Apr 29, 2008

On the Next Steps for Los Alamos. . . Lab Director Michael Anastasio

The following interview with Michael Anastasio, the Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Los Alamos National Laboratory, was conducted by Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor Reporter Todd Jacobson. [28 April 2008]

Each of the directors of the NNSA’s weapons laboratories have been outspoken about their concern for science funding and how it might affect the future of the labs and the ability to certify the nuclear weapons stockpile. What does the future hold for ‘big science’ at the labs if the concerns aren’t addressed?

I think our concern is that the role of the laboratories for the country is to take science, the science we have, and bring it forward to help solve national problems. The trend is what our concern is. It’s not about a particular year budget, but it’s the trend over a period of time, and the look out into the future. We have concerns that there’s real risks; that science is getting squeezed out between the needs to maintain an infrastructure versus the need to take care of the mission. Both of those things are kind of growing, but the budget is declining, or at least we have to absorb inflation even if the budget is less, so that squeezes out our ability to actually execute the science.

And, of course, we think that these laboratories are really special places that are providing the kinds of large-scale science that takes on these kinds of missions. The same science that this program funds puts in place science that we then use to do all the other programmatic work that we do for corporations, for counter-terrorism, for energy, supporting other parts of the national security community.

Is it possible to put a dollar figure on how much more is needed in terms of increased funding for science?

Well, I mean, in a laboratory with over $2 billion, it’s a 10 or 15 percent effect. That’s real money. We heard from Sen. Byron Dorgan on the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and he’s got budget problems as well. So, the question is, how do we renew an infrastructure? How do we change our fixed cost? So we, at the laboratory, are trying to do that internally. We’re reducing the number of facilities we have—out of nine million square feet we are trying to get rid of two million of it. We’re aligning our workforce size with the kind of budget we have. We’re trying to reduce our cost so that the money that we get through Congress we can actually spend more of it on science. We’re trying to do what we can, and we have more we can do and we’re working on that.

The budget issues the labs are facing have resulted in workforce restructuring that’s happening to various degrees at each of the labs. What are the challenges of managing a workforce that is enduring these kinds of changes?

Yes, that’s been a huge problem, and of course we’re almost two years into the new contract at Los Alamos, and there’s a lot of change going on. Of course, the laboratory was facing lots of challenges and was under lots of pressure for the perceived issues around security and so forth, and then we bring in a new contract and a new approach to doing things, and that causes a lot of anxiety amongst people. Managing change is always difficult, but I’m feeling better that the morale at the laboratory has gone up, that the people are starting to focus, and I’m trying to get us all focused on the real exciting science that we are doing and the opportunities we have to help solve some really important plans for the country.

Of all the labs, Sandia seems to have done the best with expanding its mission and increasing its Work for Others repertoire. How can that be applied at Los Alamos?

Of course we’re pursuing it vigorously. One way to deal with some of these issues is to grow other parts of your budget. And, so, in fact we are actually being very effective at that. Some of our Work for Others areas are growing by over 20 percent this year already. We’ve done a good job of that and will continue to do that. But, at the same time, if you look at what NNSA’s approach is, they’re starting to concentrate some of the capability they want nationally at Los Alamos. So, we’re trying to manage through taking that set of missions on and at the same time grow. That’s part of the way they keep the science at the lab vital—you have a variety of things to do so that the scientists can all get enthused about a variety of different missions and the way they can apply their science.

Is the Work for Others issue more difficult at Los Alamos and Livermore than it is at Sandia? Is it harder to attract that kind of work and keep rates down?

I think there’s two pieces of that. Sandia is a little more focused on the engineering. Los Alamos and Livermore are a little more heavy on the physical sciences, but we do a lot of engineering, and of course they do physical science as well. The kinds of programs they attract are somewhat different than we do at Los Alamos, that’s one point. The second point is that because we have so many nuclear facilities at Los Alamos that means our infrastructure costs are necessarily higher. And, so, in some ways that makes us look more expensive to our Work for Others customers.

