LANL: The Real Story

Several of the posts below received comments today in which name-calling, personal attacks, profanity, and general immaturity were featured. They have been deleted. This blog only has two guidelines: The topics discussed must pertain to LANL and its future, and submissions must be professional. Take your trash elsewhere, please.

--Doug

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)
Management and Operating (M&O)
Contract Competition

http://www.doeal.gov/LANLContractRecompete/Reports.htm

From Anonymous:

You know, given the miserable performance of UC during the past 9 months, if LockMart has an equivalent benefits package I will welcome them with open arms as the new owner of LANL.

Dynes, Foley: do not worry, you will not be missed.

Oh, and thanks for Nanos.

Dear Doug,

I thought a lot of people would be interested in this question and the semi-answer. Since my name is embedded in the messages, it need not be posted anonymously. Yours, George Baker

From: John Birely
To: Ron Nelson
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:58:33 -0800
Subject: UCRP Query

Ron,

During a meeting with los alamos employees yesterday, george baker asked if
uc fails to win the los alamos management contract, is it the university's
position that all the lab's employees are terminated from uc employment and
the vested members automatically become inactive members of ucrp unless they
retire or do something else. I did not feel competent to answer this one, so
please advise.

Thanks, john

From: Ron Nelson
To: John Birely
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:20:30 -0800
Subject: Re: UCRP Query

If the University no longer holds the contract it has no economic means of
continuing employment of the workforce. Based on economic necessity
employees would be terminated as funding for them is ended. That may or may
not be on the same date depending on the transition plan that NNSA approves.

What you have recounted is a correct statement of what normally occurs as
individuals leave UC employment either through retirement or through
voluntary or involuntary termination. Where, as may occur at Los Alamos, all
employees are terminated based on contract expiration there may be
additional terms offered to some or all of the terminating employees if NNSA
determines that it is appropriate. Should that become the case it will be
communicated to employees as a consequence of the RFP or during the
transition period between contractors.

Regents determined to bid on Los Alamos lab

Final decision on bid might be made in April.

California Aggie (UC Davis)…Brian Chen

March 31, 2005

Los Angeles -- Despite recent security and safety issues that have placed the University of California under scrutiny, the UC Board of Regents expressed its determination to continue its management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory during its meeting held Mar. 13 at UCLA.

Under the management of the UC, LANL faced 45 nuclear safety violations from September 2003 to October 2004; the most noted accident involved an intern being zapped in the eye with a laser during the summer of 2004.

For the 2004 fiscal year, the UC received $2.9 million for managing the lab rather than the $8.7 million it could have received -- a penalty of nearly $6 million.

"It's very important to the regents that ... errors that were committed in the past have been corrected, and we are proceeding ahead with an arrangement [to ensure] that these mistakes will not occur again," Regent Gerald Parsky said during the meeting.

In his presentation of the lab, Robert Foley, vice president of UC laboratory administration, emphasized that the UC's involvement with the lab is necessary if it wishes to remain competitive in science and technology.

"The only way to assure that we have good science and tech is to have active involvement with the laboratories, and I think that's something that the university must embrace as it moves forward," he said.

Saying he previously had a "wait and see" attitude about whether to continue the UC's management of the lab, Regent Norman Pattiz said his recent visit to the lab cleared his skepticism.

"There's no question that the university needs to make sure that the university's interests and responsibilities are protected in any kind of an arrangement we can make," he said. "It's also very clear to me that the work being done [at the lab] is crucial, essential and beyond the scope of what's important to the university."

The decision to vote on bidding for the lab is still "a number of months away," Parsky said, and he made a "generous estimation" that a decision could be reached by early April.

Earlier at the meeting, Jennifer Lilla, president of the UC Student Association, gave a presentation on university-related issues in the form of a pop quiz.

One question related to the recent UCSA Lobby Day at the State Capitol in Sacramento during February, where students presented thousands of fake checks to the governor representing the amount that students were in debt.

Later, Vice President Winston Doby led a discussion on campus-based student fees, underscoring their importance to the university.

"The enrichment that campus-based fees brings to campuses greatly strengthens [the UC's] competitiveness with our public and private sectors," he said.

He noted that campus-based fees at UC Davis are $1,200, as opposed to $200 at UC Berkeley. However, he said the total cost of attending Berkeley, which includes living expenses, is about $23,000, whereas the total cost of attendance at UCD is $22,500.

Outside the building where the meeting was held, UCLA service workers, students and faculty members gathered in a rally protesting for UC service workers' wages.


BRIAN CHEN can be reached at campus@californiaaggie.com.

UTexas, Lockheed teaming up for LANL race?

POGO is hearing rumors that Lockheed Martin will be teaming up with the University of Texas System to compete for management of Los Alamos National Laboratory. You may remember that Lockheed bowed out of the competition citing costs last summer, but re-entered the competition as reported yesterday. UT backed out this January. Now it looks like they've been talking behind closed doors.

