LANL: The Real Story

Any chance someone can find a copy of this to add to the discussion mix? I've contacted the Atlantic to get it posted to subscribers, but no luck yet, My hard copy is in deep storage.

Pam

Title:MANAGING THE UNMANAGEABLE.
Authors:Crease, Robert P.
Samios, Nicholas P.
Source:Atlantic Monthly; Jan91, Vol. 267 Issue 1, p80, 8p
Document Type:Article
Subject Terms:*RESEARCH
*SCIENCE
Geographic Terms:UNITED States
NAICS/Industry Codes:5417 Scientific Research and Development Services
Abstract:Focuses on basic science research in the United States. Missions of applied and basic research; Cultural impact of scientific research; Aim of science management; Origin of administrative contracts in the United States.
ISSN:1072-7825
Accession Number:9441117

Doug:

Could you please post Rich Marquez' latest initiative on the blog? I feel the timing is at best questionable. Or maybe he's just trying to scare LANL staff away from reading the blog at work?



To/MS: LANL-All
From/MS: Richard A. Marquez, ADA, A108
Phone/Fax:
Symbol:
Date: May 31, 2005


Subject: New Monitoring Tool to Identify Computer Misuse

LANL AM 701.09 states “Personal use of electronic information
resources (including Laboratory computers) is prohibited if it:
Directly or indirectly interferes with the Laboratory’s use of the
resources; Burdens the Laboratory with additional costs;
Interferes with the user’s employment or other obligations to the
Laboratory; or is an unacceptable use as defined in (AM701). 03.”

I know we all use our Laboratory computers at times to send
personal e-mails or to visit sites not directly related to our
work. This memo is a reminder to everyone that our ability to
engage in reasonable incidental personal use of Laboratory
computers is a privilege and not a right. I caution you not to
abuse this privilege by spending unacceptable amounts of time
visiting non-work-related sites (for example, eBay) or by viewing
websites containing inappropriate material.

The Laboratory has now acquired software that allows for the
monitoring of LANL computer web traffic. This software is capable
of continuously scanning all LANL computers for inappropriate
activity. It has the ability to characterize the vast majority of
websites as to content and to sort the websites into acceptable
and unacceptable categories.

This new tool provides the Laboratory with a stronger ability to
block access to inappropriate websites. It also identifies
employees who spend unacceptable amounts of time on non-work-
related websites. Should such misuse be identified, offending
employees will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and
including termination of employment. Please refer to Incidental
Use of Government Property, Directors Instruction 05-002.

We must all understand that the privilege of being able to use our
work computers for incidental personal activities was negotiated
with DOE, and that privilege can be revoked should it ever become
evident that it is being abused.

I expect managers to monitor computer usage, and I am counting on
all of you, as professional adults, to comply with the spirit of
this privilege. It would truly be a shame if it were lost.


Cy: ADA:05-049

From Anonymous:

RETAINING SENIOR SCIENTISTS AND EXTERNALLY SUPPORTED BASIC SCIENCE AT LANL:
Part of the potential brain-drain from LANL comprises senior basic researchers,
who may either retire early or leave for greener pastures, or both. These
senior researchers are often Principal Investigators of their own basic
research grants obtained from outside funding institutions (NASA, NIH, ARPA etc.).
These outside grants typically support in addition to the PI, other staff
members and postdocs (who may later become staff members), and form a key
component of basic science at LANL. The potential loss of senior Principal
Investigators and their grants, and the personnel the grants support, will
have wide ripple effects on basic science at LANL.

Does anyone know what the current status is of a senior researcher who retires,
in terms of their outside grant support? Can they remain as PI of their
external grants at LANL, and continue to lead the research effort and
be paid for doing so from the grant? Such an early retiree still needs
to consider their future "real" retirement (their early retirement was basically
forced by circumstances, i.e. retention of their present UC benefits).
Can such an early retiree contribute volountarily to e.g. the 403b and 457
(clearly UCRP is not an option if the researcher is officially retired)?
One might hope the answer is "yes", particularly if the grant is
assessed the same high overhead, i.e. there should be some inducement to keep
the PI and the grant at LANL. These questions are about the current
situation at LANL, i.e. if someone knows the facts then it would be helpful
to post it.

Regardless of current policy, the issue of retention of senior basic research
scientists and their external grant support at LANL is an issue affecting the
future of basic science at LANL. Thus it might be one that the new contractor
would wish to address in a postive way.

Doug,

I find the ADSR emailgrams from Terry Wallace to be more informative than most AD messages about Laboratory management developments. You may want to post on your blog this new message about the contract bidding process. Note, in particular, that little information about the bids will be available before December 1, due to the nature of the competition. This secrecy would make it difficult for LANL staff to weigh in on the choices.

