of performance through September 30, 2009 are anticipated—one for each site—with cost and schedule performance incentives.  Some access to classified material will be required during contract performance.  Accordingly, some personnel will be required to either have a “Q” clearance at the time of contract award or be capable of receiving a clearance within 90 days after award.  A Department of Defense (DOD) Top Secret or other clearance based upon a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) is acceptable if the background investigation is less than 5 years old.

It is the Department’s intent to issue a single solicitation and award two contracts - one at each site.  The Department further anticipates that this procurement will be a total small business set-aside.  Capability packages submitted by interested small business entities, small business joint ventures, or teaming arrangements will be reviewed to determine whether or not at least two interested entities can provide the requisite expertise to perform the requirements successfully.

The tasks to be performed include: legacy waste management - storage and disposition - of radioactive low-level waste, mixed low-level waste, transuranic waste, hazardous waste, Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) waste, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste; site-wide assessments, including facility investigation actions, corrective measures studies and other Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) related activities; soil and groundwater remediation; inactive facilities removal, including demolition and disposal; scrap yard and material storage removal and remediation; Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) clean up; and surveillance, maintenance and monitoring of previously completed remediation actions.  Please see the attached synopsis of site work activities. 

Interested small businesses should review and understand the requirements in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 19 and clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, as well as 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sections 121.103 and 125.6.  In particular, interested parties should focus on the rules governing affiliation.

Interested entities should submit the following capability information via the DOE Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS) no later than 2:00 pm, eastern daylight savings time (EDT), on August 15, 2003:
1.   Past performance information (performed in the past 5 years) that demonstrates familiarity and experience with environmental remediation.  The information submitted should:
a.   Describe the size, term and complexity of the job;
b.   Identify the company’s role as either a prime or subcontractor;
c.   Identify a point of contact at the agency or prime contractor’s organization to verify information; and
d.   Detail the specific tasks performed by the company.
2.   Discuss the background and experience of the anticipated project manager and up to three (3) technical personnel with experience in the task areas listed above.  If resumes are provided, each resume should be no more than three pages in length.
3.   Provide a description of the entity’s experience either managing a team or acting as a member of a team of businesses working on large complex projects. Provide points of contact (including contact information) that can verify this experience.
4.   Provide a list of any companies anticipated to be used as either subcontractors or joint venture or team members, a copy of the written draft or final agreement to be used, and a synopsis of proposed management strategy for the relationship.
5.   Provide a synopsis of financing arrangements available to support performance under a contract with an anticipated annual value of $90 million.

The following information is provided to highlight unique or unusual requirements anticipated to be included in the forthcoming solicitation, as well as to provide the expected evaluation criteria.  The anticipated evaluation criteria include: demonstrated ability to recruit and retain experienced project management and technical specialists in the various aspects of remediation to be performed; technical and management involvement at the corporate level; establishment of an environment, safety and health program that includes a successful Integrated Safety Management System, environmental monitoring and compliance; and efficient technical and business operations.  An offeror’s understanding and management approach for minimizing programmatic risk and uncertainty may also be evaluated.

Work similar to the effort discussed above is currently being performed at the Paducah and Portsmouth sites under a management and integration (M&I) contract.  The Department is currently investigating alternative approaches to workforce transition requirements, and the attached Work Force Transition and Human Resources Management document synopsizes both the current requirements and the alternatives being considered.

Interested potential offerors are invited to provide any comments, recommendations or questions on the synopsis of work activities, draft evaluation criteria, or work force transition and human resources management synopsis, as well as to propose recommendations on how the incentive fee should be structured.  All feedback provided will be taken into consideration, however the agency reserves the right to not utilize the comments or any other information provided.  Comments on the synopsis of work activities, draft evaluation criteria, work force transition and human resources management requirements, or fee structure should be clearly distinguished from the capability information being provided.
Small business concerns responding to this market survey must submit their response via the DOE IIPS at no later than 2:00 pm, EDT, on August 15, 2003.  Interested parties must register via the IIPS web site prior to responding to this market survey.  Instructions on how to submit your response can be found in the help document located on the IIPS web site listed above.  For technical assistance, firms should call 1-800-683-0751 or e-mail the IIPS administrator at  THIS IS NEITHER A REQUEST FOR A FORMAL PROPOSAL NOR A PRESOLICITATION NOTICE, but is provided as information to the marketplace and is an invitation for an expression of interest and demonstration of capability to perform the anticipated work.  The Government will not pay for the provision of any information nor will it compensate any respondents for the development of such information. While a future Request For Proposal is anticipated, it is not guaranteed. 
Title: Re: Paducah Contracts
Post by: DecommMan on Nov 10, 2004, 08:48
Remember when D&D used to be easy.....
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: Pup on Jan 20, 2005, 07:32
No takers ? I have heard that Bechtel is out, what about SEC ? I have also heard that B******t has set up another company to work through, any info ?
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: merlin_the_wizard on Feb 23, 2005, 04:22
What can you folks tell about Paducah?  Is a DOE a DOE?
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: raymcginnis on May 28, 2005, 05:34
I have never worked there, but back in the 1980s they provided data to my nuclear guru.  He made graphs that would allow a user to predict uranium enrichment based on their data.  This is what my "Uranium Enrichment Calculator" software is based on.   I think that mostly smart people are working there.  I would work there, no questions asked! 
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: ratshack on May 29, 2005, 12:54
Bechtel is out, but have been extended for a bit while the re-bid process goes on. Things are kind of up in the air until it gets settled out. Pretty low risk, minimal dose, even less TRU, main projects now are D&D in the old feed plant, and cleaning out some DOE storage areas.
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: Rennhack on Aug 28, 2006, 04:10
The U.S. Department of Energy criticized the lead nuclear cleanup contractor for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant for a series of safety problems.