MORE: A reader posted this quote from a UT System statement released in response to LockMart rejoining the race:

"The UT System welcomes further discussions and dialogue about ways to build on our contribution to the science and security of our nation at the national laboratories, consistent with our core competencies of research and education," the UT system said in a prepared statement."

POGO couldn't find the full statement on the UT System site, but reader IH hooked us up. We've posted it after the jump...

Lockheed Martin's Reentry in to Bid for Los Alamos National Laboratory Contract

The University of Texas System recently learned that Lockheed Martin has announced its interest in submitting a proposal for the management and operations contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory. Lockheed Martin's record as manager of Sandia National Laboratories is outstanding and has appropriately received widespread praise.

The University of Texas System has several partnerships with Lockheed Martin including a recent agreement between us and Sandia National Laboratories that will be signed in early April in Washington, D.C. That agreement provides that UT System will be responsible for assessing the quality of unclassified science and engineering research, collaborate on research projects, and cooperate on joint educational initiatives. We view this agreement between UT System and Sandia as a model of university/industrial partnerships with a national laboratory.

The UT System welcomes further discussions and dialogue about ways to build on our contribution to the science and security of our nation at the national laboratories, consistent with our core competencies of research and education.

END

From Anonymous:

One of the reasons that Nanos, and many other retired military folks, love to come to, and screw up, LANL is the "double dipping" opportunity. Spending 10 years at LANL, from 50 to 60, yields 25% of your base. What a plum. The Sandia plan offers no such bait. It is clear that the re-treads gain a lot from this arrangement; but what do LANL, and the taxpayers, gain? The military is not known for their science, or management. Mostly, these ex officers are hired to lobby with their buddies who are still in the military, who will look for soft billets in their turn. This rather smells of corruption, doesn't it?
Can we imagine UC hiring all these retired officers for the campuses? Hardly! Admiral Foley, of UCOP, doesn't count... he's part of lab "oversight", or should we say lab "cover up".
Interesting that John Birely referred to UC "passivity" toward the Lab management. As four different UC Academic Senate reports , going back to the 1970 Zinner Report, have found; the UC "management" is a fraud, a pretense.
You can find the Zinner Report, and others, in the Study Center. The current Lab Admin Office, at UCOP, of which John is part, is a continuing fraud. They are a lobby, not a management team.
There has been no UC "management" at LANL for 63 years, simply a pretense. Given that management is capable of making a positive contribution to an organization, perhaps its time to try some at LANL. Its unclear that UC even understands the concept.

From Anomymous:

One now begins to get the sense that we have entered the end-game here at LANL. The present Director, George P. Nanos, has sufficiently alienated the majority of his staff at Los Alamos National Laboratory that his ability to be a leader is generally recognized to have diminished to nil. Similarly, his masters at the University of California can only be wishing to see his backside rapidly retreating, what with the $5.8 million dollar penalty Nanos earned them as a result of his hasty and ill thought-out decision to shut the entire laboratory down last July. On a third front, Director Nanos has a congressional committee pressuring him to produce accurate cost estimates of the shutdown.

The waiting game is on. Will an interim director be appointed as an attempt to reduce the exodus of talent and expertise now leaving LANL for more amenable work environments? If so, when? This interim director will need to be quite a salesman. His task will be to try to hold LANL together long enough for the the winner of the new contract to operate LANL to have enough of a staff base remaining to justify keeping the place open. He will need to be able to convince the scientists that still remain that LANL has a future; that it will once again become a good place to work; an institution in which one could again take pride.

There is not much time left before the flood gates open wide, and the mass exodus begins. The departure rate seen to date is a trickle compared to what we will see if UC tries to stay the course with its current choice for LANL director.

From Anonymous:

From Anonymous:

When our Pete got in on the act 
All our best upper hands got sacked 
He was truly berserk 
To keep us from work 
Seven months to be exact! 

Now the town’s really started hummin’ 
Over a company name of Grumman 
We all like UC 
With its very low fee 
Without them we’ll surely be bummin’ 

I guess UC’s fee was too little 
And it’s truly a puzzling riddle 
Why they’ll pay so much more 
Then go on to ignore 
That our work will become second fiddle 

The Ambassador who we call Brooks 
Has one point which he overlooks 
If you fine them so much 
Over barcodes and such 
Why expect more than just dirty looks? 

Now Congress wants hundreds of millions 
Or even perhaps in the billions 
For one big cl*** 
Who shut us down 
When we should be run by civilians 

Just today I read Lockheed Martin
After deciding that they'd be departin'
Is back in the ring
Over one little thing
One more reason for us to be smartin'

But if Cheney gets in it’s for certain 
We’re really going to be hurtin’ 
They’ll dream up their ploys 
And send in their boys 
Our bosses will be Halliburton 

 

From Anonymous:

One item has not been mentioned in most of the material about the safety situation at LANL and other DOE labs. Around the time that the laser safety incident occurred at LANL, there were two fatal accidents at other DOE facilities (Hanford and Savannah River). While an accident involving serious loss of vision is very serious, fatal accidents are also serious. The LANL accident received international news coverage, but the two fatal accidents at other facilities were featured only in the news in the local area. This points to the continued need for safety consciousness for all hazardous activities.


