LANL: The Real Story

Doug:

I want to thank you for last year's Christmas gift to the employees of LANL, namely, this here blog. The community of Los Alamos is intensely conservative, patriotic, and religious--putting to rest forever the silly notion that all scientists are communistic, anti-American atheists--and as such, LANL staff would never, EVER rally 'round a union. (I even tried to get some of my most liberal-leftist friends to join, but they demurred.) But they have rallied around this cyber-union of yours. And the people who've posted to this e-union over the past year comprise the widest possible spectrum of views, not, as LANL Public Affairs "spokespersons" have said, "a tiny minority of malcontents."

So, apart from serving as a valuable pressure valve, has The Blog made any real difference?

My feeling is that it has made a big difference.

I believe that the outrage and frustration expressed on 'LANL: The Real Story', more than any articles that may have appeared in Physics Today, gave UC the cover to offer a golden parachute to the failed former Director. Finally, even his Navy pals Brooks and Foley couldn't keep him in place, struggle though they might.

The concerns expressed on The Blog about pensions, benefits, and working conditions must have filtered through, indirectly if not directly, to Bechtel and UC. When LockMart paid attention to LANL employees, the Bechtel/UC team must have been forced to, also.

Finally, the bureaucrats at NNSA/DOE must also have paid some attention to the possibility of a major exodus by staff over 50 years old. You will recall that hits on The Blog, apart from LANL staff, were mainly by DOE, followed by the corporate competitors, and last of all, UC.

In the last few months, I came to the conclusion that my anger at UC was partially misdirected. When the livelihood of 10,000 LANL staff members is placed against the education of some 200,000 students on UC campuses, which is the principal duty of the premier university in the country, LANL is left behind--not ignored, to be sure, but left behind. It's a bitter pill for us to have to swallow, but that's life.

Given the enormity of the odds we have faced in the last seven years--a hostile NNSA/DOE bureaucracy, an even more hostile Republican Congress, an Administration indifferent to science, and a UC that had other priorities--I would say that Doug's Blog has been amazingly successful and eminently useful.

I salute you, Doug, for your courage and tenacity.

And now, to all my fellow LANL colleagues, I wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, and also a Happy New Year that is better than the last three, at least.

-Brad

Letters

Discussing (or Not) Our Nuclear Future

Anonymous submission from "THE DISENCHANTED PANTEXAN"
__________________________________

I have worked at Pantex for almost 20 years and never have I seen such a dismal employee moral as there is a Pantex now that BWXT is there. BWXT is there for the money and anyone who crosses them in hot water ASAP. They don't give a damn about anything but their cost plus award fee. They claim a far superior safety record than the previous contractor, Mason & Hanger, but make no mistake it is through fear and intimidation they run the Pantex Plant. They say they care for their employee but let me give you an example how they do this. Shortly after 9-11 Pantex closed the " West Gate" and everyone entered and exited the plant through the "East Gate". The rate of traffic accidents soared at the intersection of highway 60 & FM 2173.There were two or three serious accidents a month there. You can imagine, 3000 plus people trying to get to work, a two lane farm to market road intersecting with a 4 lane highway with a speed limit of 70 MPH.

Hi Doug,
Please post anonymously...ADTR still bites...

With what has been posted in the blog about "at will" employee status
for NM workers, NM's previous inability to intervene in UC's actions, and
UC's historical (mis)management of its NM workers, I was wondering about
the new LLC...
1) In which of the 50 States is/will the LANS LLC be incorporated or
chartered? ...Delaware perhaps?
2) Will the new LLC bring with it anything new (better) with regard to
employee rights compared to the soon-to-be-terminated arrangement with the
absentee landlord from the State of California?
3) Will the State of New Mexico have any newfound rights to oversee the
welfare of employees of the new LANS LLC?
4) On a related topic, now that LANL will again be under the flag of UC
but as a disconnected LLC, is it now more likely that employees of LLNL
will never risk severence from UC employment?

Thanks.

Hi Doug;

I have been following the LANL recompete and your blog for the past couple of months. I have to say that I was a big fan of Lockheed/UT as well. (probably comes from being a Longhorn!) Thank you for the insight!

I have always said that if management knew how to treat their employees, there would be no need for my services. I have spent the past 25 years working with Ph.D level scientists in cutting edge sciences and high performance computing. If one has to work, then I believe you should wake up everyday excited about about your job and eager for the chance to perform. If there are people who wish to examine what lies beyond the Lab, I would be happy to discuss the possibilities.

Here is my contact information and my URL with current job opportunities for scientists in computational science, nanotechnology, high performance computing.

