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. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

A new LLNL contractor?

A new LLNL contractor?

What is the value added of bringing in a new contractor to manage LLNL by ending the LLNS contract ASAP? Without exclusive UC management of LLNL, would we be better or worse off with another LLC? Be specific please.
August 26, 2014 at 12:27 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Don't you get it yet? It ain't gonna happen. Ever. Go back to sleep!
August 26, 2014 at 8:02 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So you believe DOE will continue the pay more get less for profit contractor model?
August 26, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"So you believe DOE will continue the pay more get less for profit contractor model?

August 26, 2014 at 8:26 PM"

Yes, as long as the for profit companies make sure certain ex-DOE employees get get lucrative jobs in the end. Will congress see this as a problem? No because they too want to get on on the big money by working for corporations. Everyone is seeing the end name and wants to make as much as they can before the whole thing goes down. They know this system cannot and will not last and they are hoping to be the last ones before the end.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Regarding the LLNL contract there are at least 6 possibilities:

1. Return to 100% UC management (unlikely)
2. Go to a nonprofit mix with or without UC
3. Stay with LLNS in perpetuity
4. LLNS 2.0 (a liability or entanglement reset)
5. A new for profit LLC
6. Brought under DOD

August 27, 2014 at 7:02 AM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In order of likelihood: 4, 5, 3. The rest are tied for zero likelihood.

Anonymous said...

Near term, a change would bring turmoil and chaos, and things would get worse, not better. Long-term, it probably does not make a lot of difference unless the new manager is a university bringing a university atmosphere and way of doing things. That seems very unlikely. A third way is, direct management by DOE, and that might be the best way forward, for several reasons. First, it bridges the manager/DOE gap by eliminating it. Second, it puts the lab under a byzantine bureaucracy, in which it becomes possible to do many things just because no one competent is watching. A wonderful environment for the empire builders who tend to wind up driving progress.

Anonymous said...

How about just closing the the whole thing down. Give millions to managers declare it a success and than lay it rest once and for all.
Everyone will win and no one will care.

Anonymous said...

DOE/NNSA needs to get on with the inevitable and consolidate all NW work to New Mexico. Both the Navy and AF would be happy with that arrangement.

Anonymous said...

"DOE/NNSA needs to get on with the inevitable and consolidate all NW work to New Mexico"

Sandia may be doing well but we all know that LANL is and always has been the problem child of the NNSA complex. WHL, stolen mustangs, fires, missing disks, meth, WIP, culture of theft, cowboys, buttheads, people who do not "get it", non functional fences, Santa Fe Opera consultant fees. Several congress people have expressed interest in closing down the scandal ridden lab. Consolidating to in NM would be risky.

Anonymous said...

A solely UC owned LLC is also an option. This is the approach that Univ of Chicago took to rebid the Argonne Lab contract.

Lab employees would be employees of the LLC not the university. Lab Director as president of the LLC reports to a Board of Governors (all appointed by UC), not the UC Regents or UC President. Industrial partners are brought in as subcontractors to preform specific functions and not as owners of the LLC entitled to a direct share of the management fee. UCOP is paid by the LLC to manage the Lab's benefits and retirement programs as separate from those of the rest of UC system.

Anonymous said...

Would someone please figure out a way to run the Labs? There has been study, upon study with no action. This is getting really old folks. The Obama Administration has done nothing to resolve this F-up for 8-years.

Anonymous said...

"...Would someone please figure out a way to run the Labs? There has been study, upon study with no action. This is getting really old folks..."

What is the SPSE position on this matter?

Anonymous said...

We should remember why UC created the joint partner LANS LLC in the first place. It was in direct response to the Lockheed-Martin/Univ of Texas LLC that was formed to bid on the LANL contract RFP. When LANS won the LANL bid, UC just cloned the LANS proposal into the LLNS LLC (I remember reviewing "final" drafts of it that still had LANL references in it).

