LANL: The Real Story

From Anonymous:

Recent posts and comments relating to Secretary Bodman's visit last Friday have given rise to a spate of pessimism. Some of the posts and comments might have been submitted by LANL management sympathizers, but more likely the oft-cited "Pete slapping Pete's back" incident, the "Pete slapping LANL staff around (get over it)" incident, and the rather pathetic showing LANL staff made when it came to the question and answer session are the cause for the new pessimism. I'm pessimistic myself: I have very little faith that an organization which would allow a screw-up of the magnitude that Nanos represents even has the ability to make things right, much less the desire. Given that, I'm still not willing to give up. At the very least, we should continue to try to get Nanos removed before he does even more damage. I like the letter that was in a comment to the post which gave Bodman's email address:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Thank you for taking the time to visit LANL last Friday. You might be interested to know that you left a positive impression with the audience, perhaps even giving cause for some small rays of hope that our problems may soon start to be behind us. I do wish to say, however, that during the questions session there seemed to be a white elephant in the room that everyone (myself included) was afraid to talk about. That white elephant was this: most of us at LANL (Director Nanos and members of the SET apparently excluded) feel that it has been amply shown that the shutdown of last July was not justified. We feel that an accounting for that completely unnecessary and damaging act is required. We would like to take Senator Domenici's advice to "just get over it", but that will not be possible until Director Nanos is removed. Finally, to turn this into the question that nobody could apparently bring themselves to ask last Friday: why as that not been done yet? Why is Director Nanos still in charge of Los Alamos National Laboratory? He has lost our trust; he has lost our respect. By his continued presence he will lose us even more of our one precious resource, the talented people who used to take pride in working at Los Alamos. We have already seen far too many of our valued colleagues leave LANL because of Director Nanos.

If, in your considered judgment you decide that it is not possible to remove Director Nanos, could you please have the courtesy to tell us that, and to tell us the reason?

Regards,

I think that if enough LANL staff voice this request to the new secretary, we might be able to salvage a bit of good.

From Anonymous:

Some have noted that Senator Domenici and Secretary Bodman did not say anything directly in support of Director Nanos last Friday. However, there was body language that might not have been apparent to those watching on Labnet. The Senator found two occasions to pat Nanos on the back (literally), the last very conspicuously after leaving and returning to the stage, possibly just for this purpose so it could not be missed by anyone in the audience. Then there was his “get over this stuff” statement at the end, just in case anyone misinterpreted his more subtle communications. As a long time supporter and admirer of Senator Domenici, this was extremely disappointing. Since I believe Domenici is above crass political payoffs, I conclude that he really doesn’t fathom the seriousness and significance of the situation at LANL.

It is simply not possible to “get on with [things]” in the present environment. The time for a simple apology from Nanos is long past, and it would make no difference anyway. The basic fact is that, in addition to his irrational temper and disregard for the truth, Nanos is simply incompetent to direct a national laboratory and is driving LANL into mediocrity, from which it may never recover. He has purposefully manufactured crises to divert attention from his failures, and will do anything and crush anyone to ensure his own survival. The way he condescendingly intercepted Mary Hockaday’s question, before it could solicit a response unfavorable to himself, was disgraceful.

Unfortunately, the notion at DOE and Congress persists that it is just a few discontents that feel this way. It is my belief that the vast majority, maybe up to 90% of LANL technical staff including most managers, believe that Nanos is an unmitigated disaster, but are afraid to speak up publicly. We need to find a way to allow everyone to petition for change without personal risk. Whether this is cowardly or not is irrelevant; it is a basic fact of the fear and loathing environment. Can any of you more imaginative bloggers think of a way to accomplish this? The time is short, if it is not already too late.

From Anonymous:

Some have noted that Senator Domenici and Secretary Bodman did not say anything directly in support of Director Nanos last Friday. However, there was body language that might not have been apparent to those watching on Labnet. The Senator found two occasions to pat Nanos on the back (literally), the last very conspicuously after leaving and returning to the stage, possibly just for this purpose so it could not be missed by anyone in the audience. Then there was his “get over this stuff” statement at the end, just in case anyone misinterpreted his more subtle communications. As a long time supporter and admirer of Senator Domenici, this was extremely disappointing. Since I believe Domenici is above crass political payoffs, I conclude that he really doesn’t fathom the seriousness and significance of the situation at LANL.

It is simply not possible to “get on with [things]” in the present environment. The time for a simple apology from Nanos is long past, and it would make no difference anyway. The basic fact is that, in addition to his irrational temper and disregard for the truth, Nanos is simply incompetent to direct a national laboratory and is driving LANL into mediocrity, from which it may never recover. He has purposefully manufactured crises to divert attention from his failures, and will do anything and crush anyone to ensure his own survival. The way he condescendingly intercepted Mary Hockaday’s question, before it could solicit a response unfavorable to himself, was disgraceful.