Good luck to you to all.

Penelope Clayton-Smith
Quantum Recruitment
214 293-0604
www.quantumrecruitment.com

The University of California’s securing a new contract to operate the Los Alamos National Laboratory is a major victory for the university, a victory that will have an impact on Lawrence Livermore Natoinal Laboratory as well.

Having both major nuclear weapons laboratories under the operational umbrella of the same university continues a sibling relationship that has existed since the Livermore Lab was launched in 1952. Certainly, through the years, there have been both cooperation and competition between the two labs in a wide range of areas, and the continuing UC operation of Los Alamos and Livermore will provide a basis for continuity in the positive aspects of the sibling relationship.

[...]

Full Story

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/5022/C62/L36
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/36938.html
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_4344335,00.html
http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-6009262.html
http://www.abqjournal.com/north/419907north_news12-28-05.htm

Albuquerque Journal
Sunday, December 25, 2005

Questions Surround New LANL Management

By Jennifer Talhelm
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON— The questions began almost as soon as Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced that the University of California would continue to lead Los Alamos National Laboratory.

After a run of embarrassing financial and security lapses, how could the Department of Energy return LANL to the university? Would UC continue to be in charge of safety and security?

The answer, say UC President Robert Dynes and other champions of the new arrangement, is that the Energy Department did not award the contract to UC.

Rather, the contract went to Los Alamos National Security LLC, a group of three corporations— engineering giant Bechtel Corp., BWX Technologies and Washington Group International— and UC.

"It was LANS that was chosen," Dynes said. "This is not the same old world that it was in the 20th century."

But convincing skeptical lawmakers, employees and watchdogs that Los Alamos and UC have entered a new era may be more difficult.

Energy Department officials on Wednesday announced that UC beat a team led by defense contractor Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas. The contract begins June 1, and the winners will be paid up to $512 million over seven years.

UC has run the lab, which now maintains the nation's nuclear stockpile, since Los Alamos was started during World War II. But after the past several bumpy years, culminating in a decision last year to temporarily shut down the lab, UC's leadership has been widely criticized and the Energy Department decided to put the contract to operate the lab up for bid.

Many observers had assumed that because of UC's history, the Lockheed team would win. They were surprised at the news, and rumors swirled that politics played a role in the contract evaluation.

Energy Department officials have said they are confident they made the right decision.

They have offered few details about how the new team will work, however.

Instead, they have described LANS only in broad terms, calling it an "integrated team" that will draw on each member's strengths to manage different aspects of the lab.

Each has experience in science, management, safety or nuclear security and has worked in various branches of the nation's sprawling nuclear weapons complex. UC, for example, will focus on science and technology and on bringing world-class scientists, researchers, advisers and peer reviewers to the lab, Dynes said.

Michael Anastasio, who heads Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and who will direct Los Alamos, said the new team brings the best and the brightest from all four organizations.

But Hugh Gusterson, an anthropologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has studied the nation's weapons labs, said that relationship could turn into a "bureaucratic nightmare" as the members figure out how to divide responsibilities and communicate.

"My prediction is that they will suck up enormous time and resources as they figure out how to talk to each other," he said.

The Energy Department and the team will also have to convince critics things are headed in the right direction.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a frequent critic of the lab, has demanded that the department explain in detail by Jan. 6 how it reached its decision. He said he had "no belief that UC can reverse its record of consistent failure."

A spokeswoman for Barton was not immediately available Thursday to say whether Barton had heard back from the government.

Plans for the blog:

Well, my team lost. Life is like that at times -- you move on. I did promise to keep the blog up and running until after the new contractor takes over on June 1, and I will still do that. After July 1, though, I will shut it down. Between now and the feel free to use it to discuss transition issues that are important to you. Between now and July 1 I plan to gradually disengage from LANL, the blog, all the troubles on the Hill; the whole enchilada. It's way past time to put Los Alamos in the rear view mirror. I must say, though, it has been both a pain, and a pleasure running this beast since December 28, last year. I am more than ready to do pull the plug now.

So adios in advance, good luck to you all, see you next time around.

--Doug

From Anonymous:
______________________

For the car, and the hard discs,
We've been slammed, by the Congress,
They put us up for bid,
For the things they say we did,
Walkin' out of LANL while it stands.

Most of us, who are vested,
From our hands, pensions wrested,
By the SEB we're screwed,
(Led by Tyler who?),
Walkin' out of LANL while we can.

We had Browne, then the admiral,
With the "buttheads", had his hands full,
Director Bob does what he can,
For the junior Lab's top man,
Walkin' out of LANL while it stands.