From the http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,2590.0.html
This is a story that appeared in local newspapers in the Savannah River area (South Carolina):
A worker who died after being crushed under a tractor hoe at Savannah River Site on Monday afternoon has been identified as 30-year-old Christopher McZilkey, of Thomson.
Barnwell County Coroner Lloyd Ward said Mr. McZilkey died of loss of blood after his femur and pelvis were crushed under the weight of the heavy equipment workers were trying to move onto a flatbed truck.
The accident occurred at about 3:30 p.m. Monday, and Mr. McZilkey was pronounced dead at the Medical College of Georgia at 6:16 p.m., Mr. Ward said.
Mr. McZilkey was employed by Thomson-based Gunther Grading and Hauling, a contractor at the site, Mr. Ward said. The death has been ruled accidental.
Posted July 29, 2004, 01:51:53 PM

This is a story that appeared in the local Hanford papers.
Posted: Thursday, July 29, 2004 23:17
TRI-CITY HERALD
Benton City man dies in fall at Hanford
This story was published Friday, July 16th, 2004
By Jeff St. John Herald staff writer
A Benton City man died Thursday morning after apparently falling while he was moving a mobile office from Hanford's 200 Area, the U.S. Department of Energy reported.
Doug I. Paine, 47, was an employee of All Mobile Transporting and Repairs, a Kennewick business that had been hired to remove the surplus trailer from the area, said DOE spokeswoman Colleen Clark.
Clark said All Mobile owner Gary Orr was working with Paine when he found him unconscious after calling out for him and receiving no answer.
Paine was taken to Kadlec Medical Center in Richland, where he was pronounced dead at 12:36 p.m., said Larry Duncan, Benton County deputy coroner.
"It's unclear whether he was on a ladder at the time or on top of the trailer," DOE's Clark said. DOE is investigating Paine's death, she said.
Duncan said the coroner's office plans an autopsy today, and that the Benton County Sheriff's Office was investigating the death.
Paine had begun working for All Mobile Transporting and Repairs for only three days, said his mother, Winnie Paine. He was not married and had no children, and lived with her and his father, she said. The family has lived in the Tri-City area since 1974, she said.
Winnie Paine said her son had been taking medication earlier in the week that had caused him to collapse, but she believed he had stopped taking the medication prior to Thursday's accident. She did not say what the medication was for.
All Mobile owner Orr said his company had been hired by another local business to break down and move the mobile office. The office had been bought through the Tri-City Asset Reinvestment Co., an economic development program used to transfer surplus DOE equipment to the private sector.
The last fatal accident on the Hanford site was in 1993, when Louis Beatty, 40, of Richland, was scalded when a steam pipe ruptured in a pit where he was doing routine maintenance, DOE spokesman Connie Eckard said. Beatty died of his injuries a week after the accident.

Board cites new lab incidents, improvements

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

Safety issues continue to devil Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to the only independent federal observers with access to classified operations.

There have been incidents of concern, said a representative of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in a telephone interview this morning, but the laboratory is making visible progress in its safety program.

"It's a long road ahead," said DNFSB Site Representative Charles Keilers, "But from the beginning of January to now, some things are really on the upswing, including management attention and management awareness of operational issues."

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board reported earlier this month that two workers were exposed for an hour to unexpectedly high levels of airborne contamination while working at the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility at Technical Area 50.

Although they were wearing protective equipment, the workers might have been exposed to plutonium uptake, depending on the level of protection afforded by their respirators.

High measurements were found after they exited from a vault where they were cleaning an old leak, the March 11 report said.

About a year-and-a-half-ago, a tank that was meant to hold caustic waste from the nearby Plutonium Facility developed a leak.

While waiting to replace the tank, a temporary work-around called for the waste to be pumped through the tank more frequently so that only the lower half of the tank below the leak was used.

The replacement plan called for the underground vault to be decontaminated and repainted before the new tank was installed

The incident occurred after the workers had started cleaning up paint chips in the underground vault, wearing equipment appropriate to the ambient radioactivity previously sampled for the room.

Two accidents involving students in the Radiochemistry Laboratory at Technical Area 48 were reported by the DFNSB in January.

One involved a broken vial containing a low-level radioactive liquid combined with a hazardous chemical. The other occurred when a 19-year-old student dropped a wrench and caused an arc on an uninterruptible power supply.

Another problem was reported by DNFSB at the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility in January, after an operator was sprayed by treated wastewater.

With the exception of the possible plutonium uptake - which awaits further test results - none of the incidents has caused personal harm.

Keilers said they afford educational opportunities for fixing the shortcomings in the laboratory's safety program that still needed improvement.

The laboratory's non-essential operations were suspended in July, after a false alarm from a security incident was followed by an eye-blinding laser accident involving an intern.

Activities gradually resumed over a seven-month period after rigorous safety reviews, assessments, training and safety management adjustments.

An article on the laboratory's website this morning announced approval earlier in the month of a plan for a new Operational Efficiency Program related to the continuing safety project.

