[Read the full story here.]LANL operator scores poorly in review
Los Alamos National Security receives bad marks for management, environmental work
Sue Vorenberg | The New Mexican
[...]
From Doug Roberts' point of view as a former 20-year-employee at LANL, the 13 grades make LANS's big brother, the University of California, which ran the lab until mid-2006, look downright stellar, he said.
Roberts ran a blog from December 2004 to June 2006 called lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com, which chronicled problems and issues while the lab's contract went through the bidding process.
"I'd say, based on the report, that LANS is doing a worse job up there than UC was doing," Roberts said. "And UC had a long list of operational problems."
Some of UC's problems were reports of missing computer disks, later to be attributed to an accounting error, a laser-related injury to an intern and other security leaks, Roberts said.
Roberts said he's still somewhat mystified as to why LANS, which includes UC as a partner, along with Bechtel, BWX Technologies and Washington Group International, was awarded the lab's seven-year operations contract that started in 2006, rather than Lockheed Martin Corp.
"It seems to me that Lockheed Martin would have been a better choice," Roberts said, noting that company's relatively clean record for safety and security while running Sandia National Laboratories. "It sounds like most of the problems from UC have remained, and that LANS has even created some new ones."
Doug runs another blog these days, one devoted to a much happier subject material than that of the original LTRS. You can visit it here.
67 comments:
It was as clear in 2005 as it is today that LANS was not the best choice for operating the LANL contract. Once can only assume that a back-room deal was struck in favor of LANS which ignored the quality of the two bid packages. Past history alone should have disqualified the LANS team, given UC's abysmal performance at LANL.
I think even Dominici is not pleased with the new management, he's probably fed up as everyone with this entire fiasco.
Nice try, LANS. You tried to hide your bad report card, but a FOI brought it to the light of day.
I wonder what a FOI request on the January Germanium-68 contamination incident would turn up?
Whew!
Most of the new, improved LANL staff fit squarely into the "C-Student" demographic.
Hey, but not management! We're talking solid D-Wing "F Students" here.
If I had brought home a report card like that I would have been grounded for a year.
Sadly, LANS will get $58 million.
The system is broken.
3/25/08 4:58 PM
The sad painful irony for those of us at LLNL is a win by LM back in 05 would most likely kept UC from replicating LANS in the form of LLNS to bid on the LLNL contract. UC probably would have gone it alone - like they did for LBNL - instead of created a private company to run LLNL, which is killing the Lab. There was no sane reason to bring Bechtel into LLNL, other than payback to them for taking over LANL. With all the complex hazardous operations at LLNL being shutdown, the $20 million Bechtel is getting as their share of the LLNL fee is easy money for their wallets. There is not one single thing at LLNL that Bechtel is doing that UC could not have done - the handful of managers that they have provided to LLNS are completely out of their element, and screwing the lab's employees daily... Congress needs to have GAO investigate this fraud on the taxpayers.
----
March 21, 2008
Layoffs likely as buyouts fall short at Livermore lab
By Betsy Mason
STAFF WRITER
More layoffs may be in store for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory after a voluntary buyout program fell short of reducing the workforce by 10 percent.
Lab director George Miller told employees in an e-mail Friday that 215 permanent employees left with severance packages on March 14, far fewer than the goal of 750.
"We clearly are moving in the right direction," Miller wrote. "But it is not sufficient,"
Since October 2006, the lab has dropped from 8,057 employees to 7,104. That reduction includes 450 supplemental laborers and employees with a fixed-term contract that were laid off in January, the 215 who took buyouts, as well as normal attrition.
Miller said that the lab's financial situation continues to worsen in the wake of the management changeover in October from the University of California to a newly formed company, Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, which is partly owned by UC.
Switching to a corporate manager resulted in increased costs for the lab due to loss of its tax-exempt nonprofit status, higher than expected retirement and health benefit costs and a yearly management fee increase from $8 million to $46 million.
Higher than expected inflation and cuts to the Department of Energy budget have compounded the problem.
The new manager anticipated about $80 million in increased costs, but Miller wrote Friday that the actual number has spiraled to $280 million.
"We need to reduce our annual support costs by more than $200 million," he said.
Miller said he has set up a team led by two associate directors at the lab, Ed Moses and Frank Russo, to look for ways to cut costs and evaluate suggestions from employees.