They've got plans, and an org chart,
Would be nice, to see our part,
Getting ready for the switch,
Employee's have the itch,
Walkin' out of LANL while we can.

Now they've picked, who will run us,
Hope they're good, on their promise,
Better pull out all your loot,
Before you get the boot,
Walkin' out of LANL while we can.

Get us prepped, for what's coming,
Can't yet tell, who'll be running,
The LLC is here to stay,
Say goodbye to good old days,
Walkin' out of LANL while it stands.

From: "TravisMcGee"

Doug, you did a great service for LANL even if management at LANL, UC, and DOE never give you credit for it. I heartily endorsed the blog as a way for employees to express opinions about LANL policies since postings to the Reader's Forum were censored. And I also endorsed the blog because of the postings about the CREM incident, the shutdown, safety issues, and management issues in various divisions. And I fully accept that you and Brad, along with anyone else who wanted to, used it to express opinions about which of the two teams was the "better".

However, as I believe has been discussed in many comments, the DOE was incapable of writing an RFP and is just as incapable of evaluating the responses. The limitations put on those who could submit bids clearly made it possible only for large defense contractors to be part of the "team". This is contrary to the warning from President Eisenhower about the "military industrial complex" and clearly indicates the direction that DOE plans to take based, I believe, on direction from the current administration.

Because other national laboratories are also facing the same RFP/bid process with the same expectations of being managed by a team such as UC/Bechtel or LM/UT, all taxpayers should be concerned about the fate of science in this country. Even with a dramatic change after the 2008 election, it will be years before we recover from where we are today, in part because of the tremendous deficit and the cost of the Katrina recovery. If the national laboratories are managed by large defense companies with strong ties to Washington, science will be driven by whoever is in the White House rather than by the needs of the nation and the visions of the scientists.

So, Doug, your team "lost", but the real losers are the American people because another national laboratory has become part of the military-industrial complex, forever to be at the beck and call of a for-profit company. And science will take a back seat to the bottom line.

Yes, one can leave Los Alamos, find a job elsewhere, forget the problems here, but that's not the solution when one considers the effects of these "teams" on science in America. Maybe the answer is to push the rules, to think outside the box, and to hire folks who are not afraid of taking a chance, who take the initiative rather than waiting to be told what to do, and who believe in begging forgiveness rather than asking permission. Maybe the answer is to continue to report on the good and bad at LANL and to remember that the money is not printed in Bechtel's or UC's basement but belongs to the taxpayers who deserve to have it spent wisely and to know when it is not. Maybe the answer will be more blogs, challenging the "rules", anonymous mailings to our congressional delegation, and newsletters anonymously posted on LANL bulletin boards.

I was totally disappointed in the quality of the presentations on Thursday. For several hours all I heard was talk that contained no information. It seemed to be all, "we don't know this, we don't know that". Clearly DOE/UC/Bechtel didn't realize the image that they would portray by being so uninformative. I would have thought that they would have been aiming to impress us with what they already had planned. I would have thought that after the deadline for the bid submission, both bidders would have been preparing for the announcement with the idea of really convincing LANL staff of how much better their management would be compared to what currently exists.

The one characteristic of many of the postings have been utter cynicism. It's wearing to read nothing but cynical comments. The blog has a "Running list of wasteful LANL activities". How about a "Running list of wasteful LANL activities with a suggested fix"? How about detailed postings on a complete reorganization from the employees' perspective that would make LANL work better? Here's what I suggest.

1. Elminate all COS's because they contribute nothing.
2. Return budgets to the groups, not the divisions.
3. Eliminate the CIO.
4. Rescind the last 6 months of DI's.
5. Move the property, computer support, HR, and financial people back into the divisions.

How about positive rather than negative? How about a posting that says, "Today I had problems with such-and-such so I talked to xyz who told me how to fix my problem and it worked." Let's move on positively, but at the same time let's make sure that we continue to communicate to DOE and UC that we expect them to do the right thing for Todd's family and that we will continue to remind them of their obligation to treat LANL employees honestly and fairly. And until they have done what's right for Todd's family, LANL employees will not believe that they will be treated honestly and fairly.

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

[...]

Harold Agnew, who was director from 1970-79, had a lighthearted suggestion about Michael Anastasio, director of Lawrence Livermore, who is to become LANL director under the new contract.