But there are lots of opportunities for that. For instance, we make the batteries that power the NASA space missions that go out. Those are made in our nuclear facilities. When it comes to nonproliferation work addressing how to detect nuclear materials that move around—well, let’s go bring it in to our facility and let’s go test out the detectors with real nuclear material. So, there’s real opportunities for that kind of work, and for nuclear forensics, for other things.

Congress is currently debating the future of the Administration’s Reliable Replacement Warhead program. One of the positives talked about by the Administration for developing an RRW-type warhead is the human capital issue—the issue of the weapons labs staying current on designing nuclear weapons. If there’s not an RRW, how would that affect the nation’s nuclear design capability?

I think the RRW does two things. It gives us a way to build more margin into the weapons systems that we would deploy. Hence, that leads to more confidence. It also gives us the opportunity to get rid of a lot of the difficult materials they handle in nuclear weapons, and, hence, we have to have a production capability that does that. That drives cost in the production complex. So, if we can use that as a method to shrink the cost in the production complex, then we can, of course, have more money to underpin the confidence that we have, the kinds of issues we were talking about.

The other aspect is that one of the risks we run is we have a stockpile from the Cold War and the last people that were putting weapons in the stockpile were people like me, who are nearing the end of their careers. And if you think of 10 or 20 years from now when I expect we’ll probably still have some nuclear weapons left as part of our deterrent, there won’t be anybody around that was there when we put it in. If we work on an alternate approach to our stockpile, whatever it be—RRW or something else—that gives this current generation a chance to be the ones who develop that, and they’re the ones that are going to sustain it for their whole generation, and you won’t have to rely on a bunch of old fogies like us.

Do you fear for the nuclear design capability if there’s not the need for advancing it?

Yes. One of the things we’ve done is we’ve taken our scientists and turned them into analysts. So, here’s a weapon that we know works. When it will fail, that’s the question we’re trying to answer today, and that’s not the same kind of function that we had during the Cold War. Now, of course, I agree that we never want to be in a position where the President ever has to make a decision on, do we use nuclear weapons? These are our weapons of policy, and the goal is for the country to never have to use a nuclear weapon. But, we need to maintain our confidence, so it can play its deterrent role.

The safety and security problems at Los Alamos have been well chronicled, and part of the rationale for recompeting the contract was to correct those issues. In terms of making progress, how far along are you and how far do you need to go?

I think we’ve made a lot of progress. I also believe that we knew this would be a multi-year task. This is not something you can get done in one or two years. It would take some real time to do. But, I do think we are making very significant progress in improving our safety. We’ve reduced a lot of our injury rates and those sorts of things. We’ve dramatically improved our security, and reduced our security risks. We’ve been very innovative in dealing with those security issues, and really changing the whole approach that will give us a lot stronger laboratory.

But we’ve also increased our program delivery, our ability to deliver to our customers, whether it be in NNSA in the Stockpile Stewardship Program or in Work for Others. I still see the really outstanding innovative science that’s going on in the laboratories. So, all of those things, of course, are there, but there’s more to do. We have to learn how to be more efficient and more effective at delivering what we do, to bring our overall costs down. We’re leaning how to do that, but there’s a lot more to do.

When the contracts for the laboratories were re-competed, there was the promise of increased coordination between Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia. Has that come to fruition?

I think we’re seeing that happen. I have, of course, a lot of background at Livermore as the former lab director. That concerns some people at Los Alamos. And LLNL Director George Miller and I have a very close relationship, so we are seeing more and more cooperation, appropriate kinds of cooperation, while we maintain that technical competition, which is so important to peer review. We’re working closely with Sandia, the super-computing issue that came up is one example. Sandia Director Tom Hunter and I have signed a Memorandum of Understanding about how we’re going to cooperate on this high performance computing. That’s one example. Even if they’re not a center for platform computing, we’re going to be working together to maintain world-class simulation capability.

Much was made during the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations hearing April 16 about the issues facing Lawrence Livermore and the economic shortfall that lab faces—particularly in light of increased fees paid at a time when the workforce is shrinking. Los Alamos National Security is further along in the process, so with that in mind, has the transition from public to private been worth it?