Further job cuts will be part of the solution, Miller wrote. Management will look at attrition and shedding more temporary and supplemental employees.
But he is also discussing the possibility of layoffs of the permanent, career workforce with the National Nuclear Security Administration, the branch of the DOE that oversees the nuclear weapons labs and has the final call on the matter.
If the NNSA approves layoffs, it would be the first time in 35 years that there have been layoffs from the permanent workforce, lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said.
Houghton said they would first look for ways to reduce supporting jobs such as resource analysts, facilities managers, graphic artists and information technology workers, perhaps by combining those functions for several departments.
"There are no easy answers," Miller said in his e-mail. "I firmly believe the actions we are taking are essential for a robust future.
"I want to position the Laboratory to continue to provide the exceptional public service that is our history by applying world-class science and technology to the most challenging issues of our time."
Retired and still worried about LANL...get some therapy dude.
I was on a committee that met with the Lockheed team before the contract was awarded- they were so enthusiatic, bright, and outgoing, that I was really pulling for them. Well- DOE screwed up again.
8:39 pm: "The sad painful irony for those of us at LLNL is a win by LM back in 05 would most likely kept UC from replicating LANS in the form of LLNS to bid on the LLNL contract. UC probably would have gone it alone - like they did for LBNL - instead of created a private company to run LLNL, which is killing the Lab. There was no sane reason to bring Bechtel into LLNL, other than payback to them for taking over LANL."
Except for the requirement on the part of NNSA that all bidders be for-profit corporations created specifically for the purpose of bidding on the contract.
I like Doug, but he did run away. Pinky and the Brain seem to be in for the long haul, and do not seem to be glory whores....do I dee this wrong?
"Roberts ran a blog from December 2004 to June 2006"
I haven't even lasted a year yet. Doug blazed the trail, Pat the Dog was next. I'm third string, but I appreciate the support!
Why did LANS win the contract?
Two words: Tom D'Agostino.
He was the only person involved in the decision over at NNSA. Today, this same man holds the top position at NNSA. Is it any wonder that the labs in the NNSA complex are going down the drain?
As far as the poor 35% rating for LANS "managerial effectiveness", just think for a minute what would happen if a staff member received a score like this during an annual performance appraisal for "worker effectiveness". Your group leader would encourage you to head out the front door! However, in the latest ABQ Journal Mike Anastasio takes pains to defend his low grade as somehow being acceptable. It appears that the metrics that LANS is so eager to implement for measuring staff performance don't apply when it comes to Mike and his top managers. Talk about a double standard! His leadership of LANL has been a complete failure. Same goes for many of the PADs on his staff.
There is no accountability at the top with these LANS executives. No wonder morale at the lab just keeps sinking lower and lower.
Pinky,
The character is in the long unrecognized haul. Keep it up!!!!
> Tom D'Agostino.
> ... this same man holds the top position at NNSA.
Yessir!
That's why we call him Top D'Ag!
From U.S. Department of Energy, December 21, 2005, Los Alamos National Laboratory Contract Announcement, Remarks Prepared for Energy Secretary Bodman:
/---/
"As you know, in 2003, Secretary Abraham and Deputy Secretary McSlarrow annonced the Department´s intention to open up bidding for the Los Alamos contract. At that time, it was decided that the requisite fact-finding, evaluation, and the final selection would be carried out by career - and not political - personnel. I strongly endorse that decision; there can be no hint of politics in a decision of such national significance.
We instituted a meticulous and thorough process to choose a contractor to run the day-to-day operations of this critical facility as it performs its key roles in the areas of science, homeland security, supercomputing, and, of course, nuclear stockpile development and maintenance.
One of my first actions after being sworn in as Secretary earlier this year was to visit Los Alamos. I promised at that time that the process of choosing a contractor to run the lab would be done right. Nearly a year later, I am confident that it has.
Led by Tyler Przybylek, former General Counsel for NNSA, a team of professionals from the National Nuclear Security Administration has been hard at work weighing all the information pertinent to such a momentous decision.
This Source Evaluation Board has produced a thorough analysis of two outstanding proposals. One was a team known as Los Alamos National Security LLC. This group is comprised of Bechtel, the University of California, BWXT, and the Washington Group International. The other proposal came from a team called Los Alamos Alliance LLC, comprised of Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas.
