Aug 29, 2008

HASC Questions for the record, answered by Ambassador C. Paul Robinson

Question 1:
What is your assessment of the NNSA complex transformation proposal? Are there other viable alternative approaches to provide a more responsive infrastructure?


As I said in my testimony, “My reactions [to the Complex Transformation Plan] are mixed. While it is doubtless improved over the previous version (Complex 2030), it still does not present a compelling solution to the many problems facing the nuclear weapons complex.”

A more viable (and sensible) approach would be to:
(1) Establish at a national level the purpose and sizing of the US arsenal of nuclear weapons —appropriate to the threats we and our allies must likely face going forward.
The DoD has not taken up this issue for at least 15 years (under two administrations) but continues to try to preserve a Cold War arsenal that (a) no longer fits the world we live in, (b) nor fits the threats we face. The US Strategic Commission you created is one attempt to develop same, but whether it will stall over the polarizations (of the left and the right) is yet to be seen. There is no substitute for the US uniformed military once again developing its own detailed plans (that would implement such a national strategy.) Having DOE move forward to transform the Complex without having coordinated plans [with the DoD] is unlikely to succeed. The drafters of the current SPEIS were “flying blind” in trying to develop a plan to transform the complex without such guidance.

(2) Reorganize the management structure of the complex to have a nuclear weapons enterprise that is coherently managed and budgeted for. Just look at the DOE and NNSA org. chart: there is no direct management of the production complex. The overall management —including cohesive day-to-day management of the GOCO’s— used to be performed by the Albuquerque Operations Office for the entire complex, and the AOO depended on the weapons labs to help it establish the technical directions and design and quality acceptance requirements and the labs served as the final approval for any deviations. This arrangement worked for 40 years, and no one has filled the vacuum left by abolishment of the Albuquerque Operations role. (b) The plants mostly exist in an “everyman for himself” environment, and —in that vacuum— many plants have sought and achieved close political relationships with their own Congressional representatives and Senators. The effect of such actions has only increased “the centrifugal pressures tearing the complex apart.”
(c) There never was effective, cohesive management of the three weapons labs, although in truth it was never possible to “manage” the labs in any traditional sense. The fact has been well established that the Federal government is incapable of “managing the advancement of science” (even though periodically it tries this, through civil-service labs, but untarnished by success.) Because of this fact, the GOCO system (Government-owned, Contractor-operated) was created. The GOCO contractors originally were the nation’s best companies (or universities) in science and technology, who brought their business practices and approaches to the labs. There are only one or two of these left today, with the rest being mostly small outfits whose main business is “running the labs for the government’, motivated by fees they can earn (which was never the case in the original complex.) Worse yet, the bureaucracy of DOE (ERDA, or AEC) has continued to grow and have attempted to “take control” of the labs, and the model has deteriorated more and more to a “government-owned and operated” complex. There are now no longer any barriers to preventing the constantly burgeoning government bureaucracy from being imposed on the labs (and plants) and the advantages of having “private-sector” organizations for their functions has long since vanished. The original approach had been to have the labs responsible for innovations. The labs would propose their ideas to the government and to the military, and once agreement was established between them on “What was to be done”, the labs took over the process of how it should be done and carried the responsibility for achieving the agreed goals. My deeply held conviction is that the GOCO model has deteriorated so far, that it must now either be eliminated or drastically rejuvenated (with a new agency and a “clean sheet of paper.”)

In summary, there is little to suggest that the US weapons complex is a common team, smoothly interfacing, with clear guidance to carry out its mission. That is what is needed.


Question 2:
Dr. Robinson, you have witnessed previous efforts to modernize or transform the nuclear weapons complex. What lessons have you learned from previous efforts?


The whole issue of budgeting for either facility maintenance or constructing new facilities has never been done well through the process of “annual budgets.” One of the helpful improvements was the NNSA requirement for a five-year plan, although seldom were the last 3 years of any such plan ever realized. Setting priorities should be easy enough in today’s “shortage environment” where we no longer have the capability to produce Plutonium pits in sufficient numbers. Reviving a plutonium production capability must have top priority.

