I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
Comments
I don't see UC walking away from LLNL, considering its names for the very first UC winner of a Nobel Prize. Also its close relationships with LBNL and three UC campuses in the area (Berkeley, Davis, and Merced).
Considering on the last LLNL contract for the original RFP there was no real competition to LLNS - basically no interested industrial partners. Only when NNSA increased the award fee did the Northrup-Grumman team submit a bid, and this team didn't even have an academic partner, which was a non-starter for a M&O contractor of a national science lab.
So does UC go a different route for the next bid on LLNL. Possibly create a solely UC owned LLC to operate LLNL - still not returning it to direct UC management like LBNL but more like the University of Chicago has setup an LLC owned by the university to run Argonne Lab. In the ANL structure, industrial entities are brought into team with the LLC to run certain operations and activities, but are not part of the LLC. ANL employees work for the LLC not the university, but since its wholly owned by the university, they feel more like its employees.
This seems like a best of both worlds approach the UC should really consider for LLNL if LANS goes under and having industrial partners (Bechtel, URS, etc) in an LLC to bid on LLNL adds little value. This would especially make sense if NNSA reduces the management fee as has been rumored to about half of its current amount so its aligned with DOE Office of Science national lab and Sandia lab contracts.
Please deliver a pink slip to the following for Christmas this year:
Charlie McMillan
John Benner
Craig Leasure
Jeff Yarbrough
Tim George
Wendy Baca
Terry Wallace
Dave Teter
Steve Girrons
Steve Renfro
Thanks!
That's Steve Girrens, we want to make sure it get's to the right address.
Don't forget Larry Goen's (ES-Division Leader) pink slip.
Cheryl Cabbil (ADNHHO) for forcing me out of my job this year.
Thanks!
December 20, 2015 at 10:22 PM
Just make sure that LANL managers are not allowed to be write the contract. If they allow that to happen you will get twice as many managers making 10 times more money, no accountability, and pure corruption.
December 21, 2015 at 8:38 AM
You mean like what happened 10 years ago, with the last contract change?
I would not be surprised if the likes of Alan Bishop and John Sarrao again gamed the system and used this upheaval to advance themselves.
On the day the contract changeover happens march these LANS executives out the front gate under tight security with their boxes in hand, LLNL style.
December 23, 2015 at 11:43 AM
C'mon dude, you know it's just going to be the same monkeys in new trees, and you'll still be looking up to the same view.
Dear Santa,
Please deliver a pink slip to the following for Christmas this year:
Charlie McMillan
John Benner
Craig Leasure
Jeff Yarbrough
Tim George
Wendy Baca
Terry Wallace
Dave Teter
Steve Girrons
Steve Renfro
Thanks!
So what did all these people do to deserve pinkslips?
December 23, 2015 at 9:05 PM
You don't work at LANL, do you?
You don't work at LANL, do you?
December 24, 2015 at 8:39 AM
I do, and some of these do not make sense.
December 23, 2015 at 9:05 PM
Nothing, they did absolutely nothing. Hello, anybody home?
Dear Santa,
Please deliver a pink slip to the following for Christmas this year:
December 20, 2015 at 2:43 PM
Every manager that spent last summer trying to figure out the "purpose of Los Alamos" under the guidance of the bald Kiwi should have at least gotten a lump of coal, if not actually placed on this list.
December 29, 2015 at 3:47 PM
Every LANL manager above Division Leader wasted months on this stupid exercise. From the first day, it was set up to be a love-fest celebration of how great Charlie and the PADs were doing at running the Lab. Even a lot of the Division Leaders were a willing part of the scam.
All of them should be ditched for such a waste of time and money.