Skip to main content

Expectations of being the next contractor.

Image
By
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?

Comments

Anonymous said…
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.
9/13/2017 6:14 AM
Anonymous said…
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.
9/13/2017 7:19 AM
Anonymous said…
September 13, 2017 at 7:19 AM

Who's "we"??
9/14/2017 8:07 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem

By scooby
From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use.  touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...
96 comments
Read more