No Layoffs, Furloughs Planned at Sandia
By John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer on Wed, Feb 6, 2013
Sandia National Laboratories’ managers believe they can weather this year’s federal budget uncertainty without any job cuts, Sandia president Paul Hommert said Tuesday.
Congress is currently wrestling with a March 1 deadline for mandatory cuts if the House and Senate cannot come up with an alternative spending plan for the 2013 budget. In a meeting with the Journal’s editorial board, Hommert said major uncertainties remain about how much of a budget cut Sandia might take and what impact it might have on Albuquerque’s largest employer.
But recognizing the inevitability of cuts of some kind, Sandia held current year spending down, anticipating reductions of 3 to 5 percent, Hommert said. If the cuts that result from current deliberations are deeper than anticipated, Sandia will deal with the shortfall by cutting back its hiring program.
Reductions in force or furloughs are unlikely, Hommert said.
“We do not expect to have to do that,” he said.
Legislation passed in 2011 to try to reduce the federal deficit called for mandatory cuts of 8.4 percent in nondefense spending and 7.5 percent in defense spending if Congress failed to come up with an alternative plan by Jan. 1, 2013. That deadline is now March 1.
Sandia managers set up their $2.5 billion 2013 budget with the expectation that some sort of budget cut was likely, Hommert said.
But the mix of defense and non-defense spending at Sandia makes it even more complicated when anticipating how big the budget cuts here might be, Hommert said, leaving a great deal of uncertainty.
“That’s the hardest aspect by far of this environment we find ourselves in,” Hommert said.
Whatever cuts happen at Sandia under what is called “sequestration” would be a portion of $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years being contemplated by the federal government.
Located at Kirtland Air Force Base on Albuquerque’s southern border, Sandia employs from 10,500 to 11,000 people, and that number has been stable for a number of years.
Sandia’s primary mission is design, manufacture and maintenance of parts for U.S. nuclear weapons, but in the past decade the research center has diversified, with work outside the nuclear weapons program now making up about half of Sandia’s budget.
In addition to direct employment, Sandia’s spending on outside contracting is likely to remain relatively stable, Hommert said. In 2011, Sandia spent $387 million with New Mexico contractors. That rose to $402 million in 2012, and is not expected to drop this year, he said.
On other topics, Hommert said:
* Sandia is not only facing budget uncertainty, but the uncertainty caused by the current nuclear deterrence policy debate, including possible nuclear stockpile reductions and what role nuclear weapons will play in the long run.
* New Mexico’s universities continue to produce quality scientists and engineers, especially those with master’s degrees, to fill Sandia’s job pipeline.
* Sandia remains in a wait-and-see mode regarding the status of its contract management. Lockheed-Martin currently manages Sandia for the federal government, but its contract expires at the end of September and the government has announced plans to open the contract to other bidders.
Lockheed-Martin has said it will bid, and that Hommert will head up the effort to win a new contract, but a federal decision on when to start the bidding has been repeatedly delayed.
By John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer on Wed, Feb 6, 2013
Sandia National Laboratories’ managers believe they can weather this year’s federal budget uncertainty without any job cuts, Sandia president Paul Hommert said Tuesday.
Congress is currently wrestling with a March 1 deadline for mandatory cuts if the House and Senate cannot come up with an alternative spending plan for the 2013 budget. In a meeting with the Journal’s editorial board, Hommert said major uncertainties remain about how much of a budget cut Sandia might take and what impact it might have on Albuquerque’s largest employer.
But recognizing the inevitability of cuts of some kind, Sandia held current year spending down, anticipating reductions of 3 to 5 percent, Hommert said. If the cuts that result from current deliberations are deeper than anticipated, Sandia will deal with the shortfall by cutting back its hiring program.
Reductions in force or furloughs are unlikely, Hommert said.
“We do not expect to have to do that,” he said.
Legislation passed in 2011 to try to reduce the federal deficit called for mandatory cuts of 8.4 percent in nondefense spending and 7.5 percent in defense spending if Congress failed to come up with an alternative plan by Jan. 1, 2013. That deadline is now March 1.
Sandia managers set up their $2.5 billion 2013 budget with the expectation that some sort of budget cut was likely, Hommert said.
But the mix of defense and non-defense spending at Sandia makes it even more complicated when anticipating how big the budget cuts here might be, Hommert said, leaving a great deal of uncertainty.
“That’s the hardest aspect by far of this environment we find ourselves in,” Hommert said.