Anonymous


ADSR Emailgram
May 31, 2005

ADSR Emailgram
May 31, 2005

With the release of the RFP for the LANL M&O contract, many staff are
seeking information on what the respective bid teams are proposing and
how life at the lab would look should that team win.
Unfortunately, there will not be any real information available until the
winner of the contract is announced in early December. The
reason for this is the nature of the competition: the teams are
bidding for the contract and against the competition. This means that
each team will be trying to propose against what are the
perceived weaknesses in the competition, which includes everything from
organizational structure to names of key personnel. The
proposals are due on July 19th, and the two remaining suitors
(UC/Bechtel and Lockheed Martin/UT) are changing their strategies in real
time. For example, on Friday the LM team added another
industrial partner to their team to address concerns about operating
nuclear facilities.

The RFP is structured to be scored with a point total of 1000 points. The
Source Evaluation Board (SEB), whom ultimately makes a
recommendation to the Source Selection Official, assigns the points. The
broad categories for scoring include strategies for performing the
science and technology programs, business operations, laboratory
structure and small business promotion. The proposals are 250 pages in
length (or roughly one page per 10 million dollars annual
budget!), and each and every word is considered a potential winning
strategy or vulnerability. The only true known for the two teams are the
potential Lab Directors. Everything else is speculation or
rumor; and the rumors may well be planted by one of the teams as
disinformation to confuse or distract the other team. Again, I want to
stress that both teams are in an intense battle for a contract
potentially worth 50 billion dollars.

It is understandable that everyone wants to know what kind of changes may
be coming in 2006. The types of changes that have dominated the local
discussions include things like benefits. However, bigger
changes that could affect lab life include organizational structure
(i.e.; Will the divisions be reorganized?), key personnel (i.e.; Will
everyone at the top be new?), changing work scope (i.e.; Will all work
for others be curtailed?), and how the parent organizations
reinvest in the lab (i.e.; Will there be programs like the UC
Directed Research and Development?). It is certain that these
factors will be very closely guarded, and we will not know until the end
of the year.

This uncertainty generates angst. But there is some comfort in
knowing that both teams profess to want very much to preserve LANL's
strengths. This includes the remarkable science, the sense of
academic freedom that fosters the scientific creativity, a diverse work
force, and a broad national security mission. The only
certainty is that LANL will be different in 2006 - there will be a
corporate presence like never before. However, it is most likely that
the reasons most people came to Los Alamos - the chance to be part of a
national security team and pursue science and engineering that makes a
difference to society - will continue.



Terry


--
_____________________________________

Terry C. Wallace, Jr.
Associate Director of Strategic Research
Los Alamos National Laboratory

Science, Vol 308, Issue 5726, 1244-1245 , 27 May 2005

[DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5726.1244]

News Focus

NATIONAL LABS:
A Bidding War for Los Alamos

Eli Kintisch

Defense contractors will play a larger role in the next contract to manage Los Alamos National Lab, which has spent 62 years under academic reins.

Full Story (Subscription required when accessing from outside lanl.gov)

From Anonymous:

I am a former lab employee (Internal Audit Group Leader until July 2004).
I also spent seven years working as the director of internal audit for one
of Bechtel's major DOE sites. I would strongly advise against selecting
the UC/Bechtel team. While Bechtel is a solid reputable company, they have
named an unscrupulous and unethical manager to become the new director of
internal audit if they win the bid. My experience with LANL and Internal
Audit was horrible. LANL management feel the normal government rules for
contractors do not apply to them. Time and again I was admonished for
pointing out obvious violations of the rules and regulations and was
finally let go when I pointing out that the millions of dollars being spent
for free lunches for employees was illegal. LANL liked to call meetings
from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM so they could call it a "business lunch", when the
only business was a free lunch. LANL management did not want anyone
challenging their right to spend taxpayer money any way they wanted. The
entire audit department of seven had quite,save one incompetent lady
waiting for her cushy retirement.

I think LANL under UC was a disgrace and do not see Bechtel as having the
will to change that behaviour.

My views on the contract for managing LANL have received some criticism to the effect that, by voting for "None of the above" corporate candidates to run the Lab, I have proposed a solution that does not fit into the "framework" of the bidding process. Let me expand on my comments: I believe that present and former Lab employees should mount a campaign of letter writing, beginning with comments right here on this blog, to all members of Congress that matter at all, stating that we want the whole bidding process to stop forthwith.

The entire premise of this contract rebid is groundless. For some seven years, the press has had one field day after another reporting misinformation about who is at fault for the "problems" and "scandals" that have "plagued" Los Alamos National Laboratory, beginning with the Wen Ho Lee fiasco. Every article about the Lab has buried in it somewhere, if not in the opening paragraph, the inference that LANL is unique in the history of national laboratories for its "failed" business practices ("waste, fraud, and serial abuse of the poor, beleaguered American taxpayer"), its "deplorable" record of environmental "disasters," and its "miserable" record of safety and security "lapses." The facts, when calmly examined by a cool eye, say otherwise, and they say it dramatically; the Lab is by no means a perfect institution--don't get me wrong--it needs the checks and balances of independent oversight, just like any other human enterprise, but it does not stick out like a sore thumb when compared to either Livermore or Sandia. But what it most certainly does NOT need is a complete redefinition of its mission by one or the other leading corporate member of the military-industrial complex. A nuclear weapons lab that serves the nation's interests in overseeing the stockpile--but NOT manufacturing that stockpile--and that produces basic scientific research for the good of mankind, needs to be free of the micromanagement that a profit-making entity would introduce, above and beyond the level already foisted upon it by the DOE/NNSA bureaucracy in Washington.