Unfortunately, the notion at DOE and Congress persists that it is just a few discontents that feel this way. It is my belief that the vast majority, maybe up to 90% of LANL technical staff including most managers, believe that Nanos is an unmitigated disaster, but are afraid to speak up publicly. We need to find a way to allow everyone to petition for change without personal risk. Whether this is cowardly or not is irrelevant; it is a basic fact of the fear and loathing environment. Can any of you more imaginative bloggers think of a way to accomplish this? The time is short, if it is not already too late.

From Anonymous:

Secretary Bodman's email address is

The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov

(capitalization optional).

Those of you who feel, as I do, that the questions put to him during last Friday's meeting represented a poor showing by LANL staff might wish to try to make up for that by sending him your own, well-thought-out questions.

From Anonymous:

Here is a fascinating post from the "Online Public Relations" Blog.

There are some interesting comments on this blog site regarding the
Los Alamos PR Disaster:


http://online-pr.blogspot.com/2005/02/bad-bad-bad.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad Bad Bad - Feb 14, 2005

There is a horrific story that everyone should read whose client or company
has government business. It is here.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/scnce/story.xhtml?story_title=U-S--Admits--Missing--Los-Alamos-Disks-Never-Existed&story_id=30166&category=scnce

The government now admits that two missing computer disks at the Los Alamos
research laboratories, run by the University of California, never existed.
Yup, that's right. The witch hunt and $5.8 million fine levied against the
University for poor security management was for items that were never
created.

University of California's reputation was dragged through the mud, and it
nearly lost control of the labs. Actually, it did lose control of the
labs but the government pays so little to manage them that the new
manager backed out.

So, how does the government say, "I'm sorry" to an organization whose
reputation it wrecked. It sends a threatening letter and fails to lift
the fine.

We have worked with other government contractors who have been hauled
before the government for lapses they didn't commit. The same pattern
happens repeatedly. Bureaucrats rarely say they are sorry, and they
rarely admit they have harmed anyone. They find flimsy excuses to
support their positions even when excuses have nothing to do with the
original charge.

The sanctimoniousness of government bureaucrats is disheartening. These
people believe they are doing the people's business. Hence, anything
they do and say must be right.

Be warned. If you work with the government, watch your flanks. Keep
public affairs specialists at agencies and on the Hill. That is the only
way to survive government witch hunts. Even then, it is difficult.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to tell this PR guy, but we DO have PR people at LANL and they
are part of our public perception disaster. The whole lot of them,
including 'Baghdad Bob' Fallin should be fired immediately, as their
PR efforts seem to be directed at defending Pete, rather than the
reputation of LANL as a whole.

From Anonymous:

"No one is as necessary as they think"

How glib. How wrong. It is this kind of thinking on the part of the bean-counters that has put us in this situation. The Lab is full of people with one-of-a-kind knowledge and skills. We already had a problem, because we have a large number of people who have critical knowledge and skills and these people are at or approaching retirement age. The uncertainty surrounding the recompetition is turning a manageable problem into a national security gamble. It has taken a problem with a five year lead time and shrunk it down to less than one year.

If you do not think that individuals are important, then you do not know the amazing people that we have here. Sure, they can go work somewhere else, but here they can make a positive difference to the entire world. This place isn't just about big or small science -- it's a nuclear weapons lab. Small and efficient? That should not be the most important consideration here. It's a nuclear weapons lab! Los Alamos is about a lot more than just churning out academic papers for our buddies to read. My God, I sure hope nobody starts using their garage-lab or their personal computer at home to try to do the kinds of things we do at work!

Also remember that many of the people here are part of dual-scientist households. And many of our children go on to pursue careers in science. At a time when too many American children are opting out of careers in science, the children of Los Alamos are truly a bright hope for the future. Each of us has invested our lives and our careers to help keep this country safe, both now and in the future.

As has been pointed out many times, for all of the investigations and allegations, not much real abuse or fraud has been found. Certainly less than one might expect for such a large diverse organization. I think this is because we all know exactly how important our work is. And how critical and irreplaceable our co-workers are to fulfilling our mission. That's right, we have a sense of mission. We are honorable people trying to help our country and our fellow citizens. It is very sad that the country, our President, the NNSA, the DOE, and the current Laboratory management have forgotten or simply don't care anymore. But none of those people or organizations represents the heart and soul of the Lab. The Lab stands for (used to stand for?) peace through security, good science, and always doing the right thing, even when nobody's looking. We don't take off our security clearances when we get home. We can't download the secret stuff out of our brains when we go home. Our pension may look good, if the stress doesn't kill us before we retire, but our other benefits are not stellar. So this is not really a "fat cat wants it all" situation, whatever certain bitter retirees may say.

The post about critical mass is correct. If the Lab loses too much of its capability, it will be shutdown. There is no reason to do non-weapons, non-homeland-security research in this isolated place. Well, maybe physical isolation is good for counter bio-terrorism stuff. I don't think the facilities and upkeep for that will be small and cheap either. We are a nuclear weapons lab; we are the best at what we do and what we do is very very important. The current management and the people in Washington are playing politics and they are gambling with our national security. If they didn't appreciate that before, then they should appreciate it now. And they should fix it now, before it's too late.