I believe that the organization of the Congress for budgeting has become a serious problem. Having two subcommittees in both the House and Senate that provide separate appropriations for DOE and for DoD have left us with little alignment or even correlation of these budgets. Personally, and after many years of believing that it was important to keep the nuclear weapons design, development, and production separate from the Defense Department, I have now reached the point that I believe it is worth considering removing the weapons responsibilities from DOE and placing it as a new agency within the DoD. The presence of a uniformed military could provide a continuity that has been lacking as different administrations came and went. The nation’s nuclear deterrent has only suffered from these short-term upheavals in what must be a long-term commitment.


Question 3:

As transformation efforts take shape, what steps can Congress take to mitigate against the risk that the vast intellectual capital in the complex —the people that make the Stockpile Stewardship Program a success — is not lost or permanently impaired?


I am glad that the Subcommittee does recognize how crucial the bright, highly, trained, and dedicated people are to ensuring the US deterrent. In this regard I am more concerned, more than I have ever been, over the more than forty years I have worked in this complex, that the morale of these rare people has reached an all time low. The recent Chiles study (a DSB Task Force on Nuclear Personnel Expertise) examined the problems of the fractionated management within DOE for nuclear weapons, safety, and security and said “Worker feelings range from anger to resigned despair.” Note also, that his investigations took place before the lay-offs of more than a thousand people at both Los Alamos and Livermore this past year. The situation at both of those labs is far worse now. While the labs had always been able to attract the best and brightest to come to the laboratories (for somewhat less pay than they would have earned in the private sector), the freedom to pursue new ideas and the fact that the work was so vitally important to the security of our country was reward enough to keep them. However today, it is impossible to make these arguments, when the burgeoning bureaucracy suppresses individual voices, and it is apparent that most officials within the Executive branch and the Congress pay little attention to the nuclear weapons efforts. It is all too obvious that too much in government no longer care about its future.

On an historical basis, one principle that has proven itself to be valid for many centuries was well expressed by Edward Gibbon (“The Rise and Fall of the Ancient Roman Empire.”), who wrote ‘That which is not advancing must surely decline.’

Thus, until only very recently, the mission to perpetually try to improve the US deterrent weapons was a necessary and accepted mission for that intellectual capital embodied in the weapons labs. That guiding principle is still uppermost in the Russian and Chinese programs, and in the French program, but it has now been successfully eliminated in the US labs. However, this issue seems to be forbidden from discussion, in the badly mistaken view that to hold such a view would stimulate other nations to proliferate (in the ridiculous viewpoint that somehow if we —the United States— stop striving for a stronger deterrent, the rest of the world will stop as well.) The safeguards —that were agreed upon to be in place with the signing of the CTBT by the US— state that the US will continue to keep a strong design and development capability, but this capability is now well down the path to going out of existence.


Question 4:
Do weapons designers need to design and build weapons to exercise their skills?


This question can only be answered by an understanding of what used to happen, and how it has changed over the past 20 years. The driving force for new developments was always the Phase 1 and Phase 2 joint projects with military Project Officer’s Groups (POG’s) teaming with the labs to evaluate possibilities (which the labs and the POG’s would both suggest), and then jointly settle on “Military Characteristics” that would guide the next weapon systems. The proposals would then move forward through the military chain of command and the DOD leaderships and separately through the DOE (ERDA, AEC) chain as well. Finally arriving at a Presidential decision, which —if approved—would be passed to the Congress for their approval, or disapproval.

That process seems to be broken today, with little or no attention having been paid to the configuration of the US deterrent arsenal since the end of the Cold War. Also, members of the legislative branch have interrupted this process from moving forward, by placing specific language in Authorization and Appropriation bills to prohibit any work (either Phase 1 or Phase 2 as well), until they have approved any proposed systems. The result unfortunately has been a stalemate, with no new systems being approved by the Congress and hence new starts becoming non-existent since the end of the Cold War. The labs often, but not always, would work together to establish mutual directions which could substitute for lack of guidance on future weapons, but depending on personalities at the individual labs (at any point in time), these were never really a successful substitute.