"This decision will make poor Michael Anastasio unhappy," he said in a telephone interview from southern California. "Michael did a really good job at Lawrence Livermore and I don't think he really wants to leave there. But I have a solution - Michael should work at Los Alamos for a little while then get a doctor's certificate that says at 7,600 feet he can't operate. Then he goes back to Livermore and they hire Paul Robinson (Lockheed's choice to be director) to take his place and everyone's happy."

[...]

Full Story

This blog is linked today from Slashdot.com, a high-volume tech news site. The running list of wasteful activities on this blog's sidebar is specifically pointed out there. Lots of people are reading about how LANL conducts business today.

Here's a link to the slashdot article:

http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/05/12/22/0118258.shtml?tid=187&tid=219&tid=14

--Doug

From Anonymous:
___________________________

On the subject of yesterday's announcement, and the cost figures that
were subsequently published which identified each competitor's bid amount:

Basically, what this means is that LAA won... but lost over a lousy
87M. What this says to me is that DOE needed a justification (a weak
one) for sticking with UC, when the LM-UT team had the stronger
proposal. I had a bad feeling when they announced the delay. I just
knew it was going to get yanked from underneath them.

What a message to send as they put the LLNL contract out to bid: don't
bother spending the money on a proposal, since we're just going to let
UC retain control anyway. They'll never get a response to their RFPs
again, except from UC.

University of California keeps nuclear weapons unit despite recent series of scandals

By MATTHEW TRESAUGUE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The University of Texas System lost a spirited competition for control of the nation's pre-eminent but troubled nuclear weapons laboratory Wednesday.

The U.S. Department of Energy awarded a seven-year contract that could pay up to $79 million each year in management fees to a team led by the University of California, which has run the Los Alamos National Laboratory for six decades but recently came under fire for a series of safety and security scandals.

[...]

Full Story

Profile: Michael Anastasio

By THE NEW MEXICAN
December 22, 2005

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio will become director of Los Alamos National Laboratory when Los Alamos National Security takes over the lab’s management next year.

Anastasio, a nuclear physicist, was leader of the combined University of California and Bechtel National partnership that was chosen by the Department of Energy on Wednesday to run LANL. He was named director of LLNL, located an hour east of San Francisco, in 2002.

[...]

Full Story

From Anonymous:
_______________________________

Dear Secretary Bodman,

Given a choice between two competitors, you have, in true DOE fashion, chosen the worst solution. First, by your decision to select them as the new contractor, you have richly rewarded the University of California for their failures at LANL in recent years.

Second, you have demonstrated to Lockheed Martin the value of providing a well-run operation for DOE (none).

But hey! You got your pit production team all together in one place. Congratulations!

Color me gone, you folks can party without me.

Signed,

Disappointed in DOE

From Anonymous:
______________________

Dear Secretary Bodman,

I am saddened to see that UC/ Bechtel was rewarded the contract for
LANL, but what was more disheartening was the fact that no one
mentioned anything about the most important issue to every employee
at both LANL and LLNL. That would be their retirement plan and
medical benefits.

After two years of listening to people express their concerns I have
found that benefits is all that the people care about, and yet DOE
and NNSA have ignored these concerns entirely; leave few viable
avenues to take. Having examined these available avenues I would
venture to say that there should be mass exodus from both LANL and
LLNL shortly before the contract date takes affect. Understanding how
callus DOE and NNSA can be, it is my hopes that this is exactly what
happens. I myself look forward to participate in this mass evacuation
of the premises.

As I have said many times before most people think that because the
UC won the contract they are going to remain a UC employee and that
it will be business as usual. I am sure that this is not the case. I
believe that all current LANL and LLNL employees will become "LLC"
employees, whereby all contribution to their UC retirement will
cease; and that they will have to start all over again unless they
retire. I am beginning to wonder how many out of the 12,000 employees
at LANL and the 8,000 employees at LLNL realize what is at jeopardy
or understand that they must find time to make plans for their future.

Having heard nothing about LANL's HR being swamped with request for
retirement applications my question is, does anyone that is age fifty
really want to hand over their retirement funds to the new
corporation so that they can do as they wish with them, taking the
chance of losing everything that they have worked for over the last
few decades. Are the people of these two facilities brain-dead or is
DOE and NNSA banking on their ignorance to prevail, in hopes that
you'll have enough qualified people to keep the doors open? I hope not.

And then finally you say that politics had no part in this fiasco,
but I have my doubts. If that be the case then why does rumor have it
that Michael Anastasio's new salary will be $1.3 a year whereby he
can retire at 100% his wage after five years of service? Now you tell
me that this is justified. No wonder he was bucking so hard for UC / Bechtel

Thanks again for your time.

