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 jlscoob5@gmail.com

Suggest new topics here

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

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

Monday, April 30, 2018

Bechtel lobby

"Bechtel settled with the Justice Department to resolve allegations that Bechtel "improperly used federal contract funds to pay for a comprehensive, multi-year lobbying campaign of Congress and other federal officials for continued funding at the WTP."" 

So if Bechtel was bold enough to use contract funds to lobby Congress and federal officials, why wouldn't Bechtel also "lobby" LANS and LLNS employees with undisclosed bonuses and raises as needed, for the same profit preserving motive? 

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Dual career ladder

Under LLNS management, is the "dual career ladder" concept officially dead?

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Fine


The Energy Department will not contest $31,000 in state fines for leaving certain waste too long in temporary storage areas without prior approval at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico.

The nuclear-weapon lab has 30 days from April 5 to take issue with a penalty proposed in a New Mexico Environment Department notice of violation, according to a DOE report. The state agency’s Hazardous Waste Bureau could fine LANL and contractor Los Alamos National Security (LANS) $10,000 daily for each instance of noncompliance, and conceivably even take court action to suspend the site’s hazardous waste permit.

A lab spokesman confirmed by email Tuesday the Energy Department will not fight the penalty being assessed for violation of LANL’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit.


https://www.exchangemonitor.com/lanl-wont-fight-31000-new-mexico-fine-waste-storage/

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

A few misplaced pits

Plutonium pit misplaced at LANL; corrective actions taken


Hey, what are a few misplaced pits among all the other issues at LANL.


http://www.lamonitor.com/content/plutonium-pit-misplaced-lanl-corrective-actions-taken

GAO report on Hanford

April 2018 GAO Report on continued concerns with the Hanford ORP and its contractor Bechtel, including: lack of sufficient QA independence, downgrading concerns to implement less stringent actions, a culture that does not encourage staff to identify problems, safety requirements that are subordinated to other management goals, and previously identified QA problems that are reoccurring 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691422.pdf

Monday, April 23, 2018

Who will come in next?

BAFO, that's best and final offer for those of you that have no experience in federal contracting, turned in for LANL bid teams. The clock is ticking on running out the current contractor and who will come in next?

http://www.defensedaily.com/final-bids-lanl-contract-uc-says/

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Is it time for collective bargaining?

Is it time for large scale collective bargaining to address eroding benefits with LLNS?

I understand why scientific, engineering, and technical staff might feel collective bargaining is not necessary in a true private sector company, but LANS and LLNS are no such thing. They are for-profit LLCs with training wheels. Meaning LANSLLNS has "no skin in the game" if there is low employe morale, high employee turn over, or underperforms with respect to mission goals. LANSLLNS wins anyway, by spinning all such occurrences into new NNSA assessed "challenges". In the true private sector, you can't spin your leadership failures to retain market share. Blog comments that suggest only under-performing "losers" want representation, are either ignorant of basic market share economics or are shills for LANSLLNS. 

Contract stress

LANL Contract Transition Seems to be Causing Much Stress These Days

To: LANL-All

From: Terry C. Wallace, Jr., DIR, A100

Phone: 7-5101

Symbol: DIR-18-069

Date: April 18, 2018



Subject: Sad News

I am sad to report that an employee collapsed and died this morning while walking into work at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility (CMR) at TA-3. I know all of us feel the pain and loss when a member of the Laboratory family passes, and our thoughts are with his loved ones during this difficult time. Out of respect for the family, we are not releasing the employee’s name at this time.

Tragic events such as these are a reminder of the importance of taking care of ourselves and each other. Please remember to take time for you and your family. LANL is a large and complex place and this is a poignant reminder that our people are the heart of the institution.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

FY2019 NIF budget

Any news of the FY2019 NIF budget ? Will workforce reductions be required ? What about the funding for collaborative work with LLE students/scientists at the NIF ?

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

NNSA are you paying attention ?;

NNSA are you paying attention to what is going on at LANL?

