Los Alamos National Lab Failed to Protect Classified Information

Report says Los Alamos National Lab Failed to Protect Classified Information

Updated: 01/28/2015 10:12 PM | Created: 01/28/2015 9:19 PM 

By: Danielle Todesco, KOB Eyewitness News 4

It has just been one problem after another for the Los Alamos National Laboratory as of late. This week alone, several of those problems are in the headlines.

The latest problem out of LANL is a new report obtained by our partners at the Santa Fe New Mexican. It shows that a classification officer at LANL failed to protect classified information, and because of that, there were six different incidents where information involving national security was wrongly released.

It is also hard to forget the radiation leak at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, which was blamed on LANL. Investigators say workers at LANL started using a different kind of kitty litter for packing, which caused a barrel to burst.
State Representative David Gallegos says he hopes to work with the representative who serves Los Alamos to see how the state can help prevent any more problems at LANL.

"Right away, disappointment came to my mind because, like I say, they've been under the microscope since the incident at the WIPP site, so it's one of those things. When you're being viewed that closely...you're going to find errors," Representative Gallegos said. "It also gives you the opportunity to upgrade the way you do business, and I was disappointed that they've gotten more problems than what was already revealed."

LANL officials released this brief statement on the release of classified information:

"The lab is looking at addressing the issues raised in the report through a set of corrective actions."

State: LANL, WIPP will face steeper fines

State: LANL, WIPP will face steeper fines

By Patrick Malone, The New Mexican

January 28, 2015

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/state-lanl-wipp-will-face-steeper-fines/article_d4d6ff20-f04b-54e9-b52a-fb319dcb2187.html


The New Mexico Environment Department is preparing to levy more fines against Los Alamos National Laboratory that would dwarf the already steep penalties the lab faces for its role in last year’s radiation leak at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, state Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn told lawmakers on Wednesday.

The threat to impose more fines could give the state leverage in ongoing negotiations over the $54.3 million in fines assessed so far against the U.S. Department of Energy and its private contractors that operate LANL and WIPP.

“We were conservative in the fines we assessed. There’s really, from my perspective, very little negotiating room in terms of a downward adjustment of the fines we assessed,” Flynn told The New Mexican after testifying before the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

He said the second round of fines against Los Alamos’ state-issued operating permit could carry amounts much higher than the combined total of the penalties both nuclear sites currently face.

Disgruntled scientist

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/29/us-nuclear-scientist-secretly-taped-by-fbi-claiming-he-could-bomb-new-york

So... this is what you guys do on your off time?

Goldstein and his whip

What's all this talk about Goldstein and his whip?

Dear Scooby

Dear Scooby. Keep up the great work! There is no "real" communication at the Labs, only smoke and mirrors.

Wrong doings by LANLs Classification Officer

Here is the preliminary report by the IG following their investigation into wrong doings by LANLs  Classification Officer. Your readers might find it very interesting because the first incident described gives some background into the events that led up to the firing of the LANL scientist who inadvertently publishing something classified.

Unfortunately, some things never change. Between the time this investigation began and the time the report came out, the CO was allowed to retire, and the DL and AD that knew about these events, but took no action, have been promoted to AD and PAD.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9eIrcyRIQxyS1RGWXVJT2c5Y25JVWlPSGgtTV9HNGRQMzNV/view?usp=sharing

LANL Vents Toxic Ground Vapors, Raising Air Quality Concerns

 Santa Fe, New Mexican, Saturday, January 24, 2015

WHITE ROCK — For years, workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory dumped canisters, drums and other containers of liquid chemical waste into shafts on a mesa bordering this small town near the birthplace of the atomic bomb. The containers leaked, creating a plume of toxic chemical vapor that has been seeping through tiny pores in soil and volcanic rock in a slow march toward regional groundwater and the Rio Grande.

A citizens advisory board approved a proposal in 2010 for the lab to clean up the plume by releasing the vapors into the air. The proposal presented to the board included using carbon filters to collect most of the contaminants. The lab would then ship the filters to a toxic waste dump in Utah.

