Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Sandia leader taking on UC

Oakland Tribune
April 12, 2005

Sandia leader taking on UC
Laboratory chief steps down to join Lockheed's bid for Los Alamos deal

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

The longtime head of Sandia National Laboratories is stepping aside and leading Lockheed Martin's effort to wrest operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory away from the University of California.

If Lockheed succeeds, physicist and former arms-control negotiator C. Paul Robinson would return to Los Alamos, where he began his defense science career in the mid-1960s, as the lab's chief executive.

[...]

Full Story

Comments:
Wake up, Mr. Dynes. The LockMart/UT/Robinson steam-roller is coming while
you are asleep at the wheel. You are about to be crushed. The performance
of UC in regards to the coming RFP is looking quite pathetic.
 
I'm growing ambivalent about whether either UC or LockMart runs this place.
If LockMart does take the contract, I have only one request of Dr. Robinson.
Please march Mr. Nanos ASAP to the downtown Macy's front store window and have
a large sign placed around his neck that says: "I'm a butt-head and a total
failure". Do that one simple request and most of the staff at Los Alamos will
love you for evermore.
 
Outside of their massive arrogance, it is beyond me why UC would bid on LANL. As the ex Division Leader commented (on the Domenici letter) the UC "management" was invisible at Los Alamos. Comparing the Sandia Corp. management structure, with its Board of Directors, with the UC Lab Administration Office, the LAO looks ridiculous, and is.
About the only way that UC could contribute something meaningful to the Lab would be to accept a "science oversight" role, like the recent arrangement between Sandia and UT. This isn't exactly "getting UC out of management", as they have never been in management. The science role could work, it the UC ego would allow them such a minor role.
These problems are six decades old, and its refreshing to see some new approaches.
 
Hook'em Horns!!!
 
Can you believe what a difference one "short" year makes? A year ago, I never would have guessed that UC would have crumbled so totally. Apart from the retirement system, everything they've touched--or FAILED to touch, like Nanos after his misbegotten Shutdown--has turned to...dust. A year ago, I never would have thought that Sandia would march so far ahead of LANL, to the point that people would welcome LockMart, UTexas, and CPR (C.Paul Robinson). But CPR is just what LANL needs, I guess. UC is beyond resuscitating. (That blank "grin" on Dynes' face does not mean anything.)
 
It's turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy, where there is so much press and general sentiment that Lockheed/UT will win the bid that in actuality they will.

In theory the RFP hasn't even been finalized yet, no one has bid, and no one has presumably won yet.

But I sure hope UC starts putting out some positive spin and articles on their approach to the LANL bidding process before the whole Lockheed/UT/Robinson self-fullfilling prophecy train picks up too much steam.
 
A related question might be: Who is UC pulling together to write the bid? People from LANL upper management? Rich Mah as the LANL lead, along with bits of time from others at the SET/EB level? Foley from UC? Sounds like a winning proposal from UC in the works to me.
 
8:37 PM

Rich Mah? Members of the SET and the EB? You actually seem to be suggesting that these, er, folks comprise a winning team.

I'll take a puff of whatever you're smoking.
 
8:42 - Absolutely, they're all "winners". You need to recognize sarcasm ;)

8:37
 
Oops. I was suffering a brief moment of humor impairment. Gotcha, now.
 
It was relayed to us from Rich Mah, that Nanos wanted to go down in history as the Director who saved the U.C. contract. Wow look at what happened, Mah is only looking for a fat retirement and really doesent care.
 
UC isn't pulling anyone from LANL upper management/SET to write the bid, not only because these folks have no abilties to write proposals or communicate for that matter, but because UC has pulled out of the bid entirely. They cannot beat the LockMart/UT/Robinson/Bush administration team on this one, and don't have a prayer of winning back the contract. Anyway, change is good. Just because UC has had the contract for 60 years is not itself a good enough reason for them to continue it. Times change, institutions change, and LANL employees are going to have to roll with it or find somewhere else to work. One of my former managers at LANL -- who had never -- or could never -- worked anywhere else during his entire career, once described himself as "screwed" out of his retirement if UC did not win the upcoming contract bid. Screwed?! No, he screwed himself by getting too comfortable and lazy. Too bad that he and many others have such an attitude of entitlement. Wake up folks: what company or workplace guarantees retirement any more?? How many people these days work at the same place for 30 years and do not move around to enhance their careers, buying into multiple retirement accounts?? Only at LANL, which is 40 years behind the times. Hopefully LockMart will win the contract and drag LANL into the 21st century.
 
I can't say how accurate the 4/13/2005 02:39:20 PM comments are, as I know for a fact that my division leader was on the team to help write the UC proposal, at least as of a month ago. I would not be surprised, however, were UC to suddenly decide not go ahead with their bid plans, what with LM/UT entering the fray, and with the copious amount of anti-UC sentiment being expressed on this blog regarding UC's continued tenure at LANL.
 
I dare UC to bid the entire current LANL upper management. Pete Nanos, Don Cobb, Dave "80/20" Beck, Rich Mah, et al.

UC's silence and actions imply assent for all that are there. Given they think they are the best for the job, then they should be willing to bid them to a person.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

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