Thus the plain truth is that today the US continues to try to maintain an arsenal of weapons for deterrence purposes that no longer matches the threats we face (and hence whose ultimate use would be credible), nor the delivery systems which would be most likely to succeed, and hence the legacy systems are less likely to deter aggressive behaviors of major adversaries. The very high yields of the legacy systems are no longer needed because of the huge improvements that have been made in delivery system accuracies over the intervening years. Many of us believe that if such high yields remain the only options available, our threats to actually use such weapons are hallow and hence our ability to deter war is rapidly vanishing, to a point where we will be “self-deterred.” Something must be done to break the current stalemate.


Question 5:
How should the stockpile stewardship program be executed in a transformed and modernized complex? Will a transformed complex require changes to the stockpile stewardship program?


My belief is that the following represents the right order of things:
(1) The question of whether the nuclear weapons entities should all be moved to become an integral part of the Department of Defense is a critical issue, which needs to be faced now.
(2) Fix the GOCO process (as I discussed earlier) and tailor a stand-alone organization to direct and manage the R&D, design, development, and manufacturing processes.
(3) Pull the complex parts into a cohesive whole (functioning as a single, high-performance team), rather than continuing the current collection of poorly coordinated parts.
(4) Set a priority order of urgently needed facilities, and prepare a long-range budget that puts these in an appropriate budget plan.

There should be no need to change the Stockpile Stewardship program, other than to again free up some activities in advanced science and technology and advanced designs, most of which has been curtailed or eliminated in recent years. Of course, everyone should “wake-up” to the fact that there is no guarantee that it will yet prove possible to replace the confidence that always was provided by nuclear testing, by —instead— relying only on computer calculations and much improved scientific-understanding. We have made excellent progress in developing the supercomputers for the effort, but far less progress on improving the unknown scientific mysteries so that they can be correctly included in the computer codes. Thus, preservation of the ability to test —should it become necessary— is still vital to the US.


Question 6:
What are the highest investment priorities for NNSA’s limited resources?


A new and effective (i.e. proven) capability to fabricate plutonium pits is a critical first priority. The damage done to the US program by the closing of the Rocky Flats Production Site (because of environmental issues/protests) has hurt the overall US nuclear weapons production program more than almost anyone realizes. We are the only nation that cannot build a new, modern arsenal of weapons, much less can we reproduce the old designs which now constitute our complete stockpile.

The ultimate priority is of course a realization that the US arsenal of deterrent weapons is the only proven factor in preserving the peace in the world and prevent world wars or major conflicts. The end of the Cold War was not the “end of history”, as many suggested, but it does appear that the emergence of nuclear weapons that ended the fighting of World War II may yet prove to be “the end of the history of global conflicts.”
The mindset being advocated in many quarters —that we must now embark on a policy of “eliminating all nuclear weapons from the earth”— is misguided and premature. It would usher in a state of international affairs where nations are free to return to unlimited global conflicts, and there is little chance that even if it were possible (and it is not) to remove all nuclear weapons, they could be reproduced by some nations, who could then easily take advantage of the relatively greater power they would have over the US and others.

I have always believed that there are (at least) two extremely major barriers that must be overcome before we could undertake any realistic thinking that “a world free of nuclear weapons would be a better world” than the current situation. These are:
(a) the elimination of nation-states. (Anyone who believes that this could be achieved in a matter of decades is either hopelessly idealistic or really fooling themselves.), and
(b) a change in the nature of mankind itself to eschew any acts of major aggression. Once again, these are merely “poetic ideas” but there are little grounds to believe that this could be achieved even in 100 years, if ever. I would note that there are not even any good ideas put forward for how to go about same, nor is anyone actually working on it. The US already began the nuclear weapons era by putting forward a serious proposal (the Baruch Plan) that would have placed all nuclear weapons under a common international control, but this plan was instantly rejected, and I feel safe in predicting that a revival of that proposal would be just as quickly rejected today.

