I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
Comments
From UC information documents...
"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 [LLNS and LANS] of all “allowable costs” incurred by the Company. For this purpose the Companies are authorized to draw from the Federal Reserve Bank, on a daily basis, all funds necessary to cover routine payroll and other operational expenses, the consequence being that neither the Companies nor their parent organizations [UC, Bechtel, et al] need to supply any significant amount of working capital to finance the Companies’ operations."
If the total of LANL funding for the year is say $2B, and instead of earning the full possible award fee of say $90M, LANS LLC is awarded only $75M, does the difference of the possible fee and the awarded fee, $15M in this example, get refunded to the government and WFO sponsors or does it get retained and spent by LANL as lower overhead?
In other words, if the fee awarded is reduced, do lab budgets benefit?
There is a lot of money at stake each year in award fees for all labs perhaps $500M over five years and the federal deficit is large. If it benefits the government to freeze salaries, perhaps employees actively helping to reduce award fees is helpful as well.
Now, in addition to no raises until at least early 2014, you've got yet another reason to put in the minimal effort at LLNL and LANL. Heckavajob, NNSA!
I can commiserate with the complaints on this site--I'm not too excited about going without a raise for two years either (especially with the crummy deal we've gotten the past few years). But I'm still showing up every day, putting in the same level of effort that I always have, because that is who I am and who I want to be.
Why all the whining about the award fee? Get over it or go work for GM -- oh wait, their management pockets even more than ours.
I've decided not to hide behind an anonymous tag, so have at me.
Great reward, great effort.
Little reward, little effort.
That's why the labs are bonus-based. Congruence.
Treated fairly, treat fair.
Get f****d, ah, it's just a job.
Let the bonus babies do the heavy lifting.
s/quietly uninspired
If I can't have a positive impact on my income here, please explain why I shouldn't concentrate on expanding the consulting practice so I cover the next kid's upcoming college expenses?
Steve can wait two years for that next great idea, right. We've done enough for a while, No?
The stockpile ages two years whether we achieve greatness or focus on making up the wage difference elsewhere right?
Being a slow learner, I was thinking more of a substantially equivalent in the aggregate performance, which in practice seems to be somewhat less eachpassing year.