Undoing privatization

I have heard in several places that DOE realizes that privatizing LLNL and LANL was mistake but they are not sure how to undue it. This seems odd to me since they could just say in the next round it is non-profit. Perhaps they have to get permission from congress to do this, or they know they will catch hell from the state of NM, they will look bad politically if they try to change it or they just so utterly incompetent that they just will not be able to make any kind of change.

LANL score question(ned)

Is there any supporting evidence that the assigned LANL leadership score was 40 and the operations score was 20? This may not be correct, but those are the numbers that keep coming out over and over from government employees. Word is that NNSA pulled another "Neile Miller" and adjusted the LANL scores up after the fact.

Did he really say only two points?

Go back and listen to Charlie's spin on the loss of the LANL contract. It sure looks like he is claiming that only 2 points seperated the loss from an extension. Really? An employee nearly dies in an electical accident, after LANL had been specifically warned about electrical safety, and he spins it to make it look like a close decision.

DOE could have assigned any score from 0 to 50 for this near fatal accident. It doesn't matter what the score is, the contract is over this year. To spin it otherwise is a pathetic attempt to safe face.

Comments:

 

Anonymous said...

The story I heard was that the score was much lower than that but the sight office or DOE moved it up 49 percent for some reason. They where not close at all.

January 15, 2016 at 9:07 PM

Anonymous said...

They moved the score so that Charlie could save face. The score, such as it is, is completely arbitrary anyway. Furthermore, they people who choose the score are bureaucrats with no practical experience in anything. It is truly a situation of the blind leading the blind while the rich get richer. Why anyone believes this fiasco is somehow good for the country is beyond me.

January 16, 2016 at 8:06 AM

Anonymous said...

The whole scoring process for the PEPs is a complete joke to begin with. Its solely handled by the NNSA site office - which has a clear conflict of interest. If they can't give a truly low score slamming LANS since it would call into question their day-to-day oversight of LANL and the LANS contract. So they score it just low enough to end the contract but not where it really would be if you objectively looked at the year's performance and issues.

January 16, 2016 at 8:18 AM

Anonymous said...

For once DOE/NNSA (i.e. Charlie's "The Government") finally had some "balls" to do the right thing.

January 16, 2016 at 9:54 AM

New LANL purpose statement

 Do whatever it takes to be part of the next bidding team, throw anyone and everything under the bus, every man and women for themselves, do not let a good crises go to waste! Do not waste the last few years doing something for LANL spend every spare moment of time, lobbying and positing yourself for the next possible pot of booty! Build your buddy network, enforce you castle, perfect your lies, and profit and glory could be yours, but act quickly before someone makes app on a smartphone about how to get rich on the next contract change at LANL and everyone will be in on it.

DoE clearly stated LANS contract to end in 2017

And on Tuesday, a DOE spokeswoman provided a statement warning that LANS could lose the contract after 2017 if it doesn’t turn things around.


Los Alamos fallout

Although investigators still are evaluating exactly what caused the drum to overheat and rupture, they say the Los Alamos drum was improperly packaged with a volatile mix of nitrate salts and organic cat litter used to absorb liquids.

The feds, in addition to dramatically reducing the fee for LANS, also took back a previously granted one-year contract extension for the consortium that includes Bechtel Corp. and the University of California.

The contract with Los Alamos National Security has a “four-strike provision” that vacates the contract if LANS doesn’t earn four one-year extensions, a DOE spokeswoman said Tuesday. LANS has held the contract since 2006,

“Having failed to earn contract term extensions for fiscal years 2013 and 2014,” and with the recent revocation of the previous extension, “LANS must earn (an) award term in every future performance period to keep the contract in force beyond fiscal year 2017,” the DOE statement says.

Feds slash WIPP contractor performance pay

"Feds slash WIPP contractor performance pay; LANS must improve to avoid loss of lab contract"

"...LANS has the opportunity to improve performance and with sustained performance, continue to manage and operate the Los Alamos National Laboratory through fiscal year 2023..." 

http://www.abqjournal.com/519367/news/wipp-contractor-performance-pay.html

Where is the FY16 LLNL performance evaluation plan?

Where is the FY16 LLNL performance evaluation plan?

Why is it not posted for public review?

http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ouroperations/apm/perfevals/llnlperfevals