The Source Evaluation Board submitted a detailed report to the Source Selection Official, Tom D´Agostino another highly qualified professional, to make the final determination. The decision on which proposal to accept was Tom´s alone. He based his choice on the Board´s evaluation and by studying the competing proposals.
This morning, Tom and the members of the Source Evaluation Board briefed me, Deputy Secretary Sell, and Ambassador Brooks on the selection.
Tom stressed that both proposals were strong and of exceptionally high caliber.
However, only one could prevail.
So it gives me great pleasure today to kick off the next chapter in the storied history of the Los Alamos National Laboratory by announcing that the contract to run this facility has been awarded to Los Alamos National Security LLC - or LANS.
The initial term will be seven years, but with provisions for earning extensions of the contract up to a total of twenty years. Thus if the new team lives up to our expectations, as I fully expect, we have set Los Alamos on a course for continued excellence for a generation.
I congratulate the LANS team - Bechtel, the University of California, BWXT, and the Washington Group International - for their successful bid."
/---/
(www.energy.gov/news/2821.htm)
9:51 PM "Except for the requirement on the part of NNSA that all bidders be for-profit corporations created specifically for the purpose of bidding on the contract."
You are incorrect, the RFP only required a separate corporate entity. There was no requirement in the RFP that it be "for profit" or a private LLC.
UC thought about and could have created a solely UC owned corporation that would have remained a public corporation under UC. However, they made a decision to go the private sector LLC route to entice Bechtel (et al) into a partnership. They (specifically VP Bob Foley) had tried to bring in industrial partners before, but none wanted to work under the UC Regents or as a Lab management "subcontractor" - so the LLC was a legal way to give them more standing and a financial share/reward for co-managing the Labs.
RFP Clause "H-23 (a) The work performed under this Contract by the Contractor shall be conducted by a separate corporate entity from its Parent Organizations. The separate corporate entity must be set up solely to perform this Contract and shall be totally responsible for all Contract activities."
UC Legal Council issued a white paper last year on this decision to set up an LLC instead of a UC owned entity, it can be found at
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/ac.labguide.0807.pdf
Re 3/25/08 9:04 PM: I can't speak for Doug and I haven't been away from LANL as long as he is, but I still have colleagues and friends working at LANL and living in the one company town Los Alamos. So I do care.
SSPed
The sad painful irony for those of us at LLNL is a win by LM back in 05 would most likely kept UC from replicating LANS in the form of LLNS to bid on the LLNL contract. UC probably would have gone it alone - like they did for LBNL
The renewal of the LBNL contract with UC was a special arrangement between DOE/NNSA and UC. Otherwise the staff (most of them with dual UCBerkeley/LBNL appointments) would have left LBNL.
Except for the requirement on the part of NNSA that all bidders be for-profit corporations created specifically for the purpose of bidding on the contract.
=============
Exactly!!! UC could NOT have "gone it
alone" in the LLNL bid; irrespective of
the outcome of the LANL bid process.
Congress required that the contractor be
a for-profit company. The "problem" for
Congress is that UC could not be
punished for failures. UC is a not-for-
profit public entity; and was thus was
indemnified against punitive financial
action by Congress.
Congress / NNSA can punish a for-profit
company in a way that they can not do
with UC. However, for that option;
Congress and the US taxpayer have to
pay big time.
"Why did LANS win the contract?
Two words: Tom D'Agostino"
Bullshit! TA is the symptom, not the cause. Don't assume Domenici played no role. Don't assume UC didn't twist a lot of arms. Don't assume the military industrial complex didn't buy off a flock of worthless elected officials along the way, including many in New Mexico. Blaming TA is like blaming the janitor for missing secrets. A new natural law has become self evident in all this lack of understanding--the higher the IQ the higher the clueless index.
9:54, you said "I like Doug, but he did run away"
Care to explain that? He worked at LANL for 20 years, retired, and continued to run the LANL, The Real Story blog for an additional year after retiring. How is that "running away"?
Missing UC's 60 year dictatorship over LANL is like Iraqees missing Saddam. Both were ruthless tyrants, but look at the mess we have now.
8:27 AM
This is old history, but I was on one of the lab teams that reviewed the RFPs and provided comments to UCOP on the bids.