If we should swallow our hurt feelings and put the past year behind us, well, okay -- let them go first. Tell Nanos to apologize and then get him out of here. He is salt in the wound. Forget about recompeting the contract. What's at stake here is more than the embarassment and hurt feelings. Remember the IRS's new computer system? The FBI's new computer system (come on, that was just last week!)? Compac's promises for the Q machine? The list goes on and on. Consequences are what count. The potential consequences here are disastrous. I'll remind you again -- we are not bean-counters (present management excepted), this is a nuclear weapons lab.

"Put down the gun and back away slowly with your hands in the air. Don't make any sudden moves."

Well that won't happen; the wheels of government grind on without the possibility of admitting mistake, especially if there's an easier way out. Especially if the real consequences will be felt by the next generation. As lowly TSMs, we're not allowed to have feelings or egos. But their egoes and their games are more important to them than the continued security of our country.

From Anonymous:

That was a really telling meeting.

Nanos was deferential and diplomatic in the extreme, but then of course his big bosses were there, and he wasn't about to be anything but in front of them.

Bodman was unstandably nebulous for a guy three-weeks on the job, but he was very deft at not praising Nanos, nor running him down. I think he has potential, but the DOE and NNSA bureacracy was there before him, and will be there after him, and they know it.

I don't think Domenici said a single thing about Nanos at all. Of course, Domenici has lost face now having bashed the Lab early during CREM-III without facts to support it. Pete can't get out of being responsible for how he looks now without looking bad (or, well, worse, than his rant made him look at the end of the talk).

Brooks, as has been noted, said absolutely nothing at all. This, the NNSA Administrator, in charge of the agency created to 'better' operate the NW complex than DOE. Talk about an abject failure. But he didn't say a single word in support of Nanos. Hmmm.

Overall, the supporting words for Nanos were gratefully absent from the panel. That tells me they know at least a bit what we know and they're starting to back away from him ever so gently. I hope.

Finally, what was with the INCREDIBLY LAME questions, overall, people asked?

The damage and being done to the Laboratory is extensive, long-lasting, and grave. No one I can recall presented that issue to the assembled chiefs at all, and yet it seems to be the bottom-line of all the issues at hand.

Domenici obviously doesn't have a clue. Whether or not anyone INTENDS to hurt the Laboratory or not, IT HAS AND IS BEING DONE ANYWAY.

There's no way I can see him running for re-election, and even now I have to wonder how much Senatoring he's doing himself, and how much his staff is really our 'man behind the curtain.'

From Anonymous:

For the guy with question about all the bad stories on Los Alamos..

OK, lets talk about stories of government screw-ups and significant threats
to US security over the last decade, shall we?

1. Aldrich Ames (1994) - He works as a Soviet double agent inside the highest
levels of CIA Headquarters at an office that involves US agent operations
in Moscow. The info he gives to the Soviets results in the death of
many of our Soviet agents. He has drinking and financial problems, but
the CIA fails to notice them, and he operates as a Soviet double agent
for many years. What has happened at LANL in the last decade that
compares to this compromise of US security?


2. Robert Hanssen (2000) - He works in the FBI's Counter-Intelligence (aka,
"spy-catcher") branch, with constant data-base access to all ongoing
cases in which we are monitoring foreign spies. While in this high
level position as a traitor, according to CNN, he compromises:

- The National Measurement and Signature Intelligence Program

- The FBI Double Agent Program

- US studies on recruitment operations of the KGB against the CIA

- US studies on the KGB's effort to gather information on US
nuclear programs

- FBI counterintelligence techniques, sources, methods and operations

Federal prosecutors discover that Hanssen made $1.4 million from
his espionage. What, pray tell, has happened at LANL during the
last decade that compares to this fiasco?


These are the two biggest national security screw-ups of the last decade,
but one can also point to...

3. The FBI dropping the ball on the 911 hints. Field offices call in
to FBI HQ saying "we've got some strange people out here who
are taking flying lessons, but have no interest in landing the
planes". FBI HQ ignores them. 911 takes place.

And, of course, once 911 happens, we must strike back, so this gives
us two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and huge spending increases that
may bankrupt the US treasury. One cannot blame the FBI for 911, but
they certainly missed some important clues. What has happened during
the last decade at LANL that compares to this type of failure?


And then there are other stories, such as:

.....................................................................
4. Missing: A Laptop of DEA Informants - MSNBC June 7, 2004

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5092991/site/newsweek

DEA loses a laptop with information on all their US drug informants.
What evil drug lord wouldn't love to get ahold of this thing?

.......................................................................
5. Purchase card bust - Federal Computer Week - Aug 30, 2004

http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/0830/intercepts-08-30-04.asp

A guy in DOD uses a purchase card to commit $11 million in fraud,
including sending $500,000 to family members. This makes the LANL
purchase card case and the Bussolini case seem like small potatoes.