But the cleanup began recently with the lab releasing the gases directly into the air without the filters. The state’s Environment Department approved the change without public notice. The lab and the state say a public hearing was not needed because the amount of pollutants that would be released into the air falls within the limits allowed by the lab’s clean air permit, which covers its entire 40-square-mile property.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/lanl-vents-toxic-ground-vapors-raising-air-quality-concerns/article_e744de0a-4a7b-5f48-ba53-027625b93011.html

Did the culture of reprisal at LANSLLNS contribute to the WIPP disaster?

Was the culture of reprisal at LANSLLNS a contributing factor to the ~0.5 billion dollar WIPP environmental disaster? Were experienced lab employees reluctant to speak up when it could have made a difference in the WIPP outcome?

NEW EEOICPA SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION QUALIFIED FOR LLNL FOR WORKERS FROM 1974 THROUGH 1995

Aside from the existing Special Exposure Cohort benefit for all Lawrence Livermore National Lab workers from the 1950 to 1973 period, covering them for certain specified cancers and beryllium disease, I’ve authored and got a new petition officially qualified to potentially cover workers from 1974 through 1995. This news was published in the Federal Register this past week.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/llnl.html#pet221

 

What it means is the beginning of a funded study which hopefully will result in a new cohort becoming law, perhaps by 2016, and potentially covering all or part of the 1974 to 1995 study period for all LLNL employees, Livermore and Tracy. This could have very positive impacts on certain prior denied claims, pending claims and of course new claims and allowing Frowiss to now represent you will assure your claim gets the best priority and treatment.   Albert B. Frowiss, Sr., is an independent EEOICPA claims advocate doing these specialized claims, with the experience of getting 2,000 families paid approximately $400 million to date.   As your personal advocate, Frowiss does worker and survivor claims for DOE sites nationally, with focus on the national labs with Special Exposure Cohorts.  Please visit his website and/or phone or email  Albert B. Frowiss, Sr., P.O. Box 909, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067,  858.756.1494 phone and fax;  email: frowiss@frowiss.org or website: www.frowiss.org

 

Frowiss is a long time friend of LLNL workers, having been an instrumentation solutions supplier beginning in the late 1950’s, founding his own instrumentation firm in 1967, retiring as a high tech entrepreneur in 1977 after merging, DORIC, his digital thermometry firm, with Emerson Electric. His dad was at Bikini-Eniwetok for Operation Redwing in the 1950’s and Frowiss did his first EEOICPA claim for his mother, the surviving spouse in 2007, having now done 2,000 more claims, helping workers and survivors. In the past year Frowiss has helped more than 100 Bay area families with their claims for LLNL, LBNL and Sandia.  Frowiss has a Better Business Bureau rating of A+ and has never had a client complaint.

 

So how does it go down from here?

1 The LANL director steps down in mid 2015 as more WIPP revelations com out.

2 Bechtel is no longer interested in running the labs and lets it be known that they will not rebid and that it is cannot change a persistent troubled culture at the labs.

3 Congress investigates and concludes that the labs are out of control, and demand a downsizing along with increased federal oversight in the form of TYGER teams.

4 RIFs across the complex as the Congress and the public demand blood.

5 A new agency is formed that will run the NW program. No private contractor will get near the labs unless they get paid 300 million or more, due to the cultural problem at the labs. 

6 the complex is reduced to 1/3 its size and what is left is mostly oversight. A consortium comprised of various companies now runs the operation. Cost skyrocket. The new CC (Culture Crusher) program goes into effect.

A/B

Word has it, A and B divisions at LLNL are going to be merged under one umbrella. What is driving this? Seems like a match made in hell.

Los Alamos has highest fraction of millionaires in US

Los Alamos has highest fraction of millionaires in US

Once again, this explains much about why deaf ears are turned to the requests for more money for LANL. When the average person in the country is barely able to make ends meet in today's economy, the trend in Congress is to spend more federal funds to help out lower income people. It is a guarantee that funding for the nuclear weapons complex will continue to decrease, unless some powerful politician comes up with a scheme to build a new facility in their backyard. Since NM does not have any politicians in DC with any clout, LANL buildings will continue to decay. On the bright side, some disproportionately rich folks can watch the decay in their own backyard.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/01/21/where-are-americas-millionaires/

Are LANL retirees being forced onto Obamacare?