Also recall that on the LLNL contract RFP there were no other original bidders other than LLNS LLC until NNSA reissued it and added more money. At that point a Northrup Grumman led LLC (without a single academic partner) entered a bid on the LLNL contract - clearly with no real shot at winning.

I agree that UC will never return to direct UC management of LLNL, however, a solely UC owned LLC is a viable possibility. Especially if the management fee is significantly reduced or LANS loses the LANL contract.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"DOE/NNSA needs to get on with the inevitable and consolidate all NW work to New Mexico"

Sandia may be doing well but we all know that LANL is and always has been the problem child of the NNSA complex.

Umm...Sandia has *not* been doing well. Remember this?

http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1499

NNSA Penalizes Sandia; In Response Labs Director Says the Needs of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile May Not Be Met

May 17, 2013

Santa Fe, NM – Albuquerque’s KRQE TV Channel 13 investigative reporter Larry Barker has found that “[a]fter calling employee safety standards “inexcusable,” the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration recently withheld more than $6 million in incentive fees from Sandia [National Laboratories] as punishment… Lab director, Dr. Paul Hommert, defended Sandia’s handling of the Alaskan incident to the federal government. But, in a strongly-worded rebuke, NNSA Acting Director Neile Miller called Hommert’s version of the Kodiak events “disingenuous,” characterized Sandia’s response to the accident as “minimal” and said she was disturbed that no disciplinary action was ever taken against the employees involved.”

Anonymous said...

There is zero imagination and risk taking leadership at both the fed and contractor sides of NNSA. Everyone wants and fights for keeping the messy status quo.

The biggest structural change in the last few years was the merging of Pantex and Y-12. Look at the mess that turned into - moving a few senior contractor managers and changing the names on the contract took over a year of challenges.

Any change to how NNSA is structured or its contracting process are immediately defended by the incumbent bureaucrats looking to keep their government pensions and corporate leaders looking out for their profits.

Anonymous said...

"What is the SPSE position on this matter?"

And while we're at it, what does SPSE think about Supersymmetry and M-theory?

Anonymous said...

You will get screwed during the change.

Under new procurement rules, DOE procurment officials will be under intense pressure to reduce costs. Every buck they save can go to a competing lab...lots of puppies want those big teats... The pressure will be on employee more medical and retirement plan cost sharing, dropping retiree continuation medical, reducing TCP1 retirement and employee match.

They will attack employee benefits, contractor employee benefits and contract incentive clauses. They will demand more assurances and more company cost sharing. They will not look out for employee interests at all... no one will.

You will lose at least as much as we did last time, which I calculated for myself to be a 15% reduction in total compensation.

DOE/NNSA is not your friend. Look out for those rat bastards...even for a decent Joe, they have rules that make them rat bastards...

Anonymous said...

Remember the liar, Tyler Pryzbylk.

Anonymous said...


1. Return to 100% UC management (unlikely)
2. Go to a nonprofit mix with or without UC
3. Stay with LLNS in perpetuity
4. LLNS 2.0 (a liability or entanglement reset)
5. A new for profit LLC
6. Brought under DOD

In the short term perhaps a "3b" is in order defined as staying with LLNS under a modified and expanded set of NNSA measured performance metrics for LLNS.

Anonymous said...

"WHL, stolen mustangs, fires, missing disks, meth, WIP, culture of theft, cowboys, buttheads, people who do not "get it", non functional fences, Santa Fe Opera consultant fees." Even if totally true (not), these pale beside the gigantic fraud called NIF! By the way, who got the grease for Star Trek?

Anonymous said...

DOE/NNSA needs to get on with the inevitable and consolidate all NW work to New Mexico. Both the Navy and AF would be happy with that arrangement.

By the time LANL and SNL then refigured their cost bases, it would probably save zero dollars and just give them more leverage on NNSA.

Anonymous said...

Paul Hommert, defended Sandia’s handling of the Alaskan incident to the federal government. But, in a strongly-worded rebuke, NNSA Acting Director Neile Miller called Hommert’s version of the Kodiak events “disingenuous,” characterized Sandia’s response to the accident as “minimal” and said she was disturbed that no disciplinary action was ever taken against the employees involved.”

