This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Perdue bid?
Perdue put in a bid to run Los Alamos? Really, the chicken company or the university. Seriously, what is the connection if any and what is the motivation for some place that has no connection to bid?
52 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think you mean Purdue. I have heard that Webster is head on this one as he has a Ph.d in Nuclear Engineering from Purdue, which is ranked 10th out of 28 schools according to US News. I presume that this is a bid with some other schools as well maybe UNM?
In any case I know various posters had previously said that no one will bid for LANL, well that is clearly wrong as we are up to 5 different credible teams.
John Sarrao vs Sue Steestrom?! You've gotta be kidding me, two of the finest LANS specimen! Mr. MaRIE against Ms. Radiological Contamination.
As expected, LANS has repackaged themselves and they are now leading a crusade to save the Lab ... from LANS. Both UC and Bechtel must be betting that NNSA wants no change, that the whole process is just for show.
NNSA, if you are serious about turning things for the better, you must drain the Swamp. Throw the bums out! Please, this is our only hope.
Had heard that Battelle was going with a female DIR candidate, but Sue was not the name mentioned. Not easy to see how she get out of the minimum term at Sandia contract.
January 1, 2018 at 9:12 PM, so do you in fact know the composition of the teams? Should we interpret your lack of comment on the UC bid as a confirmation that it is indeed led by Sarrao? Or are you not privy to that kind of information? Maybe you are yet another poster just showing off here?
I had a encounter with a group of people visiting the area “for a Los Alamos bid”. There were people from three companies. One would not say anything and seemed to be in charge. Another said he worked for Booze-Allen and the other two said something like Keewheat.
Can we agree that if more competition does exist, which many have said on this blog, then that does not bode well for the incumbents including UC. People don't spend money bidding when they think they have no chance.
Agreed, to have more teams bidding is indeed better. So long as they are not all led by present-day LANS managers.
January 7, 2018 at 11:51 PM
From what I am hearing every single team is in fact lead and shaped by current LANL people, in fact it is these LANL people that went to potential bidders to convince them to bid. The idea is that the LANL people will do all the heavy lifting and the time and effort will be minimal to the bidding team. The idea is that no outside organization will have any near the insider knowledge needed to run LANL as it runs in a way that is utterly different than any other organization. The bottom line is that nothing is going to change since nothing can change.
>Terry Wallace is selling his soul to stay at the laboratory after the contract change.
Of course, however he may find out that he already sold his soul so he will have to sell something else.
>Up to 2000 people with over 25 years of experience are planning on exiting.
Does experience matter at an NNSA lab anymore? We are have been for profit for some time so it has been about money and bodies not experience, this can be seen by the fact that at LANL we are now done to 16% Phds as compared to 39% 20 years ago.
>UC bid with Texas AM and one other
Heard this one and that John Sarao is leading.
>Bechtel with Purdue and one other
Heard this one as well and their ace in the hole is that Bob Webster is leading.
>U Texas with Battelle and one other (possibly BWXT)
Sounds good, but I am afraid it has no chance...NO CHANCE!
>Do not understand how any of the current LANL managers could be considered since they all are bad!
Well they are the ones putting in all the work on the bids, the ones at DOE headquarters every week, the ones with the most control over the horizontal and vertical. They are the ones that need these jobs, they have no other options so they will fight tooth and nail for this.
Very insightful comments here. By recompeting the contract, NNSA is desperately trying to change things. But, fundamentally, they have a problem. The LANS management horde is fighting tooth and nail to stay on. They are used to feeling "important" and realize there is no value for them in the outside world. (Maybe as nightshift managers at Walmart? Nah, Walmart's not that desperate.) At the same time, people on the outside are not rushing in to lead bid teams. LANL has become a hot potato, dysfunctional, decaying, and a high-liability proposition. After many years of trying to "beat the Lab into submission", NNSA finds itself in a dead end. The exploding drum was a problem too big to hide, a very public and embarrassing fiasco. But they screwed things up so much by now that the only option being offered to them now is more of the same: same managers, just in slightly different uniforms. What will it be, NNSA? UC again, lead by Mr. MaRIE, really?
UC failed by themselves (Nanos) - that's why UC got fired. Then UC and Bechtel together failed - that's why they're getting fired. Texas A&M is mostly just a cow college. Purdue and UT both have no relevant experience but UT has Battelle on their team.
If these really are the bid teams, I'd bet on UT/Battelle.
I never bought this train of thought. I would say it was all about money and the rush to privatize. The big giveaway on this is that they also privatized LLNL. If it was only a UC/LANL thing they would have have replaced UC only at LANL. With that I am just going with the privatization craze. Also from what I remember Nanos was forced on UC by DOE.
> Then UC and Bechtel together failed - that's why they're getting fired.
You may have a point but most people at LANL believe Bechtel has been in charge.
>Texas A&M is mostly just a cow college.
Texas AM is not a "cow college" whatever that means. It is ranked like 11th in terms of engineering in the country which is high that U Texas by the way. You look like a fool when you say stuff this stupid.
>Purdue and UT both have no relevant experience but UT has Battelle on their team.
Perhaps UT has Battele on they team.
>If these really are the bid teams, I'd bet on UT/Battelle.
I would say this is the team with the least chance and the one that the the current management team is fighting against tooth an nail.
I think we to just admit that most of the current LAN managers are going to be staying in their positions after the contract change which means culturally nothing is going to change at LANL, perhaps it will even get worse. In any case you an simply use induction, LANL has been in decay for the last 20 years every year things get a bit worse. The lab fellows just gathered some information to which showed that LANL is now ranked as 75 in terms of publications at different institutions in the United States, but in 2003 it was like 5th, kind of major falloff.
If NNSA does allow the current LANL managers to stay on after the contract change, either in the same positions or in a some kind of office swap, then indeed nothing will change and the decay will continue. Perhaps it will even accelerate, since the message of ZERO accountability will be heard loud and clear and will further embolden them.
Think of it: ZERO accountability is exactly how we got here. The NNSA people who engineered the disastrous privatization scheme, Brooks, D'Agostino, Przybylek, and so on, have all gracefully retired or moved on. None of them have to suffer consequences now for what they did then. Believe it or not, NNSA even has a "Linton F. Brooks Medal for Public Service" now!
Nanos, after his house of cards collapsed, was allowed to take a government job in DC. This guy not only knowingly wasted $400M of the taxpayer money on his shutdown scam, but also deliberately caused grave, long-term harm to national security by what he did to LANL. His change of station should have been to a federal correctional facility.
How about UC? Its president, Dynes, came to LANL to back Nanos up, seconding the narrative of "the cowboy culture" and blaming it all on the "butthead" scientists. Guess what, UC essentially kept its contract. Moreover, this time it came with Bechtel.
