Anonymously contributed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So as a taxpayer, would someone please tell me what the value of NNSA oversight and bureaucratic rules are really worth!? Keeping in mind that at the time of the review cited in this report, NNSA was directing managing and overseeing the WSI security contract at Y-12...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knox News
NNSA touted Y-12's security -- until the breach
Posted by Frank Munger on September 13, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government's most recent performance evaluation of its security contractor at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant gave no hint of the broad security failures that were to be revealed a short time later by the July 28 break-in and subsequent investigations.
In the report for the six-month period ending March 31, 2012, WSI-Oak Ridge -- also known as Wackenhut and G4S Government Solutions -- received good marks in all performance categories.
The review, which was used to determine WSI's fee for the period ($1.44 million out a maximum possible $1.55 million), identified eight "significant positive performance indicators." Those were accomplishments deemed to have an "exceeded level of high quality performance." Unlike some previous evaluations, this one did not find any significant negatives.
A copy of the 18-page performance report for the first half of Fiscal 2012 and other documents were obtained through requests under the Freedom of Information Act. I'm still taking a look at the biannual evaluation reports for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 and will report on those later. The reports had previously been stamped "official use only."
The National Nuclear Security Administration, which delivered the report to WSI-Oak Ridge on June 14, said the contractor's performance provided federal officials "with a high level of confidence that an effective security posture is maintained at the Y-12 National Security Complex."
It added: "Overall, the contractor fully met (the government's) expectations for performance during the evaluation period and addressed all . . . concerns adequately and immediately," the report said.
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/09/nnsa-touted-y-12s-security---.html
Comments
Makes you curious about what was said by NNSA in comparable reports at other sites, and if there is the same staggering absence of correlation between recent reports and subsequent accidents.
1. What were the payments/penalties to Y12 for the 2010/2011 era. You would think that some penalty was assessed.
2. What was the followup by the Y12 site office on the failings found in 2012? It appears that fixes were short lived and if the failures then are the same we saw in "Nun Gate" then the local NNSA office failed in making the site tow the line.
Last year into this year, we kept having testimony that the NNSA oversight was too intrusive. For the most part, the republican side of the aisle was taking up that cause because it falls in line with the "less government" ideals of that party.
The pendulum will now swing hard the other direction, as all knee jerk reactions happen on the hill. If we thought NNSA was a meddlesome boss before, tighten the seat belts it's going to be a bumpy ride folks.
A big thanks to the NNSA Y12's site office for letting things slide and an even bigger thank you to the security folks at Y12 itself. I am sure that the rest of the complex will enjoy the castor oil that will soon be dispensed to the entire complex for your illness.
There is no one with competence left behind the velvet curtain. Only meaningless rewards and endless agency kudos handed out by a badly broken and extremely bureaucratic agency that long ago lost its way.
The only thing they are good at is generating lots of glowing PR articles about how great they are doing.
It was so predicable – greed would follow the arrogance but, in the words of others:
“It’s not the one thing or the other. It’s the rising tide - The dismal tide.”
Anyone that was site office manger, deputy manager or contracting officer, or was acting in one of those positions, should be held accountable. All are equally responsible for the local attitude that led to this scandal.