There was no specific mandate by Congress for NNSA - there was a mandate for all of DOE's national lab contracts (which included NNSA labs) to go out to bid. NNSA elected to structure its RFPs in manner that down played a UC only bid - and specifically "leveled the playing field" for private vs public entity bidders.
In fact, UC could have "gone it alone" or created a UC company with industrial partners as subcontractors. However, this would have required UC to keep the liability for 851 and PAAA fines - Congress changed the laws and exemptions for "not for profits" has been removed. By creating an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), UC saw a way to set up a fire wall between DOE issued fines and UC's deep pockets (aka California taxpayers). Unfortunately for lab employees and operations this meant losing UC and public entity status. Over the past year, Lab managers have suggested to UC that certain things (medical benefits, etc) be moved back under UC in order to reduce cost - but to paraphrase UCOP's reactions to these ideas - "What part of Limited Liability Don't You people understand"...
8:49 am: "Missing UC's 60 year dictatorship over LANL is like Iraqees missing Saddam. Both were ruthless tyrants"
Whaa?? What planet are you from? Having worked almost 3 decades for UC, I can attest that it was more like "benevolent neglect." UC was usually nowhere to be found except on the employees' paychecks. If UC had been "ruthless tyrants" they'd still have the contract. Foley was seen as a tyrant because he was playing catch-up in a desperate attempt to convince NNSA that UC could in fact respond to problems effectively. He failed, but not before he pissed off almost everyone. For a long time, pay, benefits, and working environment under UC were the best anywhere.
You almost got it right, 11:25. The more correct term to describe UC's past oversight of LANL would be "Malevolent Neglect".
UC should have left the Lab with dignity. Instead it partnered up with the military industrial complex and gave us LANS. That wasn't benevolent neglect," that was General Sherman burning the crops. UC ended up placing our retirement, our rights, our futures on the sacraficial alter just so it could keep maintain a stanglehold on us and on LLNL. Our so-called "parent" committed incest in other. words. Wake up already!
8:47am forgot to mention that in addition to running the LTRS blog for a year after he retired from LANL, Doug ran it for six months prior to retiring *while he was till a LANL employee*. That was during the time when almost every other LANL employee was playing duck and cover, scared shitless of Nanos.
The earlier poster claiming that Doug "ran away" has his head wedged up his ass.
12:23 pm: "UC ended up placing our retirement, our rights, our futures on the sacraficial alter just so it could keep maintain a stanglehold on us and on LLNL."
Oh come on. The only reason you have a retirement and benefits program that remotely resembles what you had with UC is because NNSA insisted on it. Do you actually think you'd be better off with a LANS that did not include UC? That would be called "Bechtel." By the look of things with the UC regents, you're about to get your desire. Be careful what you wish for...
NNSA did not insist on substantially equivalent benefits - in fact the first version of the RFP did not contain that language at all. Substantially equivalent benefits was inserted at the request of Senator Domenici, along with the provision that required all existing staff to be offered an equivalent position.
So LANS knew they couldn't cut staff costs, they knew NNSA wasn't going to increase funding, and they knew they would cost LANL $175M per year. Yet they took the job anyway.
So how did they balance the budget? They chopped 500+ contractors, cut maintenance, cut janitorial services, made the staff take out their own trash (staff that make $100,000+ per year). They bottled up procurements, cut services, and generally bolloxed up the entire works.
LANS accepted a contract that they had no hope of delivering on. But wait, a 71% score got them $58M dollars. So they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Fraud should be treated for what it is, a crime.
We owe UC nothing! The taxpayer is who we owe. Contractors like UC do one thing and one thing only--bilk the taxpayer. Sorry if the truth hurts.
Ugh, Concur again. Off topic rant:
I am trying to send my technicians to some offsite training. They are understandably upset by the fact that they are supposed to carry a $1500 advance registration fee and a $500-plus plane ticket on a "Lab" credit card that is tied to their own SSN and personal credit record. One is refusing to play in this scheme because he can't afford to pay the bill if it arrives before his reimbursemnt - which it is bound to do if he has to register 6 weeks in advance to secure a slot in the class!
Does anyone else at LANL think it strange that the new "PerforM" performance appraisal system LANS rolled out doesn't include any "Job Content" scoring component. This was a major component in the old system.
