LLNL gets good report
After hearing about all the negative IG reports on LANL for years, this is a welcome break.
It also should put to rest any questions about how LLNL allocated direct and indirect costs.
http://www.doe.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/OAS-L-13-07.pdf
2 comments:
Returning to compliance with regulations is good only in relation to the fact they were out of compliance when abusing the discriminatory overhead rates long after the completion of the build of NIF.
The fact that they are returning the "savings" to other programs brought about by the corrected overhead rates, back into NIF, is just evidence returning to the abusive practices, as the end effect is the same - discriminatory overhead rates that penalize non-NIF programs.
A relevent fact to consider is what is the ratio of IG complaints received per site vs. how many IG audits or inspections were actually "opened". Further - how long did it take to get a report published once the audit or inspection began? Two years? Three years? And what was the relevency by then...pretty uninteresting stuff if it is made stale enough.
Post a Comment