As we near the second year of LANS management, it’s clear that the corporate partnership has benefitted the laboratory. We’re seeing outstanding performance built on great science at the lab. We’re performing exceptionally well in our key mission areas of science, nuclear weapons and threat reduction, and are making demonstrable improvement in safety, security, business practices and overall management.

Did the transition need to take place for that progress on safety and security issues to really take root and be effective?

Because of the hard work by lab employees and resources brought in from our corporate partners, our trends in safety and security are good. Reportable injuries and lost work days are down by more than 40 percent and we’ve cut the average number of security incidents in half, both indicating that the partnership has improved our way of dealing with those issues. But it’s important not to lose focus and to remember that safety and security are day-to-day jobs and that safety and security goes hand-in-hand with the great science and engineering that we provide.

There have been concerns raised, both in private and public, about the plutonium mission at Los Alamos cutting into the more prestigious weapons design role. Do you think that’s a fair critique?

We firmly believe that Los Alamos is the right place for the proposed limited plutonium manufacturing role in support of national security. But it’s a misconception that this would somehow ‘take away’ from other work, particularly science. Limited plutonium manufacturing—and other actinide research and development—enables a wide variety of science and informs specific disciplines such as design physics and supports key missions such as power sources for spacecraft and proliferation-resistant fuel rods for power generation.

In your mind, how do the two missions—plutonium production and weapons design—complement each other?

They actually depend on each other. We use the tools of science to qualify and certify our manufacturing processes. And our ability to soundly design weapons depends on what we learn from limited manufacturing.

I'll share an interesting and telling statistic. Los Alamos was asked to undertake a limited pit manufacturing role in 1997, 10 pits per year, which we achieved in 2006. During those nine years, our number of actinide science publications doubled compared to the prior two decades. Other science at LANL also increased.

Do you feel plutonium production changes the identity of the lab?

Los Alamos has always had a limited manufacturing role. In fact, during the days of nuclear testing in Nevada, the laboratory had a much larger manufacturing role, producing systems for testing and providing plutonium metal to Rocky Flats. The proposed limited manufacturing mission does not change our identity as a national security science laboratory.

As support to that plutonium mission, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility will be constructed. How essential is the CMRR-Nuclear Facility to the plutonium mission that is part of the NNSA’s draft preferred alternative for Complex Transformation?

The CMRR is an essential research and development laboratory as it supports not only weapons-related work but also threat reduction, nonproliferation, energy security, and space applications. While we currently operate the Chemistry and Metallurgy Researh building safety and securely, because of it’s age and size, doing so in the long-term becomes increasingly difficult.

Could you explain the role CMRR-Nuclear Facility will play with PF-4 in pit production?

No pits would be made in the CMRR. The CMRR nuclear facility would fulfill the same basic role as the current CMR with one additional function as a state-of-the-art storage facility. CMR does analytical chemistry and materials characterization of very small amounts of plutonium. The “manufacturing line” will continue to be located in another existing nuclear facility, Plutonium Facility 4 or PF-4.

Are there any scenarios where the CMRR-Nuclear Facility would be used to produce pits?

Again, the plans call for CMRR to be the laboratory’s center for analytical chemistry and materials characterization, pit manufacturing takes place in a different facility, PF-4.

There have been concerns raised about the cost of that facility and how it will be paid for in light of flat NNSA budgets in the next decade. Do you share those concerns?

Budgets are always a challenge. We see the CMRR project as an essential component of scientific research and development in support of a broad set of missions, both weapons and non-weapons. CMRR would also enable consolidation of nuclear materials from around the complex, its design would be more environmentally responsible and it would efficiently manage safety and security, resulting in a net reduction in operating costs.


Anonymous said...

This is mostly bullshit.

Read the part about how LANS has benefitted the laboratory.

Anonymous said...

"We’re trying to reduce our cost so that the money that we get through Congress we can actually spend more of it on science."


Anonymous said...

Remind me again, how much does Mike get from LANS LLC in terms of perks and pay for being LANL's Director?

Of course everything is swell according to Mike. His job depends on at least creating the illusion of great performance.

Anonymous said...