An Aug. 16 letter from the DOE indicated Paducah Remediation Services may lose some of the few million dollars it stands to earn in performance fees if corrective actions aren't taken immediately.

"There have been a number of minor accidents, but the Department of Energy does see them as a potential trend, and we do as well," Paducah Remediation Services President Mike Spry said. "We're trying to nip it in the bud before we have major incidents."

PRS took over as the plant's cleanup contractor April 24 under a $192 million contract. The company has since had "a significant number of industrial and radiological safety incidents," Loretta Parsons, contracting officer for the Energy Department's Lexington project office, wrote in the letter.

"These safety incidents include multiple forklift accidents, near-miss events, radiological control violations and first aids," the letter said.

Paducah Remediation Services is evaluating its management team and conducting safety training, Spry said.

He wouldn't say how much PRS expects to earn in performance fees, except to say the amount was "a few million."

"The best way for DOE to track our performance and get it where we want it to be is the fee mechanism," he said. "Obviously we're responding to that because we don't want to see our fees reduced."

The safety problems have forced employees to stop work at least three times, Parsons wrote. The DOE also questioned how well workers respond to safety problems.

Spry said there have been no serious injuries and only a few in which workers needed treatment. He said one violation of radiation-control requirements was fairly serious and remains under investigation.

The Energy Department hired PRS in an effort to reduce costs. Immediately upon takeover, PRS slashed 150 of 550 jobs, spurring rumors that the firm had underbid the cost of its work.
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: jusplyn on Aug 29, 2006, 08:02
hey everyone i worked there and the new company didnt seem to have a grasp on what was going on, and probably did underestimate what they were getting into. all i know is that we had it easy, i mean real easy, they saw this and so they cut some people. maybe they cut to much. i saw alot of techs with 10+ years let go, and they havent spent those last ten in paducah. yet they kept the senior that had 4 years experience and all four of those years at paducah. :-\
Title: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Post by: KEVIO on Oct 23, 2006, 11:00
Does anyone have any info on Paducah such as what the status is, who's supplying techs and anything else along those lines?
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: rjwooten on Jul 18, 2010, 01:02
As of this date Paducah Remediation Services is being replaced by LATA Enviromental of KY. Does anyone have any input on the various remediation jobs done by the Delta, Hotel Sierra, and Zulu workers at USEC?
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: jusplyn on Jul 21, 2010, 06:06
i take it these are the radio call signs for groups of workers? give a little more info, with your post i don't think you will be getting much of a response :)
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: rjwooten on Jul 22, 2010, 07:27
Yes these are radio call sign groups for the various remediation jobs. Curious as to which contractor each group works for and which type of remediation work each group performs.
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: jusplyn on Jul 22, 2010, 08:57
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: jusplyn on Jul 22, 2010, 09:01
hotel sierra = health and safety should be lata.
zulu and delta= operators and laborers and such. should work for lata or maybe
s.m. stoller(real good company to work for)
i think thats right. now which news agency do you work for? lol
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: rjwooten on Jul 23, 2010, 09:57
I assure you all that I am not a journalist or work for any newspaper. I am just a local listener curious as to who I am hearing and what jobs they are performing on the various talkgroups. Thanks for the replies and information. Please feel free to share any more information. Thanks again.
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: HydroDave63 on Jul 23, 2010, 02:43
I assure you all that I am not a journalist or work for any newspaper. I am just a local listener curious as to who I am hearing and what jobs they are performing on the various talkgroups. Thanks for the replies and information. Please feel free to share any more information. Thanks again.

Any business, even a cab company, can consider it's radio communications proprietary. Just because it is is the clear doesn't mean it is freely available for Boris and Natasha to download for Friends of the Walrus, ACORN, Mothers Against Neutrons or the local fishwrap paper. Do you listen for all the hot action on baby monitors as well?  ;)
Title: Re: Paducah
Post by: rjwooten on Jul 23, 2010, 04:30
Thanks for the informative comeback! I take it that listening to clean up work is a threat to national security. Sorry I got your panties in a wad. Anyway thanks again the enlightening comeback!