This is what you can expect to have more of if the next contractor is also a university led group. Time to put industrial companies in charge of operations at the rad and nuc facilities to improve safety.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1160470/lanl-partially-evacuated-over-bulging-waste-drum.html

Wyden presses Perry over Hanford possible cleanup

"Wyden Presses Energy Secretary over Possible Hanford Cleanup Cover-up"

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/videos/watch/wyden-presses-energy-secretary-over-possible-hanford-cleanup-cover-up

Two Top NNSA Slots Still Empty

Two Top NNSA Slots Still Empty "Over 400 days into the Donald Trump administration, two of the four National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) leadership slots requiring Senate confirmation remain empty..." https://www.exchangemonitor.com/half-senate-confirmed-nnsa-slots-still-empty/

Monday, April 16, 2018

Contract award criteria

Now that we apparently know from various sources the three teams competing for the LANL contract are
Team A = Bechtel/Purdue
Team B = University of California/Texas A&M/Battelle
Team C = University of Texas/BWX Technologies

I wonder how folks think they score relative to each other on the evaluation criteria in the RFP:
-------
M-3 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government intends to award one contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is responsive to the solicitation and is determined to be the best value to the Government. Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria described below. The Technical and Management Criteria in M-4 will be adjectivally rated. The Cost Criterion M-5 will not be adjectivally rated, but will be used in determining the “best-value” to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Technical and Management Criteria, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost Criterion.

M-4 TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

The following criteria are listed with degrees of importance. Criterion 1 and 2 are of equal importance and, when combined, are significantly more important than Criterion 3.

(a) Criterion 1: PAST PERFORMANCE
The Government will evaluate the Offeror's relevant past performance during the last five years to determine if the relevant past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the Statement of Work (SOW). Past performance that is determined to not be relevant will not be evaluated. Relevant past performance is past performance that is similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements in the Statement of Work...In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available, the Offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably in this criterion, and will be assigned a neutral rating... The Government will not apportion past performance under a DOE, NNSA, or other contract differently among parent companies that have teamed for the purposes of said contract; all parent companies under a contract will be equally credited (positively and negatively) for past performance for that contract.

(b) Criterion 2: LABORATORY ORGANIZATION AND KEY PERSONNEL
The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Laboratory Organization, Key Personnel resumes, and information provided by Key Personnel references...

(c) Criterion 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror's approach in using small businesses...

M-5 COST CRITERION

The Transition Price, Fee for Management and Operation of LANL and Fee for Strategic Partnership Projects (Section L, L-17) will be evaluated for price reasonableness.
-------

I personally give Team B the edge

Saturday, April 14, 2018

RFP language

What specific language or criteria is in the RFP to manage LANL, that is meant to address NNSA detected failures in LANS management? 

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Thursday, April 5, 2018

Bizarre reasons

The LANL PAD Alan Bishop has suddenly stepped down. Very odd, lots of crazy speculation as to why since the reason he gave is so bizarre that no one understands it. 

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Third violation in the past week.

This is the report of the third separate violation at LANL on waste in the past week. In this case, they sent the wrong waste to the wrong facility in Colorado. Report is that this also happened on two previous occasions. News says the fine in this case is only a million dollars, and that is not "real" money to Wallace and LANL.


http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/lanl-sent-waste-to-wrong-facility-after-mislabeling-issue-last/article_0ab55e57-9d56-5b26-aa70-1399f255b2da.html

Monday, April 2, 2018

Morale at LLNL in a nutshell

I thought this comment on the post "Morale at LLNL" deserved to be a post by itself . Well articulated and to the point !
Scooby. 

When LLNS make changes that impact our employment benefits, they work out the details and receive approval from the NNSA Field Office. Then the new policies are shrink-wrapped and presented to the worker bees. Employees are out of the decision making loop in any material way, and this leads to lower and lower employee morale. Contracts and profit flows anchored in for decades compound the problem. 

Some may think employee unions or bargaining units have no business in a National Laboratory environment with scientists, engineers, and highly technical staff. But haven't our benefits and job security eroded under LLNS management? I don't understand why SPSE membership didn't grow tenfold in the years after the contract change in 2007. Maybe it relates to the fable of the boiling frog. 

If SPSE were to snapshot employee benefits, job security, and work environment on September 30, 2007 and compare that to the present day LLNS employee, it would be an eye opener for most LLNS employees.

LANL fined$10 000 a day

LANL stored waste past one year time limit and faces fines of $10,000 per day http://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/los-alamos-national-laboratory-faces-fines-over-hazardous-waste-storage/1094378641 

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days