It's as if LANS no longer cares whether the quality of the work being performed at the lab is at the BS level or the Phd level!
It would appear to me that they are telling us something about the future of this place. A BS degree will do just fine from now on.
There is nothing intuitive about CONCUR. The "help" pages are worthless. Information has to be entered over and over in different cells on different pages. It uses language like "fixed fees" (or something like that) when other travel pages use "per diem." So if you don't know CONCUR's terminology, you can't find anything. Like Documentum (another whizz bang Lab purchase), my guess is that CONCUR is some "off the shelf" software that will need tinkering with for years to come.
What's the deal about "approving" charges (on my credit card) for reimbursement for travel information that was already approved?
It's a stupid system; Lab travel should be paid by the Lab and paid UP FRONT.
5:31 pm: "We owe UC nothing! The taxpayer is who we owe. Contractors like UC do one thing and one thing only--bilk the taxpayer. Sorry if the truth hurts."
Who's "we"? So you would like the nuclear weapons labs, and all the other DOE labs funded by Science, to be federal laboratories, with federal scientists?? You've got to be kidding. When and where has that ever worked??
Personally, I owe UC a lot. They gave me a great professional career, and are now giving me a great pension. There's your "truth."
4:29 pm: "NNSA did not insist on substantially equivalent benefits - in fact the first version of the RFP did not contain that language at all. Substantially equivalent benefits was inserted at the request of Senator Domenici, along with the provision that required all existing staff to be offered an equivalent position."
You're picking nits. The fact that the requirement was part of the final RFP is proof NNSA isisted on it. In case you weren't aware, every aspect of the rebid, includingt the fact of a rebid at all, was at the behest of congress. So you could argue that congress did all the "insisting" but in the legal sense, the final RFP reflected NNSA's "insistence" on terms.
Won't the job content be replaced by multiple levels of TSM series, i.e. - ScientistI/II/III/IV, Senior/Principal Scientist, etc... Your job content is assumed to be commensurate with your level. Personally I think a new graded approach will be an improvement over the current one size fits all TSM.
"So you would like the nuclear weapons labs, and all the other DOE labs funded by Science, to be federal laboratories, with federal scientists?? You've got to be kidding. When and where has that ever worked??"
NRL, for example.
How about breaking the TSM down into accurately labeled categories, such as solitaire-player, junket-goer, deadwood, and so on.
"Personally I think a new graded approach will be an improvement over the current one size fits all TSM." - 8:24 PM
Perhaps, but it also may end up becoming just another way for some people to game the system. Do you really trust LANS, HR, and Group Leaders to come up with a method to accurately determine who is a Scientist I vs. a Scientist IV? I'm not so sure about this new TSM rating scheme.
"Do you really trust LANS, HR, and Group Leaders to come up with a method to accurately determine who is a Scientist I vs. a Scientist IV?"
Indeed it is not possible to do this on a lab-wide basis and get it right. And, then we will have to be racially and sexually diverse in all of this.
Do not forget that this foolishness was proposed by the DOE and is favored by HR.
1.
Pinky and The Brain said...
"Roberts ran a blog from December 2004 to June 2006"
I haven't even lasted a year yet. Doug blazed the trail, Pat the Dog was next. I'm third string, but I appreciate the support!
3/25/08 10:14 PM
PTB,
You're not third string. You're doing fine. Pat censored more than he needed to, but he kept it going until you picked it up.
2.
The most significant example, at least for mid- and late-career employees, of the new compensation package not being "equivalent in the aggregate" is the elimination of the 403 and 457 plans. That's the biggest blow to people in their fifties, and will have the most significant long-term financial consequences.
This should be placed as a separate story. Patrick Trujillo is a Group Leader for Staff Relations, Human Resources and previously been working with Amy Sahota, EEO Director. These are the type of managers that LANL supports.
Politico Investigated for Sex Crimes
By Sarah Welsh
and Dan Mauzy
SUN Staff
Española Military Academy Board President J. Patrick Trujillo is being investigated for allegations of criminal sexual misconduct involving minors, Española Public Safety Chief Julian Gonzales confirmed Tuesday.
The case is scheduled to go before a grand jury April 2 and involves alleged misconduct that dates to the 1990s, according to Española Police Sgt. Christian Lopez.
