Skip to main content

Watchdog Finds Flaws in DOE Contractor Responsibility Checks

Image
By scooby
POGO: Watchdog Finds Flaws in DOE Contractor Responsibility Checks September 10, 2013 The Department of Energy’s (DOE) watchdog office just published a report finding weaknesses in the Department’s policies and procedures for keeping contracts out of the hands of disreputable companies and individuals. “The Department had developed internal controls designed to ensure that awards were made to responsible prospective contractors,” according to a Department of Energy Inspector General (DOE IG) audit report released last week. “Although procurement officials were familiar with the…requirements regarding responsibility determinations, we found that management did not ensure these requirements were consistently followed.” Anonymous said... September 20, 2013 at 8:21 AM Looks like sole sourcing is going to get a lot harder starting today. God help all those who want their good "yesterday" but don't want to spend the time doing their research first. It isn't going to matter is its to "replace like item" in the field. a sis week procurement may have just become a six month procurement and even afterwards have to go with low bid will come retrofits. Can you say big $$$ to be spent and increased operating cost.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Let's hope they take the private contractor down like dogs

Privatizing national lab management misguided
Roger Logan and Jeff Colvin
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
SF Chronicle

In their obsession with privatization as the cure-all for government and bureaucratic inefficiencies, Big Business and its political allies continue to beguile the American public with promises that this is the way to save tax dollars, provide better services or products and, in some cases, create jobs.

But taxpayers, Congress and the Obama administration would be wise to do more than beware of these pledges; they should take a look at what happens when private corporations become government contractors. Unencumbered by scrutiny and driven by self-interest and short-term profit, they flout the nation's fair-employment laws and dodge accountability.

A case in point: Several years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy put management of our nuclear weapons research and development labs out for bid. Against the advice of many, DOE awarded the contract for both labs (Lawrence Livermore in the Bay Area and Los Alamos in New Mexico) to a single private partnership comprising the University of California Regents, Bechtel Corp., and other private companies. This created the Holy Grail of unaccountable profiteering: Not just a for-profit monopoly, but a taxpayer-funded for-profit monopoly.

Right off the bat, the combined management fees - footed by the taxpayer - rose by at least $240 million over six years as Lawrence Livermore National Security notified 430 employees - most of them, long-tenured professionals over age 40 - that their services would no longer be needed. The employees were given one hour to pack up their belongings while being watched, had their badges confiscated, then were "perp-walked" out the gate like common criminals. The layoffs of career scientists and researchers drained the lab of experience and know-how - certainly not a move that enhances national security and readiness.

LLNS whined to Congress that a $280 million budget shortfall necessitated the first layoffs in the lab in 35 years.

Now more than a third of the laid-off workers are suing LLNS for wrongful dismissal and, in some instances, age discrimination. After a two-month-long trial on five of the cases earlier this year, an Alameda County Superior Court jury found the partnership liable for kicking the employees to the curb, and awarded them $2.7 million. Rather than cut its losses by settling the remaining 125 cases, LLNS has opted to fight each one - and, why not, when LLNS is insisting that DOE and the taxpayers should cough up the $2.7 million to pay for its unlawful actions?

Meanwhile, a coalition of liberal and conservative think tanks proposes "re-imagining the national labs." They recommend changes that only a government contractor could love in a report titled "Turning the Page" released this summer. Most of the purported reforms would give contractors even more leeway and even less accountability at a time that clearly demands more aggressive oversight and control on behalf of the common, not corporate, good.

LLNS' outrageous disregard for U.S. tax dollars, its own employees, the civil justice system and, now, its own legal liability is a travesty. The lab partnership broke the law, has made a mess of workers' lives and has cost the taxpayers more, not less money.

If ever there were a poster boy for privatization gone bad, this is it.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Privatizing-national-lab-management-misguided-4843513.php
9/26/2013 10:16 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more