.......................................................................
6. Marine Charged Breast-Lift to US - ABC News - Aug 14

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90286&page=1

DOD/Marine uses purchase card to pay for her breast-lift.

.......................................................................
7. Lost Laptops Compromise Secrets - GovExec.com - Oct 1, 2001

http://www.govexec.com/features/1001/1001managetech2.htm

FBI is missing 184 of its laptops.

......................................................................
8. CentCom Laptops Missing From HQ - Tampa Tribune - Aug 7, 2002

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729174/posts

Two laptops with tactical battle plans go missing from Gen. Franks
war planning HQ right before the war.

.......................................................................
9. Grassley Shines Light On Credit Card Abuse at Department of Defense

http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r7-17b.htm

At least 200 Army personnel used their government charge cards
to obtain hundreds of dollars in cash at strip clubs. They use
the money for "lap dances".

........................................................................

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

What do you think? Perhaps we should shut down the FBI/CIA/DOD/DEA?
They have endangered our security and engaged in illegal activities,
have they not?

Bad things happen in government agencies. It's not just LANL. Unfortunately,
LANL management and the DOE do a terrible job of defending us. These
other agencies do a much better job at defense.

Yeah, you can pull up lots of articles that might make a person
believe that Los Alamos is some sort of basket case. But, in the
bigger context of things, far worse things have happened at other
places in the US government. Do some more research -- these stories
about screw-ups at other agencies are easy for anyone to find.
Don't be selective in your reading.

From Anonymous:

So Domenici said, according to the Journal North: "I am trying to tell you that we have got to get over this stuff and get
on with the new contract," he said. "Nobody intends to hurt any of you, and,
for God's sake, you know we don't intend to hurt what you're doing."

Honestly, honorable Senator, regardless of anybody's intent, we have already been hurt, our mission has been hurt, our laboratory has been hurt, and our country has been hurt by the retirements that have already taken place, by the abysmal and unneeded shutdown, by the black hole into which our once good morale has disappeared. We will be hurt further as the retirements continue due in part to the apparently inevitable loss of UCRP regardless of who becomes our contractor.

Honestly, honorable Senator, you yourself have hurt us when you called for the contract to be competed, apparently assenting to the characterization of our Laboratory as a "den of thieves" or a "fetid swamp"; you yourself hurt us when you supported the shutdown, apparently assenting to the characterization of our Laboratory as a collection of arrogant cowboys and buttheads.

Who believes you now, honorable Senator, when you say that nobody intends to hurt us?

From Anonymous:

You know, if the people who run the LANL Public Affairs office had had half an ounce of sense, the day after they discovered this blog they should have had their own blog up. Uncensored, anonymous posting allowed. If they had done that, the whole (or primary) motivation behind creating this blog would have been defeated.

On the other hand, it _is_ possible to instrument a web page so that it logs each and every ip address that visits it, and given the lack of trust most of us have for the Public Affairs office (Hi, Baghdad Bob! Hi Comical Ali!), and for LANL management in general, maybe it would not have worked for them after all.

Saturday, February 26, 2005

More Lab Security Gaps Found; LANL Audit Cites Weaknesses in Handling Exiting Workers

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

An audit released Friday criticized Los Alamos National Laboratory for its handling of workers and scientists leaving the employment of the weapons lab.
The report, issued by the Department of Energy's Office of the Inspector General, "found no assurance that, prior to departure, LANL terminating employees turned in security badges," completed security out-processing or had their clearances and access authorizations to classified materials terminated in a timely manner.
For example, the audit notes that, of 96 employees with security clearances leaving LANL over a two-year period, 44 had not turned in their badges at the time of the audit review, 61 had not completed security out-processing paper work and 21 retained their clearances from 11 to 567 days after their departure.
LANL spokesman James Rickman contested the tone of the audit, arguing that the laboratory discovered the failings on its own in 2003 and had already implemented corrections before the audit was started.
"In fact, the laboratory already was developing new out-processing procedures at the time of the IG investigation, and these new procedures were implemented in September 2004 and have had a 99 percent success rate so far," he said.
He said the rate is expected to reach 100 percent when paperwork and reviews are included from previous quarters.
"It is important to point out that the IG investigators and laboratory inventories did not find a single instance in which property or classified material at Los Alamos was handled inappropriately as a result of out-processing weaknesses," Rickman said.
He said LANL was diligent and conscientious in its efforts to fix weaknesses lab officials had uncovered themselves prior to the audit.

Copyright 2005 Albuquerque Journal

From Anonymous:

So far this blog has demonstrated a remarkable self-regulating behavior. If somebody posts something stupid, or just way out in left field, a bunch of contributers jump on it by way of correction, and all without flames.

Admirable (in the good sense of the word, not the Nano-sense).