3:36 pm: Reaction to awarding the Los Alamos contract to UC team
By The Associated Press
December 21, 2005

(AP) - Reaction to Los Alamos National Security, a team led by the University of California, winning the Department of Energy contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory:

"We are honored and excited that the Department of Energy has selected our team and given us the opportunity to lead this vital national security science laboratory." _ Michael Anastasio, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who will head Los Alamos when the winning bidders take over next June.

___

"I was extremely disappointed. We were told the scoring was very close." University of Texas System Chancellor Mark Yudof, who said that at least for now, the UT System has no plans to appeal the decision.

___

"It's a blue Christmas for America." _ former lab whistleblower Glenn Walp. He and another investigator were fired from Los Alamos in 2002 after talking to the DOE about investigations into alleged mismanagement, fraud and cover-ups at the lab.

___

"We wish the University of California-Bechtel team every success with its new contract to manage one of the nation's most important scientific institutions." _ The Los Alamos Alliance, the competing team led by the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin Corp.

___

"What does it take for UC to suffer the consequences of screwing up? Lockheed wasn't a great alternative, but it is hard to see how UC could possibly have been given a vote of confidence. We expect a continuation of the era of chaos at Los Alamos." _ Danielle Brian, executive director of a Washington-based watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight.

___

"We want to get this team to be upfront about whatever changes they're going to make and to just be honest with people." _ Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., talking with lab employees at the Hot Rocks Java Cafe in Los Alamos. Udall's congressional district includes Los Alamos.

___

"Los Alamos has had a proud history, one of great scientific and technical achievement, and today's decision by DOE will allow the laboratory's great work to continue under strong leadership well into the future. _ New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former Energy Department secretary.

___

"They really look like they've got a good handle on what they want to do and how they want to do it." _ Joe Ladish, who retired from the lab after 29 years and is a member of the Coalition for LANL Excellence.

___

"Based on the track record by the University of California and the seemingly invulnerable culture of mismanagement at Los Alamos, I am surprised to learn that the current contractor has been invested with new trust. I have minimal hope and no belief that UC can reverse its record of consistent failure." Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

___

"Los Alamos National Laboratory has benefited tremendously from its six-decade association with he University of California. I am confident that this new management team will ensure that LANL remains one of our nation's most important research laboratories." _ Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.

___

"DOE was faced with a very difficult choice. I am certain the quality of each team made the other better." Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

___

"The most valuable asset the lab has is its people. When I spoke with DOE officials this morning I emphasized the importance of ... making this transition to a new management relationship successful so that Los Alamos keeps and continues to attract the most talented scientists and researchers possible." _ Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M.

___

"This is a big win for the University of California and it recognizes the academic prowess of the nation's premier public research institution. I was overjoyed to hear the news." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

___

"The Department of Energy's decision ... is terrific news for UC, for our state, and for research science in this country." _ California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

___

"Today, DOE has recognized this impressive collaboration between public and private entities and afforded continued opportunity to bring innovation and reform to the labs." _ Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif.


Copyright 2005 Santa Fe New Mexican

Of course neither the proposals from the two teams nor the NNSA’s scoring
criteria have been made public, but on the basis of past performance alone,
it’s hard not to wonder if the result of this competition was fixed ahead
of time by political deals, rather than being settled on the basis of more
objective criteria. In any case, I now fear greatly for the long term
prospects of LANL. Institutional inertia, of course, will probably keep it
going for decades more, but I fear the continued steady decline of its
mission, and the quality of its staff, and ultimately the fate of the city
of Los Alamos itself. It appears LANL will not get the new beginning it
deserves and badly needs, but just more of the same……. This saddens me
more than I can say.

Bill Godwin

I have been given some of the facts regarding the LANL contract competition:

1. The LAA team received outstanding scores from the SEB, in the 850 - 900 range out of a possible 1,000.
   
2. They outscored the LANS team in all areas except for Science and Technology, but they were only slightly outscored in this area.
3. As a result of the total scores of both of the competitors being not overwhelming in favor of one or the other teams, the SEB decided to make the determination on the basis of cost.
• The LAA total cost was bid at $599 million over 7 years
  
• The LANS total cost was bid at $512 million over 7 years
  
• Delta = $87 million per year over 7 years
  

This new information only reinforces my opinion that the decision to select the UC-led consortium was a huge mistake, or pre-ordained.

In addition, I have received this copy of a letter (below) written by Joe Barton to Secretary Bodman.

--Doug
______________________________

December 21, 2005

The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman
Secretary
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585

Dear Secretary Bodman:

As you know, over the past several years the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has held numerous hearings to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse of government resources at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. These hearings have also reviewed several security breaches that have put our national security at risk.