The best solution (but by no means perfect) to the "problems" at Los Alamos that the rebid of the contract would allegedly "solve" is to go back to something like the status quo ante. The University of California should be retained to "manage" three things, and only three things: (1) oversee the retirement system for all LANL employees, (2) oversee the benefits system for all LANL employees, and (3) oversee the scientific research aspects of the Lab, namely, run the LDRD program with true peer review and guarantee the academic freedom and integrity of the Laboratory's scientists. As in the past, UC should give advice and consent to DOE/NNSA's choice for Lab Director, particularly focusing on the Director's role as Chief Science Officer. DOE/NNSA should take over all responsibility--ALL of it--for business practices (including procurement), environmental compliance, safety, and security. Everyone at LANL should be an employee of UC--not the US Government--with accountability to UC for science and DOE/NNSA for operations. (Obviously, it may take some time for the lawyers at DOE/NNSA and UC to hammer this all out, but the suspension of the rebid process should be announced promptly, so that some semblance of normalcy can resume at the Lab, and the outflow of talent stanched.)

The rebidding of the contract is a bad idea, as it was when it was adopted over two years ago. Nanos' shutdown of the Lab for no defensible reason demonstrated the vulnerability of LANL's scientific enterprise when managed in a military way, and I fear that a similar fate may befall the Lab's science if it is managed in an industrial way. UC has never really had any true say about the operations, but the management of science is clearly better left to an academic institution. UC's management of the retirement and benefits have been unquestionably outstanding, and there is no need to change whatever works well. DOE/NNSA should treat Livermore and Los Alamos in exactly the same way, with the same setup in regard to UC's role; that way, Los Alamos ought never again be used as a political football, at least in principle.

A true conservative is one who stands up to radicals who seek to destroy an institution that, on balance, does much good. I call on all true conservatives to join in an effort to help derail the rebidding of the LANL contract.

--
Brad Lee Holian, former LANL employee

Los Alamos contract puts UC in PR battle
Texas partnership leads opposing bid to run weapons lab

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Sunday, May 29, 2005

The competition to decide who runs Los Alamos National Laboratory is now fully under way, and its outcome will decide whether California loses one arm in its two-handed grip on the nation's nuclear weapons complex.

Last week, after three years of Los Alamos scandals that ranged from the sinister to the tacky to the dangerous -- scandals over missing computer disks containing secret bomb data, an alleged mispurchase of a Ford Mustang , and a woman who suffered a severe eye injury while working with a laser -- the University of California finally, definitively decided to fight for its job as the lab manager. It faces a single titanic competitor, a team jointly led by aerospace giant Lockheed Martin and the enormous University of Texas system.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Dear prospective directors,

Foreign nationals have had a long and rich history at LANL right from
its inception. We are concerned about the future of foreign nationals
(FNs) at the Lab. One thing UC has done well is to attract and retain
FNs who go on to citizenship and a long, fruitful career at the lab.
We wonder how each of you will address the issue considering that
companies are typically averse to hiring FNs. In particular, LM at SNL
has had a poor record of this. When I graduated LANL offered me an
opportunity while SNL policy forced it to shut its doors on me, even
though I  was perfect match for one of its groups. We desperately hope
that UT/LM or UC/Bechtel will not institute policies that will diminish
the contributions of FNs at this wonderful place and strongly urge you
to continue the previous policies regarding FNs. Contrary to popular
thinking, FNs are seldom the security problem they are made out to be -
they cannot be, as they never come anywhere close to any sensitive
material. They do, however, require more paperwork, but if an
institution is willing to pay that small price the benefits are
enormous.

Here are some specific questions for the two teams:

1. What will be your policy toward current Limited Term and Permanent
Technical Staff Members who are Foreign Nationals?

2. Will you continue to encourage the hiring of new FN graduates as
postdocs?

3. Will you continue to encourage the hiring of FN postdocs as Limited
Term Staff Members and support their eventual conversion to permanent
positions?

4. Will you ensure that new, excessive controls are not placed on FNs
that they will leave out of frustration (source of funding, excessive
justification for their hiring beyond normal competency considerations,
etc.)?

Thank you

A Foreign National TSM

From Anonymous:

Sooner of later we have to realize that we can’t be the best at everything. Everything cannot be the number one priority. We can’t make safety, security and science all the top priority. This sounds extraordinarily simple and obvious, but LANL has not been behaving like this. We are trying to have everything, the World’s greatest science, the World’s greatest business systems and the best safety and security to boot. If we try to be the best at everything, we will be the best at nothing. We have to make some tough choices. The right choice can make our future brighter and better. If we choose wrong our future will be dim. I believe that our choices have been unambiguously wrong over the span of the last few years and we are currently paying the price. It is time to commit to a different path.