"Operational Efficiency is the institutional commitment and get-well plan to address areas of high risk," Laboratory Director Peter Nanos described the project, which is designed to fix secondary problems that were not addressed during the laboratory shutdown.

A DNSFB report from February noted that managers who are responsible for plutonium, tritium and radiography operations had started a series of classes developed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations for nuclear power plant managers.

The training acknowledges human imperfection and the importance of learning and strengthening the organization in response to individual human errors.

"People make mistakes, but safety nets can keep something bad from happening," Keilers said. "If you work in an environment heavy on blame, you won't get people to be forthcoming and may miss the chance to fix the institution in a way that could catch the next event before it happens again."

Albuquerque Journal North
Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Lockheed Martin Rejoins Lab Contest

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin announced on Tuesday that it is rejoining the competition to run Los Alamos National Laboratory, with its $2 billion nuclear weapons budget, after the Department of Energy made changes to the bidding criteria.

Lockheed, which manages Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque and Britain's Atomic Weapons Establishment in London, among other government contracts, had previously withdrawn from the competition in early August, citing concerns that a LANL bid would be too expensive.

"Our business people said it just wasn't a good business decision," explained Lockheed spokesman Don Carson.

At the time, Lockheed was widely viewed as a front-runner to manage or co-manage LANL in a partnership with a large research university.

Then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham decided in April 2003 to put the LANL contract up for competitive bid following a series of management failures by the University of California, the lab's current manager. The university's contract to manage LANL expires at the end of September.

Carson said Lockheed officials changed their minds about competing for LANL's contract after reviewing changes made to the proposed contract in February by the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration.

"Our people look at Los Alamos as one of the national treasures," he said.

"Lockheed Martin didn't think the contract was structured to make it successful, they didn't think they could bring in the resources and people enough to make the contract successful," Carson said. "With the new contract they feel that they can."

The two primary factors that swayed Lockheed's decision were DOE's move to require a stand-alone pension plan and the creation of a separate corporate entity to directly manage the lab, he said.

"Those are the things that made Lockheed Martin go back and look at the contract," Carson said, adding that the changes made the competition more fair and open.

DOE and NNSA received numerous comments in December and January from interested bidders concerned that liabilities associated with running the nation's largest nuclear weapons research facility outweighed the benefits.

Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, wrote Energy Secretary Sam Bodman in February to say the original contract competition seemed to favor LANL's current manager, the University of California, which has operated the laboratory since 1943.

He specifically cited the university's well-funded pension plan, which competitors would have to match, because the pension is "disproportionately generous compared to any other government contract."

Hobson wrote that bidders should be given the "financial flexibility to propose the most competitive" benefits packages for their proposal.

In response to concerns, DOE lengthened the contract term from five years to seven, increased the potential management fee from a proposed $30 million to $60 million— about seven times the $8 million management fee that the University of California currently receives— and proposed requiring a stand-alone pension plan.

DOE and NNSA made the changes to encourage competition after several top bidders backed out, including Lockheed, Battelle Memorial Institute, the University of Texas and Texas A&M University.
Lockheed's Carson said the increase in the management fee was also one of the factors that prompted the company to rejoin the contract competition.

Prior to withdrawing from the competition, Lockheed had been in talks with the University of California about forming a partnership to compete for LANL.

Carson said the company is once again considering potential partners.

As a commenter to the http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/03/new-director.html post notes, Hobson's delegation has supposedly spent the day of Tuesday, March 29 in Los Alamos politely asking, "How much did the shutdown _really_ cost us, Dr. Cobb?"

Several questions do pop to mind, such as: "Where was Director Nanos during this mini-inquisition?" "Why was there yet another LANL Public Affairs Office blackout on this event?" "How much did the shutdown *really* cost? "Why was there a shutdown in the first place?"

And so on.

Other questions occur: what purpose does trying to cover up this meeting, held "in absentia" of the primary culprit serve? Does anybody think that the secret meetings were a secret? Oh, and where _was_ Nanos today, anyhow?

All:

Blogger.com is badly broken again. Perhaps the Blogger.com support staff just need to hear from more people about problems with Blogger.com. Like, for example, how it has not been possible to submit comments for most of the day, as has been reported to me.

Send bug reports to support@blogger.com

--Doug

Letters to and from Senator Bingaman


21 February 2005
Senator Jeff Bingaman
United States Senate
110 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
FAX 202-224-2852

Senator Bingaman:
I am a 15-year scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. We need your help to save this institution from demise at the hands of its own management. The situation is very serious and the intervention of the New Mexico congressional delegation may be the only option for recovery.

