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

Friday, June 8, 2018

Triad in the news

https://www.lamonitor.com/content/nnsa-awards-contract-triad-national-security-llc
NNSA awards contract to Triad National Security LLC
Friday, June 8, 2018 

The National Nuclear Security Administration announced Friday the contract to manage and operate the Los Alamos National Laboratory has been awarded to Triad National Security LLC.

Triad National Security, LLC is a limited liability company, a conglomorate of Battelle Memorial Institute, the Regents of the University of California, and the Regents of Texas A&M University, Fluor Federal Services, Huntington Ingalls Industries/Stoller Newport News, Longenecker & Associates, TechSource, Strategic Management Solutions and Merrick & Company. 

Triad released this statement about the decision:

"Triad National Security LLC is honored by today’s decision by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to award the Los Alamos National Laboratory management and operations contract to our team. We are committed to building on the legacy of world-class research, unparalleled innovation, and service to public good that have been the hallmark of the laboratory since it was founded in 1943. Until Triad receives the notice to proceed from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and transition commences, we are unable to provide additional information about our team’s plans beyond the details announced today by the DOE/NNSA.”

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

So Terry Wallace becomes the next permanent Director of Los Alamos?

Anonymous said...

No. He’s being shown the door at the end of the (extended) LANS contract. I don’t know who the new management team is, though, but it certainly does not include Terry.

Anonymous said...

So Terry Wallace becomes the next permanent Director of Los Alamos?

June 8, 2018 at 8:14 PM

No. In any case he is better than McMillan...way better...way way better. But no he is not going to be the Director.

Look it is over now, please go on to do something else.

Anonymous said...

When LANS/LLNS took over from UC direct management the Lab's priorities became:
1st - Profit,
2nd - Cut Costs to further the 1st priority
3rd - Execute the mission to make the 1st priority bigger
4th - Management Bonuses tied to the 1st priority
5th - No bad news that might hurt the 1st priority

Here's hoping Battelle-UC-Texas A&M will refocus LANL management priorities on:
1st - Mission excellence
2nd - Public Service model to achieve the 1st priority
3rd - Commitment to Employees working towards priorities 1 and 2

Anonymous said...

11:12 AM

1) LANS did not earn a profit, LANS earned a fee. There's a big difference. This will not change in any way once Triad takes over.
2) Cutting costs would not increase profit as LANS did not earn any profit, see #1. In addition, there weren't any NNSA goals that would result in an increased fee for cutting costs.
3) Executing the mission in accordance with NNSA's goals for LANL did increase the fee, as it should. That's how goals work.
4) Earning the maximum fee did impact management bonuses - it was the same when UC was in charge although the bonuses were much smaller then. Not a bad motivational strategy.
5) There was plenty of bad news under LANS. LANS didn't go 6 months without some sort of bad news. Some bad news was minimized but the motivation to suppress bad news existed under every management model NNSA has tried so far. This will hold true until NNSA includes a fee evaluation criterion that increases the fee for every bad news event reported. That too would have negative consequences.

So under Triad, will you support the "Public Service model" and accept a pay cut? I mean YOU personally? You do know that public service workers almost always make less than others in the private sector because they're supposed to be motivated more by achieving public good than by income. Supposed to be is key here because public service workers are known for being less motivated and for working fewer hours than private sector workers. You don't have to answer, we already know that you don't really know what a public service model is.

Anonymous said...

>1) LANS did not earn a profit, LANS earned a fee. There's a big difference. This will not change >in any way once Triad takes over.

False, what you have failed to realize is that LANS -Bechtel made leveraged profit. In other words they make all sorts of additional money other ways off of LANL. This is a classic MO of Bechtel and is commonly known as rent seeking. This is all detailed in the very nice book by Denton. https://www.amazon.com/Profiteers-Bechtel-Men-Built-World/dp/1476706476

Heck even Bechtel employees will tell you this in private.

So in short this is a huge change in terms of money and culture.

>2) Cutting costs would not increase profit as LANS did not earn any profit, see #1. In >addition, there weren't any NNSA goals that would result in an increased fee for cutting >costs.k

This is related to the leveraged profit of point 1, and yes Bechtel considers this profit which
is simply the amount of money you put in versus the amount you get out, and no the fee was only a part of the profit. Again see the book.