I find that it is good to start with some questions:
(1) What do we need to be the best at?
(2) What can we be great at?
(3) If we could choose to be good at one single thing, what would it be?
(4) What do we actually have a chance at achieving?
The answer on how to move forward can be found in honestly answering those questions and then making the necessary steps and changes to achieve those ends. We live in a system bound by finite resources (time, money, talent, etc.). Our resources define what is possible and good management is the art of the possible. We have to set the correct priorities and work toward them in a balanced way. If other goals are given priority over science, science will be diminished. This has happened without anyone actually acknowledging this. LANL has been driven to attempt the impossible over the past few years with disastrous consequences (keeping science #1 while making security, safety and business #1 too). We are left with a Lab that has diminished our resource of talent. There is no doubt that the last two years have diminished our talent pool.

The current state of the Lab is the consequence of more than a decade of focus on everything but science. Safety, security and business have alternatingly and repeatedly taken center stage at the Laboratory sapping the ability to retain scientific excellence as the key organizational characteristic. We are saddled with a management system that is ill suited to achieving scientific excellence due to both its structure and those who occupy its levels. Each passing year has seen an ever-greater disparity between the goals and motivations of the Laboratory leadership and those who are led. Many of those in management have neither the ability nor the inclination to lead a scientifically vibrant enterprise. Recent management choices have favored those who provide business stewardship over technical leadership. Others are simply yes-men (and women) who do not have the spine to stand in the way of the systematic dismantlement of a great scientific institution.

I’d like to visit each focal point in turn for some observations about how this Laboratory has devolved in the past decade. The emphasis on safety while important in many regards is not something I have first hand knowledge of. I work in an office at a computer; safety at work is not a concern for me. I know that there are many, many others who can speak first hand about how we have gone overboard with safety to the point that it has destroyed our ability to productively pursue our scientific goals.

Security on the other hand is something I know a lot about. A good example of how we have shot ourselves in the collective foot is the SCC building. This building was named after Nick Metropolis. I think this is a huge mistake; it should have been named after General Leslie Groves. The SCC represents Groves’ victory over Oppenheimer because of how it has divided and compartmentalized the Nuclear Weapons’ program. The design of the SCC is optimal to keep people apart and destroy collaborations. It was put together with the help of Lab management some of whom used security as a means to achieve operational control and power. We are left with their damaging legacy. There is nearly no bound to how tight security could get. There is also nearly no bound on how severely security could damage scientific productivity. The key is to make decisions that keep security concerns and science in balance. Too much security and scientific productivity and quality will plummet.

Lately we have been under the thumb of increasing emphasis on business excellence. Financial and project management are king. Scientific management is nonexistent. If one looks at how the management communicates the programmatic content upward, science has no place, its all budgets, milestones, earned value, and no science. Looking at how our programs are run it is clear that business excellence is pushing aside science. The most evident symptom of our institutional emphasis is the people comprising our management. I look up my management chain and I find almost no one who is qualified or has the tendency to provide scientific leadership. Moreover they have no stimuli to do so in any case. We are left moving steadfastly in the direction where science is dismissed from consideration. I am sure they would claim that we are still “The World’s Greatest Science,” but they aren’t qualified to say so. The point is that our science needs care and feeding, and simply taking it for granted will leave it diminished and hardly great.

My last comment will relate to science itself. LANL is two Labs (maybe three considering production). One Lab is the science lab with all the “great science” divisions. At this Lab, science for science’s sake is done. Utility for the programs of the lab is paid lip service, but is generally ignored. Management actively works to keep the science un-programmatic. LDRD is their god-given right. The only good thing the programs do is bring in some money for LDRD. Those program people aren’t scientists anyway, so moving some of that money to do great science is the right thing to do. The goal is to match the quality of the best of academia and all that is missing are ivory towers. The second LANL is the program lab. Here science is in full retreat and the hard-core program people want the scientists to get with the program of short-term deliverables and milestones. LDRD is theft from the program. The “great science” divisions are leeches. The goal is to support the program and get the job done. Scientific quality is meaningless and often counter-productive because it might cause a milestone to slip.

The writing on the Blog is replete with this divide. We need to bridge the gap if we are to survive. The “great science” divisions need to get with the program, so to speak. They need to honestly contribute to the programs’ scientific vitality while maintaining their quality. The programs need to realize that their science is lacking. The programs need to realize that they are too short-term focused and that the science is the programs is in dire need off revitalization. LDRD needs to be something that serves both and provides the Laboratory with a future where the great science gets done inside the program. It is all about restoring the balance. Restoring the balance both in terms of science as well as everything else that management has to do. Yes we need to be safe, secure and have good business practices. We don’t need to be so safe or secure that we can’t get our work done and more importantly get our work done in an exemplary manner. Our business practice and systems do not have to be great. I would argue that greatness in these other parts of our enterprise detracts from the only thing we should be great in, science and science of a particular nature, science in support of US national security.

Here are my answers to the above questions: (1,2,3,4) science in support of US National security. In my mind this primarily means the science that forms the foundation of our nuclear weapons stockpile, but also includes homeland security, nonproliferation, biosciences, energy production, and non-nuclear defense. It does not mean science for science’s sake or science that does not have a specific end goal tied to US National security. It acknowledges that this science mission means that there will be constraints on security, safety, funding and business practice. These constraints must be met, but never at the price of providing the US taxpayer with an adequate return on their investment. Our country’s continued security, prosperity and safety depend not on LANLs ability to be safe and secure internally, but rather our achievements in science in support of National Security.

