Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Expectations of being the next contractor.
With WIPP, Beth Sellers, Arc-Flash, and inappropriate plutonium air transport, to name a few problems at LANL, have the LANS management failures and the NNSA Los Alamos Field Office oversight failures established a clear moral hazard or a no immediate consequence expectation for any failures on the part of the next LANL contractor?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The smarter thing would have been for NNSA to split the LANL M&O contract into two separate contrast - one for science and research, one for high hazard nuclear operations and production. This has been done before at other large sites such as Oak Ridge, Hanford, and Idaho. Stop blending the "expectations" together.
But they didn't do the smart thing, just repeated the flawed approach from the last time.
Prior to the contract change to LLNS, we considered keeping the science and engineering staff under UC/LLNL management, and farming out HR, security, and everything else to outside contracts.
September 13, 2017 at 7:19 AM
Who's "we"??
Post a Comment