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

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Management contract chat

Interesting reminder on the internal LLNL news website today... Based on the very last paragraph I wonder if the LANS team is about to splinter for the next LANL bid.


Employee reminder about commenting on management contracts

With the possibility of competition for the management and operation of other facilities within the NNSA complex, employees should be aware of the Laboratory's guidelines on avoiding conflict of interest -- especially if they are asked to provide information regarding the facility up for bid or receive a request to participate on a team seeking an award.

Any employee asked to help prepare a bid/proposal in response to competitive solicitation must be sure not to disclose non-public information about Lab operations, such as material marked "confidential/proprietary," "business sensitive," "OUO," or similar information.

In addition, bid and proposal costs incurred as a result of competitive solicitation are not allowable under the LLNS contract. Any employee who spends time or incurs expenses, such as travel, in connection with bid/proposal activities as part of a solicitation may not bill the Lab using a reimbursable account. Lab resources, including computers, phones and vehicles, may not be used in bid/proposal efforts.

Employees will be required to complete and submit the LLNS Form LL2481, "Request Permission to Engage in Outside Business Activity."

If contacted by a LLNS member company, (the University of California, Bechtel National Inc., BWXT Company, AECom (formerly URS Corporation) and Battelle Memorial), contact...director of the Lab's Prime Contract Management Office.
October 21, 2015 at 7:56 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Same wording that was used at LANL in 2005 - 2006 in regards to the contract bid process. It ultimately caused existing (UC) LANL managers, both high and mid-level, to choose which bidding team they would support, with inevitable loss of employment if they chose the wrong side. Those who chose a side to support (to provide technical expertise in preparing the bid of that side) were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement before being allowed to "contribute" to the contract bid for their side. All in all, a very divisive and morale-killing process. Not a few mid-level managers chose to suck up to the bidding team their bosses decided to support.
October 26, 2015 at 7:17 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Those who picked the "correct" LLC partner back in 2005 were extremely well rewarded with a continuous move upward in the LANS management chain. Names of current PADs like Wallace and Bishop come to mind.

LANS makes the pretense of looking for the best possible candidates for executive positions but in almost all cases it's a case of "Gee, we had the best candidate right here working for LANS." The lack of a functioning meritocracy has rotted out the quality of executives at Los Alamos and hurt science. It's also bad for employee morale when people know that the winner for executive positions has already been picked before the open competition even begins. The selection process is nothing but window dressing, a lame attempt to meet the standards and regulations of the LLC contract with NNSA.
October 26, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

October 26, 2015 at 8:06 PM.

This is very well put, it was absoutly disgraceful that they did it that way. They
wrote in a bunch of new management positions and then gave it too themselves. Were was the value added to the labs? They have to do it different next time and make sure no one can play these kinds of games of corruption.
October 26, 2015 at 8:24 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
As a mid-level (Group Leader) manager who chose the winning team in the 2006 LANL contract competition (i.e., chose to whom I would provide my expertise for the contract bid), I can say that after the contract was won by LANS, I got a really sincere "thank you" from LANS upper management, and then was expected to continue to do my existing job competently, which I did. One year later I decided that the changes I saw were not helping LANL (now LANS) employees, and quit. One cannot always know the ultimate outcomes of one's decisions. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
October 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
8:06 nailed it. I'll add that many good managers were pushed right out the door for having picked the "wrong" team. It was a classic case of C-students picking D-students as peers and subordinates. The country suffers from such poor leadership.
October 27, 2015 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
8:06 is spot on.

McMillan gave big promotions and bonus money to Wallace and Bishop, and he forced out everyone else that was not part of the contract bid


Anonymous said...

I am so, so sorry that you LANL employees must go through this soul starving process again. It is imperative that you form a professional organization, a kind of employee general assembly to frame what you want outbof this process. Based on your experience in 2007, no one will protect you interest.

Protect yourself. Form an ad hoc employee general assembly now.

Anonymous said...

Every stakeholder in the lab is represented in tne contract rebid except the employee. Ordinarily management represents employee interest, but since this management team has been rejected by the contract rebid it speaks only timidly for itself and employees.

So NNSA assure employees, as Tyler Prizbylek did in 2007 to LANL and in 2008 to me at LLNL,that it represents employee interests as well as government interests and that things will be equivalent, Tylet coined the pithy deception "substantially equivalent" total compensation, to assure us we would be unaffected. He lied.

A servant cannot serve two masters and Tyler was paid by NNSA, as the next contact officers will be.

In essense, without well prepared,active employees speaking for their intersets, LLNL and LANL were severely hurt by contract flaws tgat were known and well articulated to NNSA and to Congressman McInerney by me at the time. Individual action was not enough. Blog text was not enough. Absent effective representation, the principal stakeholder, those who actually understand and assure the science and technolgy of the nuclear weapons of the free world will be again as in 2007 AND 2008, unrepresented and abandoned.

This preventable error lead to an effective real lab budget reduction of over 10%, Excess useless regulations, a loss of employee compensation and the firing of 3000 employees between LANL and LLNL.

It was Substantially equivalent to a sad buggering, I'd say.

Senator Murkowsky was so appalled at the prospect of disaster she had PNL exempted from the process. Neither Feinstein nor Domenici had such foresight. MCINERNEY was as is his way, simply befuddled, he being the least competent scientific Ph.D that I had ever met,

You must protect yourself. Doing so well will protect the intetesrs of the key stakeholders and this will help reestablish the long-term success of the labs.

You, not Nanos, not Pryzbylek are key. Ghosts fade away... You have the job to do after the fools parade is over.

1976 - 2012

Anonymous said...

Review the 2006 thru 2009 contents in this blog for insights into what's coming.

Those contract disasters and their aftermaths are the main reasons this blog and its 3 predecessors logged over a million hits and it still exists 10 years later.

Thanks Scooby

Anonymous said...

The "substantially equivalent" promise from NNSA becomes null & void with a contract change over. You might expect the new contract holder to begin cutting expenses by getting rid of those benefits that are not guaranteed, like retiree medical. Severance accumulations could also be cut back further. Vacation and sick leave accumulations may, likewise, but cut back.

Not saying this will happen, but the change over will open the door to these possibilities. Since there is no one negotiating at the table for the regular employees (only for top management perks!) the likelihood of further cutbacks looms large.

Anonymous said...

"The "substantially equivalent" promise from NNSA becomes null & void with a contract change over"

This and "cut back" already occurred beginning shortly after Oct. 1, 2007

Anonymous said...

Missed the point. Dont trust anything NNSA says. Instead join together in an ad hoc employee group and make.a list of conditions that you, employee stakeholders want met to agree with the new contract. Otherwise you, the only folks who know the science and technology of the complex will shit all over every move the NNSA contract folks try to mske. .

Your cooperation is assumed. Instead, make it conditional on your being a properly represented stakeholder.

Anonymous said...

If NNSA thinks they can keep highly trained, cleared scientists and that it can all be done with cheaper salaries and with smaller benefits then that is what they'll try and do. It would be foolish to think otherwise. They have limited budgets to deal with.

The best way to stop this from happening is for the employees to organize. The LLC board and top level management is organized in behalf of their executives. Whose working for you? Certainly not the LLCs.

Anonymous said...

The NNSA and LLC management's refrain of "trust us" == More money for me, less money for you.


Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...