I dearly want to step forward with enthusiasm and optimism, but we need to have a goal that is worth striving for. We need to move toward our goal in a balanced rational manner. The balance can come from keeping science the top priority while keeping safety, security and business compliant and competent, but no more than that. The rational part of the statement is keeping our resources and talent in mind while balancing things. The goal also has to be achievable and within the constraints of our available resources. Let’s be honest about who we are, what we have to work with and what everyone is willing to work toward. If we can, then the future can be better. If we can LANL will be there to answer the call when the Nation needs us.

LANL TSM
15 Years of Service

Whatever you think of Richardson, one thing he said rang true to me .... mobilize, organize....storm offices (well maybe not storm offices :-).
I see posts on the blog suggesting that maybe we, the employees (and retirees) could use some legal help. That is unless you think that the legal teams of UC, Bechtol, and Lockheed have the best interests of employees and retirees in mind.
Right now, given the short time frame, the only employee organization that COULD represent employees is UPTE.
I know many of you are anti union, anti UPTE, anti who is in UPTE, anti some of the stuff reported that UPTE officers have supposed to have said. And if Lockheed gets the contract,although the right to organize will remain, UPTE most probably goes away. But right now, UPTE is what we got. And the more of you who join, the more the flavor of the organization changes and becomes yours. An UPTE of the present. An organization that could provide legal assistance, address some of the vague parts of the RFP, represent employee interests.
As a former President of UPTE, I know the potential is there.
I am also exploring the possibility of other types of employee advocacy groups that could represent different Lab series employees, but we are kind of all in this together. I guess my roots are showing.
Sue Chasen

From Anonymous:

More reading material for Rich Marquez:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/05/29/1413217.shtml?tid=172

From Anonymous:

One sees numerous posts to this blog objecting to UC's handling of affairs at LANL. Many focus on how DX personnel like Todd Kaupilla and John Horne were mistreated. Here and there you see a sprinkling of posters repeating Dominici's demand for us to "Just get over it!" One comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/anecdotal-observations-about-contract.html

post sums up my reaction to that advise quite nicely:

"... You see a lot of comments here in this theme because there has not been accountability for UC's mishandling of LANL's affairs. Until there is accountability, we will not let the matter drop. Somebody has to pay for the incompetence. That somebody is UC. They haven't payed yet."

Englewood firm a finalist to run Los Alamos lab By Ian Hoffman The Oakland Tribune

CH2M Hill, the Englewood engineering and environmental company that helped dismantle and clean up the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, is now in a runoff to manage the birthplace of the atomic age, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. More than a dozen defense and engineering contractors and universities jockeyed for a shot at running the $2.2 billion-a-year laboratory, which had been beset with a series of high- profile lapses in security, safety and financial control. [...] Full Story

From Anonymous:

Are Retiree Medical Benefits Really Protected in the RFP?

Will ALL those UC employees over 50 currently eligible to retire from UC with medical benefits continue to receive such coverage under a new contract? Specifically, there is a tiered level of medical coverage for employees with less than 20 years of service credit. For example, for someone with 15 years of service, the UC employer contribution for medical premium is paid at 75%, with the UC retiree paying the difference. If someone retires from UC under that condition, what will happen with a new contractor when the medical coverage is taken over under the new contract. The RFP does say that the offeror will supply a medical plan for retirees, but they are free to set their own service requirements, which may differ from UC if UC should not be successful. I have asked HR this question and they say they do not know and will have to wait till December 1 to find out. Some number of current retirees under these conditions could be in for a surprise next June when they lose their medical insurance because they do not have enough service requirements with the new contractor. Actually a similar question extends to the "equivalent " retirement plan one with the same age factors as UC. Having the same age factor is not necessarily the same as now, because additional age + years of service requirements can be added. For example at Sandia right now, an over 50 employee cannot retire until his age + years of service add to 75, quite different from UC currently. So Lockheed may not be much of a bargain for us.

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Lockheed Adds Partners to LANL Bid
By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

The day after the University of California announced it would fight to retain management of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the university's primary opponent took steps to strengthen its own team.

Lockheed Martin, which earlier this month partnered with the University of Texas to compete for the LANL contract, announced the addition of Fluor Corp. and CH2M Hill to round out its team.

Lockheed spokesman Don Carson said Fluor— an international construction and engineering company of about 30,000 employees— would be responsible for facility planning, design and development. CH2M Hill, Carson said, will be responsible for handling nuclear operations, including manufacturing weapons components, and environmental cleanup.

UC's team of industrial partners, which includes Bechtel National, Washington Group International and BWX Technologies, are similarly specialized. Though the exact responsibilities haven't been determined, government contractor Bechtel is a global engineering and construction company, BWXT manages government nuclear operations and Washington Group handles environmental cleanup, engineering and construction projects.

[...]

