Anonymously contributed:
An Update on the NAS review from
Nuclear Weapons Monitor
March 23, 2011
Nat’l Academy Panel Takes Aim at Fee Issues in Lab Visit
What, exactly, is the National Nuclear Security Agency getting for the money it spends on its management contracts at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories? That was the implicit question behind an exchange Tuesday between former Lawrence Berkeley lab director Charles Shank and Paul Hommert, current head of Sandia National Laboratories. Shank co-chairs a National Academy of Sciences panel looking at science and engineering management at the nuclear weapons laboratories, and during a meeting at Sandia yesterday, Shank said the panel's members were trying to figure out what the government was getting for the money it spends on management contracts at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, more than double---and in Los Alamos' case nearly triple---the $25 million a year it pays Lockheed Martin to run Sandia.
Hommert, who appeared taken aback by the question, noted that for most of Sandia's history, AT&T managed the lab for $1 a year. Today's fee difference in part reflects a different risk profile, because Sandia has no major nuclear operations. As for the benefits of a higher fee, Hommert pointed to Lockheed Martin's use of some of the money to match employee United Way contributions, then suggested that some of the money from an increased fee might be pumped back into the lab to support Sandia's research base---an issue of intense interest among members of the NRC panel.
An Update on the NAS review from
Nuclear Weapons Monitor
March 23, 2011
Nat’l Academy Panel Takes Aim at Fee Issues in Lab Visit
What, exactly, is the National Nuclear Security Agency getting for the money it spends on its management contracts at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories? That was the implicit question behind an exchange Tuesday between former Lawrence Berkeley lab director Charles Shank and Paul Hommert, current head of Sandia National Laboratories. Shank co-chairs a National Academy of Sciences panel looking at science and engineering management at the nuclear weapons laboratories, and during a meeting at Sandia yesterday, Shank said the panel's members were trying to figure out what the government was getting for the money it spends on management contracts at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, more than double---and in Los Alamos' case nearly triple---the $25 million a year it pays Lockheed Martin to run Sandia.
Hommert, who appeared taken aback by the question, noted that for most of Sandia's history, AT&T managed the lab for $1 a year. Today's fee difference in part reflects a different risk profile, because Sandia has no major nuclear operations. As for the benefits of a higher fee, Hommert pointed to Lockheed Martin's use of some of the money to match employee United Way contributions, then suggested that some of the money from an increased fee might be pumped back into the lab to support Sandia's research base---an issue of intense interest among members of the NRC panel.
Comments
Well, for starters, less science, since far more money is now directed toward the horribly bloated "for profit" management bureaucracy put in place by the corporate money-hungry LLCs.
But thats not all. In addition to the top heavy executive overhead, they also get lab Director, PAD (Principle Associate Directors) and AD (Associate Director) salaries and bonuses that are many times higher than before when non-profits ran the NNSA labs.
And lets not forget the other items that NNSA gets with the "for profit" LLC lab management...a badly demoralized workforce of formerly "best & brightest" scientists that are constantly harassed by the LLC executives to be totally risk averse and to "Wear shoes that GRIP!". Sig Hecker once referred to this as the NNSA lab "prison" syndrome during his interview with Senate members.
That last one is priceless, right Tom D'Agostino?
We are less safe, again there is a lot more motivation to cover up injuries.
We are less productive, we have no vision, and way too many managers.
It hasn't really cost them more, since the management fees are taken from the contract operating account - no additional money was put into the contracts, which is why we had the layoffs after transition.
Also, NNSA now has much more direct control over the labs with UC out of the way. Before, changes to lab operations and policies had to be consistent with UC policies, and many times had to get UCOP approval - not anymore. The LLCs are "fake" front entities with no corporate identity or policies. So when NNSA tells the labs to do something, they cannot say no - or at least soften the change by citing UC policies.
So NNSA is actually getting its money worth - or should I say, the Lab's money worth.
Can you spell whitewash?
March 27, 2011 7:36 PM
Too true. I joined LANL when Agnew was Director. I left when Anastasio was Director. Trying to hold images of the giant and the midget in my brain at the same time is excruciatingly painful.
Can you spell whitewash?
March 27, 2011 7:50 PM
Absolutely. While the panel is a bunch a lackeys, in case no one noticed, NNSA is also paying for the assessment. As they say "garbage in, garbage out".