Mike somehow finds the time to give interviews to an unknown newsletter but he can't find the time for an All-Hands Q&A to talk with his own employees? Classic.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the Director communicate his visions,concerns and goals to us, the employees/workforce? Maybe he just doesn't care what we think, he will route this ship aground by himself.

Anonymous said...

Mike's a lying scum sucker - he should be talking to his troops before spending time with reporters. He fears standing up in front of the Lab workers and always avoids answering tough questions and pulls out his "personal lawyer" (aka Marquez) when he doesn't want to answer questions. When is he going to announce his departure back to Livermore?

Anonymous said...

7:27 pm: "When is he going to announce his departure back to Livermore?"

Any day now - we're coming up on the end of his two-year committment to LANS. But it probably won't be Livermore. UC is contractually committed to find him an "equivalent" position (since LLNL already has a Director who is an employee of LLNS), but I bet a UC provost or campus President position is in his future. Too bad he'll lose the $750 per month allowance for his TT.

Anonymous said...

Mikey is gonna get us a nice fat contract for researching the possibilities of mating Ewoks with Wookies.

Anonymous said...

8:43 pm: "Mikey is gonna get us a nice fat contract for researching the possibilities of mating Ewoks with Wookies."

Can you be any more of a complete geek? Doesn't it hurt to be such a jerky stereotype? You are feeding the world's ridicule and hatred of scientists in general, and LANL in particular. Get a life.

Anonymous said...

How about Mickey leading LANS in a take over of LLNS and the formation of a single LLC to run both LANL and LLNL... He can relax in semi-retirement as President of the new LLC with Ed (NIF) Moses as his new VP/Director of LLNL and George Miller the new VP/Director of LANL... he gets a huge raise by creating one super lab and saving NNSA money by consolidating redundant non-science/research functions of the two labs.

Anonymous said...

(Science/Military/Technology/Engineering/Boy Scouts/Gang Members in conjunction - that is the classic formula for success.)

(Please see the following patch, and its Esprit de Corps:

University of California; W88; MIRV; 1943-2013; Radiation Warning Symbol; In Bombs We Trust; Let There Be Nuclear Light; Los Alamos.)


(This patch (Los Alamos) is essentially for building team spirit.)

(And further on this topic, for building team spirit:

"Inside the Black Budget

Clockwise from top left: Ghost Squadron. For search and rescue; National Reconnaissance Office. Dragon is code for infrared imaging on advanced KH-11 satellites; Desert Prowler [5+1 stars]. May represent Groom Lake, Nev., a k a Area 51; Special Projects Office. Oversaw F-117A stealth fighter support; 4451st Test Squadron. Stealth fighters; 413th Flight Test Squadron. Possibly referring to simulated or real electronic threats against aircraft.

By William J. Broad
Published: April 1, 2008 [New York Times]

Skulls. Black cats. A naked woman riding a killer whale. Grim reapers. Snakes. Swords. Occult symbols. A wizard with a staff that shoot lightning bolts. Moons. Stars. A dragon holding the Earth in its claws.

No, this is not the fantasy world of a 12-year-old boy.

It is, according to a new book [and a patch] [I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have to be Destroyed by Me: Emblems from the Pentagon´s Black World, by Trevor Paglen, Melville House, 2008, 136 pages], part of the hidden reality behind the Pentagon´s classified, or ´black,´budget that delivers billions of dollars to stealthy armies of high-tech warriors. The book offers a glimpse of this dark world through a revealing lens - patches - the kind worn on military uniforms.

´It´s a fresh approach to secret government,´Steven Aftergood, a security expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, said in an interview. ´It shows that these secret programs have their own culture, vocabulary and even sense of humor.´

One patch shows a space alien with huge eyes holding a stealth bomber near its mouth. ´To Serve Man´reads the text above, a reference to a classic ´Twilight Zone´episode in which man is the entree, not the customer. ´Gustatus Similis Pullus´reads the caption below, dog latin for ´Tastes Like Chicken.´

Military officials and experts said the patches are real if often unofficial efforts at building team spirit.

