Skip to main content
Image
By scooby
Marylia Kelley said... http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ouroperations/apm/perfevals This link will lead you to the NNSA Memorandum of December 16, 2013 RE: LLNL, LLC's FY 2013 Performance Fee. As you will see, LLNS did not earn the "award term." However, the Performance Evaluation Report - upon which this memo is based - is not yet up on the web. Some of you will recall that last year, the Fee Determining Official (at that time, Neile Miller) gave LLNL management a "bump up" to allow them the "award term." She also gave LANL management an anomaly to give them the "award term." Congress was not amused - and so it may be particularly interesting to see the actual Performance Evaluation Reports this year. Tri-Valley CAREs will be watching for the FY 2013 Performance Evaluation Report, and will use the Freedom of Information Act to ensure its public availability if it is not posted by NNSA on the web in a timely manner.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm not sure anyone here cares what Marylia Kelley has to say about anything.
12/21/2013 7:39 AM
Anonymous said…
She provides a link to the NNSA PERs website. Interestingly, however, NNSA appears to have disabled select content on the site.
12/21/2013 3:17 PM
Anonymous said…
From the number of comments I believe it is safe to assume no one cares about her or her organization.
12/26/2013 8:54 AM
Anonymous said…
"I do." said Mr. Kelly to reporters.

"On Tuesdays if she is in a good mood, I get lucky."

s
12/26/2013 2:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Her post was about the LLNS annual performance evaluation. Too boring for some of you?
12/27/2013 4:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Let's be careful here. TVC is examining the legitimacy of lab contract awards and extensions. There is (or should be) a connection to our LLNS "worker bee" assignments and NNSA "performance evaluations" of the labs yes? Do you want a NNSA rubber stamp annual review of the labs, or a substantive 360 review? It's only our jobs, benefits, and future. I'm just saying, unless you think we are the same or better off under LLNS, let's not discard a common concern from the outside. We need not be in complete lock step with TVC to value a common concern.
12/29/2013 4:34 PM
Anonymous said…
I want both Marylia and NNSA to eat shit and die.

The lab,the employees, the country, and nuclear science were much better off when UC ran the place and everyone else was self absorbed or stoned...
1/04/2014 7:54 PM
Anonymous said…
sorry, ignore previous post, low blood sugar. Now better
1/04/2014 7:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Rumor corner

By scooby
LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
92 comments
Read more