Full Story

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Gov. Urges LANL Employees to Hang On

By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer

Gov. Bill Richardson told Los Alamos National Laboratory employees to "keep their powder dry," urging them not to make any hasty retirement decisions before the full details of the next lab management contract are clear.

"It's in America's interest to retain these scientists," he said.

Retirement rates at LANL are already projected to be at least 50 percent higher this year than previous years, largely due to employee uncertainty over the lab contract competition.

Richardson, speaking at a Los Alamos town hall meeting on Friday, said he favors the University of California and Bechtel National team over the Lockheed Martin and University of Texas team as the next LANL manager, primarily because of their scientific and technology background.

"I think it is the strongest proposal," he said, adding, "I think eventually politicians have to take sides."

[...]

Full Story

Publication:Santa Fe New Mexican;

Date:May 28, 2005;

Section:Opinion;

Page Number:8

About LANL pensions


Now: Los Alamos National Laboratory employees are guaranteed a pension without making any financial contributions. The retirement plan is based on an employee’s age and years of service.

The University of California Retirement Plan, as it is called, covers more than 170,000 employees — 8,000 from Los Alamos and the rest from other university campuses.

Employees also can contribute a percentage of their paycheck, on a pretax basis, to a separate plan similar to 401K plans. UC does not match their contributions.

Future: The U.S. Department of Energy is requiring bidders to present two compensation packages. Employees will have two months to decide which option they want during the transition between contractors.

For employees who transfer from UC to a new contractor within six months after June 1, 2006, without a break in employment, the compensation package must be “substantially equivalent” to what they’ve had. Employees keep their base salaries and carry over the length-of-service credit and vacation and sick-leave balances.

Substantially equivalent benefits are not required for employees hired after June 1, 2006; employees who retire before June 1 and reapply for a job under the new contractor; and employees who remain vested, inactive members of the University of California Retirement Plan.

Diana Heil | The New Mexican
May 28, 2005

LOS ALAMOS -- On a visit to Los Alamos National Laboratory on Friday, Gov. Bill Richardson urged workers to raise their voices in protest rather than make hasty decisions in uncertain times.

Many employees are tempted to retire as the first-ever competition for the management of the nuclear-weapons lab begins. They want to protect their lavish pension benefits because they aren't sure what a change in management might bring.

[...]

Full Story

Physicist, an ex-lab director, rebuts statement that corporations lack ability to do 'real science' By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

The head of a team challenging the University of California for command of the birthplace of the bomb is mightily offended by the university's suggestions that corporations such as his employer, Lockheed Martin Corp., lack the ability or integrity to do real science. C. Paul Robinson, physicist and former Sandia National Laboratories director, lashed back Friday, saying his team was appalled at the lack of competent business practices and focused scientific direction at Los Alamos National Laboratory, run by the University of California since 1943. [...] Full Story

(I sent the following to Keay Davidson and thought it should be posted on The Blog, since it will be abstracted, if quoted at all.)

Here's my take on NNSA's (or DOE's, if you prefer) contract for managing Los Alamos National Laboratory. First of all, UC has never really "run" Los Alamos; it has only lent its cachet of academic freedom and scientific excellence to the institution, and has gotten back in return considerable prestige from LANL's own scientific output. Scientific research at LANL is a spin-off from the military-industrial program, and it has absorbed only a tiny fraction of the largesse that has been thrown at the Lab by Congress. But the benefits to the nation from this research far exceed anything that has been gained over the years by having on the order of a hundred times more nuclear weapons
than the country has ever really needed.

As to the current choices for managers of LANL, I vote for "None of the above," but only because our "ablest" politicians have decided that leaving things alone is not an option. My reasons are as follows.

NO to UC and Bechtel: UC has shown itself to be clueless and spineless in the face of the horrible damage that former Director Nanos did to the institution, and to the science produced therein, when he unwisely shut the Lab down. Bechtel is a slimy corporate entity whose main claim to fame is being second only to Halliburton in greedily soaking up tax dollars in Iraq.

NO to Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas: LockMart's candidate for Director of Los Alamos is quoted in the papers yesterday as saying that only a corporate entity like LockMart can cure the "problems" in security and safety that have occurred at LANL, even though, objectively speaking, there have been no more safety and security problems at LANL than at Sandia, which is a national lab run by -- you guessed it -- LockMart. Even reputable newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle have fallen into the trap of saying that there have been security and safety problems at Los Alamos, when in fact, the real problem at LANL is public relations. UC has handled the PR in a most incredibly inept way, but that has little to do with science itself. Whereas LockMart will substitute factory production for science at LANL and will cover up any safety and security breaches that might occur much more skillfully than UC ever could, the scientific credentials of UT make it a lame substitute for UC as an academic partner.

NO to Northrup-Grumman: Another greedy member of the Carlyle-Group military-industrial complex, whose only claim to fame is making nuclear submarines on which Los Alamos-designed nuclear warheads reside. Not even an academic pretense here.