We now know that all of the reasons given for the lab-wide shutdown in July 2004 are baseless. The Los Alamos staff has always worked to improve safety and security and will continue to do so, but the charges that safety and security performance were dramatically worse than the other weapons laboratories are now known to be erroneous charges. An opinion piece in Physics Today (December 2004) showed that safety at LANL is NOT substantially worse than other DOE labs. Information that emerged in the last few weeks shows that security is NOT substantially worse than the other labs. Here are numbers of serious security incidents at the three weapons labs for the last three years:

Number of security incidents, by site and calendar year (source: NNSA Public Affairs)
CY2002 CY2003 CY2004
LANL 45 42 16
LLNL 11 53 23
SNL/CA 14 13 15
SNL/NM 69 44 47

We now know that the CREM incident of July 2004 was known within days of NNSA notification to be most likely a clerical error. The laser accident of July 2004 was serious, but similar accidents have occurred at nearly every DOE facility that makes extensive use of these research instruments, and no other lab director felt compelled to shut down those labs. The technical staff of Los Alamos will continue to work very hard to improve safety and security, but we cannot do so in an atmosphere of recrimination and threats.

It has become clear that Director Pete Nanos is not exercising good judgment on important matters at LANL. He has not been a leader who garners support. He does not take input from the scientific staff, and his attitude toward us has been one of dismissal, ridicule, and contempt. He has done some good things, but these have been overshadowed by his colossal mistakes. While all previous LANL directors have been criticized, nothing compares with the present. There is unprecedented mistrust and animosity between the Director and the scientific staff.
The past several months have made it clear that neither the NNSA nor the UC are capable of digging out of the current situation. Both organizations are blinded to the distortions that the current LANL management resorts to in describing operations at the lab. Both are apparently too busy “looking tough” to recognize that creativity and innovation in defense technology are the casualties of the onslaught of the absurdly caustic and uninformed rhetoric on the floor of Congress. It is time for the New Mexico congressional delegation to act to force an overhaul of the management. If you do not, the impacts will be felt throughout northern New Mexico for years to come. The careers of hundreds of scientists and technicians will be irreparably damaged. Ultimately, United States national security will suffer.

Sincerely,


Bernard R. Foy
Santa Fe, NM



March 16, 2005
Mr. Bernard R. Foy
Santa Fe, NM

Dear Bernard:

Thank you for writing me regarding the current state of affairs at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). I appreciate your taking the time to write.

I understand your concerns about the current situation at LANL. I remain concerned about the low morale and the impact that the stand-down at LANL has had on New Mexico’s economy and LANL employees, especially the low and mid-career scientists. When I met last year with Linton Brooks, Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, I asked him to consider the long-term repercussions of keeping LANL closed for such a long period of time and urged him to have LANL resume unclassified operations as soon as possible. I believe that the work performed by individuals, like yourself, at LANL on a daily basis is very important to the country, and I am proud that our national labs play such a key role in helping our country meet its energy and national security needs.

It is my hope that Director Nanos and the employees at LANL can work collaboratively to ensure the safety and a quick resumption of all work activities at LANL without decreasing morale. That said, I am aware of the recent reports that many of the security lapses at LANL were in fact due to clerical errors, such as the disappearance of two Classified Removable Electronic Media (CREM) disks that in fact never existed. Safety at LANL should be of the utmost concern for the sake of national security and LANL employees. But I also believe the employees have worked very hard to ensure the highest level of safety at the LANL, and they must be recognized for their efforts. As I monitor the situation at LANL, I want to assure you that I will continue to keep the interests of the Los Alamos employees in mind.

Again, thank you for your letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding any other matters of importance to you and your community.

Sincerely,
Jeff Bingaman
United States Senator

Does LANL spend in New Mexico?

Dear Editor,

I would like to thank Bruce Norman for his very well-written letter (Sunday, March 20, 2005). It is important for the business community to acknowledge how the last almost three years have affected all LANL employees, be they UC or contractor. However, it is also important for the business community to describe the effects on them.

It is interesting that, after several posts to http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com that reference how little LANL is spending in northern New Mexico, LANL is now extolling how they are supporting northern New Mexico businesses to the tune of $398.5 million. However, that includes labor contracts with KSL, PTLA, the bodyshop contractors, the task order contractors whose offices are spread throughout prime retail space downtown, construction, etc.

All PC and Mac desktop computer purchases come from Just-in-Time (JIT) contracted Albuquerque companies. All printer purchases come from a JIt-contracted company in Albuquerque. All stationary comes from a JIT-contracted company in Albuquerque. Most book purchases are done online.

Many computer and printer repairs go to a contracted company. Small northern New Mexico companies are no longer awarded contracts such as air conditioner maintenance after they have gone to the expense of getting Q clearances for employees unless those contracts are over $500K. KSL gets first bid on the contracts as well as the first right of refusal, and if they refuse a contract, it's placed with a company made up of all-union members, not a small non-union northern New Mexico company.

What's wrong with this picture? Probably computers, printers, books, and stationary comprise a fairly large percentage of the goods purchased by LANL. Right now the stationary stores in Los Alamos have higher prices than WalMart, Office Depot, etc. because they sell so little and have higher markups. If they sold more to LANL, LAPS, the county and LAMC, the markups would be less, and folks would purchase more locally. The same reasoning can be applied to computers, printers and their supplies and books.