Most recently, in 2004 several safety and security incidents by the University of California (UC) - DOE's contractor at the site - resulted in a seven-month stand-down at Los Alamos that cost the taxpayers approximately $370 million in lost productivity.

Based on the track record by the University of California and the seemingly invulnerable culture of mismanagement at Los Alamos, I am surprised to learn that the current contractor has been invested with new trust. I have minimal hope and no belief that UC can reverse its record of consistent failure.

I ask that the Department provide a detailed briefing regarding this action, as well as the decision documents developed by the procurement panel that provide the basis for the new contract award no later than Friday, January 6, 2006.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thank you,

Joe Barton
Chairman

The University of California has served as a benign, but absentee landlord of Los Alamos for 63 years, providing an aura of scientific and academic respectability to the Laboratory, and in return, basking in the glow of the Lab's significant achievements in scientific research, a tremendous payback for the American people. While UC managed the retirement system, one of the finest in the nation, and provided benefits to the staff of the Lab, including in-state tuition to the nation's leading university system, the real management of the Lab, including all its faults, was always from Washington, DC.

The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress decided to privatize LANL three years ago. They have finally succeeded, but not quite fully in the way they had imagined, I am sure. The need for the re-bid was excused by raising alarms about security, safety, and business accountability, and these alarms were amplified by the media all out of proportion to their actual seriousness. Shortly after former Director Nanos' shutdown of the Lab last year, which lasted for seven painful months, some of my colleagues and I searched through the official records on these so-called scandals, and found that there was not a dime's worth of difference among the three major nuclear weapons national laboratories: Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore (also run by UC), and Sandia (run by Lockheed-Martin).

In order to provide the appearance of a more business-like approach to running the Lab, UC first approached Lockheed-Martin to be their junior partner in the re-bid; when LockMart declined the offer, Bechtel agreed to be an equal partner. The final choice for NNSA/DOE was therefore an exercise in marginalia: which of the military-industrial corporate giants would do the job, assuming that scientific/academic issues were not paramount? The academic and public service aura of 63 years of UC affiliation with Los Alamos--let's not mistakenly call it "management"--may ultimately be compromised to some degree, as yet unknown, by the profit motive of a corporation, to whose pockets will flow an extra load of national debt from American taxpayers of the future. However, if Bechtel takes over the management of certain procurement and business procedures and improves them from within the Lab, then that will certainly be positive. Moreover, if the research parts of the Lab are somehow shielded from the manufacturing of nuclear weapons components, then that, too, will be a good thing.

In the end, the retirement system will be "separate but equal"--so they say. The employees' kids will still be able to go to UC as in-state students. And, if Department of Energy Secretary Bodman is to be believed--and I see no reason to doubt his sincerity--science will be promoted at Los Alamos, focusing on national security, but realizing that national security is not at all served by weakened science.

The real questions that remain are: Will any light be shined on the poor management of LANL that originated from NNSA/DOE? Will Congress hold anyone in DC, including themselves, accountable for the serious disruption of work and morale at Los Alamos over these last three years?

-Brad Lee Holian, Lab Associate
(Ph.D., UC Berkeley, 1972--LASL, then LANL ever since)

You may post these if you like,
but I prefer that they remain anonymous.
_______________________

A limerick:
There once was a lab called Los Alamos
That was going to be run by ... who knows
It could be Lockheed
Or the old guys, indeed
Either way, this process blows

But I really prefer haiku:
Cold winter morning
Los Alamos announcement
Merry Christmas, y'all

-Anon

From Anonymous:
___________________________

Most people think that because the UC got the contract that they are going to remain UC employees and that it will be business as usual. The truth is, they will not. They will become employees of the "new corporation" whereby all contribution to their UC retirement will cease and they will have to start all over again, unless they retire. I wonder if they realize this or not. Does anyone at age 50 really want to hand over their money to the new corporation so that they can does they wish with it. If they do I say, what a bunch of fools.

Who runs either lab is irrelavnat to what most people are concerned about. I would venture to say if managment came out and told all of its employees that if they stay they will only have a 401k and no medial, at least 50% of the employees would walk off the job tomorrow. Why is it that non one is addressing the most important part of this entire two year event. Are people just stupid?

ONLY post if you can do so anynomously.

A question was asked in a recent string about a potential lawsuit by the
non-winner. Rather than a lawsuit, the non-winner's first option would be a
bid protest. Assuming LAA LLC immediately availed itself of this
opportunity, the ensuing process would be cumbersome, with the NNSA needing
to make a decision on the bid protest within 100 days. If anyone's
interested in reviewing how the process works, you may find this on the
General Accounting Office's web site at
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/bid/bibreg.html.