So who should run Los Alamos? I say the buck should be made to stop where the real responsibility for political and bureaucratic buffoonery originates, namely, the Department of Energy itself. Cut out the
middleman. Since there would no longer be any need for a bloated manager's fee, that money could be used to roughly double the amount presently spent on basic research at the Lab. Let DOE/NNSA, the entity that has always run LANL, be exposed to the light of day, without any window dressing of a corporate "manager." And if science is no longer valued in this country, is there any need for the window dressing of an "academic" partner, either?

Note that my "endorsement" of DOE/NNSA running the Lab should be taken with an enormous grain of salt. My point is that DOE should be nailed for the political mess they've created and the damage they have done to the Lab. UC should be blamed for letting them get away with it and not saying a word in the Lab's defense. As to the stand-alone retirement system, well, that's a transparent attempt to line corporate pockets, and the effect of all this nonsense is to prompt more people to retire early -- as I did -- just for self-protection.

-Brad Lee Holian (retired LANL staff member)

Postscript: I notice that yesterday Northrup-Grumman withdrew in favor of the Carlyle Group partner LockMart. No loss there. The bottom line is, this whole thing is a mess -- an entirely unnecessary mess. A rational Director, a sensible DOE bureaucracy (OK, oxymoron!) in Washington, a sensible Congress, and a UC bureaucracy that valued the Lab -- any one of these things -- could have prevented the catastrophe that has befallen Los Alamos.

SAN FRANCISCO
Regents vote to make a bid for Los Alamos
Northrop Grumman drops out, leaving field to UC and Texas

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Friday, May 27, 2005

The University of California Regents voted 11-1 Thursday to join the competition for the next contract to run Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the nation's first atomic weapons lab.

"We're off and running!" S. Robert Foley, UC's vice president of laboratory administration, told The Chronicle after the midday vote at the regents meeting at UCSF's Laurel Heights campus.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Doug, I thought you might find this new DOE IG report on contractor post retirement benefits of interest. If the IG had his way, DOE would just federalize the contractor workforce and give everyone the same benefits DOE employees get.

I believe that University of California/Bechtel ought to [be] the next managers of Los Alamos National Laboratory. UC has a history of excellence in scientific endeavors, a proven track record with Nobel prize winners and accomplishments which have changed the world. These go back to before the Manhattan Project, which created LANL and other laboratories and facilities. Bechtel has experience operating various facilities including the Nevada Test Site, which has field- tested many of LANL's designs.  UC has improved their chances for success by joining with three New Mexico Universities in research alliances at LANL. Bechtel has teamed with several other independent companies which specialize in various aspects of nuclear work.Together they make a strong partnership which should alleviate the concerns about management of Los Alamos National Laboratory - if they organize effectively.

Lockheed-Martin/Univ of Texas are both outsiders to the Laboratory's manner of work. Sandia National Laboratory, under LM, doesn't have the same basic science foundation that LANL has nowadays. LM is the major defense contractor in the country; consequently SNL has a more commercial thrust, as evident from it's own promotion. For over sixty years the government has purposely kept this Laboratory from being privatized by the weapons industry or run by the  DOD. UC has done the job with a scientific focus, somewhat independent of overlying political or financial pressure. To break from this long tradition is a step in the wrong direction, as it allows an excess of national weapons policy influence by the weapons makers, and in this case, for their stockholders. It is analogous to "letting wolves guard the sheep". I came to the lab from a major American coorporation, where I witnessed how business "refocusing"  met financial goals, often disregarding how excellent the science was. The
DOE/NNSA should continue what their founders in the AEC started, and not make a drastic change to privatize nuclear weapons. Short term political pressure from Washington should not be allowed to sway and change a balance of power which has been checked for so many years.Compared to UC/Bechtel, the University of Texas seems to be positioned to have a secondary role, helping to manage the scientific endeavors while the prominent LM would be keeping the books.This could put the scientific integrity of the lab at risk.

The beating that UC has taken for various perceived failings of the Laboratory in safety,  security and business regimen, has been largely trumped up by various persons and groups for their own personal and political gains. While LANLs mistakes have been headlines of national news, each time flourished with statements from opponents, the other major laboratories have made similar and even worse mistakes which have been either brushed off or largely ignored by media conglomerates. This has had a demoralizing effect on LANL employees, that they must somehow be 'buttheads' and 'cowboys' after all, to receive so much negative press. Many are retiring earlier to avoid an uncertain future. Having UC/Bechtel win over their adversaries would make a major statement for LANL to our detractors. One can imagine that they would continue to heckle the Lab, but that their interest might dwindle and focus on other agencies and institutions-if UC and partners were awarded the contract, fair and
square. I believe that UC has a strong winning case.

DISCLAIMER:
This information is solely my own opinion and does not represent Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, nor the US Department of Energy and NNSA.

John T. M. Lyles

TSM, 13 years at LANL

Coment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/university-of-california-still-wants.html

post:

Not only that, Dawn, but he [Kuckuck] spends most of his time in California frantically trying to help write the response to the RFP. In other words, LANL is leaderless.

Of course it was leaderless under Nanos, so let's not go there.

