Skip to main content

FY 2015 NNSA site evaluations now posted

https://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/multiplefiles/FY2015%20LANL%20FDO%20Letter_Redacted.pdf

Comments

Anonymous said…
Leadership received a score of 60%.

A student at a reputable college or university with an academic achievement of 60% would not be eligible for retention in college and/or graduation. It would result in an F.

But at LANL, 60% meets the leadership criterion. 60% should have resulted in a does not meet. Gee, if that's all it makes to make the leadership grade at LANL, then all the whining and complaints about the LANS managers being C students was almost right, just a whole lot worse.

I think it means a big fat F. As in failure. And now NNSA has confirmed it in writing. No wonder LANS did not want this evaluation to be reported.

So fellow Labbie's, the next time a LANS manager harasses you because YOU DO KNOW MORE THAN THE MANAGER, try to refrain from smirking, rolling your eyes, clearing your throat, etc. etc.

Now you know the rest of the story.
Anonymous said…
After 10 years, the graders do not have a workable plan on the shelf to promptly rid themselves of the "60% achievers" to bring in new students. So there's that.
Anonymous said…
Why are the signatures redacted? Is it because the persons who signed didn't write the letters? Can you say conspiracy? Or politics?
Anonymous said…
If you listen to Charlie and the PADs tell the story, the leadership worked unusually hard to earn that high score of 60%. Their improvement from the prior year was extraordinary, and the mean old government just refused to grant them another year to turn the place around.
Anonymous said…
When you look at the evaluation letter for the three NNSA labs, it is almost criminal how much more the LANS/LLNS LLCs get compared to Sandia Corp (which is bigger and more complicated M&O Contract).
Anonymous said…
When you look at the evaluation letter for the three NNSA labs, it is almost criminal how much more the LANS/LLNS LLCs get compared to Sandia Corp (which is bigger and more complicated M&O Contract).

Agreed Sandia Corp is 100 to 1000 times bigger, more complex, subtle, elegant, and intricate that some cesspool like LLNL. It may be not be legally criminal but if there was a God he/she would be offended that humans have sunk such low levels to compare the magistracy, historical significance, and impact of Sandia to the non-entities that are LANL and LLNL. I have to say that some of the posters on this blog have to on par with the worlds greatest thinkers, from now on 9:22 AM should be referred to as the short bus Socrates or SBS. I can just picture SBS, unemployed and being forced to use the public library ssh connections just so he can get access to the blog to share his dialogues on how LLNL and LANL must suck. True genius, brilliance and clarity of thought. 9:22 AM you are a effing gift to the world, thank you so much for your wisdom wit, and insight, that made sooo much sense that it just boggles the mind. Please do whatever you can to keep your access to the web so that we may be graced wit your wisdom.

Popular posts from this blog

Trump is to gut the labs.

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.

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

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...

Rumor corner

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.