Trujillo, 54, is a former Española city councilor who has served on the Academy's Board of Governors since the charter school's inception in 2004. He was elected Board president in 2006.
Trujillo has little to no contact with Academy students and is typically only on campus for Board meetings, Academy teacher and former headmaster Benito Chavez said. Chavez said he has never heard of a police investigation regarding Trujillo.
"It was never brought up to my attention," Chavez said. "But in this day and age, allegations can be made, and one suffers from it until you're proven innocent."
Gonzales said he didn’t know the exact charges Trujillo may face. A grand jury would determine whether there is enough evidence to bring Trujillo to trial on any charges.
Española Police refused to release any police reports related to the case.
Lopez confirmed the existence of a criminal investigation involving Trujillo, and Gonzales confirmed that it stems from alleged sexual misconduct involving minors but neither would divulge specific allegations.
Lopez said allegations were first reported to police in December 2005. It has taken more than two years to process the case because victims in such cases are often reluctant to participate, fearing retaliation and embarrassment, Lopez said.
"It's not uncommon for a case like this to go on," Lopez said. "That's why it went to investigation and not patrol — we investigate stuff that takes years to bring to trial, to court."
Lopez said there are currently two alleged victims involved with the investigation, and more may come forward. He said the statute of limitations has expired on some of the allegations.
"We're taking it to grand jury now; it shouldn't be affected," Lopez said.
Trujillo declined to comment for this story.
Trujillo Resigns
Pete Gomez, a retired educator who was Academy Board president when the allegations were first reported in 2005, said he was never informed of the police investigation.
"I've never heard of this," Gomez said. "It's news to me. I've never heard of anything like that — for any member of the Board."
Gonzales said it is not the police department's job to notify the school of such an investigation.
"I think the fact that it's getting publicity would be something the Board should consider," Gonzales said.
After being contacted Tuesday, Academy Principal Steven Baca issued a statement saying Trujillo had resigned effective Tuesday and Academy Board Vice-President Joe Duran had taken over as president.
Baca refused to comment further on the matter, and Duran did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The Academy was founded in 2004 as an alternative to the Española middle school. The project was spearheaded by former Española mayor Richard Lucero, who still serves as a Board member. The Board has long been stacked with officials from Lucero's former city administration.
Lucero and Trujillo were political allies during their time as mayor and councilor, and Trujillo is listed as an adult member of the Española Explorer Scouts, which was headed by Lucero in the 1980s, a Scout roster states.
Trujillo works at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Do you have a URL for this story?
5:26 pm: I knew Trujillo was a slimeball when he processed my hiring 30 years ago.
Here is another example of LANS incompetence. Seems they can't guard their own computers from hackers. I have been retired from LANL for two years. I just received a letter today that states that data back in November 2007 was compromised and their just getting around to inform me that "Personally Identifiable Information" like my social security number may been "Exfiltrated" from the Laboratory. I am sure I not alone in this mess.
Politico Investigated for Sex Crimes
http://www.riograndesun.com/
the redo work classifications for the SSM series was supposed to roll out October 2007... ain't seen it yet.
We had the new IPO system rolled out this week (due April 11) because HR couldn't get it out in January. They still don't know how the 1-5 point scores will be implemented or tied to raises.
Does the word INCOMPETENT jump out at you?
8:11 PM must be clairvoyant as Trujillo has only been at the Lab a little over 20 years. You people never think at all before you spew your unfounded venomous crap and unfortunately, half the people who read this blog will believe you.
Unless Pinky knows more about this than what was in the Sun, it would have been good to see what the grand jury found before this was posted.
"It was never brought up to my attention," Chavez said. "But in this day and age, allegations can be made, and one suffers from it until you're proven innocent."
3/28/08 8:05 AM
3/28/08 9:56 AM
You're so quick to defend Trujillo but the real victims are his young relatives. Shame on you!
I see two "Patrick Trujillo"s in the LANL phone book. Maybe 8:11 PM is thinking of the other one.
As for waiting on the grand jury, that's really an argument for the Rio Grande Sun. I don't know anything about the case, I simply refused to convert the comment into a post without a URL for the story. Now that I have the URL I'm still not sure what to do.