Are LANL retirees being forced onto Obamacare?


"In Human Resources, an approved move to retiree health care exchanges that could yield savings has not been implemented."



The above is from page 23 of the annual performance evaluation report. What does it mean?

Value of NNSA Field Offices at LANL and LLNL?

The value of NNSA Field Offices at LANL and LLNL?

What is the value added of the NNSA Local Field Offices at LANL and LLNL? How have LANS and LLNS operations, efficiencies, and business practices materially improved with NNSA on site presence? Are the NNSA Field Office staff active and impartial evaluators, or passive transcribers of lab contractor activities? Does it take DOE IG investigations (LANS Deputy Director, WIPP, etc.) to get the NNSA Field Offices to finally act against "established relationships" with their assigned contractor? 

LANS 2014 performance evaluation review is now posted in full

LANL Leadership reviews are harsh

LANS 2014 performance evaluation review is now posted in full

Leadership:

During the performance period, the Laboratory was operationally, reputationally, and financially impacted by several issues. Deficiencies in regulatory compliance and in the physical management of transuranic waste streams contributed to or resulted in the closure of the only waste repository serving the Department of Energy. The impacts include the diversion of key staff from mission work, huge financial costs to the Department of Energy that are still accumulating, failure to meet environmental commitments made to the State of New Mexico, damage to an important relationship with a key state regulatory body, broad adverse economic impacts associated with the suspension of normal operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, and a degredation of public confidence in the conduct of nuclear and high hazard operations at the Laboratory.


Throughout the performance period, nuclear operations were suspended at most plutonium-related production and research facilities at the Laboratory. NNSA appreciates the Laboratory’s 2013 decision to cease operations to address longstanding, documented concerns with Criticality Safety and Formality of Operations, but the Laboratory’s application of resources for re-starting resulted in a performance year in which the workforce and facilities did not significantly contribute to productive programmatic use.


During the performance year, there were instances of ethical lapses involving senior Laboratory staff, as was the case in the previous performance year. The Laboratory continued to experience challenges in construction management and in deploying and exercising best industry practices to promote construction management success, including the Earned Value Management System. While there were significant accomplishments during the reporting period, the impact and gravity of documented shortcomings overwhelm those accomplishments and reflect a negative trend in leadership performance; constituting performance that is below expectations.

http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/FY%202014%20LANS%20LLC%20PER%20releasable.pdf

Rebranding the nuclear weapons complex won't reform it

1/18/15
by Robert Alvarez
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

http://thebulletin.org/rebranding-nuclear-weapons-complex-wont-reform-it7935


He's clearly not a fan of the Congressional Advisory Board's recommendations for fixing the NWC. 

He rightly notes the clear conflict of interest at having so many members of this board with current direct involvement in the LLCs running NNSA sites. I have a sense that this has really undercut the reception in Congress their report. Doesn't seem like anything is going to happen. 

I hope that some on this blog will post their comments - for or against - on his column. More in the public and media probably read the Bulletin than this blog, and they really need an education on what's happened to the NWC at the hands of NNSA.

retirement incentive" in FY2016 at LLNL?

Taken from NNSA Head Warns of Budget Cuts:


So, can I look forward to a "retirement incentive" in FY2016 at LLNL?
Anyone want to weigh in on this one!

Bob and Jennifer

How do Bob (retired) and Jennifer compare in their Staff Relations roles in terms of people skills, emotional intelligence, situational empathy, objectively, and ability to work with LLNS employees in good faith?

2014 fellows of the American Physical Society

2014 fellows of the American Physical Society were announced recently.

Here a count from DOE labs...

LLNL - 10
LBNL - 9
LANL - 9
Argonne - 5
Brookhaven - 3
Fermi - 3
PNNL - 3
Jeff Lab - 2
ORNL - 2
SLAC - 1
SNL - 1

NNSA head warns of budget cuts

NNSA head warns of budget cuts
Sequestration is a discussion that many thought was over.
Dan Mayfield - Biz Journals
January 13, 2015

But Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz, USAF (retired), who is the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said Tuesday it's a real possibility in 2016, and he's sounding the alarm. According to the Department of Defense, current law requires sequestration to resume in fiscal year 2016.