Now LANL is trying to figure out how to set up procurement contracts with multiple companies. And some of those companies are concerned that if these contracts are established, they still will not get any business. And, of course, they can't compete because they are small; they have been driven out of the marketplace by LANL's exclusive JIT contracts just as Mom and Pop stores have been driven out by Wal-Mart, Sam's, Office Depot, etc.

One way to help out northern New Mexico is to allow competition between KSL and companies that provide electrical work, air conditioner maintenance, etc. because that will put more purchasing power in the hands of the small companies' employees. Second, LANL should make it very easy for folks to purchase computers, printers, books, etc. from whoever offers the the best prices and service. Purchase stationary from local stores in northern New Mexico. Open up the market, rather than artificially manipulating it, and let everyone compete.

Patricia Max

Los Alamos

From Anonymous:

From Anonymous:

There has been a lot of complaining on this blog about how terrible
everyone else is - the management, the DoE, UC, Congress, etc - and
how hostile some groups and people have become to LANL. It's always
easy to blame everyone else (and in truth there has been a good
deal of lousy management all around), but in fact these attitudes
didn't arise without some cause.  If it is going to survive, LANL
has got to get real and come to grips with the fact that some of
the other national labs do just fine with the same DoE and the same
Congress -- so the hostility to LANL just might possibly have
something to do with LANL's own attitudes and ways of doing things.

That's not to say that there aren't real problems elsewhere, but
frankly the only thing LANL can change in this equation is itself,
its own attitudes, its own expectations, and its own ways of
dealing with the world. So while it certainly is cathartic to bitch
about the situation, it might be more fruitful for discussion to
focus on what isn't working at LANL and how it might be fixed, on
just why the outside world sees LANL as arrogant and how that might
be changed, on just where LANL research really ranks in the world
and how it might be improved.

From Anonymous:


Doug -

This might be interesting to post....I think this is the group that was invited to come to LANL by Nanos at the last whitewash in DC...my point here is that it is blatantly obvious why these folks are coming, yet protocol bills it as to review the Weapons Program.....only 1 hour on the agenda. Also, Pete is not here??

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FINAL AGENDA: Dwight H. Cates, Professional Staff Member, Christopher Knauer, Minority Investigator, House Committee on Energy and Commerce

On Tuesday, March 29, 2005, Dwight H. Cates, Professional Staff Member, Christopher Knauer, Minority Investigator, House Committee on Energy and Commerce will visit Los Alamos National Laboratory. The purpose of the visit is to review the Laboratory's Weapons Program.

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 10
47th LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, 2005
INTRODUCED BY
Rep. Jeannette O. Wallace

A JOINT MEMORIAL
REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO COMPLETE A NEW CONTRACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA TO OPERATE LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY.

WHEREAS, for sixty-two years, the University of California has been synonymous with Los Alamos national laboratory as the University has managed the prestigious scientific research center under a contract with the United States department of energy; and WHEREAS, the laboratory has been a significant source of employment, economic stability and educational enrichment for generations of New Mexicans; and

WHEREAS, the state of New Mexico recognizes the outstanding contributions of the University of California and stands ready to do its part to strengthen the relationship and contribute to a vision that will make all New Mexicans proud of the partnership among the University, the laboratory and the department of energy; and

WHEREAS, the laboratory and University have made significant contributions to national security, global threat reduction and advancements in science and technology throughout the world; and

WHEREAS, the current contract between the United States department of energy and the University of California to operate Los Alamos national laboratory ends on September 30, 2005;
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that the United States department of energy be requested to enter into a new contract with the University of California to operate Los Alamos national laboratory; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be transmitted to the United States secretary of energy, the president pro tempore of the senate of the state of California, the president of the University of California and the director of Los Alamos national laboratory .

Lifted from the http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/03/lanl-staff-made-too-much-money.html post:

The class warfare between Feds (DoE overseers) and the contractors (UC) is an old story, and certainly the source of much of the animosity from NNSA towards LANL. In fact, the lab has a salary process that is owned by UC HR, and is based on regional competition. The numbers for the various job titles are vetted against high tech companies and SNL. An independent analysis by NNSA decided that LANL is over paid by 1.1% at the end of FY 04. Hardly the numbers of scandal, but nevertheless, it has not stopped some mid-level bureaucrats (like Ed Wilmot) for deciding LANL is grossly overpaid. This is the same thinking about our pension plan – even though it SAVES the nation money, the Feds hate that theirs is not as “generous”.

Some analysis:
(1) On average, the TSM salaries for starting PhDs and post doc conversions at LANL is 10 percent higher than elsewhere in the UC system.
(2) On average, the TSM salaries for mid-career PhDs (15 years experience) at LANL is 12 percent lower than elsewhere in the UC system.
(3) On average, the TSM salaries for late-career PhDs (20 plus years experience) at LANL is 19 percent lower than elsewhere in the UC system.
(4) If group leaders are considered to be equivalent to Department heads in the UC system, then they are underpaid by about 5 percent at LANL.
(5) If the Director is considered equivalent to University president, or a business unit in BNI, then the director is underpaid by almost 50% (I know, even a dollar would be too high a price to pay for the present director!).