Whatever cuts happen at Sandia under what is called “sequestration” would be a portion of $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years being contemplated by the federal government.
Located at Kirtland Air Force Base on Albuquerque’s southern border, Sandia employs from 10,500 to 11,000 people, and that number has been stable for a number of years.
Sandia’s primary mission is design, manufacture and maintenance of parts for U.S. nuclear weapons, but in the past decade the research center has diversified, with work outside the nuclear weapons program now making up about half of Sandia’s budget.
In addition to direct employment, Sandia’s spending on outside contracting is likely to remain relatively stable, Hommert said. In 2011, Sandia spent $387 million with New Mexico contractors. That rose to $402 million in 2012, and is not expected to drop this year, he said.
On other topics, Hommert said:
* Sandia is not only facing budget uncertainty, but the uncertainty caused by the current nuclear deterrence policy debate, including possible nuclear stockpile reductions and what role nuclear weapons will play in the long run.
* New Mexico’s universities continue to produce quality scientists and engineers, especially those with master’s degrees, to fill Sandia’s job pipeline.
* Sandia remains in a wait-and-see mode regarding the status of its contract management. Lockheed-Martin currently manages Sandia for the federal government, but its contract expires at the end of September and the government has announced plans to open the contract to other bidders.
Lockheed-Martin has said it will bid, and that Hommert will head up the effort to win a new contract, but a federal decision on when to start the bidding has been repeatedly delayed.
Comments
Why does Sandia have such an open, comprehensive and long term approach to strategic planning while the other two labs don't? Is it because of Lockheed Martin and its culture spilling over? People keep blaming Bechtel but Bechtel is removed from liability. LLNL top management are officers of LLNS LLC, not officers of Bechtel. My understanding is that Sandia top management are VPs for Lockheed Martin. Does this explain the differences in organizational culture and approach to planning? Maybe if LLNL managers were officers of Bechtel, they would have less incentive to lie to their customers since Bechtel could loose other business opportunities.
Open? Oh come on. They're masters of managing the message. And not speaking ill of each other on the outside.
February 11, 2013 at 8:29 PM
Which in most arenas is called "professionalism." Which is not the opposite of "openness" (in case you were confused).
It's only a matter of time until both LLNS and LANS follow the same game plan. The DOE promise of being "substantially equivalent" with UC is going to soon be completely done away. Good luck with your future retirement and medical needs. You'll need it.
Sandia replaced their pension with a 401k for new employees. The matching is quite generous at 10%. The pension was okay after retirement, but because of no cost of living adjustment, a retiree would get his ass kicked by inflation if he lived for a significant amount of time after retirement.
Any lab benefits that CAN be legally cut WILL be cut in the future as the "for-profit" LLCs management look to reduce costs. It's what the NNSA wants to see happen.
There is far too much interference by Sandia and Los Alamos in decision-making process at NNSA. After all, Sandia is not even a design lab. And Los Alamos... well we don't even have to go there. These decisions must come from a well-run design lab with a proven track record of world-class experimental sciences supporting stockpile stewardship.
Many of the problems described in these posts would be mitigated if strategic planning for the complex were shifted from NNSA to LLNL.
How much longer until we hear that layoffs, as well, might be necessary? I wouldn't put too much trust any anything Charlie tells you.
February 14, 2013 at 4:12 AM
Well, in McMillan's defense, two weeks ago it looked to everyone that there was going to be a serious effort in Congress to head off sequestration. Now, not so much. Today's (2/14) Albuquerque Journal quotes McMillan as saying "To date, absolutely no decisions have been made, nor are we taking actions." Believe him or not, but he IS communicating.
February 14, 2013 at 10:52 AM
If you call "communicating" shooting us an e-mail that Rich Marquez wrote and not facing the questions from an open one-on-one forum, so be it.
February 18, 2013 at 6:53 AM
How can a "one-on-one forum" be "open"?? Sounds more like 1,000-on-one. I certainly wouldn't go there for nothing but abuse. If you prefer absolute silence to a pertinent, definitive statement made to the press (an actual one-on-one forum), so be it.
February 18, 2013 at 8:59 AM
There always has to be one "kiss ass" in the bunch.
February 18, 2013 at 5:11 PM
OK then, 999-on-one.
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2013/07/sandias-fee-penalties.html?showComment=1378966217910#c7620251885107437128
Didn't the Department of Energy order Adam Rowen to cancel the Hawaii trip he booked on government funds?