A whole lot of the pre-2006 LANL managers stayed on after the contract change and, remarkably, saw their compensations double or triple under LANS. Over the last dozen years many of them got further promoted, all the while the mass exodus of top scientists and engineers unfolded. Now, most of these managers again intend to stay on, hoping to further rise in ranks, or worst comes to worst, gracefully retire with full benefits.
Until the system has some real accountability the status quo will persist. Real change can only happen if no one above the group leader level is allowed to remain in the new management.
You are right and the decline in publications is the result of the decaying science since 2003. UC was in charge of science at LANL since then, and they own this decay completely.
The lab fellows just gathered some information to which showed that LANL is now ranked as 75 in terms of publications at different institutions in the United States, but in 2003 it was like 5th, kind of major falloff.
January 12, 2018 at 8:57 AM
Interesting. Since the lab fellows are supposedly the most prolific contributors to LANL science publications, how much of this "major falloff" is due to their own decline in publication?
Another question that could be asked is this: who in the position of real power cares what the lab fellows have to say? Whose bonus is going to be affected?
8:57 AM responds to my post saying "You look like a fool when you say stuff this stupid". You allow this to be published. I tested you by responding to him and I ended my post with a repeat of just the first half of his phrase. You censured my comment.
You seem to be having great trouble applying the rules in a fair and unbiased way.
LANL isn't an engineering organization, so the rankings of Texas A&M vs. Texas in engineering are intentionally misleading. In the world overall ranking of universities, Texas is ranked #49 (in the world) and Texas A&M is ranked #159.
This is where I repeated your offensive phrase back to you.
"LANL isn't an engineering organization, so the rankings of Texas A&M vs. Texas in engineering are intentionally misleading. In the world overall ranking of universities, Texas is ranked #49 (in the world) and Texas A&M is ranked #159."
The problem is you have been the same guy saying that LANL is NOT a science lab. You cannot have it both ways. By the way Texas-AM is teaming with UC so what is your point?
I never once said that LANL is not a science lab. You've got me confused with someone else. While LANL is not an Office of Science lab, LANL's strength has always been science. Still is, but science at LANL is being handicapped by the decline of everything else (management, infrastructure, support services, etc.)
My point is UC has already failed, and failed twice. UC isn't bringing ANYTHING to the party. The strength of any bid with UC involved will have to survive on the merits of UC's partners. On that score, UC's bid looks really weak.
My point is UC has already failed, and failed twice. UC isn't bringing ANYTHING to the party. The strength of any bid with UC involved will have to survive on the merits of UC's partners. On that score, UC's bid looks really weak.
January 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM
I would argue that it is not UC that failed but NNSA that kept UC from running the lab by having them partner with Bechtel. One example is if you look at the top 5 DOE labs in terms of science as measured by publications in 2005, it was #1 LANL, #2 ANL, #3 LBNL, #4 LLNL, #5 ORNL. now 20017 it is #1 LBNL, #2 ANL, #3 ORNL, #4 LANL and #5 LLNL. The drop in LANL and LLNL corresponds to the contract change over from solely UC run to LANS and LLNS. At the same time the soley UC run LLBL lab went to #1. If UC was so bad why did LLBL do so well over the same time LANL and LLNL did badly under LANS and LLNS and why did LANL and LLNL do so well before LANS and LLNLS when it was only UC.
I contend that UC had nothing to do with the failures of LANS and LLNS. Do not underestimate how much damage Bechtel can do.
Again a simple questions why did LBNL do so well at the same time that LANL and LLNL tanked?
My point is UC has already failed, and failed twice. UC isn't bringing ANYTHING to the party. The strength of any bid with UC involved will have to survive on the merits of UC's partners. On that score, UC's bid looks really weak.
January 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM
How did UC fail the first time? UC ran LANL well for 60 years, what the hell happened? I have never seen a compelling argument that UC failed at running LANL the first time. If UC failed at running LANL than why was LLNL also put up for bid? The initial privatization of LANL and LLNL was about money for private companies it had nothing...NOTHING to do with problems at LANL or LLNL. I think DOE has realized what a horrible mistake the first contract change was and may want to go be to the original systems that WORKED, in that case UC is looking strong, very strong. I would guess UC has been told by DOE to bid as they in fact do have a good chance.
Some of the big drivers for the current contract change have been WIP and the failure at improvements in business practices and DOE places the blame on this on Bechtel not UC.
UC failed well before Bechtel was a partner. That's why UC lost the contract the first time. Remember Nanos? He was responsible for the worst two years in the history of the lab, including the Bechtel years. Don't forget, UC defended the incompetent fool for almost 2 years before they were forced to dump him by LANL staff.
LBNL's portfolio of work is completely different from LANL's. LBNL has far, far less classified and high-hazard work. In fact, LBNL's portfolio could be executed by almost any major University. It is not appropriate to compare LBNL with LANL in any way. If you disagree, I would ask you why the DOE/NNSA doesn't just take LANL's work away and give it to LBNL? You know the answer.
LBNL is a large stretch to compare to LANL, but that may not have been the point. One of them has world class staff that are are also faculty members at the leading public campus in the country for science and does a lot of the research with the grad students from the campus. Lots of Nobel prizes and dozens of NAS members in those ranks. Add in a Secretary of Energy that pushed money to them in the past administration and it is easy to see how they did well. The other one has no comparable staff or students or funding for sandbox science. No surprise here.
"UC failed well before Bechtel was a partner. That's why UC lost the contract the first time. Remember Nanos? He was responsible for the worst two years in the history of the lab, including the Bechtel years. Don't forget, UC defended the incompetent fool for almost 2 years before they were forced to dump him by LANL staff"
You have said this before but the rampant rumors at the time was that UC was dead set againts Nanos but DOE forced them to hire him. Maybe all these rumors are wrong but this is what was going around and it was only after it was beyond obvious that he was a mistake that DOE allowed UC to get rid of him.
"LBNL's portfolio of work is completely different from LANL's. LBNL has far, far less classified and high-hazard work" . In fact, LBNL's portfolio could be executed by almost any major University. It is not appropriate to compare LBNL with LANL in any way. If you disagree, I would ask you why the DOE/NNSA doesn't just take LANL's work away and give it to LBNL? You know the answer."
I agree with your point about the scope of the work but how is that before 2007 LANL published more than LBNL for 30 years or more and than published less after the contract change? How is it that LANL published more ORNL, ANL before 2007 and now less. How is it that LANL maintained a constant lead over most universities before 2007 and since the contract change it has fallen against virtually every other University. It seems like once you add Bechtel to the mix or make the place private it falls apart.
"LBNL is a large stretch to compare to LANL, but that may not have been the point. One of them has world class staff that are are also faculty members at the leading public campus in the country for science and does a lot of the research with the grad students from the campus. Lots of Nobel prizes and dozens of NAS members in those ranks. Add in a Secretary of Energy that pushed money to them in the past administration and it is easy to see how they did well. The other one has no comparable staff or students or funding for sandbox science. No surprise here."
