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 authors serve as moderators. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Saturday, May 14, 2016

FY 2015 NNSA site evaluations now posted

https://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/multiplefiles/FY2015%20LANL%20FDO%20Letter_Redacted.pdf

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Leadership received a score of 60%.

A student at a reputable college or university with an academic achievement of 60% would not be eligible for retention in college and/or graduation. It would result in an F.

But at LANL, 60% meets the leadership criterion. 60% should have resulted in a does not meet. Gee, if that's all it makes to make the leadership grade at LANL, then all the whining and complaints about the LANS managers being C students was almost right, just a whole lot worse.

I think it means a big fat F. As in failure. And now NNSA has confirmed it in writing. No wonder LANS did not want this evaluation to be reported.

So fellow Labbie's, the next time a LANS manager harasses you because YOU DO KNOW MORE THAN THE MANAGER, try to refrain from smirking, rolling your eyes, clearing your throat, etc. etc.

Now you know the rest of the story.

Anonymous said...

After 10 years, the graders do not have a workable plan on the shelf to promptly rid themselves of the "60% achievers" to bring in new students. So there's that.

Anonymous said...

Why are the signatures redacted? Is it because the persons who signed didn't write the letters? Can you say conspiracy? Or politics?

Anonymous said...

If you listen to Charlie and the PADs tell the story, the leadership worked unusually hard to earn that high score of 60%. Their improvement from the prior year was extraordinary, and the mean old government just refused to grant them another year to turn the place around.

Anonymous said...

When you look at the evaluation letter for the three NNSA labs, it is almost criminal how much more the LANS/LLNS LLCs get compared to Sandia Corp (which is bigger and more complicated M&O Contract).

Anonymous said...

When you look at the evaluation letter for the three NNSA labs, it is almost criminal how much more the LANS/LLNS LLCs get compared to Sandia Corp (which is bigger and more complicated M&O Contract).

Agreed Sandia Corp is 100 to 1000 times bigger, more complex, subtle, elegant, and intricate that some cesspool like LLNL. It may be not be legally criminal but if there was a God he/she would be offended that humans have sunk such low levels to compare the magistracy, historical significance, and impact of Sandia to the non-entities that are LANL and LLNL. I have to say that some of the posters on this blog have to on par with the worlds greatest thinkers, from now on 9:22 AM should be referred to as the short bus Socrates or SBS. I can just picture SBS, unemployed and being forced to use the public library ssh connections just so he can get access to the blog to share his dialogues on how LLNL and LANL must suck. True genius, brilliance and clarity of thought. 9:22 AM you are a effing gift to the world, thank you so much for your wisdom wit, and insight, that made sooo much sense that it just boggles the mind. Please do whatever you can to keep your access to the web so that we may be graced wit your wisdom.

Blog Archive