Klotz said the NNSA shares its budget with the Department of Defense. "If there are mandated reductions, that will affect us," Klotz told Business First. "We're watching that very carefully and arguing it's very important to maintain America's arsenal at the same time and reduce nuclear threats."

LLNL in 30-60 months

LLNL in 30-60 months 

In 30-60 months will LLNL have growing programs, static programs, or a shrinking mission with an opportunistic self-deport and increasingly leery workforce?

LANL leadership merits harsh evaluation

LANL leadership merits harsh evaluation in the LANS 2014 performance evaluation report.


"During the performance period the Loratory was operationally, reputationally, and financially impacted by several issues. Deficiencies in regulatory compliance and in the physical management of transuranic waste streams contributed to or resulted in the closure of the only waste repository serving the Department of Energy. The impacts include the diversion of key staff from mission work, huge financial costs to the Department of Energy that are still accumulating, failure to meet environmental commitments made to the State of New Mexico, damage to an important relationship with a key state regulatory body, broad adverse economic impacts associated with the suspension of normal operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, and a degredation of public confidence in the conduct of nuclear and high hazard operations at the Laboratory.

Throughout the performance period, nuclear operations were suspended at most plutonium-related production and research facilities at the Laboratory. NNSA appreciates the Laboratory’s 2013 decision to cease operations to address longstanding, documented concerns with Criticality Safety and Formality of Operations, but the Laboratory’s application of resources for re-starting resulted in a performance year in which the workforce and facilities did not significantly contribute to productive programmatic use.

During the performance year, there were instances of ethical lapses involving senior Laboratory staff, as was the case in the previous performance year. The Laboratory continued to experience challenges in CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT and in deploying and exercising best industry practices to promote construction management success, including the Earned Value Management System. While there were significant accomplishments during the reporting period, the impact and gravity of documented shortcomings overwhelm those accomplishments and reflect a negative trend in leadership performance; constituting performance that is below expectations."

http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/FY%202014%20LANS%20LLC%20PER%20releasable.pdf

Miller, Albright, and Goldstein

How do Livermore Lab Directors Miller, Albright, and Goldstein stack up?

Disgruntled males

What we have here are disgruntled males who can't handle working with women, and certainly not having us as your bosses. We'll get used to it. 

This is all payback for the "good old boys" over the past several decades. It's now our turn to determine the next few decades, and not run it into the ground like you boys.

If you don't like it, leave so we can replace you with some talented women.

POGO's take on LANL contract

POGO's take on LANL contract

Charles F. McMillan, director of the Los Alamos lab, sent a memo to his 6,000 employees last week that stressed the positive, despite having received one of the worst fee reductions in the department's history.

"Although this was a very tough year for the laboratory, I am optimistic that next year will be better," he wrote. "I am determined to do all that I can to make it so."

Outside analysts and watchdog groups said the reduction in profits was surprisingly tough, especially given the Energy Department's history of letting contractors escape accountability for errors and failures.

"This was supposed to be one of the top research laboratories in the nation, but they lost classified documents, couldn't manage their plutonium inventories and failed to control costs on major projects," said Peter Stockton, a senior investigator for the Project on Government Oversight and a former advisor to the office of the secretary of Energy. "The new management team was supposed to fix all of those problems, but it looks like it's the same old story out there."

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-million-lab-contractor.html

DOE trying to weasel out.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/energy-department-contests-m-in-fines-for-wipp-leak/article_a7c1ad5b-3416-5abe-9987-3960f0664abd.html

3 top managers

Who are the top 3 mangers in LLNS Engineering that have either failed as leaders, have acted in a manner unsuitable for a leadership role, or were just plain unqualified for senior management?

Who is the most-hated man in the WC?

Who is the most hated man ever in the US nuclear weapons complex?

Career FTE attractiveness to LLNS Programs with a high percentage of Akima (subcontractor) employees.

Historically (UC/LLNL days to late 2012) subcontractors were the explicitly identified buffer for career FTEs during mild to significant budget fluctuations, and subcontractor pay (Akima, etc.) was adjusted upward accordingly. 