You will notice that LANL was compared not just to LBNL but also ANL and ORNL. In all cases LANL had more publications per year than all these labs before 2007 and now it has less. Your argument may be true about LBNL over the last 10 years but it does not explain ORNL or ANL. Additionally if you compare to almost any university both LANL and LLNL lost ground in the last 10 years. There is a clear correlation with the decline of science at LLNL and LANL that correlate with the contract change.
8:56 AM, UC was not only NOT dead-set against Nanos, they defended him. UC failed. Case closed.
The reason LANL publishes less now is because of the steady degradation of the entire lab in the last ~20 years of UC rule. That's easy to understand. Why has LANL degraded? Simple, UC is not up to the task of managing the Lab in the current risk-averse climate. Prior to 20 years ago, UC stood up to the DOE and NNSA arguing in favor of executing the lab's mission while applying reasonable risk reduction measures. After Sig, UC installed a unbroken series of extremely weak Directors - Directors who never really understood LANL's critical missions and were feckless in supporting LANL's work in front of DOE and Congress.
Here are the arguments against your point. (1) data shows the decline in both labs begins after 2006 or after the contract change not 20 years ago as you have said, but more like 12 years ago. (2) before 2006 LANL published more than LBNL now in 2006 less. If UC runs both labs as you say why is that they run LBNL well but not LANL and LLNL? (3) All the UC campuses have passed LANL or closed the gap to LANL since 2006 but not before so again UC can run their campuses well but not LANL or LLNL (4) UC managed LANL and LLNL well for 65 years but than after the contract they can no longer manage the labs well? This makes no sense.
This points to UC not being to blame for decline at LLNL and LANL but rather the contract change and the loss of total UC management, from what I have heard DOE believes the same thing.
Nope it is Bechtel. UC ran the labs well before the contract change. You also have to give them credit for firing Dorn and Walp, for that along UC should be given the medal of freedom and blessed by the Pope or any other agent of good in the Universe. If you where around when these guys where at LANL you would understand the completely.
Also for any doubters about the true character of these people just type in the words "Walp, Doran, Montano" along with Burick into Google, it is absolutely disgusting and shameful what people will do for money.
"You have said this before but the rampant rumors at the time was that UC was dead set againts (sic) Nanos but DOE forced them to hire him."
This is just not true. UC selected Nanos, forced him onto the Lab, supported him through the shutdown, and only stopped when it became completely obvious to everyone what was going on.
Here's a history lesson for you, straight from 2005 NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/politics/under-fire-at-work-los-alamos-director-will-move-on.html):
********** Some experts say that after the public outcry the university had no choice but to abandon Dr. Nanos if it was to make a credible bid to renew the contract.
The university news release said nothing of the employees' discontent and instead referred to "an unprecedented period of change, uncertainty and challenge" for Los Alamos.
"Pete has done a remarkable job under extraordinary pressures and circumstances," the university president, Robert C. Dynes, said in the statement. "His determination to move the laboratory forward, along with his commitment to excellence, have resulted in many notable and lasting improvements in virtually all areas of the laboratory's operations."
In an interview, S. Robert Foley, a retired admiral who oversees the university's weapons laboratory management, applauded Dr. Nanos as courageous and insightful, even while conceding that employees might have found his style abrasive.
"He stood up and took the heat and did what needed to be done," Mr. Foley said. "The lab is in far better shape than it was before.
"The men and women there are patriots. They're working their tails off. Maybe some are a bit thin-skinned. That's style, not substance. It's a good lab that is getting better." **********
That's all right there for you. Now that a dozen years have passed we can look back at this and say with all confidence that these were the actions that severely damaged the Lab and set the downward spiral in motion. That's what UC did to you.
That's all right there for you. Now that a dozen years have passed we can look back at this and say with all confidence that these were the actions that severely damaged the Lab and set the downward spiral in motion. That's what UC did to you.
January 17, 2018 at 11:08 PM
That is not proof it is only a NYT news item of what was publicly said. I will give that NYT was of higher caliber buck in 2006 but still this not proof of anything. Again the rumors and many of these actually came from off the record UC admins was that they never wanted Nanos but DOE said that "this is the guy you must pick after the WHL disaster we want a kick ass military guy, you idiots in UC picked an academic Brown and looked what happened". Ask yourself a very simple question why would UC after all those of years of picking to scientists suddenly reverse themselves and and pick an Admiral with no academic standing at all? I doubt you work at LANL or worked at LANL at the time since everyone though he was forced on LANL by DOE. We could have all be wrong but that was the thought. After the screwup from what I and many have heard is that DOE wanted to keep him on but UC wanted him out right on the spot, DOE only caved in after it become beyond obvious what was going on. Again off the record UC people had been saying how horrible Nanos was for some time. By the way another rather persistent rumor is that UC absolutely hated Foley but again he was forced on them. DOE basically said you have to hire these people or we are going to through you out and if you remember back in those times Congress had said on several occasions that they might just throw out UC on the spot so this is what was told to UC by DOE.
Look after WHL powers in DC saw an opportunity to privatize the labs for profit along with privatizing every thing else. Hell the whole the Iraq-Afganstan war was literally run by for profit private organizations. Again If UC was so bad than why LLNL also have to be privatized? Also how is it that UC ran the labs very well from 1943- WHL and than after that they no longer can? It just makes no sense. One argument that does make sense is that DOE along with DC went after LANL and undermined UC in every effort to privatize the LANL and hence LLNL. Once UC was undermined the whole thing tanked, LLNL had a huge RIF, dropped in science quality, LANLs safety and security recored got worse, its science tanked, ethical issues sprang up, we lost huge amounts of talent, had to have two VSPS, and the Directors have been scientific and leadership zeros. UC had nothing to do with any of this and you dam well know it. I would guess you have some personal issue with LANL and UC but those are your personal issues that you should deal with yourself.
"If Bechtel was the problem then why didn't UC do something about it? UC was in charge. "
Because DOE would have thrown UC out. The rumors are that DOE told UC that Bechtel is in charge so you better play ball or be thrown out. Thus we have the mess we are in now. Look both labs tanked at the contract change what was the common factor...Bechtel.
Hey all you nabobs of negativism! If it is all so black and bleak at LLNL and LANL, how come so many scientists got substantial raises for the science they did last year? How did you do? Not so much? Too bad, too sad!
Bechtel came on the bid team as a favor to UC to pull off the most odd upset ever which was the award of a contract to the incumbent after the incumbent was the cause of the recompete. Bechtel has always been a minor player in the contract and only account for less than 10% of the total management including only one PAD, one AD, and a handful of division leaders. There are less than 200 Bechtel employees on the entire LANL site. My favorite is the puppet master theory where these few employees and managers somehow manipulate the entire laboratory management team. It is funny because it describes the entire management team, who most were here before transition, as weak minded and spineless.