The story is out on the front page of the Rio Grande Sun, that makes the "story" viabale. The next step is if the Grand Jury does find cause to go to trial on the allegations. But for now the story is out, and up to this point it is news. If Mr. Trujillo is not guilty, why did he resign his post at the Academy? Much more to come on this one.
"If Mr. Trujillo is not guilty, why did he resign his post at the Academy?"
I don't know Mr Trujillo. However, one is innocent until proven guilty. However, people in positions of trust often must resign when there is a question. It does not have anything to do with actual guilt, which will be decided in court.
While we work to defend America, it would help if we remember what we are defending.
So are you saying that he should resign as Group Leader?
No, I'm saying that assuming there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, he (or anyone) should be prosecuted under the law.
However, no one should have their reputation ruined by anonymous rumors. This is a small region, so rumors are especially harmful.
And resigning a position because of rumors is not equal to guilt.
LLNS and LANS are failing.
Hope Anastasio and Miller, LLNS and LANS Boards of Directors and NNSA leaders and senior staff resign soon. Problems are intractable without a change in ground rules that cannot occur without housekeeping.
Want to see the bottom occur as soon a possible, so the rebuilding can begin, perhaps as early as 2012.
"Hope Anastasio and Miller, LLNS and LANS Boards of Directors and NNSA leaders and senior staff resign soon." (10:01 AM)
I agree with you, LANL and LLNL are failing. Talk with most of the TSMs and you'll hear strong agreement with this view point. However, it is highly unlikely that there will be ANY significant changes at the top. There are too many vested interests that will keep us heading down the current path. Sometimes an institution rises up to greatness and then dies. AT&T Bell Lab was once a great lab but they were eventually taken down the wrong path by their corporate leaders and declined. It appears that it may be LANL's and LLNL's time for decline.
The growing incompetence in leadership at the NNSA labs is a clear sign that these lab's day for the bone yard is quickly approaching. Note that when an institution begins to value compliance above all other things, you know that the end is near. That is where LANL and LLNL are at this very moment. We are closing in on a total bureaucratic meltdown. Just look at some of the inane policies that are being forced upon these labs.
Prepare for the future as best you can. For those that have options, the best solution may be to get out of the labs and find a better place in which to finish your career. For the rest of us, we'll have to hold on as the ship sinks and hope there are some life rafts at the end. However, I fully expect NNSA to begin poking big holes in any remaining "life rafts" so that they sink to the bottom along with the rest of their damaged fleet.
"However, no one should have their reputation ruined by anonymous rumors. This is a small region, so rumors are especially harmful."
Exactly.
Now, ask around and see how many LANL staff have suffered exactly that at the hands of Patrick Trujillo and Staff Relations.
What goes around, comes around.
3/29/08 10:01 AM, perhaps this will be the realization of Nanos' vision of rebuilding the Laboratory from a base of 10 remaining employees.
Hi 11:32 - could you give some examples? This sounds interesting.
Hey Congress. Both labs are failing. They caught the NNSA plague.
"Tom stressed that both proposals were strong and of exceptionally high caliber. However, only one could prevail." 3/26/08 12:46 AM
(www.energy.gov/news/2821.htm)
Yeah, only one could prevail. The one that will eventually land a lousy manager like Tom D'Agostino a future VP slot with either Bechtel or BWXT. And that one would be LANS. The fix was in on this one from the very start.
"I was on a committee that met with the Lockheed team before the contract was awarded- they were so enthusiatic, bright, and outgoing, that I was really pulling for them. Well- DOE screwed up again.
3/25/08 9:47 PM"
If you were on that committee, you sure missed the boat!
LANS became incorporated as a federally acquisition-favored "small business" and blew away any chances for LM to compete. Thanks King Richard Marquez...
(1) Los Alamos Alliance LLC, i.e. Lockheed Martin/UT should have filed a formal protest to GAO when they lost the M&O contract of LANL to LANS, LLC, December 21, 2005, due effective June 1, 2006.
(2) GAO has a webpage for "Bid Protest Regulations." (Follow these regulations thoroughly when you protest.)
(www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/bid/bibreg.html)
(3) Put up a blog as Boeing is doing now; (//boeingblogs.com/tanker/), after their loss to Northrop Grumman/EADS, $35 billion air-refueling tanker contract, with Boeing´s words: "Why it doesn´t add upp"; "Boeing Tanker Protest Executive Summary"; "Boeing Protests U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award."