From Anonymous:

Regarding the revelation that was dropped on us during the Bodeman meeting that Nanos is conducting (or having conducted for him, it wasn't clear) a lesson's-learned/cost analysis of the shutdown, what do you want to bet that the reviewers conveniently "forget" to factor in the lost business from all those work for others sponsors who have vamoosed? Prior to the shutdown, WFO comprised nearly 25% of our $2.2 billion budget. Want to take bets on what it is now? What it will be in FY05, FY06, FY07?

From Anonymous:

From Anonymous:

After watching Nanos, Bodman, Domenici, and Brooks on Friday, it is clear that Mr. Nanos has the full confidence and support of his customers, NNSA and DOE. I was very disappointed in the questions asked from the floor and a bit embarrassed by the total lack of strategic thinking on the part of LANL staff.

SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN
Report: UC overpaid to run labs


Diana Heil | The New Mexican
February 26, 2005


By the end of September, the federal government will have paid $30 million more than necessary over five years for the University of California to operate three national laboratories, according to a recent audit report from the Department of Energy's inspector general.

"These funds could have been used to expand the scientific programs of the laboratories or to address other pressing ... needs," the report states.

Recouping the money might not be easy.

For one thing, the federal government signed a contract that allowed UC to get reimbursed for academic-related expenses, such as student recruitment, faculty home loans and university capital projects. "Reimbursement of such expenses is prohibited under federal cost principles," according to the audit.

If the contract had been written to exclude such items, DOE could have saved about $8 million over the five-year contract period, according to the audit. But as it was written, UC is getting more than its fair share of federal reimbursements for office expenses, the audit said.

The University of California operates Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley laboratories. The Office of the Vice President for Laboratory Management receives federal money to oversee the management contracts.

Calculation errors -- which went unnoticed by the Energy Department's financial analyst -- will cost the government another $21 million in unnecessary expenses, according to the audit.

The government also reimbursed UC for $880,000 worth of unallowable expenses, such as student recruitment.

The Inspector General wants the Energy Department to seek to recover some of the money. The Energy Department's contracting officers are reviewing questioned costs and will determine what amount, if any, UC must repay.

"We're examining the report and all the options available to us," Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, said. "We have people trying to determine what the situation is."

UC isn't expecting a big bill, however. Ron Nelson, who heads contract administration for UC, said the university will return a few thousand dollars. Its own review showed the university had charged some office expenses to the wrong accounts, he said.

In other cases, the university's routine accounting practices caused some confusion, and the university will modify its accounting methods, he said.

Nelson noted some lab-related activities do take place on campuses. Teasing out who benefited from the university's facilities, equipment and programs can be difficult, he said. These are central expenses the institution is absorbing.

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, a citizens group, said the Energy Department has been a poor steward of taxpayer money. "Two ex-lab employees have just been sentenced to prison for stealing $300,000 from taxpayers. Now a preliminary audit by the DOE Inspector General has determined UC has been paid $30 million in unallowable costs, making the felons' illegal gains look like chump change," Nuclear Watch of New Mexico director Jay Coghlan said.

He hopes the Energy Department will take swift action to determine what the university must pay back.

"Further," Coghlan said, "any confirmed fiscal irregularities should strongly and negatively impact UC's chances for future management of LANL. There's already been too much funny money up on the Hill."

In the report, auditors reviewed a total of five contracts -- two of which UC does not manage -- and found the Energy Department agreed to provide fees, payments or reimbursements for office expenses that were not adequately documented, not properly calculated or simply not allowed.
Get Copyright Clearance Want to use this article? Click here for options!
Copyright 2004 Santa Fe New Mexican

Comment on this story

Register now to start posting comments immediately -- click here

By posting, you agree to abide by our Forum Rules.
Comments

By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 02/26/2005 7:05 am )

Were these academic expenses lab-related? One would expect a national lab to have academically related expenses, right? Without more information, I'm not convinced that this isn't just another "spend a dollar to collect a dime" audit, and I've seen that before.

"These funds could have been used to expand the scientific programs of the laboratories or to address other pressing ... needs," or more likely, hiring more auditors.


By Don Nickell (Submitted: 02/26/2005 6:36 am )

If this wasn’t so ludicrous it would be funny, the scenario that a TV show could use. It seems to be a “tail wagging the dog” situation, guess which is the “dog”. My bitch about losing medical insurance just because I moved from NM to ID is minuscule by comparison!