Today everyone is "at will". Why would a career FTE with in demand SKAs elect to work in programs with a high percentage of Akima contractor workforce historically associated with large lay offs now?

A career FTE may have an EIT/EBA period before facing an "individual RIF", but why intentionally place oneself in such an unstable work environment referenced to historically stable programs at LLNL?

Through workforce policy changes, did LLNS Management opt for maximum on the spot keep/remove employee discretion in exchange for perceived program instability to current or prospective career FTEs? 

Good thing we split out!

UC Pension Troubles. Might be a good thing that TCP-1 was split out...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395685/ucs-pension-fiasco-lawrence-j-mcquillan

LLNS Staff Relations

Fact: LLNS Staff Relations activities, practices, and performance are outside of the annual NNSA LFO "Performance Evaluation Report" grading metrics.

LLNS Staff Relations actions and performance are NOT evaluated by the NNSA Livermore Field Office in their annual “Performance Evaluation Report”, independent of stated NNSA Livermore “Employee Concerns Program” directives.

The two FOIA requests and DOE/NNSA responses below may be of interest to LLNS and LANS employees. 

Background:

The FOIA document requests were to be extractions of the NNSA FY 2013 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) “Performance Evaluation Report” written by the NNSA Livermore Field Office at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the period of October 2012 through September 2013, under the direction of (former) NNSA Livermore Field Office Manager Kim Davis Lebak. Kim Davis Lebak is now the NNSA Los Alamos Field Office Manager (effective January 2014). 

In 2012 and 2013, within the LLNS FY 2013 Performance Evaluation Report period, I was working with the NNSA Employee Concerns Manager in the attempt to resolve LLNS employment practice issues. I attempted to contact Kim Davis Lebak numerous times. On 9-17-13, I specifically asked her if employees could contribute to the LLNS Performance Evaluation Report. Kim Davis Lebak elected not to respond to my inquiry and I was dismissed 3 days later. 

FOIA Requests and NNSA Responses:

Request 1: 

LLNS Staff Relations actions and performance and NNSA evaluation of Staff Relations actions and performance.

Request 2: 

LLNS internal employee grievance system actions and performance and NNSA evaluation of LLNS internal employee grievance system actions and performance.

NNSA response to both FOIA requests above:

“No records found, as LLNL stated that Staff Relations did not provide records to NNSA related to the Performance Evaluation Report.” 



“…Employee Concerns Program

STATEMENT OF POLICY

The Livermore Field Office (LFO) Employee Concerns Program (ECP) is established as part of the Department of Energy’s whistleblower reform initiatives. These initiatives aim to streamline and improve the effectiveness of existing processes for resolving employee concerns, and make the Department’s “zero tolerance for reprisal” a reality. It is the policy of the Department that:

Employees in the Department of Energy, its contractors and subcontractors must be free to raise concerns, without fear of reprisal, about policies and practices that adversely affect the Department’s ability to accomplish its mission in a safe and efficient manner;

Management at all levels appreciate the value of employee concerns, and actively support an atmosphere in which employees feel free to voice concerns; 

and

Systems are established and operate effectively to ensure that concerns are appropriately, fairly and fully considered.

The LFO ECP supports the Secretary’s commitment to maintaining a safe and productive working environment for all DOE employees.

WHAT IS AN EMPLOYEE CONCERN?

An employee concern is a good-faith expression by an employee that a policy or practice of the Department (or one of its contractors or subcontractors) should be improved, modified, or terminated, because it constitutes a violation of health, safety or environmental laws, rules or regulations; it is unsafe, fraudulent, or a waste of funds or resources; or it constitutes an abuse of authority.

Raising issues such as these is commonly known as “whistle blowing.” Under whistleblower protection laws, employees who raise these types of issues may not be subject to reprisal or retaliation for having done so. Employees may seek appropriate remedial action where they can show that they were subjected to reprisal or retaliation for whistle blowing activities…”

http://nnsa.energy.gov/fieldoffices/livermore/ecp

RIF question

It seems like there was some change in the RIF policy made in 2013 and right after this a number of people where let go and continue to be let go. Does anyone know the details of this? I seem to recall that it was discussed before and in the recent lawsuit mentioned on this blog by it says that the person was terminated a week after this change was put into place.