LANL has not changed. LANL will not change. It is not UC, it is not Bechtel. It is a bunch of New Mexico "we bes" no matter who the name on the top of the check is.
If LLNL is doing so bad, why do we never see them on this blog complaining about Bechtel??? I have been reading for a number of years now and it is rare to even hear anything negative...
"Hey all you nabobs of negativism! If it is all so black and bleak at LLNL and LANL, how come so many scientists got substantial raises for the science they did last year? How did you do? Not so much? Too bad, too sad!
January 18, 2018 at 6:08 PM"
What is your point? If you look at publication numbers both LLNL and LANL are in strong decline when compared to every other DOE lab as well as universities. If you look at the fraction of Phds at LANL it is now down to 18-19% when It was close to 40% in 2000. I assume a similar trend is occurring at LLNL so how many scientists can be left at LLNL or LANL to get those nice raises? If you look at the salary at any of the UCs or reasonable universities faculty in science and engineering are paid about the same or in many cases better than what you are now seeing at the labs not mention that faculty are treated why better than lab scientists which may explain why so much of the top talent has left both labs over the last 15 years.
Come on, January 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, you are trying to rewrite history here. People give you direct evidence that UC supported Nanos, even praised his actions, characterizing them as a "remarkable job" and doing "what needed to be done". This is documented, preserved for posterity in the newspapers of the time, as well as in the original LANL Blog. Heck, I was there in the auditorium when Dynes and Foley came to LANL and defended Nanos, his shutdown and his brief but vicious and destructive reign of terror. And your answer to this is what? That you've "heard rumors" that while doing all this they were actually thinking the opposite? You expect us to reject the facts and instead accepts far-fetched, outlandish speculations, because these are "rumors you've heard"? You must be kidding.
This is just absurd. Maybe next you will say that the LANS managers installed by UC have been thinking the opposite to what they have been doing ever since 2006?
DOE never told UC that Bechtel is in charge. NEVER EVER. You made that up. Not only didn't DOE put Bechtel in charge, I can't find a single person at LANL who ever heard such a rumor either. NOT ONE.
How does any thinking person know that DOE NEVER told Bechtel that they're in charge? DOE signed the contract with LANS that puts UC in charge. UC is in charge because it's in writing in the contract. Nobody at DOE would sign the current contract that makes Bechtel a minor player and then whisper in Riley's ear that Bechtel is in charge. That's laughable. The fact is that UC is in charge and no one of any consequence ever thought otherwise.
You know how else we know that Bechtel isn't in charge? DOE approved that 10 of the 11 top managers at LANL are UC. Did anyone ever believe "a rumor" that Bechtel is in charge when almost all of the upper managers are UC? Not in the real world.
We haven't forgotten that you used to claim that Bechtel is in charge. When that was disproved, your claim was reduced to ALL LANL staff *believe* Bechtel is in charge. When that was disproved, your claim now has been further reduced to "there was a rumor that Bechtel was put in charge". This is the path that false claims often take. The next step is for these false claims to stop altogether.
"I was there in the auditorium when Dynes and Foley came to LANL and defended Nano"
Gotta call BS on this. If you where in fact around at this time you would know that this is exactly when those rumors started and came from people who claimed they met with Dynes during the the visit. These rumors became rampant so you must have heard them if you were at LANL at the time. I think you were long gone from LANL by the time Nanos cam in. How about simple question if UC was so into Nanos as you claimed why was he fired in the end anyway?
Again the rumors are that in 2006 DOE told Bechetel and UC that Bechtel was in charge.
This is all rumors but one thing is clear you have some personal issue with UC. UC seemed to run the labs fine for 60 years and than WHL hits and DOE goes after UC, something just does not add up in your whole UC is bad thing. I just don't understand how UC could have gone bad at LANL overnight in 2002, yet can run LNBL and LLNL well. Another explanation is that UC was simply taken out of the picture behind closed doors and the whole thing tanked into crap after that.
"DOE never told UC that Bechtel is in charge. NEVER EVER. You made that up. Not only didn't DOE put Bechtel in charge, I can't find a single person at LANL who ever heard such a rumor either. NOT ONE."
I simply do not believe you since I have never heard a single person at LANL who thinks Bechtel is not in charge, NOT ONE. One of us has to be wrong and the math simply does not add up that out of the hundreds of LANL people I know would all believe the same thing while I cannot find one person who believes what you claimed. You must be lying.
This is the challenge I gave to you before when you made this claim if you are right than there must be hundreds of people reading this blog that agree with you that UC is in charge not Bechetel and some of them will come and post that they agree with you. The last time we put this challenge out NO ONE came to post that agrees with you. Kind of telling is it not?
The question is now who are you. Are you just lying due to your hate of UC? We do know that there are some very VERY bitter ex-LANL employees who have nothing but hate for UC and will say anything true or not to push their agenda you can see their posts every week in the Santa Fe Newspapers. Why not just come clean with about your agenda?
You still haven't figured out that more than one person is writing in to challenge your falsehoods. I'm not the only one. I've written maybe 1/4 of the posts here.
"This is the challenge I gave to you before when you made this claim if you are right than there must be hundreds of people reading this blog that agree with you that UC is in charge not Bechetel and some of them will come and post that they agree with you. The last time we put this challenge out NO ONE came to post that agrees with you. Kind of telling is it not? :
Having followed this thread, I notice that the person zealously peddling pro-UC propaganda here has started out confused or perhaps disingenuous, but finished definitely in the Land of the Bizarre. He completely lost me when he told people to reject known historical facts, eyewitness accounts, newspaper reports, even our own direct experiences about UC's actions over the last 20 years and instead go with "the rumors he's heard". Hmmm, ok ...
The posters critical of UC, and there are several, make mostly sensible arguments. However, it should be acknowledged that UC is not the only guilty party in the downfall of LANL, just one of several. They are definitely complicit and should be held accountable, but shouldn't take all the blame.
52 comments:
I think you mean Purdue. I have heard that Webster is head on this one as he has a Ph.d in Nuclear Engineering from Purdue, which is ranked 10th out of 28 schools according to US News. I presume that this is a bid with some other schools as well maybe UNM?
In any case I know various posters had previously said that no one will bid for LANL, well that is clearly wrong as we are up to 5 different credible teams.
Some rumors
UC bid with Texas AM, Jon Sarao heading
Honeywell, Battelle, Bechtel, Sue Seestrom heading
U Texas-Purdue, Webster leading.
Good times
John Sarrao vs Sue Steestrom?! You've gotta be kidding me, two of the finest LANS specimen! Mr. MaRIE against Ms. Radiological Contamination.
As expected, LANS has repackaged themselves and they are now leading a crusade to save the Lab ... from LANS. Both UC and Bechtel must be betting that NNSA wants no change, that the whole process is just for show.
