GAO scolds NNSA for LANL and LLNL contract extensions
Nuclear Weapons & Materials Monitor
February 24, 2013
The National Nuclear Security Administration did itself a “tremendous disservice” by granting award term extensions to contractors that run Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories even though the contractors did not meet requirements to trigger the lucrative extensions, a senior Government Accountability Office official said this week at the Nuclear Deterrence Summit. In a speech at the summit, GAO Assistant Director Allison Bawden said the “inconsistent” administration of the laboratory contracts raises questions, not only for existing NNSA contracts but also for a new cost-savings based contract that was awarded for the combined management of Y-12/Pantex last month but is under protest.
Bawden suggested that the inconsistent administration of contract incentives could lead companies to “cherry-pick” certain incentives it feels are worth achieving and “counting on the fee determining official to see its wisdom” could erode the ability of field managers to make tough decisions. “What kind of message do these actions send to potential bidders on future M&O contracts? Will they take the contract structures as seriously?” Bawden said.
Neither Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), earned enough at-risk fee to meet the 80 percent award term threshold on its Fiscal Year 2012 Performance Evaluation Reviews, with Livermore earning 78 percent of the fee and Los Alamos earning 68 percent. Acting NNSA Administrator Neile Miller, then the agency’s Principal Deputy Administrator and Fee Determining Official, adjusted Livermore’s fee in December, giving the lab contractor an extra $541,527 to help it meet the 80 percent mark, and waived the requirement for LANS in recognition of the progress the lab had made in recovering from a delayed security upgrade project.
Miller previously told NW&M Monitor that the latitude provided to the Fee Determining Official allows her to take a broad view of the lab’s performance. Each of the labs met five award-term measures needed to trigger the extensions, but fell short in at-risk fee. “That is the flexibility I have as a Fee Determining Official and I believe when I do those determinations I’m taking into account not only what has gone on specifically that the site manager is referring to but sort of bigger picture and strategic objectives that NNSA has at that given site, and I have the fee that I determine reflect that,” Miller said.
You can't help but notice that Miller uses 'I' five times in one sentence. With such communications skills on display, she must be going to the same weekend self improvement seminars as Charlie.
12 comments:
Ok. It is easy for any practioner to pot shot another, becoming another of the ever present administration scolds.
But the crown jewels of a few years ago, once central to long-term safe nuclear weapons have been pulverized by scolding practitioners, caring for the minutia while the organization declines.
Will the dust suffice? Or did NNSA kill itself with its blundering good ideas?
What is this with women and weak men scolding everybody. Don't they have kids to grind their teeth on?
Bile is bile, but shut up.
In the meantime, the real folks we rely on are getting a 10% pay cut on top of previous, 7% pay reductions for mandatory pension contributions on top of a 2-year wage freeze. This is enough to cause an exodus.
The sad thing is many won't leave, because even with the cut, the scientists are still paid above market. I could see the engineer types go acrsoss the treet or to Silicon Valley though.
This is enough to cause an exodus.
March 3, 2013 at 6:20 PM
No it's not. It's like opening a faucet slowly. Unfortunately (for the labs and the nation), the "water" that dribbles out first will be the best and the brightest with the highest prospects of continuing their careers elswhere. All those high-powered think-tank types who claim that "diversifying the labs' mission" is the answer will find they have nothing but the leftover sludge to work with.
I don't work there any more, but I wouldn't take a 17% pay cut.
Screw 'em and the woman of ill repute who bore them.
All due respect but the U.S. GAO has no influence, political or otherwise. McMillan's response to the report.....yawn.....
GAO performs audits for Congress. I'm not sure exactly how much influence they have, but it is not zero. I wouldn't yawn.
You're not McMillion.
Good point, I am not.
Good point, I am not.
March 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM
Somehow missing the point.
If they don't give extenions, the LLCs will begin to plan for termination, Tyler Pryzbylek's ingenious plan to incentivize management performance at national labs through tightly managed metrics will meet its predicted demise.
Good riddance. Confused Slav.
But, because any new operations ocontract will ask again for lower employee costs, you better organize and get your written employee contracts in place or the new bidders next time around will take it all away.
Post a Comment