Skip to main content

Interesting insight into the fee structure on the UC side of LANS/LLNS

Anonymously contributed:

Interesting insight into the fee structure on the UC side of LANS/LLNS

http://www.universityofcalifornia.
edu/regents/minutes/2010/joint52.pdf

Highlights....

The (UC) President recommended that he be authorized to expend, for the following purposes and in the following amounts, from the University’s net share of Los Alamos National Security (LANS) and Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) LLC income earned between September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2010:

1. Supplemental compensation and other payments (including accruals) approved by the Regents for certain LANS LLC and LLNS LLC employees, from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 – $2.0 million ($2.2 million in 2009-2010).

2. An appropriation to the Office of the President budget for federally unreimbursed costs of University oversight of its interest in LANS LLC and LLNS LLC, paid or accrued July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, including but not limited to an allocable share of the costs of the Regents, the President, the Provost, Research Security Office, Human Resources, Policy and Analysis, Financial Management, Compliance and Audit, Laboratory Management Office, External Relations, Office of Research, the General Counsel, and the University appointed Governors on the Boards of the LLCs – $4.0 million ($3.85 million in 2009-2010). The increase reflects more accurate cost allocation for UC Office of the President (UCOP) LLC efforts.

3. An appropriation in 2010-11 to a post-contract contingency fund – $1.3 million (no change from 2009-2010).

4. An appropriation for research funding in accordance with the Laboratory Fees Research Program process for 2010-2011 – $19.9 million ($18.7 million in 2009-2010). A Reserve will be allocated for research in the amount of $1.0 million ($1.15 million in 2009-2010). The Reserve will be available to potentially fund new projects, supplement projects that may exceed their allocation, or in the event there is a reduction in fees in future years, the reserve will allow projects approved for a three-year period to be fully funded. The Spend Plan for research is subject to annual approval.

5. An appropriation of $0.3 million for 2010-2011 for administration of ongoing awards and the upcoming competition review and award process.

Summary

Estimated Funds Available
Estimated Net FY 2010 LANS/LLNS LLC Management Fee = $29.50M
Estimated Carryover from 2009-2010 = $ .59M
Total = $30.09M

Recommended Allocation
Supplemental compensation = $ 2.0M
UCOP oversight = $ 4.0M
Post-contract contingency = $ 1.3M
2010-2011 Lab Fees Research Program = $19.9M
Competition Review & Award Process 2011 = $ 0.3M
Reserve for Research Awards 2010-2011 = $ 1.0M
($1.08M remains from 2009-2010)
Contingency for factors affecting the final fee $ 1.59M (to keep at $3.0M level)
Total Allocation for 2010-2011 = $30.09M

Comments

Anonymous said…
So UC puts over half (64%) of the money it gets for "helping" run the companies operating LANL and LLNL back into lab connected research projects. I wonder how much Bechtel gives back to the labs for projects...how about zero dollars.
Anonymous said…
The fact that our nuclear weapons research labs are now being managed by a construction company is a national disgrace.

I doubt places like Iran and North Korea would ever be this stupid.
Anonymous said…
7/15 8:56 pm: The difference is that Iran and North Korea have governments that are trying to develop nuclear weapons. We have a government that is trying not to.
Anonymous said…
Bechtel is not a "construction company", 8:56 PM.

Get your facts straight before you start talking with your rear end!

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!