Thus, we should now all join in putting our best efforts to the task of deterring war through the threat of retaliation of nuclear weapons, with the best outcome being that we would —as a result— never have to use such weapons. But the overarching importance that the US must give sufficient attention to the characteristics, numbers, performance, and reliability of its nuclear deterrent arsenal should be obvious to anyone in a senior government position. I urge the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the HASC to step up and demand that the US greatly increase its attention to reverse the decline which now characterizes our deterrent and the complex responsible for it.

78 comments:

Anonymous said...

Answer to Question #1:
"here are only one or two of these left today, with the rest being mostly small outfits whose main business is “running the labs for the government’, motivated by fees they can earn (which was never the case in the original complex.)"

This says it all.

Eric said...

Frank,
This is a well thought out and presented article. Thanks for posting it.

Anonymous said...

Dr. C. Paul Robinson’s comments/insight is as usual, excellent.

I concur with his comments but a few of his comments (imo) might tend to over simplify the problems or at least imply a less complex fix than is required to correct the problems that exist today in the Nuclear Weapons Complex.

“…there is no direct management of the production complex. The overall management —including cohesive day-to-day management of the GOCO’s— used to be performed by the Albuquerque Operations Office for the entire complex, and the AOO depended on the weapons labs to help it establish the technical directions and design and quality acceptance requirements and the labs served as the final approval for any deviations.
This arrangement worked for 40 years, and no one has filled the vacuum left by abolishment of the Albuquerque Operations role.”

I agree, but the successful approach back then was not just the result of “direct management” by AOO/ALO. To me, the key to the success of the approach was that the AOO/ALO manager (e.g., Herm Roser) listened to and respected the comments of the GOCO Lab/Plant Managers. Mr. Roser looked at these people as his team of experts. They knew more about their sites and processes better than anyone and were trusted individuals. Today, according to DOE/NNSA, all the experts seem to be from somewhere else other than the site. On the other hand, many of today’s Plant Managers seem to be corporate CEOs who have little background in the nuclear weapons business. They seem to lack the historical perspective and some even act like rock stars just moving on to the next big gig.

My point is that a simple organizational change to provide “direct management” will not solve the issues that exist today.
We’ve changed from AEC, ERDA, and DOE to NNSA and the issues become more difficult and convoluted with each change. Rearranging the deck chairs again will not correct the issues noted by Dr. Robinson.

Moving the NWC to the DOD might be necessary to break the mold...so long as all the Feds don't just change hats and move to DOD. However, I agree this move might not be the best fit for the Labs.

Anonymous said...

One can only imagine how different life at LANL would now be had Ambassador Robinson become our director two years ago!

Anonymous said...

Can you imagine Mikey's answers to these questions? Even if he weren't a Bechtel hack? Hindsight is 20-20, but I wish a similar exercise would have been part of the contract bidding, so that we could have directly compared the experience, vision, judgement, and perspective of the two. Of course, that might have risked pissing off NNSA.

Anonymous said...

Bravo to Dr. Robinson. He joins a small, distinguished list of lab director's such as Sig Hecker that have told the truth.

Now, the only question is, is anyone listening? We've heard this for at least 15 years, since the Galvin commission, and what has been done?

Anonymous said...

We could have had C. Paul Robinson as our LANL Director. Most of the new employees at LANL don't know it, but Paul was once the man who ran the weapons program at LANL. He even had the fortitude to stand up to NNSA during the contract competition and say that Nanos' shutting down the lab was a dumb idea. Can anyone imagine Mike standing up to NNSA and saying the right thing?

It was a great loss for Los Alamos when LANS/Bechtel LLC took over the management contract at LANL. Instead of Paul as Director, we got a fuzzy headed ewok and a lab that is now in serious decline.

Perhaps the next President of the United States should seriously consider asking C. Paul Robinson to become the head of NNSA or DOE. It would be an excellent choice for the job.

Anonymous said...

You go, Dr. Robinson! Thanks for telling it like it is!

Anonymous said...

Relative to Robinson, Mikey is a rank amateur!!

Doug Roberts said...

Well said, Paul.

--Doug

LANL, Retired 2005

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, many of today’s Plant Managers seem to be corporate CEOs who have little background in the nuclear weapons business. They seem to lack the historical perspective and some even act like rock stars just moving on to the next big gig." - 8:30 AM

Right on the mark, 8:30 AM! LANL is now being run by a bunch of Bechtel dandies who appear to have little concern for the long term damage they are inflicting on the lab and its scientific culture.