Albuquerque Journal
Saturday, February 26, 2005

LANL Worries Aired; DOE Chief Vows Fair Treatment

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

  LOS ALAMOS— In his first visit to Los Alamos National Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman reaffirmed his commitment to
protecting lab worker benefits through the pending competition to run the
nuclear weapons facility.
  "The people here are going to be treated fairly," he said. "We are very
much aware... of the concerns of the employees here, the rightful concerns."
  Bodman, who visited LANL on Friday and Sandia National Laboratories in
Albuquerque on Thursday, spoke to Los Alamos employees with U.S. Sen. Pete
Domenici, R-N.M., during an all-hands meeting and answered their questions.
  Bodman replaced Spencer Abraham as energy secretary on Jan. 31,
following Abraham's resignation in December.
  Following the meeting, Bodman told reporters that he came to Los Alamos
"in awe of the history of the place" and is now in awe of all that is done
there. He said he is committed to advancing the laboratory's core scientific
mission, which he said he "views as a sacred trust."
  During a question-and-answer period, one 30-year LANL veteran told
Bodman that many of his colleagues in their 50s and 60s are planning to
leave LANL "at the peak of their careers."
  "It is going to hurt us as a country, as a laboratory, and it all has to
do with bad management," he said.
  LANL director Pete Nanos has been the target of some employee and
scientist criticism for the way he addressed concerns last summer over
safety and security failures by shutting the laboratory down for months at a
high cost to taxpayers.
  Reviews of the total shutdown cost are ongoing, and Domenici said
employees and the public will get a full accounting of what happened and
why.
  "This has to end up with lessons learned," Domenici said. "It wasn't a
trivial matter or a series of trivial situations."
  Asked if Bodman had confidence in Nanos' leadership, Bodman said he only
just met Nanos but was impressed by his earnestness, commitment and
willingness to criticize himself.
  At the close of the all-hands meeting, Domenici told LANL workers that
it is time for them to move beyond feelings of discontent.
  "I am trying to tell you that we have got to get over this stuff and get
on with the new contract," he said. "Nobody intends to hurt any of you, and,
for God's sake, you know we don't intend to hurt what you're doing."
  Domenici praised President Bush's selection of Bodman as the new energy
secretary. Bodman served as deputy secretary of the treasury beginning in
2003 and deputy secretary of commerce from 2001 to 2003.
  Domenici said Bodman, an engineer who once taught at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, is the most experienced energy secretary since he's
been in Congress and will make LANL and America's future brighter.
  Bodman told reporters that it is natural for there to be some unease
during a contract competition for the largest nuclear weapons research
laboratory, "but that everything is going to be fine, I am convinced of
that."

Recently issued by the NNSA Source Evaluation Board

With regard to the preparation of a Request for

Proposals to operate the Los Alamos National Laboratory

The four white papers prepared by the NNSA Source Evaluation Board contain many improvements over the original draft and the board is to be commended for them. However, there are a number of items that would benefit by modification.

Employee retention: The original draft contained a provision which required the successor contractor to hire all the staff, except the senior management. In the white paper on “Major Issues,” this assurance of reasonable job security evaporates. Under issue #8, the proposed change says “… DOE expects the Contractor to subsequently exercise appropriate managerial judgment regarding employee retention …” This provision provides a strong incentive for the staff to seek stable employment elsewhere!

A Big Pot of Money for the New Contractor: If you think for half a minute, you will realize that if the University of California does not retain the operating contract, almost all the current Laboratory employees will be terminated from University employment, at the very second that UC contract expires. This means that, unless special action is taken, (e.g., retirement) all the vested employees will immediately become inactive members of the University of California Retirement Plan. It can then be argued that the UCRP has a contractual obligation to those former UC employees and therefore there is no money to be transferred to any successor contractor. In these circumstances the scheme to induce industrial companies to bid by giving them a big pot of money to manage (play with?) will fail. If you read the current contract you will find that the University only agreed to consider the desirability of transferring funds to a successor contractor, and not to actually do it.

I presume that the reason that the SEB is planning not to offer guaranteed rehiring to employees who “freeze” their accounts with UCRP, is to coerce the employees to join the new contractor’s plan, thereby increasing the Big Pot of Money. If they do so, according to the SEB response to question 2 in the white paper on “Pension Benefits for Current and Retired LANL Employees”: “with respect to employees who transfer from UCRP to the LANL site specific plan the successor contractor shall consider any changes to UCRP as it administers the site specific plan.” This statement is rather unclear, but it

would seem to permit a considerable reduction in the pension benefits, particularly if the successor contractor badly manages the funds. One can not help but notice, considering the verbiage in the white paper on “Contractor Compensation,” that a decrease in benefits would not only enhance the Contractor profits, but would also save money for the DOE. This is not a way to bolster the national defense on the backs of skilled employees.

I recommend that the whole idea of funds transfer be scrapped. All employees would then retain the UCRP benefits that they have earned, and start with the successor contractor’s plan. The remaining issues to be resolved have to do with vesting. Of course, if the University of California retains the contract, these issues may become moot.

It is really bad business not to have the compensation and benefits package part of the proposal for evaluation; to expect to have it provided after the successor contractor is selected is like buying a “pig in a poke.” What if the Contracting Officer finds that the aforementioned package is not “substantially equivalent.” What then?

What happens to new employees?: According to the language of the SEB response to question 2 in the Benefits White Paper, “The plan shall include a timeline as to when the Contractor can bring the benefits to within 5% of the comparator group without impacting the substantially equivalent defined benefits for employees who transferred from the predecessor contractor.” As the current benefits are claimed to be over twice those of the comparator group, then, if they are not changed (as mentioned previously), it would seem that the benefits for new hires would have to be very small. This feature would impact negatively on the hiring of high quality young people.