August 28, 2014 at 12:08 PM

What "Alaskan" incident? Did some Sandians do some Eskimos or what? You Sandians like to party don't you?

Anonymous said...

DOE's "substantially equivalent" promise ends for all lab employees and retirees with the next LLC contract change over.

Bend over and get ready for it.

Anonymous said...

"...DOE's "substantially equivalent" promise ends for all lab employees and retirees with the next LLC contract..."

What specifically "ends" and based on what source?

Anonymous said...

From the actual contact for LLNL at http://ucop.edu/laboratory-management/contracts/llnl.html

Part II

H - 35 WORKFORCE TRANSITION, CONTRACTOR COMPENSATION, BENEFITS AND PENSION

(f) Contract Expiration or Termination with a Follow-on Management and Operating Contract

If the Contract expires, or is terminated and an award is made to a follow-on management and operating contractor, as a part of the transition to another entity and in accordance with Contracting Officer direction and applicable law the Contractor [LLNS] shall transfer sponsorship of site-specific pension and other benefit plans covering employees at the Laboratory to the follow-on management and operating contractor.

Anonymous said...

I see general transfer language only. Is this an argument to stay with LLNS?

Anonymous said...

You can count on LANSLLNS to gradually eliminate health care for employees. They will also make it increasingly difficult to breakeven on retirement. This is the way that you boil frogs.

Anonymous said...

"...You can count on LANSLLNS to gradually eliminate health care for employees. They will also make it increasingly difficult to breakeven on retirement. This is the way that you boil frogs..."

Precisely why LANSLLNS "frogs" or "worker bees", and retirees, should:

1. contribute to the relevant subset of LANSLLNS
performance metrics

2. review the frequent contractor policy changes of
LANSLLNS

3. be actively involved with the formation and review of
new DOE/NNSA contract criteria or contract
proposals

Or you can passively sit around asking yourself "why is it getting so hot in here, who is taking my honey, and how are we going to pay for these lost retirement benefits on our fixed retirement income?"

Anonymous said...

4. Don't let LANSLLNS or the next contractor attempt to
define themselves as an ordinary "for profit" company
with entitled secrecy rights. LANSLLNS is a hybrid "for
profit" company at best. True "for profit" companies
generally aren't on annual Federal tax dollar funding
life support to exist. LANSLLNS should be required to
cough up their salary lists, employee bonuses, and any
other discretionary employee perks or entitlements.

Anonymous said...

You can count on LANSLLNS to gradually eliminate health care for employees.

September 11, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Employees will still have health care, it just won't be paid for by someone else. Or, it will be taxed as an income. As it should be. When did employees expect free (or almost) health care from employers, and why is it still an expected benefit? This makes no sense. Why should an employer be involved in how an employee deals with his/her health care costs? Do your work, collect your pay, and go deal with the rest of your life in private.

Anonymous said...

"...When did employees expect free (or almost) health care from employers, and why is it still an expected benefit?..."

Employees may expect a big raise or a big bonus in the future that they do not have in the present, but neither of those ambitious expectations are comparable to expecting present employee/retiree benefits to be preserved.

Anonymous said...

"When did employees expect free (or almost) health care from employers, and why is it still an expected benefit?"

Only since the middle of the last century, as anyone not living on Mars would know. Competitive companies offer competitive benefits to attract the best candidates for employment. Non-competitive companies like LANSLLNS don't, because they get paid regardless of their lack of productivity.

Anonymous said...

Funny and true! Yes the world did not begin in 1980 or 1990. There were LLNL workplace benefits offered and agreements made with employees.

Anonymous said...

Employee health insurance and all other employee benefits should be taxed as ordinary income. Why shield employees from the actual costs of their "benefits"? If the Silicon Valley employees are going to be taxed on free lunches, why should government employees get a free ride on benefits?

Blog Archive