I don't know of a single staff member who is happy with the current management. LANS got the benefit of the doubt for about 2 years, but it has become clear to most that no one in LANS upper management will push back on any DOE or NNSA request, no matter how crazy it may be. Trust between management and the staff has completely evaporated during this last year.

If the local housing market and the US economy were doing better, I have no doubt at least half of the staff would quickly be heading out the front gates (not that LANS would care one bit). Of late, I've noticed that LANS management won't even acknowledge when yet another staff member finally decides to call it quits and leave LANL. This hemorrhaging of scientific talent will only get worse once the economy begins to improve.

Anonymous said...

"Something must be done to break the current stalemate." (Question 4, last sentence.)

And Dr. C. Paul Robinson gives many examples of, just that, "Something must be done to break the current stalemate.", i.e. break the current domineering political correctness view of the US nuclear weapons policy. Some examples:

(1) A US nuclear arsenal and deterrent that is coherent with a post Cold War, and a post 9/11 world, i.e. essentially going down in yield.

(2) Considering of removing the nuclear weapons responsibilities from DOE to a new agency within DoD, that would provide a better continuity of the nuclear deterrent.

(3) New nuclear weapons systems should be approved by the Congress, i.e. a path forward, and a break of the stalemate, as well as nuclear testing, whenever needed.

(4) The end of Cold War, was not "The End of History," as believed by many.

(5) A critique of the "poetic idea" (naive view) of "a world free of nuclear weapons would be a better world" than the current situation, is a foolish idea of grand proportion, the so-called "zeroist" view, (highly theoretical, and is fit only to a theoretical world, not the actual world.)

(6) A new and effective capability to fabricate plutonium pits is a critical priority.

(7) "I urge the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the HASC [House Armed Services Committee] to step up and demand that the US greatly increase its attention to reverse the decline which now characteriizes our deterrent and the complex responsible for it." (Question 6, last sentence.)

(Dr. C. Paul Robinson has once again proven to be the moral leader of LANL, and the NWC in large. Thanks.)

Anonymous said...

"There are only one or two of these left today, with the rest being mostly small outfits whose main business is “running the labs for the government’, motivated by fees they can earn (which was never the case in the original complex.)"

Small outfits?

I might be missing the point, but from my perspective it seems to me there’s an 800 lb. gorilla in the house. Babcock & Wilcox/ Honeywell/Bechtel at 12 major DOE Facilities & they're all interconnected like a spider web.

Eric said...

All,
Since the commenters agree with Paul's and Sig's comments, I have one practical question.

What person(s) in Congress or the executive branch (especially come January) will implement these recommendations and how do we support that person(s)?

Thanks,

Anonymous said...

"I've noticed that LANS management won't even acknowledge when yet another staff member finally decides to call it quits and leave LANL." (8:33 PM)

I know lots of staff that have left over this last year. These are staff members who completely cut the cord with LANL and gave up their DOE clearances, yet they all mysteriously show up in LANL's phonebook and databases as being lab "Afflilates". Could it be that LANS is attempting to hide LANL's "brain drain" of talent from NNSA?

Anonymous said...

8:52 am: "What person(s) in Congress or the executive branch (especially come January) will implement these recommendations and how do we support that person(s)?"

Eric, NO ONE is going to implement them. That's the whole point, you ninny.

Anonymous said...

Answer to Question $4:

Many of us believe that if such high
yields remain the only options available, our threats to actually use such weapons
are hallow...
========================

Boy I hope that's a typo. I would hope
Robinson knows the difference between
"hallow" and "hollow".

He should have said the threat to use the weapons would be "hollow".

"Hallow" means to venorate, to make
holy, or respect deeply.

Frank Young said...

I noticed that too but didn't change it. The only thing I changed was to add a blank line between Question 6 and Robinson's reply (to be consistent with the formatting of the other five questions).

Eric said...