It is difficult to make comparisons for Tech series. The Admin series shows salaries within a few percent across the board with UC. If you only do a LANL-LLNL comparison, LANL is about 9 percent behind LLNL.

Unfortunately, NNSA will always view contractors as a waste of money because they [NNSA] get paid less. However, they have other benefits, and in fact, the jobs are so different the comparison is worthless.

Albuquerque Journal North
Sunday, March 27, 2005

Lab Partnership Proposal Timely

EDITORIAL: After several years of successive scandals at Los Alamos National Laboratory— possible espionage, missing classified data, embezzlement— the federal government decided to put the lab management contract out to bid for the first time in more than 60 years. Many think that without the historic lab manager, the University of California, in charge, the lab will suffer a decline in prestige and scientific competitiveness.

It remains to be seen whether anybody besides UC is actually interested in running the lab. In the meantime, however, UC officials seem to have awakened to the fact that they're going to have to take a fresh approach if they want to continue in charge.

With that in mind, UC and New Mexico's premier universities announced last week that they intended to work closely with LANL to create more research opportunities for New Mexico graduate students, win more scientific research funding and keep it working in-state. The University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University and New Mexico Tech announced that they would partner with UC to form an Institute of Advanced Studies in Los Alamos if UC wins the new contract. Cynics might view the announcement as just more UC maneuvering to make sure it does win the bidding. But even if that's the proximate cause of the institute proposal, that doesn't make it a bad idea. (The proposal may be as much the brainchild of UNM president Louis Caldera, himself a veteran of the much-admired California state university system and an accomplished politician— he served three terms in the California Assembly.)

This kind of collaboration is arguably long overdue. The state, and especially northern New Mexico, would have benefited if a closer intellectual partnership between UNM, other state universities and LANL had developed somewhere nearer the beginning of the massive federal investment in science here. Even if UC doesn't win the contract, New Mexico universities should figure some way to keep the institute idea alive.

Los Alamos Monitor
Sunday, March 27, 2005


UC, LANL team joined by state Universities

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

A trio of New Mexico Universities will participate in a new Institute for Advanced Studies in affiliation with Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The announcement by the University of California Thursday named the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University and New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology as potential partners should the UC Board of Regents decide to compete for the contract to manage LANL.

The arrangement recognizes the universities, to be known as the New Mexico Consortium, as the first academic partners UC intends to include on its management team. The partnership is contingent upon UC winning the contract award.

Gov. Bill Richardson said in a release the collaboration was something he has encouraged.

"(F)or too long academic institutions in New Mexico were on the outside looking in at educational partnerships and opportunities at Los Alamos National Laboratory," he said in an announcement Thursday. "I applaud the University of California for recognizing the research potential that these fine institutions have to offer the lab and the nation."

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, also praised the arrangement.

"Our New Mexico universities have evolved into reputable research institutions and have plenty to offer to advance LANL research missions," Domenici said in a statement.

"I see their collaboration with the University of California as evidence that UC is actively working to present a reconfigured and competitive bid to remain the contractor at LANL. I only wish UC didn't tie this sort of effort to winning the contract and would, instead, pursue them as a matter of course."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, also agreed.

"UNM, NMSU, and New Mexico Tech are top-notch scientific research institutions, and together they would be a tremendous asset to Los Alamos National Laboratory," Bingaman said in a statement. "I applaud their efforts to join forces to assist the lab."

The selection of the next manager of the laboratory is expected by the end of September this year, for a contract that would begin next April.

The three institutions of higher learning have all signed Memoranda of Understanding with the University of California and LANL in the last year.

The Institute for Advanced Studies would become a research and education center where New Mexico students could take part in fundamental and applied research activities in association with the laboratory.

Fields of collaboration could include astronomy, biology, computational science, environmental science, energetic materials, materials science, optics, quantum computing, water and radioisotopes, among others to be considered.

From Anonymous:

Every manager of complex facilities, especially ones that have exceeded their design life by a decade or more, knows that he or she has problems in maintenance and operations. These problems are found in inspections and self-assessments and are appropriately documented. Every manager I know submits this list for funding and is told to prioritize them. In medicine this would be comparable to triage. Coming up with this prioritized list obviously involves a great deal of conjecture. The manager submits his or her prioritized list up the management chain and, in almost 100% of the time, even some of the prioritized items are not funded. Yet when something happens like the laser injury, only the parties that denied funding to cover identified shortfalls escape reprimands and punishment. (Chemistry Division managers had requested and been denied funding by the Laboratory Director for a person to help oversee and enforce safety compliance.)

On the other hand, a division manager threatened to lock down TA-18 a few years ago and have his people abandon the site if money to operate the site safely was not promptly provided. Strangely, the money came post haste from DOE/NNSA and the facility continued to operate safely (and securely) in spite of the fact that it was one of oldest facilities on site.