Sign me, Disappointed
in Northern New Mexico.

Please post anonymously.

I see that many posters on the "LANL: The Real Story" blog are disappointed
that the University of Texas System and Lockheed did not win the contract.

What your readers should know is that UT is no panacea.

Several complaints about its audit director have been received in the past
year -
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/orl50abbott/orl2005/or0509486.htm. UT
finally released the complaints after a ruling by the Texas Attorney
General's Office.

What UT will still not release is the report detailing unethical and
unlawful acts committed by its audit director -
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/orl50abbott/orl2005/or0509396.htm.

Why would UT do this? The audit director is the brother-in-law of one of
the UT regents. This is a clear example of UT's commitment to oversight.

If retaliation, corruption, and incompetence are what concerns most of your
readers, LANL may have received much of the same from UT anyway, except with
the added disappointment of "more of the same" with UT and the added element
of by-law nepotism.

Perhaps the devil you know is better than the one you don't (and that is a
sorry choice to face in life), but your readers should not be saddened by
UT's loss.

My hope for your readers that are LANL employees is that the rigor of the
bid process and documented past performance of UC will mean that stronger
attention to compliance and safety will occur.

By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune ReporterJames W. Brosnan
Scripps Howard News Service
December 21, 2005

Posted 10:55 a.m. WASHINGTON - The University of California will continue its 62-year-run at the helm of Los Alamos National Laboratory, a congressional source close to the negotiations said.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman will announce today that UC beat out Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor, in the first-ever competition to manage the nation's premier weapons laboratory, the source said.

There will still be a new corporate presence at the lab, however. Bechtel Corp., another defense contractor, partnered with UC in it is bid.

And the lab will get a new director, Michael Anastasio, now director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who is leading the UC and Bechtel team.

[...]

Full Story

LOS ALAMOS (AP) - A team led by the University of California and Bechtel Corporation was chosen Wednesday to run Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Sources told The Associated Press that the UC team had beaten out the second competitor, a team led by the University of Texas.

It was the first time in the lab’s 63-year history that the contract had been put out to bid.

The University of California has run the lab since the lab was formed in World War II to build an atomic bomb.

It also marks the first time a corporation has helped manage the northern New Mexico nuclear laboratory.

The seven-year management contract is worth up to $79 million a year.

An “all-hands meeting” for workers is scheduled Wednesday afternoon to discuss the announcement.

Energy Department officials decided to put the contract up for bid after a series of safety and security problems at the lab in recent years.

The contract originally was expected to be announced December 1^st, but Department of Energy officials asked for more time.

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Numerous source have called to tell me that the Associated Press is running a story that says UC won. Stay tuned.

--Doug

One last opportunity for a limerick or two. Anybody have one they would like to send in?

--Doug

From Anonymous:
________________________

Chartered Hawker Jet enroute from Austin, too - N990DF, although this one isn't registered to UT, maybe they upgraded their ride from the twin turboprop to the jet in celebration? They used a chartered jet during a visit to KLAM earlier this fall, although it was from a company based in Austin.

Anonymous Please -

N6271C, a Beechcraft Super King Air 200 owned by the University of Texas, has filed a flight plan to leave Austin at 8:00 am CST, to arrive in Santa Fe at 9:47 am. No sign of a UC plane enroute. This size plane is often used to ferry management groups around. Not conclusive, but suspiciously interesting.

By Andy Lenderman The New Mexican |
December 21, 2005

The new management team for Los Alamos National Laboratory will be announced today, ending more than two years of speculation for thousands of workers employed by the nuclear facility.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has scheduled a news conference for noon today, and lab officials planned to broadcast it to employees internally. (FreeNewMexican.com will cover the news conference live.) Lab Director Robert Kuckuck has scheduled an employee meeting for 3 p.m., spokesman Kevin Roark said.

The announcement will mark a new chapter for the lab, which has been managed by the University of California since World War II. Now the university and its private partner , Bechtel National, are competing for the job with a team that includes the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin Corp.

The head of the Los Alamos Realtors Association said town residents are split about predicting who will get the contract.

“People are very excited that it’s finally going to be announced,” Realtor Tracy Langford said. “Our community needs for this decision to be made so we can move forward.”

[...]

Full Story

KSFR 90.7 FM
to Broadcast DOE-LANL
Contract Press Conference
Live on Air and Streaming

(Santa Fe, Dec. 21, 2005) -- KSFR will broadcast the Department of Energy
contract-award press conference live at noon December 21.