To 12:24

1. Clever turn of phrase - "you ninny"
2. I disagree with your main point. I think that there are people who will listen and will do something if approached with facts and respect. I have already talked with a number of them. In order for my talk to be effective, I need others who have the courage to talk as well. Apparently you are not one of these people. Thanks for letting all of the readers of this blog know.

Anonymous said...

I think that anonymous at 8/30/08 1:36 PM is naive to think that anybody will do anything to fix the messes of corporate management at LANL and LLNL. To do so would necessitate that the bureacracy admit a mistake and that just is not going to happen.

For the LANL and LLNL researchers, I think that the best strategy at this time is to just tough it out until the economy and house market improve. THEN, get out ASAP!

Anonymous said...

You guys are soooooo fucked. A Congress and Administration that doesn't care, inept local management, and everybody who can trying to turn a profit on you rather than acknowledging and supporting your mission. I don't see this ending well no matter how it turns out.

Anonymous said...

I used to work at LANL when transition happened. Almost everybody was so happy LANS got the contract, UC in their eyes, now everybody regrets Robinson did not win.

Anonymous said...

Do you think Robinson would have given the same answers if he were the LANL director today? Be real!

Frank Young said...

Here is the second sentence from Robinson's prepared testimony:

"I have testified before this Committee many times in the past:
(1) in the 1980’s when I led the nuclear weapons and national security efforts at Los Alamos,
(2) in the late 1980’s when I served as Ambassador and Head of the United States Delegation to the Nuclear Testing Talks between the U.S. and the USSR in Geneva, Switzerland, and
(3) at Sandia, when I served as President and Laboratories Director from 1995 to 2005."


Do your research and show us where he used to blow smoke before he retired. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying I want to see it.

Anonymous said...

8/31/08 12:48 AM, please explain your remark. Robinson's been a straight talker for a long time, IMO.

Anonymous said...

10:12 PM, the UC/LANS fans seem to have resided mostly in organizations such as T and B Division, filled with researchers who are detached from the NNSA universe. Those of us who watched years of BWXT shenanigans at the NWC plants knew better.

Anonymous said...

"Do you think Robinson would have given the same answers if he were the LANL director today? Be real!" - 12:48 AM

Yes, he would. He stood up to NNSA during the RFP competition when he said that the Nanos shutdown was wrong. It probably cost Paul and his group the competition. I'm almost certain D'Agostino used this to bias his decision on the LANL contract. It wasn't a fair fight, regardless of what lies NNSA told the public after the management contract selection was made.

Paul has scruples. He's proven it. You, 12:48 AM, and the rest of the gang running LANS LLC, obviously do not.

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, many of today’s Plant Managers seem to be corporate CEOs who have little background in the nuclear weapons business. They seem to lack the historical perspective and some even act like rock stars just moving on to the next big gig." - 8:30

This statement really resonated with me and the current situation at TA-55. We've been invaded by Bechtelians, who sit as ADs, run the facility and have no clue or concept as to how Los Alamos works or even how to run a nuclear facility. Most at one point came from Pantex, ex Navy nukes or reactor people who have one worry-criticality and rad con. These guys pretend to have experience but it does not *even* come close to translating into the same hazards, issues or breadth of work that goes on in PF-4. We're talking apples and oranges but for some reason LANS feels they are interchangeable. Just another example of a failed experiment.

Anonymous said...

8/31/08 12:48 AM

(Your accusation of Dr. C. Paul Robinson is baseless, theoretical as well.)

From U.S. Department of State:

Amb. C. Paul Robinson

Amb. C. Paul Robinson joined Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in October 1990, serving as Director of Systems Analysis, then Vice President of Laboratory Development--leading the Lab´s efforts in Technology Partnerships, Quality Assurance and Change Management. In July 1995 he was selected President of Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, and Director of Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia Corporation manages SNL, with principal sites in Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CA for the U.S. Deppartment of Energy´s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration. During his 10 years as Sandia´s President, he managed the operation and growth of SNL from a $1.3-billion annual budget to more than $2.4-billion and greater than 8,500 full-time employees. Under his leadership, SNL diversified its mission support activities to include larger efforts in nuclear weapons design and development, non-proliferation and material control around the world, counterterrorism, homeland security, and support for the Defense Department and intelligence communities. He developed broad and innovative strategies for partnering with universities and industry and led a major revitalization of laboratory buildings and experimental facilities. In April 2005 Amb. Robinson stepped down as President and supported Lockheed Martin Corporation, Information and Technology Services, as an advisor for a special project. He retired from LMC and Sandia on January 31, 2006.