(4) Lockheed Martin/UT did neither of this, instead they said:
"We wish the University of California-Bechtel team every success with its new contract to manage one of the nation´s most important scientific institutions." - Los Alamos Alliance, the competing team led by the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin Corp.
(LANL: The Real Story, # posted by Brad Lee Holian: 12/21/2005 06:27:00 PM.)
7:21 pm: Yeah, Lockheed Martin/UT showed some class as a loser, unlike Boeing. Can you say "sense of entitlement"?
Did Lockheed Martin/UT really have any chance at appealing the decision?
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Fire Ruins LANL Bid Materials
By John Arnold
Journal Staff Writer
An arson destroyed documents and office equipment related to Lockheed Martin's failed bid to run Los Alamos National Laboratory, but fire investigators aren't releasing many details, citing the sensitive nature of an investigation into the blaze.
A moving trailer containing paper files, computers and other office equipment went up in flames in Albuquerque either late Jan. 21 or early Jan. 22, according to Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Wendy Owen. The trailer was parked at moving company Arpin of Albuquerque, 4525 Paseo Del Norte NE, Owen said.
"It did have materials and equipment related to our Los Alamos proposal," she said by phone Monday.
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin and a team of academic and industrial partners lost their bid to run LANL last month, when the Department of Energy awarded the seven-year contract to Los Alamos National Security, a management team led by Bechtel Corp. and the University of California.
Owen characterized the trailer's contents as "research materials" related to her company's bid.
Owen said that the documents and equipment had been removed from Lockheed Martin's "proposal center," an Albuquerque-based office that handled business related to the competition. The bid materials were to be transported to a Lockheed office on the East Coast, Owen said.
Albuquerque Fire Department spokesman Capt. Mike Paiz said investigators aren't releasing many details about the fire because they don't want to jeopardize the investigation. But he did confirm Monday that the fire was "definitely arson."
"They found evidence to support an accelerant used," he said.
A woman who answered the phone at Arpin of Albuquerque declined to comment.
3/31/08 10:37 AM
Lockheed Martin/UT decided before (January 11, 2006) the fire not to protest the decision of the M&O contract of LANL, please see the following:
"Lockheed, UT say no to bid protest
By Andy Lenderman, The New Mexican
January 11, 2006
The losing contractor in a bid to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory has decided not to protest the government´s decision.
A coalition including Lockheed Martin Corp. and the University of Texas lost the bid to manage the lab Dec. 21[2005]. The U.S. Department of Energy instead chose a team including the University of California and Bechtel National, a private company called Los Alamos National Security LLC.
´Although we are very disappointed with the outcome, we have decided at this time not to protest.´Lockheed spokeswoman Wendy Owen said by telephone Wednesday. She declined to elaborate. Department of Energy officials briefed the Lockheed team Jan. 6 [2006] about why it lost the job [bid]. Owen said last week that Lockheed had 10 days from Jan. 6 [2006] to file an appeal, which would go to the Government Accountability Office for review.
U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said he was pleased. ´Now the entire Los Alamos community can continue moving forward in the transition process with the new management team,´he said in a statement.
U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said the Lockheed team has been ´consistently professional and competent´throughout the competition for the contract.
´There are guidelines for challenging this award, and Lockheed has every right to follow them through,´Domenici said in a statement. He was scheduled to address lab employees today.
Also Wednesday, the incoming director of the lab, Michael Anastasio, issued a memo to employees that emphasized open communication and building trust.
A spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, part of the Department of Energy, has referred to a fedeal procurement regulation when asked about the how long Lockheed has to protest the contract award.
´The initial protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester,´the regulation says, ´but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.´
The performance-based contract pays up to $79 million a year. Its initial term is seven years.
Anastasio also told employees Wednesday that one of the first things his team wants to discuss is the retirement and benefits package that must be negotiated between his company and the government.
A series of town-hall meetings is expected to occur later this month for lab employees and their families. ´We want to begin our relationship with the premise that we will have an ongoing dialogue.´Anastasio told employees. ´We want your trust, and we know that to earn it, we must listen and be responsive.´"
(www.freenewmexican.com/news/37622.html)
So much for that theory.
Post a Comment