Friday, February 18, 2005

Potential Bidders for the LANL Contract

From Anonymous:

I love my employment with UC and I want to stay a UC employee after this
contract competition is over. Thus, I would like to suggest that we be very cautious on any information that we might post on this Blog that would give any potential bidders for the LANL contract a competitive advantage over UC.

I would like to urge you to please keep this fact in mind when you enter your useful comments on this Blog.


Comments:
I'm not so sure I've enjoyed UC's management all that much, especially lately. It was UC is who brought us Nanos in the first place, without bothering to go through the process of a national search. It is UC who has been dead silent as the true scope of Nanos' screw-ups have come to light. I have no confidence that if UC wins the contract then everything will suddenly be rosy at Los Alamos.

I say it is time to let somebody else have a shot at the job.
 
I agree completely. UC's lack of leadership and unwillingness to accept their role in this makes me think it's time for a change as well.
 
Indeed, UC has proven itself totally spineless in dealing with those two lying ex-cops (UC bought them off before learning that we are NOT a den of thieves). Nor did UC show any support for the person wrongly accused of the Mustang purchase. UC has never (to the best of my knowledge) pushed back on DOE audits.
 
Having come to LANL recently from industry, I'm not at all worried at the prospect of UC being replaced by a for-profit corporation. Nanos' behavior wouldn't be tolerated for 10 minutes in such an environment of rigid meritocracy. Maybe my attitude toward UC would change if they stopped providing me with a new career low in terms of their management of the Lab. I certainly won't put up with Nanos for another year with so many opportunities out there, and I'd gladly sacrifice UC at the Lab to make it a tenable place to base a career.
 
UC has abandoned us, why we want to keep UC?
 
The only reason to keep the UC is the retirement plan and their seeming support for science, one of those reasons went away this past six months and the other will be nullified by the new contract that will require UC to cut back on benefits regardless of the contract outcome. Unfortunately, Nanos has become the Poster Boy for why the lab contractor has to change.
 
If you think UC is bad, wait till a Westinghouse or Bechtel takes over. Then you'll really see the meaning of "off with your head"! UC is the best, even if it isn't what we'd like it to be!
 
Let me see. I shouldn't say anything that might give some outsider a better view of where our weaknesses are. I shouldn't publicly say that we need someone who will fix those perceived weaknesses? I should just secretly hope that somehow UC will do something that might make my work life better?

I wish every laboratory employee would creat a laundry list of the things that they don't like about the lab and send them in. Yes, we realize that we don't understand all aspects of our jobs or the lab but maybe it would help if some thoughtful line and program manager types waded through the identified points to see how many are valid ones that could be dealt with.
 
UC's own stupity has given any others crazy enough to bid on this assylum all the advantage they need.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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