>3) Executing the mission in accordance with NNSA's goals for LANL did increase the fee, as it >should. That's how goals work.

False the priority was profit if leveraged profit was higher than any possible loss in the fee than than that would rule. This is the whole issue, it was about maximizing profit not about service to the nation, these two things are in conflict in many cases.

>4) Earning the maximum fee did impact management bonuses - it was the same when UC was in >charge although the bonuses were much smaller then. Not a bad motivational strategy.

You are partially right about this it is in fact a motivational strategy but not the one you think. The bonus has to be big enough that the managers will turn a blind eye to corruption, things that do not serve the interest of the nation but serve the interest of the corporation.
Bechtel has this down to a science, again this is laid out very cleary in the book by Sally Denton. It is essentially a form of corporate bribery, just look at what Bechtel has done in Afria, the Middle East and South America.


>5

If your goal is profit you will cover up anything that will bite into that. If your gaol is service that you will be more open. Pretty simple and is EXACTLY why NNSA wrote the call the way they did.


"So under Triad, will you support the "Public Service model" and accept a pay cut? I mean YOU personally?"

Wow you give yourself away so easily. Yes in fact I would guess that most LANL employees would agree to a pay cut for better working conditions and if it helped the nation and for the public good.

>Supposed to be is key here because public service workers are known for being less motivated >and for working fewer hours than private sector workers. You don't have to answer, we already >know that you don't really know what a public service model is.

This is not true for scientists, they are not generally not motivated by money. There may be some truth to this in other fields but certainly not for scientists.

To summarize you are completely wrong yet again. All these things have been explained to you before but you will not listen. You are simply so bitter that all you have is hate for LANL, the people that work at LANL and probably humanity in general.

In any case must realize just how far off you have been about who would bid, who would team and
who would win. Ask yourself if you have been right about anything you have predicted, it might just be a clue to you that you have a weak grasp on reality. Ok go think about that for a bit. Good luck.




Anonymous said...

June 10, 2018 at 8:58 PM

You may not want to call it a "profit" but you also might want to look what the official UC guide on the contract says about the fees, see page 16-17.

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/ac.labguide.0807.pdf

"The contracts themselves are of a type known as advance funded, cost reimbursement, award fee contracts. These are characterized by direct NNSA reimbursement to the Companies [LANS, LLNS] of all “allowable costs” incurred by the Company... the consequence being that neither the Companies nor their parent organizations need to supply any significant amount of working capital to finance the Companies’ operations."

"Each Company is paid a modest fixed fee as well as a larger performance-based fee for its services. A maximum available fee at each Laboratory sets an upper limit on the amount of fee that can be earned each year. The percentage of the maximum fee that is actually paid is determined annually by NNSA after a detailed appraisal of the Company’s performance in various functional areas. While the quality of scientific research and development is the primary criterion at both Laboratories, all operational responsibilities are taken into account in determining the fee.

The fee earned by each Company is distributed to the four Members of the Companies, after deducting costs of certain key personnel compensation supplements and certain other non-reimbursable costs...

The Companies, as LLCs, are taxed as partnerships for federal income tax purposes. This means the Companies themselves do not pay federal income taxes, because they are treated as “pass-through entities,” and the Members pay income tax only on their shares of the fees, in accordance with their particular tax circumstances. The University, as a nonprofit public research university, pays no federal income tax on its fee share and dedicates its net fee share to research and other purposes consistent with this status. The corporate partners, as for-profit organizations, are subject to income tax on their share of the net income distributed to them. This accommodation of the distinct tax statuses of the University and its partners is one example of the advantages of the LLC structure of the partnership."

---------

Definition of "Profit" - a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

So LANS gets two fees (fixed + performance) and reimbursed by NNSA for LANL operational costs... with this net income going to the parent companies... sound like profit to me.

Anonymous said...

"You don't have to answer, we already know that you don't really know what a public service model is."


I think you are very confused by what service model means. Before 2006 UC ran the lab as a non-profit service. This worked very well for 65 years including the cold war. I think this is more in line with what NNSA wants with the new contractor. This is not hard to understand as we had a very good model for 65 years.

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 ...