BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Sunday, April 15, 2012

LLNS and the Nuclear Weapons Complex Performance Evaluation Reports

Gary Gwilliam of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer wrote:

Article by Gary Gwilliam of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer in Oakland, CA.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Clearly, the fox is in charge on this henhouse.

Anonymous said...

LLNS and LANS were both created by NNSA. Both are shell companies that cost much more than the previous contracts.

In its annual performance evaluation, NNSA effectively grades its decision to create these monster contracts. Hence, unless the LLCs screw up horribly (think a loud safety/security scandal), the grades will be excellent. How nice!

Besides, why do we need NNSA, LLNS, LANS? Why can't the funds be allocated to the Lab directors, who'd be responsible for its use? What, who would assure that there's no waste? Would the waste be more than is currently spent on NNSA and the LLCs?

Anonymous said...

Besides, why do we need NNSA, LLNS, LANS? Why can't the funds be allocated to the Lab directors, who'd be responsible for its use?

April 16, 2012 7:28 AM

It used to work that way, long ago. The AEC allocated money to the Lab Directors. That system was frowned upon by Congress as lacking accountability (which was certainly true). UC was the contractor running the Labs, but was rarely seen or heard from, except at benefits time. Under today's bureaucracy, the only way Lab Directors could be directly allocated money would be if the Labs were GOGO instead of GOCO, and the employees were all federal employees. Be careful what you wish for.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe we'd ever see a GOGO LANL/LLNL. The idea of having a contractor as the fall guy is just to good for an inept agency to ignore. And if the agency in question (DOE) is found to be faulty, it just creates a sub agency (NNSA)and lets them be the fall guy. If the labs became government operated and the employees became federal employees, the layoffs might be more difficult with the possibility of federal employee unions making large noises.

I know that in the IT world, DOE sites proper (HQ, ALBQ) contract their computer support workforce. Why buy the cow when all you want is a quart of milk?

Anonymous said...

As Mr. Gwilliam would be sure to say if the shoe was on the other foot: "alleged corrupt employment practices".

Anonymous said...

Does spending several hundred million dollars per year on the LLCs and on NNSA itself actually increase accountability?

Surely, the beans are better counted. But what about regulations that severely stifle work? Prison-like atmosphere that drives away the best staff? Tremendous overheads that result from Byzantine rules? Has anyone counted the cost of that?

The need for the fall guy explanation rings true though.

Anonymous said...

"Hence, unless the LLCs screw up horribly (think a loud safety/security scandal), the grades will be excellent."

April 16, 2012 7:28 AM

You would call the Quintana case something other than a 'loud security scandal'?
And, you would call the near-miss electrical accident something other than a 'loud safety scandal'?

Anonymous said...

You would call the Quintana case something other than a 'loud security scandal'?
And, you would call the near-miss electrical accident something other than a 'loud safety scandal'?

April 16, 2012 8:54 PM

Could you get a little more dated and irrelevant? Those were what? Six years ago, at the very beginning of the LANS contract? Somebody's buttons got pushed...

Anonymous said...

Could you get a little more dated and irrelevant? Those were what? Six years ago, at the very beginning of the LANS contract? Somebody's buttons got pushed...

April 17, 2012 9:59 PM

Uhh, might want to check the calendar for facts next time. The electrical shock event was more recent. But hey, what's a factor of two going to matter in safety?

Anonymous said...

Uhh, might want to check the calendar for facts next time. The electrical shock event was more recent. But hey, what's a factor of two going to matter in safety?

April 18, 2012 9:05 AM

Like there's only been one electrical shock near miss?? Calendars are great but they don't teach you history. That you have to do for yourself. Especially if you were born yesterday.

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget about Knapp's battleship gun that exploded a couple of years ago. LANS and NNSA did a superb job of covering this up too!

Blog Archive