The classified budget of the Defense Department, concealed from the public in all but outline, has nearly doubled in the Bush years, to $32 billion. That is more than the combined budgets of the Food and Drug Administration, the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administation.

Those billions have expanded a secret world of advanced science and technology in which military units and federal contractors push back the frontiers of warfare. In the past, such handiwork has produced some of the most advanced jets, weapons and spy satellites, as well as notorious boondoggles.")



(And further;

Esprit de Corps. Especially:

A Lifetime Of Silence; Southwest as a red star; Behind The Green Door (4 of 10), and, Air Force Flight Test Center; Classis Caece; Noli Rogare; De Multa Nocte; The Ghost Squadron (3 of 10).)


(And finally;

1st Ground Zero: Trinity Site. (July 16, 1945.)

2nd Ground Zero: World Trade Center in New York after September 11, 2001 (9/11).

3rd Ground Zero: Ground Zero Cafe at The Pentagon.

Ground Zero of the World, i.e. Downtown of the World, i.e. Center of the World: American southwest.)

Anonymous said...

Mikey's interveiw sounds just like the same one GM gave to the press in california. they must both be reading from the same scrip.
I thought you LANL boys wont to know 535 FTEs to leave livermore by may 23 2008 and 300+ flex and contract to leave by sept. 2008

Anonymous said...

After LANS, LLC took over LANL, and LLNS, LLC took over LLNL, it´s like:

1) 4/5 of LANL remaining - and shrinking.

2) 4/5 of LLNL remaining - and shrinking.

Further consequence: No, true independent LANL and LLNL, and the morale continue in a downward trajectory, and within the downward trajectory, LANL´s outsourcing of SSP work to LLNL.

LANL and LLNL should always compete against each other, not fold into each other, and the slowly downward trajectory of both the labs.

Directors as of April/May 2008:

- LANL: 4/5 (Mike Anastasio.)

-LLNL: 1 1/5 (George Miller+Mike Anastasio.)

- SNL: 1 (Tom Hunter.)

(PS. If you are CEO of Coca-Cola™, you can´t drink Pepsi-Cola™ in the main cafeteria, if you can found it at all.)

Anonymous said...

"Can you be any more of a complete geek? Doesn't it hurt to be such a jerky stereotype? You are feeding the world's ridicule and hatred of scientists in general, and LANL in particular. Get a life."

You are the one that needs a life.
Go crawl back under your rock now.

Anonymous said...

"As we near the second year of LANS management, it’s clear that the corporate partnership has benefitted the laboratory."

I stopped reading at this point. I couldn't stand it any longer.

Anonymous said...


Jobs at Sandia Labs

Written by John Fleck, ABQ Journal
Thursday, 01 May 2008

One of the things I missed while on vacation was an apparently interesting hearing before the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee on the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The main news message out of the hearing was the strong support the three lab directors voiced for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (a program that, for my money, looks to be on the ropes and likely to go down - but that's the subject of another blog post).

But down in the text of Sandia honcho Tom Hunter's written testimony is a very interesting point about the potential effects of the Complex Transformation proposal on the work force at Sandia.

Complex Transformation is the National Nuclear Security Administration's proposal to shrink the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, and it comes with a 20 to 30 percent work force reduction over a decade or so. Hunter makes an interesting plea: that Sandia be given some credit here for the reduction already made in nuclear weapons employment:

We have reduced our direct nuclear weapon workforce by 18 percent since 2004, largely through retirements and by redirecting engineers, scientists, and technicians to other national security programs. It is important to recognize and account for the fact that those organizations that have already made progress toward achieving their goals should not be subject to even further reductions.

Sandia's overall work force has not shrunk. They've been quite successful about diversifying. But this is definitely an issue that bears further inquiry. Hunter's traveling, so it'll be a while before I have a chance to connect with him and talk about the details, so don't expect a full story for a while. But I think the issue he's raising bears further examination.

Anonymous said...

I am so comforted to know that Mike has our best at heart.

Anonymous said...

LANL is just a little piggy bank for LANS

Anonymous said...

Los Alamos should be watching what is happening at Livermore today because that will be happening at Los Alamos in the next 6 to 9 months.

Anonymous said...