NNSA, if you are serious about turning things for the better, you must drain the Swamp. Throw the bums out! Please, this is our only hope.
Had heard that Battelle was going with a female DIR candidate, but Sue was not the name mentioned. Not easy to see how she get out of the minimum term at Sandia contract.
Seestrom would be rejected because she is still bound by her multi year commitment as a key personnel on Sandia bid. So your story is BS.
The corporate team composition you mention does not exist.
January 1, 2018 at 9:12 PM, so do you in fact know the composition of the teams? Should we interpret your lack of comment on the UC bid as a confirmation that it is indeed led by Sarrao? Or are you not privy to that kind of information? Maybe you are yet another poster just showing off here?
I had a encounter with a group of people visiting the area “for a Los Alamos bid”. There were people from three companies. One would not say anything and seemed to be in charge. Another said he worked for Booze-Allen and the other two said something like Keewheat.
8:43 PM:
In your encounter do you remember if they supersized their meals?
Can we agree that if more competition does exist, which many have said on this blog, then that does not bode well for the incumbents including UC. People don't spend money bidding when they think they have no chance.
Agreed, to have more teams bidding is indeed better. So long as they are not all led by present-day LANS managers.
Agreed, to have more teams bidding is indeed better. So long as they are not all led by present-day LANS managers.
January 7, 2018 at 11:51 PM
From what I am hearing every single team is in fact lead and shaped by current LANL people, in fact it is these LANL people that went to potential bidders to convince them to bid. The idea is that the LANL people will do all the heavy lifting and the time and effort will be minimal to the bidding team. The idea is that no outside organization will have any near the insider knowledge needed to run LANL as it runs in a way that is utterly different than any other organization. The bottom line is that nothing is going to change since nothing can change.
It's Kiewit. Maybe they were in Los Alamos to bid on the renovation of the ice rink.
Some other rumors:
Terry Wallace is selling his soul to stay at the laboratory after the contract change.
Up to 2000 people with over 25 years of experience are planning on exiting.
UC bid with Texas AM and one other
Bechtel with Purdue and one other
U Texas with Battelle and one other (possibly BWXT)
Do not understand how any of the current LANL managers could be considered since they all are bad!
>Terry Wallace is selling his soul to stay at the laboratory after the contract change.
Of course, however he may find out that he already sold his soul so he will have to sell something else.
>Up to 2000 people with over 25 years of experience are planning on exiting.
Does experience matter at an NNSA lab anymore? We are have been for profit for some time so it has been about money and bodies not experience, this can be seen by the fact that at LANL we are now done to 16% Phds as compared to 39% 20 years ago.
>UC bid with Texas AM and one other
Heard this one and that John Sarao is leading.
>Bechtel with Purdue and one other
Heard this one as well and their ace in the hole is that Bob Webster is leading.
>U Texas with Battelle and one other (possibly BWXT)
Sounds good, but I am afraid it has no chance...NO CHANCE!
>Do not understand how any of the current LANL managers could be considered since they all are bad!
Well they are the ones putting in all the work on the bids, the ones at DOE headquarters every week, the ones with the most control over the horizontal and vertical. They are the ones that need these jobs, they have no other options so they will fight tooth and nail for this.
Very insightful comments here. By recompeting the contract, NNSA is desperately trying to change things. But, fundamentally, they have a problem. The LANS management horde is fighting tooth and nail to stay on. They are used to feeling "important" and realize there is no value for them in the outside world. (Maybe as nightshift managers at Walmart? Nah, Walmart's not that desperate.) At the same time, people on the outside are not rushing in to lead bid teams. LANL has become a hot potato, dysfunctional, decaying, and a high-liability proposition. After many years of trying to "beat the Lab into submission", NNSA finds itself in a dead end. The exploding drum was a problem too big to hide, a very public and embarrassing fiasco. But they screwed things up so much by now that the only option being offered to them now is more of the same: same managers, just in slightly different uniforms. What will it be, NNSA? UC again, lead by Mr. MaRIE, really?
UC failed by themselves (Nanos) - that's why UC got fired. Then UC and Bechtel together failed - that's why they're getting fired. Texas A&M is mostly just a cow college. Purdue and UT both have no relevant experience but UT has Battelle on their team.
If these really are the bid teams, I'd bet on UT/Battelle.
"UC failed by themselves (Nanos) - that's why UC got fired."
I never bought this train of thought. I would say it was all about money and the rush to privatize. The big giveaway on this
is that they also privatized LLNL. If it was only a UC/LANL thing they would have have replaced UC only at LANL. With that I am just going with the privatization craze. Also from what I remember Nanos was forced on UC by DOE.
> Then UC and Bechtel together failed - that's why they're getting fired.
You may have a point but most people at LANL believe Bechtel has been in charge.
>Texas A&M is mostly just a cow college.
Texas AM is not a "cow college" whatever that means. It is ranked like 11th in terms of engineering in the country which is
high that U Texas by the way. You look like a fool when you say stuff this stupid.
>Purdue and UT both have no relevant experience but UT has Battelle on their team.
Perhaps UT has Battele on they team.
>If these really are the bid teams, I'd bet on UT/Battelle.
I would say this is the team with the least chance and the one that the the current management team is fighting against tooth an nail.
I think we to just admit that most of the current LAN managers are going to be staying in their positions after the contract change which means culturally nothing is going to change at LANL, perhaps it will even get worse. In any case you an simply use induction, LANL has been in decay for the last 20 years every year things get a bit worse. The lab fellows just gathered some information to which showed that LANL is now ranked as 75 in terms of publications at different institutions in the United States, but in 2003 it was like 5th, kind of major falloff.
If NNSA does allow the current LANL managers to stay on after the contract change, either in the same positions or in a some kind of office swap, then indeed nothing will change and the decay will continue. Perhaps it will even accelerate, since the message of ZERO accountability will be heard loud and clear and will further embolden them.
Think of it: ZERO accountability is exactly how we got here. The NNSA people who engineered the disastrous privatization scheme, Brooks, D'Agostino, Przybylek, and so on, have all gracefully retired or moved on. None of them have to suffer consequences now for what they did then. Believe it or not, NNSA even has a "Linton F. Brooks Medal for Public Service" now!
Nanos, after his house of cards collapsed, was allowed to take a government job in DC. This guy not only knowingly wasted $400M of the taxpayer money on his shutdown scam, but also deliberately caused grave, long-term harm to national security by what he did to LANL. His change of station should have been to a federal correctional facility.
How about UC? Its president, Dynes, came to LANL to back Nanos up, seconding the narrative of "the cowboy culture" and blaming it all on the "butthead" scientists. Guess what, UC essentially kept its contract. Moreover, this time it came with Bechtel.