Please try to keep in mind that the mission is first and foremost the national defense. The duty is to assure that the Los Alamos National Laboratory is able to carry out the high calling of the defense of the nation. To do this work we need to have excellent people who could easily have a good and very rewarding job elsewhere. As you may know, a great deal of trust has been lost over the last couple of years. If the SEB can write into the RFP in clear, unambiguous and uncontradicted language the establishment of a good working environment and a sensible compensation and benefits package, then maybe the thousands of senior people who are currently preparing to retire might be retained and excellent young people could be attracted before the knowledge and experience accumulated over decades vanishes from the Laboratory.

I am pleased to acknowledge that some of these ideas were contributed by colleagues.

George A. Baker, Jr.

From Anonymous:

Dear Senator Domenici:

I attended the meeting today at LANL where Energy Secretary Bodeman was introduced. He seems like a nice person. I agree with your closing comments at the end of the meeting where you told the audience that "we should get over it", referring to the events of the past 8 months. I could not agree more. The first step in the process of "getting over it" is to remove Director Nanos from his position of Director of LANL. Do that, and we will, as you say, get over it and start looking to the future.

Regards,

A LANL Staff Member

From Anonymous:

The LANL rumor mill says the following is cancelled for the summer of 2005. 
Why?  Because no one at LANL wants the responsibility for students under the
current regime.  Last summer during the shutdown working with the students
was a big problem.  Part of the problem this year is the development
of guidelines for students that require the mentor always to be with the
student.  Another part of the problem is that students do dumb things, like
bringing cell phones into prohibited buildings.  This is now a security
violation.  Since there is no slack in the way LANL staff are treated when
someone makes a mistake, everyone fears making a mistake.

June 6 - August 12, 2005
Welcome to the Home Page of the Los Alamos Summer School in Physics

Applications are now being accepted for LASS 2005. Please use the electronic
application link below.

The Los Alamos Summer School in Physics is a joint venture between Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL) and the University of New Mexico (UNM). The program
runs for 10 weeks in the summer and features a combination of classes in many
areas of Physics as well as individual research projects with staff members at
LANL and faculty at UNM. Supercomputing applications in physics are emphasized
throughout the program.

In addition to housing and a stipend to cover expenses, students will receive
graduate or undergraduate credit from UNM for the Summer School.

Please use the following address for non-electronic correspondence:
   Los Alamos Summer School
   c/o University of New Mexico Department of Physics and Astronomy
   800 Yale Boulevard NE
   Albuquerque, NM  87131-1156
   Phone: (505) 277-2616

Doug,
Please post this as anonymous.  I'm interested to read comments
concerning this memo....
__________

From/MS:  Richard A. Marquez, A108
Phone/Fax:  7-1973 / 7-5624
Symbol:  ADA-05-021
Date:  February 24, 2005


Subject:  Institutional Information Technology Strategy Project

I am pleased to announce that the Laboratory is moving forward
with the Institutional Information Technology (IT) Strategy
Project. As you recall, several initiatives in 2004, including the
review of General & Administrative budgets and efforts to reduce
the cost of doing business, identified the need to develop an
Institutional IT Strategy. The Executive Board reaffirmed this
need at the December strategic planning retreat, and identified
the Institutional IT strategy as one of the Laboratory's FY05
Corporate Performance Objectives. The project goal is to develop
and implement a business-driven institutional IT strategic plan
that positions IT as a strategic asset and defines the framework
for effective management of IT. This strategic plan will provide
an important context for Laboratory decisions regarding IT
investments, IT governance and organizational structure.

Project Philosophy
A fundamental philosophy behind the IT Strategy Project is that
the Laboratory's mission, goals and objectives must drive IT. This
IT-to-business alignment is paramount in viewing IT as a strategic
asset that must be managed, much like other tangible assets such
as facilities or the workforce. In support of this asset
management philosophy, the project will reinforce that knowledge
and information are enterprise assets and must be readily
available to stakeholders. Other objectives of the project include
the need to reduce the complexity of the Laboratory's IT portfolio
through reduction of the number of operating systems,
applications, etc.; and the need for optimization of acquisition
and use of IT resources through purchasing standards, acquisition
planning, efficient allocation of resources, etc. The IT Strategy
Project will address these issues and concerns in the coming
months.

Team Participation
The IT Strategy Project team is comprised of representatives from
the technical and business sides of the institution. Chief
Information Officer (acting) Charlotte Lindsey and Camilo Perez of
the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) division are leading the
project, and Principal Deputy Associate Director for
Administration Carolyn Zerkle is project champion. The team
appreciates the importance of ensuring that the Laboratory's
corporate IT Strategy incorporates and addresses the diverse needs
of the institution. Therefore, the project includes a number of
avenues for gathering and implementing the input and support of
key stakeholders.