I am so comforted to know that Mike has our best at heart.

5/1/08 8:21 PM
as long as the atm does not run out of cash

Anonymous said...

9:37 pm: "LANL is just a little piggy bank for LANS"

This reflects a profound misunderstanding of LANL/LANS. LANS does not exist outside LANL. It was created for the sole purpose of running LANL. If it had not won the contract, LANS would have immediately dissolved. If the LANL contract were to go to another company, LANS would immediately cease to exist.

The managers who arrived (some of whom were "old" managers) after the contract change had to spend significant time re-educating LANL managers and employees that "LANS" wasn't an outside entity; it was "us", just like UC was "us" prior to the transition. It all becomes plain when you see who signs your paycheck. All LANL employees are LANS employees. Just a fact.

If you meant "LANL is just a little piggy bank for LANS parent companies" you are absolutely correct.

Anonymous said...

5/1/08 10:57 PM - "LANS" wasn't an outside entity; it was "us", just like UC was "us" prior to the transition. It all becomes plain when you see who signs your paycheck. All LANL employees are LANS employees. Just a fact."

You are correct with one very important note... We were covered and somewhat protected by UC personnel policies/procedures... under the old regime everything LANL came up with from an HR standpoint had to be bounced of off UC's personnel policies/procedures and okayed by UC Office of the President, now LANL HR is free to do as they please as long as its okayed by Mike (as President of LANS). LANL's policies are not bound or controlled by those of the LANS parent companies. Because of this NNSA now has de facto control of LANL - if it makes NNSA happy, it makes LANS happy, where in the past it had to satisfy UCOP too.

Anonymous said...

Curious post from the LLNL blog -

"Hot rumor. Mike Anastasio and Dissident members of the LLNS board of directors have approached John Emmett about returning to direct the lab. May 1, 2008 8:39 PM"

Its not clear as to which "lab" the rumor is referring, LANL or LLNL.

Anonymous said...

If you meant "LANL is just a little piggy bank for LANS employees, who get paid outrageous amounts to do very little" you are absolutely correct.


Anonymous said...

If LANS is "us", then how come I don't get a chance to share in that $79 million profit fee that LANS receives each year for our good performance? It helps enrich the Riley Bechtel family who privately own Bechtel but does nothing for LANL staff.

LANS is not "us", at least as far as most of the employees at LANL are concerned. LANS is "them". I have no loyalty to LANS. I use to have loyalty for an entity called LANL, but now even that is gone.

For must of us, working at LANL has become just another job working for a US corporation, except it is a corporation with no profit sharing plan or stock options or perks for the key workers who help make the place famous or who bring in money.

NNSA has been very successful at killing off all good feelings between LANL employees and their employer. At least at think-tank corporations like SAIC or BAE they let scientists share in the ownership of the company. Here at LANL, we are little better than servant staff working for a group of for-profit LLC partners.

Anonymous said...

Fee earned for LANS, LLC, is as follows, FY 2007 Performance Evaluation Report, October 1, 2006 - September 30, 2007, page 7:

PBI 1: Weapons Program
Fee Allocation: $7,362,227
Recommended Payment: $7,181,224
%: 98%

PBI 2: Weapons Quality Assurance
Fee Allocation: $1,429,994
Recommended Payment: $1,429,994
%: 100%

PBI 3: Threat Reduction
Fee Allocation: $3,053,952
Recommended Payment: $3,053,952
%: 100%

PBI 4: Nuclear & High Hazard Ops
Fee Allocation:$5,228,756
Recommended Payment: $3,975,086
%: 76%

PBI 5: Safeguards and Security *
Fee Allocation: $2,681,239
Recommended Payment: $2,391,331
%: 89%

PBI 6: ST&E Excellence
Fee Allocation: $4,468,731
Recommended Payment: $3,440,923
%: 77%

PBI 7: Multi-Site Performance
Fee Allocation: $4,550,512
Recommended Payment: $4,114,811
%: 90%

PBI 8: Environmental Programs & Ops
Fee Allocation: $3,619,670
Recommended Payment: $2,110,508
%: 58%