NEWSPAPER STRAW VOTE: WHICH CONTRACTING TEAM SHOULD RUN LOS ALAMOS?
I am Keay Davidson, a science reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. Doug Roberts, the Blog manager, has given me permission to poll Blog users on the question: “Which competitor for the next Los Alamos contract deserves to win?” I invite BOTH PRESENT AND FORMER Los Alamos staffers to pick their preferred winner:
— UC and Bechtel
— Univ. of Texas and Lockheed Martin
— Northrop Grumman.
— alternate candidate (your choice).
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY you voted as you did, at any length. I might quote part or all of your comments in my newspaper story.
I realize that many respondents will wish to remain anonymous, and I shall honor all requests for anonymity. However, to ensure that no impostors try to impersonate present or former Los Alamos staffers, I request that respondents who are comfortable being identified in print provide the following information: Your name, your role at the lab (past or present), and your phone number (just so I can confirm your identity, if necessary; I won’t share the phone with anyone else).
Naturally, I am likelier to quote respondents who are willing to identify themselves.
I must emphasize that the vote is open ONLY to people who are present or former Los Alamos staffers. Even if you send your response to the Blog, please send a COPY of your response DIRECTLY to me to ensure that I see it by deadline. My e-mail address is kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.
I need all responses no later than 1 PM FRIDAY, MAY 27, New Mexico time.
Thanks much!.
Sincerely,
(Mr.) Keay Davidson
Science Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
kdavidson@sfchronicle.com

By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune Reporter
May 26, 2005

The University of California Board of Regents was to decide this afternoon on whether to bid on the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory - but bickering between potential competitors has already started.

Two University of California committees voted unanimously Wednesday to recommend the institution move forward with a bid to operate the lab. If the regents accept the recommendations, UC and Bechtel Corp. will form a limited liability company to bid on and operate the lab.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:

Maybe this guy should have a talk with Rich Marquez.

http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2005/052305schwartau.html

From Anonymous:

_________________________________

Attention CCS Employees,

On March 21, 2005, a Master Management Memo went out to the entire work force stating:

"Commencing March 21, 2005, the course Environmental Management System (EMS) Workers Awareness- Initial, EDS#32461, is mandatory for all LANL workers, including subcontractors."

The memo went on to emphasize that this mandatory training was not due until September 31, 2005. Nevertheless, the EMS training plan has been activated in every LANL workers profile, thus putting a big dent on compliance numbers.

If you have not already done so, please take a moment in the next couple days to complete the EMS Workers Awareness Training, Course 32461 at the following URL:

http://www.hr.lanl.gov/EMS/EMSAwarenessTng/Splashpage.asp

**PLEASE NOTE** Choose Option #1, it is a read and sign 'lecture'.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

MAY. 26 12:24 P.M. ET Defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp. on Thursday said it has decided not to pursue the contract to run the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab.

The University of California has run the lab -- the birthplace of the atomic bomb -- since it was created in 1943. Following a series of financial and security lapses, the government said it would put the contract up for bid for the first time.

[...]

Full Story

Press Release:

Northrop Grumman Statement on Decision to No-Bid Los Alamos National Laboratory Management Contract
Thursday May 26, 11:34 am ET

MCLEAN, Va., May 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Based upon its evaluation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory request for proposal, Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC - News) has decided not to pursue the contract. The company continues to be committed to helping the U.S. Department of Energy achieve its overall objectives, but has determined that it can best provide that support through other key programs. The company is currently evaluating other future opportunities with the Department of Energy and looks forward to applying its world-class capabilities to meet the agency's specialized requirements.

By Rebecca Trounson, Times Staff Writer

The cost of UC's bidding war

Thursday, May 26, 2005

THE PENDING decision by the University of California to participate in a bidding war for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is the right one -- for the nation.

We have consistently argued that it is less in the university's and more in the nation's interests for UC to continue to manage the lab on behalf of the federal government, despite its remote location far from any UC campus. It arguably would not even exist had UC not agreed 62 years ago to establish and manage the lab as a public service in time of war.

[...]

Full Story

UT & Lockheed Woo Los Alamos

BY RACHEL PROCTOR MAY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
UC Office of the President contact: Chris Harrington (202) 997-3150
chris.harrington@ucdc.edu



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENT COMMITTEES VOTE TO COMPETE FOR
MANAGEMENT OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

UC, Bechtel National, BWXT and Washington Group International team to compete and manage LANL

Key committees of the UC Board of Regents voted today (May 25) to pursue continued management and operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory by submitting a competitive proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy in response to the final request for proposals that was issued on May 19.

[...]

Full Story

Comment from the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/05/suddenly-its-all-become-very-clear.html

post:

To the original poster:

When we moved here in 1968, the downtown was much different. We purchased appliances from the local Sears or Montgomery Wards catalog store. There was a lovely bakery where families would congregate on Saturday morning before taking their small children to the library on Central. We could shop for odds and ends in a dimestore where the kids could get small toys. There were no fast food restaurants but there was Sparky's, Baskin Robbins, and a bowling alley all within walking distance of Central.

However, Los Alamos suffers from a shrinking business district because of internet, catalog, and out-of-town shopping, because LANL has moved more and more of its work across the bridge, and because of all the small companies that rent office space along Central and in other l