In the coming months, managers and other personnel will be asked
by the IT Strategy Project team to participate in reviews, focus
groups, virtual forums and a variety of other mechanisms to
provide input into planning and execution of the institutional IT
strategy. I urge managers to participate and to encourage members
of their staff to participate as well. In this way, we will help
ensure that the Laboratory's IT strategy is representative of the
needs of the institution and is driven by the Laboratory's
mission, goals and objectives.

Timeline
The project timeline is ambitious. Assessment of the Laboratory's
current IT environment already has begun with the assistance of
Gartner, Inc. and Decision Applications (D) division. In the
coming weeks, the team will develop a process for organizational
assessments of IT resources, at which time managers, or their
designees, will have opportunities to participate in the project.
The Laboratory plans to begin implementing a corporate IT strategy
this summer.

Quick Wins
The team also is developing a set of "Quick Wins" institutional
IT improvements that can be accomplished in the next six months.
The quick wins include:

-  development of an IT cost tracking system,
-  implementation of a desktop computing purchasing and
lifecycle management system, and
-  implementation of a tracking system for software licenses
and license purchasing.

Communication
To keep the institution updated on the status of this project, the
IT Strategy Project team has developed a website located at
http://int.lanl.gov/cio/itstrategy/index.shtml that includes
frequently asked questions about the project and other resources,
including a planned moderated discussion forum. Those with
questions about the project can contact Project Leader Camilo
Perez at 5-8704 or submit questions and comments to
itsp-faq@lanl.gov online.

Feds aiming to break up lab pensions U.S. officials say UC's pension plan is too much for the competition By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

The gold-plated University of California pension plan that kept the nation's two nuclear-explosives labs full of scientists after the Cold War is headed for a breakup. Federal officials are proposing a separate pension plan for Los Alamos National Laboratory as part of the competition for its management contract, and they plan the same for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The two weapons design labs are run by the university and account for a fifth of the University of California Retirement Plan, one of the nation's largest and healthiest public plans. It has $41.3 billion in assets — about a third as much as its cousin, the California Public Employees Retirement System — but 18 percent more than it needs to pay all benefit claims. The university and its employees haven't had to make contributions to the plan for almost 15 years, and it pays rich benefits. If new pension plans werecreated for two weapons labs, federal officials propose that retirement benefits for all current and former employees would remain the same. So why break up a healthy plan that employees consider perhaps the best perk of working for the university? In short, the plan is too good, and potential challengers to the university's operating contract at Los Alamos say it makes the competition lopsided. "A number of firms have identified this as a barrier to competition," said Tyler Przybylek, acting chief operating officer for the National Nuclear Security Administration and chairman of a panel running the Los Alamos competition. "If you allow UC to keep the UCRP and everyone else has to create a separate pension plan, that seems to be an advantage to the incumbent." The government also wants more say in the pension plans for the weapons labs, such as being notified of contributions and changes in benefits. In the past, university officials decided unilaterally on the level of contributions and got full reimbursement from the NNSA's parent organization, the U.S. Department of Energy. "We think there's a discussion role when you're using taxpayer money as opposed to simply being notified what the bill is," Przybylek said. Under a proposal last Friday, the university would have to break out the assets for a separate Los Alamos pension plan to be managed by whoever ends up as operating contractor for the lab. Los Alamos accounts for $4.28 billion of the university plan, but the new pension plan would be much smaller. The UCRP would continue to hold assets for, and pay benefits to lab retirees and their survivors as well as any employees already vested. Typically, full-time lab employees are vested after five years of service. The proposal says benefits in that plan must be "substantially equivalent" to existing benefits in the UCRP. If the benefits are more than 105 percent higher than pension benefits at other weapons sites, the lab operating contractor must propose a timeline for bringing the benefits closer to those of the complex without reducing any benefits for any current employee. "They're going to have to come up with a very creative way to bring pension and benefits in line in a way that doesn't impact current employees," Przybylek said. Los Alamos employees and retirees are worried that they will lose retirement benefits in the competition. But NNSA officials say they're wary of doing anything that might be construed as a benefit cut and cause a flood of retirements or a brain drain at the lab. "We don't intend to do that. That's not what's in the works for current employees," Przybylek said. "We want someone to come in who has an eye on recruiting and retaining engineers and scientists of the caliber that we've had for years but still do it with some business sense." He said the move to a separate lab pension has nothing to do with a long-running dispute between the Energy Department and the university over alleged overpayments that the university made into its plan from Energy Department funds. The university contends the overfunding of its pension plan is overwhelmingly the result of prudent investment and good returns in the 1980s and early 1990s. But Energy Department audits going back to the 1980s suggest that taxpayers may have been charged $1 billion or more beyond what was needed to pay pensions at all three of the federal labs managed by the university. What happens to those alleged overpayments is likely to figure prominently in negotiations between the Energy Department and the university over creation of the new pension plans for the two weapons labs. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com.