PBI 9: Safety and Health
Fee Allocation: $1,795,423
Recommended Payment: $960,551
%: 53%

PBI 10: Facilities Management
Fee Allocation: $893,747
Recommended Payment: $393,247
%: 44%

PBI 11: Project Management
Fee Allocation: $2,722,130
Recommended Payment: $1,995,850
%: 73%

PBI 12: Contractor Assurance
Fee Allocation: $3,358,982
Recommended Payment: $1,639,157
%: 49%

PBI 13: Leadership/Management Intergration (*Cyber Security is addressed in PBI 13)
Fee Allocation: $10,130,633
Recommended Payment: $3,538,348
%: 35%

Fee Allocation: $51,295,996
Recommended Payment: $36,224,982
%: 71%

Fixed Fee
Fee Allocation: $21,984,004
Recommended Payment: $21,984,004

Fee Allocation: $73,280,000
Recommended Payment: $58,208,986
%: 79.4%

Anonymous said...

Look at the bright side. Look at all the political contributions to Pu Pete that came out of all this, not to mention the monitary contributions these corporate leaches will be making to the LANL foundation for years to come. What more could you ask of a once great science lab?

Anonymous said...

All hail the mighty PBI, new ruler of all that now happens at LANL! Science? What's that?

Anonymous said...

What's with that 77% payment on PBI 6 - ST&E Excellence? WTF, that's in the same performance league as PBI 4 - N&HH Ops and PBI 11 - Project Mgt.

I am surprised - I thought ST&E Excellence, a LANL claim to fame, was the perennial 100% lock?

Anonymous said...

When "The World's Greatest Science Protecting America" only garners a 77% performance rating, that might be indicative of a problem.

Anonymous said...

Pbbbt...77% is a C+.
That means Bechtel/BWXT are performing at 100%. Good Job, Mikey!

Anonymous said...

I think you mean 110%, 12:37.

Anonymous said...

Mikey's the man. Go LANS! Go Bechtel! Go BWXT! If Mikey gets LANL to perform per spec, then I'm sure Riley Bechtel will be able to afford an even bigger yacht with next year's profit fee. Work hard, fellow LANL employees. Riley's counting on your efforts.

Anonymous said...

Riley's fortune depends not at all on LANS' profits. He generates 100 times as much in a year from his investments as LANS makes in profit. It's a non-issue for him. Relax - he's way out of your reach. Spend your energy going after someone whose actions or fortunes you can actually affect.

Anonymous said...

LANL is low intensity noise $ for Bechtel. The message here is Stanford business and law schools, and a successful family business with oil, gas and chemical operations.

From wiki -

Riley P. Bechtel (CBE) is the chairman and CEO of the Bechtel Corporation. He is the great-grandson of Warren A. Bechtel, the founder of the company. His father is Stephen Bechtel, Jr., the former chairman and CEO of the company. With a net worth of over $2.5 billion, Riley Bechtel is consistently ranked in the top 200 richest people in the U.S. and the top 500 richest people in the world by Forbes Magazine. [1]

He received a bachelor's degree in Political Science and Psychology from the University of California, Davis. After obtaining his J.D. and M.B.A. from Stanford University, Bechtel worked for the law firm of Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges. He joined Bechtel full-time in 1981, was elected President and COO of Bechtel in March of 1989, and became CEO in June 1990. In January 1996, he also became the chairman of Bechtel.

Anonymous said...

If the $79 million profit is chump-change for the Bechtel family, then perhaps they would be so kind as to hand this money back to LANL so it can be used to help cushion our thread-bare operating budget.

Anonymous said...

Wait a second when did LANL become a corporation? I must of missed the gold plated memo with the delicate kiss on my ass cheek when it was delivered to my desk. These corporate goons don't know how to treat me right.....cuz its all about me.

Anonymous said...

5/5 11:30 pm: "If the $79 million profit is chump-change for the Bechtel family, then perhaps they would be so kind as to hand this money back to LANL so it can be used to help cushion our thread-bare operating budget."

LANL profits are intended to enrich LANS senior managers and parent corporations, not the Bechtel family. And that plan is working beautifully.