It can be heard as part of KSFR's AT Noon midday news live at 90.7 FM or
via live streaming at http://ksfr.org

Shortcut to Windows Media Player streaming link is at:

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/ksfr/ppr/ksfr.asx

By John Arnold
Journal Staff Writer

The wait is almost over for thousands of Los Alamos National Laboratory employees eager to learn who their next manager will be.

Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman is scheduled to announce the winner of the seven-year contract— worth up to $79 million dollars— today in Washington, D.C. The current lab manager, the University of California, has teamed up with engineering firm Bechtel National and other industrial partners in its bid to continue operating the lab. That team is competing against another academic-industrial alliance, led by defense contractor Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas.

"Certainly the employees of the lab are anxious to know (the winner)," said UC/Bechtel spokesman Jeff Berger. "And it will be very good for them, I think, to have closure and to know how this process ends."

The process began in 2003 on the heels of a series of well-publicized security and management scandals. That's when former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced that LANL's operating contract would be put up for bid for the first time in the lab's 63-year history.

[...]

Full Story

Well-written, well considered. I like it already.

From the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/12/doe-to-announce-lanl-contract.html

post.

--Doug
____________________________________________

1) Whoever gets the contract, there will be big changes at LANL. All of the attention LANL has had will highlight areas for change, whether for political or operational reasons.

The new contractor will have wide latitude in making changes. Do not expect a lot of questions to be asked. Expect a Nanos-like attitude restructuring/house-cleaning, though less abrupt. There will be an obligatory restructuring, but there will also be strategic refocus on the LANL approach.


2) The contractor has strong political support. The details of the award have been hashed and ratified to a high degree within Washington. They will have specific direction and will have discussed responsibility and oversight in detail.

3) Most folks (inside and out) will see the change as a defeat of LANL, with a takeover by LLNL management or SNL management. A bitter pill indeed.

4) Do not be surprised if there is not unanimity on the DOE staff. They probably were told to match their answer with a political reality.

5) Expect some appreciation for the LANL managers who have been riding out this difficult storm. If they leave, it will not be with a boot in the rear.

6) Expect more attention to compliance and safety. The new guys will need to prove they are better.

7) The problem with DOE inability to manage their responsibility has NOT escaped high level attention. The fact that the creation of the NNSA with a touch of autonomy (deeply undermined by Bill Richardson under Clinton's specific instruction) is still flawed is likely to lead to another run at improved government management of the US nuclear weapon establishment.

8) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from all of your friends in Washington!

The Mountain

San Francisco Business Times - 1:22 PM PST Tuesday

U.C. will learn Los Alamos contract decision Wednesday

The Department of Energy said Tuesday it will announce the winner of the $79 million contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico on Wednesday morning.

The University of California and the University of Texas both made bids on the seven-year contract with private companies -- U.C. with San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. and U.T. with Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp.

The University of California is the nation's largest university system, and the University of Texas is the second largest.

Bechtel and U.C. are equal partners in their bid, but Lockheed is the lead partner in the U.T. bid.

The University of California has managed Los Alamos National Laboratory since the lab was created by the Manhattan Project during World War II. The lab, birthplace of the United States' atom bomb, remained a central site for nuclear weapons research and development.

After several security lapses and administrative mistakes, the Department of Energy put the lab's management contract up for a competitive bid.

Samuel Bodman, the energy secretary, will announce the winner of the bid at a news conference.



© 2005 American City Business Journals Inc.

Doug, Please post this online.

I'm a reporter at KQED Public Radio in San Francisco, and at our statewide show- The California Report.
I'd be very interested in hearing from LANL employees by email or phone Wednesday after the DOE announces who will manage LANL.

I'd like to give our listeners first hand impressions from the people most effected by this change-- the scientists and other staff who work at Los Alamos. I'm interested in your impressions, even if you prefer to remain anonymous… but we will want to identify you by name (and title if possible), to include your thoughts in our broadcast report- to be aired across the state Thursday morning.

You can email me at cmusiker@kqed.org.
Or call me at 415 553-2289.
I'll need to hear from you as early as possible after the announcement to meet our deadlines.
We're looking forward to hearing from you.

Cy Musiker, Reporter
The California Report/KQED Public Radio
2601 Mariposa St. San Francisco, CA 94110
415 553-2289. Cell: 415 819-4195

The California Report, examining the people and issues of the Golden State, is heard weekdays on 23 public radio stations across California. A production of KQED Public Radio, 88.5 FM San Francisco/89.3 FM Sacramento.