A whole lot of the pre-2006 LANL managers stayed on after the contract change and, remarkably, saw their compensations double or triple under LANS. Over the last dozen years many of them got further promoted, all the while the mass exodus of top scientists and engineers unfolded. Now, most of these managers again intend to stay on, hoping to further rise in ranks, or worst comes to worst, gracefully retire with full benefits.
Until the system has some real accountability the status quo will persist. Real change can only happen if no one above the group leader level is allowed to remain in the new management.
You are right and the decline in publications is the result of the decaying science since 2003. UC was in charge of science at LANL since then, and they own this decay completely.
The lab fellows just gathered some information to which showed that LANL is now ranked as 75 in terms of publications at different institutions in the United States, but in 2003 it was like 5th, kind of major falloff.
January 12, 2018 at 8:57 AM
Interesting. Since the lab fellows are supposedly the most prolific contributors to LANL science publications, how much of this "major falloff" is due to their own decline in publication?
Another question that could be asked is this: who in the position of real power cares what the lab fellows have to say? Whose bonus is going to be affected?
So Scooby, you failed the test.
8:57 AM responds to my post saying "You look like a fool when you say stuff this stupid". You allow this to be published. I tested you by responding to him and I ended my post with a repeat of just the first half of his phrase. You censured my comment.
You seem to be having great trouble applying the rules in a fair and unbiased way.
Will you publish this comment? It broke no rules.
Scooby “moderating” this blog is like CNN trying to censor Trump tweets.
8:57,
I'll repeat the comment that Scooby censured.
LANL isn't an engineering organization, so the rankings of Texas A&M vs. Texas in engineering are intentionally misleading. In the world overall ranking of universities, Texas is ranked #49 (in the world) and Texas A&M is ranked #159.
This is where I repeated your offensive phrase back to you.
"LANL isn't an engineering organization, so the rankings of Texas A&M vs. Texas in engineering are intentionally misleading. In the world overall ranking of universities, Texas is ranked #49 (in the world) and Texas A&M is ranked #159."
The problem is you have been the same guy saying that LANL is NOT a science lab. You cannot have it both ways. By the way Texas-AM is teaming with UC so what is your point?
I never once said that LANL is not a science lab. You've got me confused with someone else. While LANL is not an Office of Science lab, LANL's strength has always been science. Still is, but science at LANL
is being handicapped by the decline of everything else (management, infrastructure, support services, etc.)
My point is UC has already failed, and failed twice. UC isn't bringing ANYTHING to the party. The strength of any bid with UC involved will have to survive on the merits of UC's partners. On that score, UC's bid looks really weak.
My point is UC has already failed, and failed twice. UC isn't bringing ANYTHING to the party. The strength of any bid with UC involved will have to survive on the merits of UC's partners. On that score, UC's bid looks really weak.
January 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM
I would argue that it is not UC that failed but NNSA that kept UC from running the lab by having them partner with Bechtel. One example is if you look at the top 5 DOE labs in terms of science as measured by publications in 2005, it was #1 LANL, #2 ANL, #3 LBNL, #4 LLNL, #5 ORNL. now 20017 it is #1 LBNL, #2 ANL, #3 ORNL, #4 LANL and #5 LLNL. The drop in LANL and LLNL corresponds to the contract change over from solely UC run to LANS and LLNS. At the same time the soley UC run LLBL lab went to #1. If UC was so bad why did LLBL do so well over the same time LANL and LLNL did badly under LANS and LLNS and why did LANL and LLNL do so well before LANS and LLNLS when it was only UC.
I contend that UC had nothing to do with the failures of LANS and LLNS. Do not underestimate how much damage Bechtel can do.
Again a simple questions why did LBNL do so well at the same time that LANL and LLNL tanked?
January 16, 2018 at 4:38 PM
You forgot to tell us whether your rankings where for total publications or publications per capita.
My point is UC has already failed, and failed twice. UC isn't bringing ANYTHING to the party. The strength of any bid with UC involved will have to survive on the merits of UC's partners. On that score, UC's bid looks really weak.
January 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM
How did UC fail the first time? UC ran LANL well for 60 years, what the hell happened? I have never seen a compelling argument that UC failed at running LANL the first time. If UC failed at running LANL than why was LLNL also put up for bid? The initial privatization of LANL and LLNL was about money for private companies it had nothing...NOTHING to do with problems at LANL or LLNL. I think DOE has realized what a horrible mistake the first contract change was and may want to go be to the original systems that WORKED, in that case UC is looking strong, very strong. I would guess UC has been told by DOE to bid as they in fact do have a good chance.
Some of the big drivers for the current contract change have been WIP and the failure at improvements in business practices and DOE places the blame on this on Bechtel not UC.
UC failed well before Bechtel was a partner. That's why UC lost the contract the first time. Remember Nanos? He was responsible for the worst two years in the history of the lab, including the Bechtel years. Don't forget, UC defended the incompetent fool for almost 2 years before they were forced to dump him by LANL staff.
LBNL's portfolio of work is completely different from LANL's. LBNL has far, far less classified and high-hazard work. In fact, LBNL's portfolio could be executed by almost any major University. It is not appropriate to compare LBNL with LANL in any way. If you disagree, I would ask you why the DOE/NNSA doesn't just take LANL's work away and give it to LBNL? You know the answer.
LBNL is a large stretch to compare to LANL, but that may not have been the point. One of them has world class staff that are are also faculty members at the leading public campus in the country for science and does a lot of the research with the grad students from the campus. Lots of Nobel prizes and dozens of NAS members in those ranks. Add in a Secretary of Energy that pushed money to them in the past administration and it is easy to see how they did well.
The other one has no comparable staff or students or funding for sandbox science. No surprise here.
"UC failed well before Bechtel was a partner. That's why UC lost the contract the first time. Remember Nanos? He was responsible for the worst two years in the history of the lab, including the Bechtel years. Don't forget, UC defended the incompetent fool for almost 2 years before they were forced to dump him by LANL staff"
You have said this before but the rampant rumors at the time was that UC was dead set againts Nanos but DOE forced them to hire him. Maybe all these rumors are wrong but this is what was going around and it was only after it was beyond obvious that he was a mistake that DOE allowed UC to get rid of him.
"LBNL's portfolio of work is completely different from LANL's. LBNL has far, far less classified and high-hazard work"
. In fact, LBNL's portfolio could be executed by almost any major University. It is not appropriate to compare LBNL with LANL in any way. If you disagree, I would ask you why the DOE/NNSA doesn't just take LANL's work away and give it to LBNL? You know the answer."
I agree with your point about the scope of the work but how is that before 2007 LANL published more than LBNL for 30 years or more and than published less after the contract change? How is it that LANL published more ORNL, ANL before 2007 and now less. How is it that LANL maintained a constant lead over most universities before 2007 and since the contract change it has fallen against virtually every other University. It seems like once you add Bechtel to the mix or make the place private it falls apart.
