Anonymously contributed:
Here's is an interesting excerpt from the July 22, 2011 Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor story on the NAS Laboratory Management Panel's last public session with former NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks
------------------
In re-examining the decisions that led to the recompetition of the lab contracts nearly a decade ago, Brooks emphasized that it would be “difficult to overstate the anti- University of California bias existing at that time,” especially on Capitol Hill. However, he made it clear that the moves by DOE to consider re-bidding the Los Alamos contract—and ultimately the direction from Congress to recompete nearly all lab contracts—were fueled by concerns about business practices, not science. “There was never the slightest concern with the quality of science,” Brooks said. “The quality of science as far as we could tell then and as far as I can tell today is superb.” Przybylek [former NNSA General Counsel and Chair of the LANL contract selection board] agreed. “While we were looking for world-class on the science side, we were looking for ‘good enough’ on the back office side,” he said. “We recognized that you don’t want to pay for world-class business systems that cost a fortune that take away from the funding you have for science.”
Interestingly, Brooks suggested that NNSA would have decided not to recompete the Livermore contract, without intervention from Congress. “We explicitly and deliberately left open the question of whether there should be a competition for the management of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,” Brooks said. “At the time, the perception in DOE headquarters, including by me, was that Los Alamos was in trouble but that Livermore was doing generally well. There is absolutely no way to know what we would have really done if the Congress had not intervened. ... It is my guess, and only my guess, that we would have decided not to do a competition for Livermore.”
Notably, Brooks also considered combining Livermore and Los Alamos into a single competition. “Because I valued common management of the two laboratories, I went through a very brief phase of suggesting we would compete for the management of both labs as a package,” he said. “I ignited a firestorm primarily at the staff level, believing that the only entity who would be able to compete would be the University of California and that was unacceptable to the Hill. We therefore made the decision, accepted the reality, to compete them separately.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
16 comments:
“We explicitly and deliberately left open the question of whether there should be a competition for the management of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,” Brooks said. “At the time, the perception in DOE headquarters, including by me, was that Los Alamos was in trouble but that Livermore was doing generally well. There is absolutely no way to know what we would have really done if the Congress had not intervened. ... It is my guess, and only my guess, that we would have decided not to do a competition for Livermore.”
This may explain why LANL has been receiving upper managers from Livermore and why NNSA accepts those chosen....The perception was at the time that Livermore was doing things right and LANL was not. So bring in the folks from LLNL to lead LANL and maybe the "problems" would be fixed.
Wishful thinking, given the venom spewed out on the old LANL blogs and on this one of the "rank and file" on Anastasio and company.
Interesting to note that if congress had not passed an idiotic law that the NNSA contemplated not competing LLNL. Ah, the old adage still comes true - When LANL sneezes, LLNL gets pneumonia.
To those at LANL, thanks for nothing. And yes, I acknowledge that LLNL was not a paragon of virtue, we just looked like it compared to LANL.
“At the time, the perception in DOE headquarters, including by me, was that Los Alamos was in trouble but that Livermore was doing generally well."
That may have been the desired perception but was simply not true. Every systematic study has shown that LANL had a better record than most other labs in the DOE complex. I would guess DOE is just lazy and stupid. My perception is that Paris Hilton must be a very talented actress or musician judging by the fact that he is in the media so much. See my point.
“We recognized that you don’t want to pay for world-class business systems that cost a fortune that take away from the funding you have for science.” (Przybylek)
---
Say, what? That is exactly what the high costs associated with "privatization" of the management contract have done!
Want proof? Just look at how the FTE costs of technical staff members have gone way, way up since the LLCs took over. Lab researchers now accomplish less and less science with their funding dollars due to the enormous increase in overhead costs applied to all projects.
Want more proof? Then look at how the salaries of the general staff have stagnated while the salaries of the LLC executives have all gone through the roof!
Both Przybylek and Brooks are demonstrating that they are total buffoons.
Przybylek and Brooks re-designed and destroyed the Labs based on perceptions and guesses. They also failed to foresee that Lawrence Livermore managers (Anastasio, Knapp, and MacMillion) would spew their wrath of greed and hatred on Los Alamos like no other Managers have before in the history of LANL.
When does the LLNL contract expire? Maybe UC will rebid this time, and hopefully with no partners.
LLNL contract expires sep 30th 2014
Not too far in the future then. Perhsps there is hope, for employees who can survive that long.
To those at LANL, thanks for nothing. And yes, I acknowledge that LLNL was not a paragon of virtue, we just looked like it compared to LANL.
July 26, 2011 7:23 PM
Your welcome. Take my word for it, LLNL got more than even with with Los Alamos by bringing us the continued failed leadership of Bret Knapp, Mike Anastasio, and Charlie McMillian.
" LANL gets sick and LLNL gets the cure.."
Domenici
"Rules of Envy #4"
Does anyone know why Linton Brooks would come forward 5-years later in is come to Jesus announcement "that he screwed-up"? The only consolation for me is that while he was the cause of me losing my job at LANL, is that he also lost his job as well. God bless you guys that continue to work for the boys from Livermore (Knapp and McMillan) that continue to lead by forcible tactics and intimidation.
LInton Brooks and Tyler Pryzbylek failed at the most important task that they pretended to.
They disabled the national labs in a way that Khrushchev could only hope for.
Kim Philby, Hansen and Ames tip their pitchforks in awe.
"Does anyone know why Linton Brooks would come forward 5-years later in is come to Jesus announcement "that he screwed-up"?"
This and the fact that the two former
directors also "spilled the beans" seems to indicate something is up. I have heard that Chu is rather unhappy with the management at LANL and LLNL. I think there are plans for a change but it may not come for several years due to contracts. It does seem like the whole thing was a huge wast of time. But hey "perception" is reality.
July 30, 2011 8:14 AM
States that Chu is unhappy with the management at the two labs. Now is he unhappy with LLNS/LANS or is he more disgruntled with say the actions of George Miller et al in coming up with a way to circumvent his pay freeze edict.
If Chu is unhappy, maybe that message should be relayed to D'Agostino. The head honcho at NNSA keeps saying things are great. But it is the Department of EEEdiots dealing with the Not Necessarily Smart Administration so I can understand how a disconnect in mindset could occur.
I have heard that Chu is rather unhappy with the management at LANL and LLNL.
July 30, 2011 8:14 AM
Since Chu approved of the selection of McMillan he (Chu) is now "part of the problem".
Also, Brooks came forward following the "accidental" release of thousands of NNSA personnel information and stated "I screwed-up". Brooks now came forward and stated "I screwed-up" on competing the Labs. Gee Brooks, it appears you are a complete "screw-up".
When are we going to learn that most people who work for the government do so for one of two reasons: (1) they can't find a real job or (2) they can create policy that will help either them or their friends who will remember them.
When are we going to learn that most people who work for the government do so for one of two reasons: (1) they can't find a real job or (2) they can create policy that will help either them or their friends who will remember them.
August 4, 2011 9:40 PM
I happen to know a lot of government workers (I am not one). They work for the government because the jobs carry respect and a chance for advancement, have good pay and great benefits, have (at least some) security, and provide a good measure of satisfaction and personal sense of contribution to the country. The vast majority of government workers 1)could easily qualify for lower-paid private jobs, and 2) have no opportunity to "create policy." Yous is a completely uninformed opinion.
Post a Comment