However, hardball tactics can only be used sparingly and in healthy organizations driven by principle and not "inane arbitrariness to reduce overheads" they are needed even less. Worrying about overheads seems particularly inane considering that our senior management seems to have wasted $1B by some estimates on overhead processes of dubious long term value.

As a manager today I keep asking myself, where would my facilities and those in the rest of Laboratory be if that same $IB had been used to correct specific things that we already knew about and had documented instead wasting hours finding out what we already knew and creating mountains of useless SYA paperwork?

Albuquerque Journal North
Saturday, March 26, 2005

Politics Loom Over LANL Deal

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

One of the more vocal proponents of the competition for Los Alamos National Laboratory is also a major recipient of political donations from companies interested in becoming the next operator of the $2 billion LANL contract.

Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, received close to $70,000 in campaign donations in 2003-2004 from political action committees or individual donors associated with nine different companies interested in running LANL, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"It would be shocking if anyone wasn't giving him contributions," said Danielle Brian, director of Washington, D.C.,-based Project on Government Oversight. "You have to be careful (not) to read too much into it. He is in this incredibly powerful position in Congress— every pork barrel project comes through his subcommittee."

Brian said Hobson's motivations for a fair and open competition for the LANL contract seem genuine and that antagonism toward the University of California is a growing bipartisan trend among lawmakers.

Calls to Hobson's office were not returned.

The growing influence of politics in the LANL competition is a trend University of California officials are watching carefully and with concern.

"The University of California has consistently said that it manages Los Alamos as a public service, and the reason we believe that is because we believe politics should not enter into it," said Scott Sudduth, the school's vice president for governmental relations. "It is increasingly troublesome to the university that politics may trump public service."

Hobson's top contributor— the Columbus, Ohio-based Battelle Memorial Institute— donated $29,250 through its political action committees and employees in the last year, but recently backed out of the competition for LANL.

Officials with Battelle, which already runs five Department of Energy national laboratories, have said running LANL would stretch their resources thin, but gave no specific reason for pulling out of the competition.

Political action committees for Bechtel, Fluor and Washington Group, none of which had previously donated money to Hobson, contributed a total of $15,000 to the congressman from 2003 to 2004. All three are major DOE contractors and have been cited as potential LANL co-managers.

CH2M Hill, Jacobs Engineering, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Computer Sciences Corp. contributed a total of more than $25,000 to Hobson through their political action committees, all of which are or had been potential LANL bidders and have also contributed to Hobson in the past.

As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Hobson holds a powerful position that approves funding for the DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversee LANL and its contract competition.

In a Feb. 8 letter to Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Hobson criticized the contract competition for favoring the University of California in many respects and for restricting competition.

He wrote of his concern that Battelle, Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas had decided to withdraw from the competition.

"I interpret their business decisions to avoid this contract as very strong evidence that the (request for proposals) is flawed," Hobson wrote.

He noted that the ability to do "world-class science," the top-valued criterion for determining the next LANL manager and top strength of the University of California, "does not provide an objective measure of a contractor's performance."

"Given that the problems at the Los Alamos National Laboratory are primarily issues of management and industrial practices, potential bidders are reading the RFP's focus on world class science as an effort by the Department (of Energy) to maximize the strength of the incumbent contractor and minimize the management strengths of potential competitors," Hobson wrote.

Hobson also urged Bodman to increase the performance management fee for operating LANL and to drop the requirement that "the winning proposal has to maintain the current pension benefit package" for lab employees, even though proposed pension plans are not part of the evaluation criteria for determining the next LANL manager.

If steps weren't taken to attract more bidders to compete for the LANL contract, Hobson warned, "I will direct the Department to revise the RFP in a manner designed to encourage rather than discourage competition."

Within 10 days, NNSA released a series of amendments to its draft request for proposals, which included many of the changes urged by Hobson, as well as potential bidders, including doubling the performance management fee to $60 million a year and requiring the winning bidder to create a stand-alone pension benefit plan.

Asked about the political influence of Hobson, potential bidders and other lawmakers on the competition process, Tyler Przybylek, NNSA's chairman of the evaluation board overseeing the competition, said he and the board have "tried to make ourselves extraordinarily accessible to anyone who had views."

He said he's met with employees, neighboring pueblos, community groups, potential bidders and lawmakers "and we are taking all of that into account."

But Przybylek said the input will stop once the final criteria are released toward the end of April.
"I take very seriously the idea that everybody involved in this process has to believe that it is impartial and there aren't any influences on the board," he said.

From Anonymous:

It seems to be the management style today. Walk off the street into a functioning and vital organization. Find a few off normal situations to complain about and use them as bludgeons to beat your staff into submission. If you cannot find real off normal situations, fabricate them. Use your findings to further weaken the organization. Call a news conference and soundly condemn the cowboys and buttheads that are responsible for destroying the organization. Be cheered by simpletons and Members of Congress for your insight.

The president has chosen a new NASA administrator, a young dynamic rocket scientist named Mike Griffin. I wish him well, but have a message. Most of my NASA engineer friends tell me they're worn out. The way they see it, the agency has become a grindstone where the dreams and careers of