"LBNL is a large stretch to compare to LANL, but that may not have been the point. One of them has world class staff that are are also faculty members at the leading public campus in the country for science and does a lot of the research with the grad students from the campus. Lots of Nobel prizes and dozens of NAS members in those ranks. Add in a Secretary of Energy that pushed money to them in the past administration and it is easy to see how they did well.
The other one has no comparable staff or students or funding for sandbox science. No surprise here."
You will notice that LANL was compared not just to LBNL but also ANL and ORNL. In all cases LANL had more publications per year than all these labs before 2007 and now it has less. Your argument may be true about LBNL over the last 10 years but it does not explain ORNL or ANL. Additionally if you compare to almost any university both LANL and LLNL lost ground in the last 10 years. There is a clear correlation with the decline of science at LLNL and LANL that correlate with the contract change.
8:56 AM, UC was not only NOT dead-set against Nanos, they defended him. UC failed. Case closed.
The reason LANL publishes less now is because of the steady degradation of the entire lab in the last ~20 years of UC rule. That's easy to understand. Why has LANL degraded? Simple, UC is not up to the task of managing the Lab in the current risk-averse climate. Prior to 20 years ago, UC stood up to the DOE and NNSA arguing in favor of executing the lab's mission while applying reasonable risk reduction measures. After Sig, UC installed a unbroken series of extremely weak Directors - Directors who never really understood LANL's critical missions and were feckless in supporting LANL's work in front of DOE and Congress.
UC is entirely to blame.
UC is entirely to blame.
January 17, 2018 at 2:17 PM
Here are the arguments against your point. (1) data shows the decline in both labs begins after 2006 or after the contract change not 20 years ago as you have said, but more like 12 years ago. (2) before 2006 LANL published more than LBNL now in 2006 less. If UC runs both labs as you say why is that they run LBNL well but not LANL and LLNL? (3) All the UC campuses have passed LANL or closed the gap to LANL since 2006 but not before so again UC can run their campuses well but not LANL or LLNL (4) UC managed LANL and LLNL well for 65 years but than after the contract they can no longer manage the labs well? This makes no sense.
This points to UC not being to blame for decline at LLNL and LANL but rather the contract change and the loss of total UC management, from what I have heard DOE believes the same thing.
UC is entirely to blame.
January 17, 2018 at 2:17 PM
Nope it is Bechtel. UC ran the labs well before the contract change. You also have to give them credit for firing Dorn and Walp, for that along UC should be given the medal of freedom and blessed by the Pope or any other agent of good in the Universe. If you where around when these guys where at LANL you would understand the completely.
Also for any doubters about the true character of these people just type in the words "Walp, Doran, Montano" along with Burick into Google, it is absolutely disgusting and shameful what people will do for money.
"You have said this before but the rampant rumors at the time was that UC was dead set againts (sic) Nanos but DOE forced them to hire him."
This is just not true. UC selected Nanos, forced him onto the Lab, supported him through the shutdown, and only stopped when it became completely obvious to everyone what was going on.
Here's a history lesson for you, straight from 2005 NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/politics/under-fire-at-work-los-alamos-director-will-move-on.html):
**********
Some experts say that after the public outcry the university had no choice but to abandon Dr. Nanos if it was to make a credible bid to renew the contract.
The university news release said nothing of the employees' discontent and instead referred to "an unprecedented period of change, uncertainty and challenge" for Los Alamos.
"Pete has done a remarkable job under extraordinary pressures and circumstances," the university president, Robert C. Dynes, said in the statement. "His determination to move the laboratory forward, along with his commitment to excellence, have resulted in many notable and lasting improvements in virtually all areas of the laboratory's operations."
In an interview, S. Robert Foley, a retired admiral who oversees the university's weapons laboratory management, applauded Dr. Nanos as courageous and insightful, even while conceding that employees might have found his style abrasive.
"He stood up and took the heat and did what needed to be done," Mr. Foley said. "The lab is in far better shape than it was before.
"The men and women there are patriots. They're working their tails off. Maybe some are a bit thin-skinned. That's style, not substance. It's a good lab that is getting better."
**********
That's all right there for you. Now that a dozen years have passed we can look back at this and say with all confidence that these were the actions that severely damaged the Lab and set the downward spiral in motion. That's what UC did to you.
That's all right there for you. Now that a dozen years have passed we can look back at this and say with all confidence that these were the actions that severely damaged the Lab and set the downward spiral in motion. That's what UC did to you.
January 17, 2018 at 11:08 PM
That is not proof it is only a NYT news item of what was publicly said. I will give that NYT was of higher caliber buck in 2006 but still this not proof of anything. Again the rumors and many of these actually came from off the record UC admins was that they never wanted Nanos but DOE said that "this is the guy you must pick after the WHL disaster we want a kick ass military guy, you idiots in UC picked an academic Brown and looked what happened". Ask yourself a very simple question why would UC after all those of years of picking to scientists suddenly reverse themselves and and pick an Admiral with no academic standing at all? I doubt you work at LANL or worked at LANL at the time since everyone though he was forced on LANL by DOE. We could have all be wrong but that was the thought. After the screwup from what I and many have heard is that DOE wanted to keep him on but UC wanted him out right on the spot, DOE only caved in after it become beyond obvious what was going on. Again off the record UC people had been saying how horrible Nanos was for some time. By the way another rather persistent rumor is that UC absolutely hated Foley but again he was forced on them. DOE basically said you have to hire these people or we are going to through you out and if you remember back in those times Congress had said on several occasions that they might just throw out UC on the spot so this is what was told to UC by DOE.
Look after WHL powers in DC saw an opportunity to privatize the labs for profit along with privatizing every thing else. Hell the whole the Iraq-Afganstan war was literally run by for profit private organizations. Again If UC was so bad than why LLNL also have to be privatized? Also how is it that UC ran the labs very well from 1943- WHL and than after that they no longer can? It just makes no sense. One argument that does make sense is that DOE along with DC went after LANL and undermined UC in every effort to privatize the LANL and hence LLNL. Once UC was undermined the whole thing tanked, LLNL had a huge RIF, dropped in science quality, LANLs safety and security recored got worse, its science tanked, ethical issues sprang up, we lost huge amounts of talent, had to have two VSPS, and the Directors have been scientific and leadership zeros. UC had nothing to do with any of this and you dam well know it. I would guess you have some personal issue with LANL and UC but those are your personal issues that you should deal with yourself.
If Bechtel was the problem then why didn't UC do something about it? UC was in charge.
Sorry, it's just NOT credible to blame LANS's failure on a minor partner. The blame goes to UC.
"If Bechtel was the problem then why didn't UC do something about it? UC was in charge. "
Because DOE would have thrown UC out. The rumors are that DOE told UC that Bechtel is in charge so you better play ball or be thrown out. Thus we have the mess we are in now. Look both labs tanked at the contract change what was the common factor...Bechtel.