LANS makes the #1 slot for the company with the worst corporate integrity

LANS makes the #1 slot for the company with the worst corporate integrity in the story below. It involves the James E. Doyle case in which even the DOE bureaucracy could no longer stomach the sleazy activities and back-stabbing efforts of LANS executives!

Heckavajob, Charlie! Bonuses for all the LANS managers for this new lab "achievement":

--------------------

The Center's best national security stories from 2014

#1. What happens when a nuclear weapons lab employee criticizes the nuclear arms race?

In 2013, former nuclear policy specialist James E. Doyle published an article criticizing the nuclear arms race and defending President Obama's nuclear-free goals. Information in the article, which was reviewed and declared unclassified by Los Alamos National Laboratory, where Doyle worked, has since been declared classified, used to dock Doyle's pay and eventually cost Doyle his job. Experts, including a senior Department official, harbor suspicions that the classification was used to punish Doyle for his critique.

The Center for Public Integrity - Jan 1st, 2015
--------------------

www.publicintegrity.org/2015/01/01/16560/national-security-findings-you-may-have-missed

Integrity? LANS doesn't know the meaning of the word.

More on the return of Tyler Pryzbylek

Back from the holidays just in time to see this lovely post below from the Los Alamos Daily Post article. The paragraph below in the news article is classic! It's standard operating procedure for many lab managers to totally ignore the policy directives which LANS constantly berates the general staff to obey:


"After the holiday break, Ms. Coyne again inquired about the status of any investigation of the assault. Defendant McGuire seemed annoyed and told her she should just forget about the incident. When Ms. Coyne persisted, pointing out that LANL policies required that incidents of workplace violence be taken seriously, McGuire told Ms. Coyne that she was just making trouble and that she needed to “let it go.” Ms. Coyne continued to insist that the assault by Ms. Little be dealt with appropriately, but nothing was done at that time."


And even more classic was this post from above:

"Tyler Pryzbylek was rehired by NNSA. Load the shotguns." (11:20 pm)

Amazing! The DOE/NNSA's former lawyer, Mr. "Substantially Equivalent", returns to the NNSA bureaucracy. What lies will he spout out to lab employees this time around when LLNL and LANL contracts get rebid? And what happened with his last lucrative job as an executive with one of the NNSA contractors? The revolving door is spinning ever faster.

DOE and NNSA now believe BOTH weapons labs need a new contractor

 DOE and NNSA now believe BOTH weapons labs need a new contractor operational model that moves away from a management profit funding focus, to a research and development funding focus. 

The party is over for the bloated layers of LANSLLNS management and their self-compensation feeding frenzy. 

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/nuclear-weapons-complex-reform-could-mean-pay-cut-contractors/

The difference in performance between LANL and LLNL

The difference in performance between LANL and LLNL is due entirely to the organizational design and performance of their engineering disciplines. LLNL engineering is strong, active, and self-sustaining. LANL Engineering is haphazard, marginalized and and dependent on individuals.

The return of Tyler Pryzbylek

Tyler Pryzbylek was rehired by NNSA. Load the shotguns.

Will NNSA repeat mistake?

Will the new operating contract disaster at LANL cause a vindictive and incompetent NNSA to misfire and penalize and completely ***** over LLNL folks as it did the last time LANL was falsely accused of incompetence in 2007?

Former Employee Files Suit Against LANS, Co-workers

http://www.ladailypost.com/content/former-employee-files-suit-against-lans-co-workers

Will the loss in LANS contract affect LLNS's?

Will the LANS contract loss to run LANL accelerate the loss or restructuring of the LLNS contract to run LLNL?

LANS lost a year earned earlier

LANS lost a year earned earlier

Short and sweet letter nails 35M loss in fee and pulls back termination date of contract.


http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/Contracting%20Officer%20Notice%20of%20Reduction%20of%20LANS%20FY14%20Fixed%20Fee%20and%20Incentive%20Fee.pdf