Hey all you nabobs of negativism! If it is all so black and bleak at LLNL and LANL, how come so many scientists got substantial raises for the science they did last year? How did you do? Not so much? Too bad, too sad!
Bechtel came on the bid team as a favor to UC to pull off the most odd upset ever which was the award of a contract to the incumbent after the incumbent was the cause of the recompete. Bechtel has always been a minor player in the contract and only account for less than 10% of the total management including only one PAD, one AD, and a handful of division leaders. There are less than 200 Bechtel employees on the entire LANL site. My favorite is the puppet master theory where these few employees and managers somehow manipulate the entire laboratory management team. It is funny because it describes the entire management team, who most were here before transition, as weak minded and spineless.
LANL has not changed. LANL will not change. It is not UC, it is not Bechtel. It is a bunch of New Mexico "we bes" no matter who the name on the top of the check is.
If LLNL is doing so bad, why do we never see them on this blog complaining about Bechtel??? I have been reading for a number of years
now and it is rare to even hear anything negative...
"Hey all you nabobs of negativism! If it is all so black and bleak at LLNL and LANL, how come so many scientists got substantial raises for the science they did last year? How did you do? Not so much? Too bad, too sad!
January 18, 2018 at 6:08 PM"
What is your point? If you look at publication numbers both LLNL and LANL are in strong decline when compared to every other DOE lab as well as universities. If you look at the fraction of Phds at LANL it is now down to 18-19% when It was close to 40% in 2000. I assume a similar trend is occurring at LLNL so how many scientists can be left at LLNL or LANL to get those nice raises? If you look at the salary at any of the UCs or reasonable universities faculty in science and engineering are paid about the same or in many cases better than what you are now seeing at the labs not mention that faculty are treated why better than lab scientists which may explain why so much of the top talent has left both labs over the last 15 years.
Come on, January 18, 2018 at 8:44 AM, you are trying to rewrite history here. People give you direct evidence that UC supported Nanos, even praised his actions, characterizing them as a "remarkable job" and doing "what needed to be done". This is documented, preserved for posterity in the newspapers of the time, as well as in the original LANL Blog. Heck, I was there in the auditorium when Dynes and Foley came to LANL and defended Nanos, his shutdown and his brief but vicious and destructive reign of terror. And your answer to this is what? That you've "heard rumors" that while doing all this they were actually thinking the opposite? You expect us to reject the facts and instead accepts far-fetched, outlandish speculations, because these are "rumors you've heard"? You must be kidding.
This is just absurd. Maybe next you will say that the LANS managers installed by UC have been thinking the opposite to what they have been doing ever since 2006?
5:51.
DOE never told UC that Bechtel is in charge. NEVER EVER. You made that up. Not only didn't DOE put Bechtel in charge, I can't find a single person at LANL who ever heard such a rumor either. NOT ONE.
How does any thinking person know that DOE NEVER told Bechtel that they're in charge? DOE signed the contract with LANS that puts UC in charge. UC is in charge because it's in writing in the contract. Nobody at DOE would sign the current contract that makes Bechtel a minor player and then whisper in Riley's ear that Bechtel is in charge. That's laughable. The fact is that UC is in charge and no one of any consequence ever thought otherwise.
You know how else we know that Bechtel isn't in charge? DOE approved that 10 of the 11 top managers at LANL are UC. Did anyone ever believe "a rumor" that Bechtel is in charge when almost all of the upper managers are UC? Not in the real world.
We haven't forgotten that you used to claim that Bechtel is in charge. When that was disproved, your claim was reduced to ALL LANL staff *believe* Bechtel is in charge. When that was disproved, your claim now has been further reduced to "there was a rumor that Bechtel was put in charge". This is the path that false claims often take. The next step is for these false claims to stop altogether.
"I was there in the auditorium when Dynes and Foley came to LANL and defended Nano"
Gotta call BS on this. If you where in fact around at this time you would know that this is exactly when those rumors started and came from people who claimed they met with Dynes during the the visit. These rumors became rampant so you must have heard them if you were at LANL at the time. I think you were long gone from LANL by the time Nanos cam in. How about simple question if UC was so into Nanos as you claimed why was he fired in the end anyway?
Again the rumors are that in 2006 DOE told Bechetel and UC that Bechtel was in charge.
This is all rumors but one thing is clear you have some personal issue with UC. UC seemed to run the labs fine for 60 years and than WHL hits and DOE goes after UC, something just does not add up in your whole UC is bad thing. I just don't understand how UC could have gone bad at LANL overnight in 2002, yet can run LNBL and LLNL well. Another explanation is that UC was simply taken out of the picture behind closed doors and the whole thing tanked into crap after that.
"DOE never told UC that Bechtel is in charge. NEVER EVER. You made that up. Not only didn't DOE put Bechtel in charge, I can't find a single person at LANL who ever heard such a rumor either. NOT ONE."
I simply do not believe you since I have never heard a single person at LANL who thinks Bechtel is not in charge, NOT ONE. One of us has to be wrong and the math simply does not add up that out of the hundreds of LANL people I know would all believe the same thing while I cannot find one person who believes what you claimed. You must be lying.
This is the challenge I gave to you before when you made this claim if you are right than there must be hundreds of people reading this blog that agree with you that UC is in charge not Bechetel and some of them will come and post that they agree with you. The last time we put this challenge out NO ONE came to post that agrees with you. Kind of telling is it not?
The question is now who are you. Are you just lying due to your hate of UC? We do know that there are some very VERY bitter ex-LANL employees who have nothing but hate for UC and will say anything true or not to push their agenda you can see their posts every week in the Santa Fe Newspapers. Why not just come clean with about your agenda?
1:07 PM
You still haven't figured out that more than one person is writing in to challenge your falsehoods. I'm not the only one. I've written maybe 1/4 of the posts here.
"This is the challenge I gave to you before when you made this claim if you are right than there must be hundreds of people reading this blog that agree with you that UC is in charge not Bechetel and some of them will come and post that they agree with you. The last time we put this challenge out NO ONE came to post that agrees with you. Kind of telling is it not? :
Chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp...chirp.
Hmmm, what could that mean?
Having followed this thread, I notice that the person zealously peddling pro-UC propaganda here has started out confused or perhaps disingenuous, but finished definitely in the Land of the Bizarre. He completely lost me when he told people to reject known historical facts, eyewitness accounts, newspaper reports, even our own direct experiences about UC's actions over the last 20 years and instead go with "the rumors he's heard". Hmmm, ok ...
The posters critical of UC, and there are several, make mostly sensible arguments. However, it should be acknowledged that UC is not the only guilty party in the downfall of LANL, just one of several. They are definitely complicit and should be held accountable, but shouldn't take all the blame.
Why defend UC when they have really done nothing for LANL? Really what have they done for us??? What true presence have they had in the past 30 years?
Post a Comment