A member since 1991 of the Strategic Advisory Group for the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, Amb. Robinson has chaired the Policy Panel from 1992 to 2005. He also serves on the NASA Advisory Council. He served as the Chairman of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Group on Verification of Warhead Dismantlement and Special Nuclear Materials Controls. He previously served on the Scientific Advisory Group on Effects for the Defense Nuclear Agency, and on the Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committee. He serves on Defense Science Board studies, routinely provides advice to many other government agencies, and has testified before the U.S. Congress more than 80 times.

Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and reappointed by President George H.W. Bush, Amb. Robinson served as Chief Negotiator and head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.S./USSR Nuclear Testing Talks in Geneva from 1988-90. These negotiations produced Protocols to the "Threshold Test Ban Treaty" and the "Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty." Both, along with the treaties, were ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate and are in force between the U.S. and Commonwealth of Independent States. The Joint Verification Experiment, which he negotiated and carried out in 1988, laid the foundation for today´s U.S./Russian Lab-to-Lab efforts.

From 1985-88, Amb. Robinson was Senior Vice President, Principal Scientist, and Board Member of Ebasco Services, Inc., a major New York-based engineering and construction firm. He spent much of his early career (1967-85) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory serving in the Nuclear Test Division, the Advanced Concepts Group, led the Laser Spectroscopy and Isotope Separation Division (AP), and led the nuclear weapons and other defense programs.

Amb. Robinson was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1998 and serves on the Committee on Membership. He received the Outstanding Public Service Medal from the American Nuclear Society for 40 years of contributions to national nuclear efforts, the American Physical Society Pake Prize for outstanding leadership and research accomplishments, the New Mexico Governor´s Distinguished Citizen Award, and the Department of Energy Secretary´s Gold Award. He has also served as a trustee of the Kazakhstan Nonproliferation Institute.

Amb. Robinson earned a B.S. in Physics from Christian Brothers College and a Ph.D. in Physics from Florida State University, and received an honorary doctorate from Christian Brothers University.

(www.state.gov/t/isn/isab/75675.htm)

(Frank, thanks for posting this important interview.)

Anonymous said...

My remarks earlier about Robinson were not intended to minimize his accomplishments or attack his character. By the way, I don’t disagree Robinson’s responses at all. I simply question whether Robinson’s testimonies, speaking as an ordinary citizen, would be the same if he were speaking as the lab director. Common sense logics in the corporate world tells me that one doesn’t yell at your boss (DOE) that he is all messed up and then suggest your staunch benefactor of the past decades (Domenici) to give away his Water and Energy appropriation money to be distributed in the DoD Defense appropriation bill. As LANL director, he would be speaking for the institution and responsible for livelihood of thousands of employees. Are you ready to pay the price if funding is diminished because he has spoken the “truth”?
Granted that the environment was very different back then, the money that flowed into Sandia for “major revitalization of laboratory buildings and experimental facilities” suggests that he was probably on the good side of DOE and Domenici.
Since you appear to know the history better than I, please give an example, or two, of how Robinson stood up the establishment and did good to the lab? I’d like to know more about the man. [Saying bad things about Nano was easy as he was probably trying to get LANL employees’ vote during the contract competition.] - 12:48 AM

Anonymous said...

I like and admire Paul Robinson but his major step into scientific management was through the growth of the LANL uranium isotope separation "effort". Most of that program, I fear, does not bear close examination.

Anonymous said...

"Saying bad things about Nano (sic) was easy as he was probably trying to get LANL employees’ vote during the contract competition." - 12:34 AM

The employees had no vote nor voice in the whole competition process, you fool!

Anonymous said...

"I urge the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the HASC to step up and demand that the US greatly increase its attention to reverse the decline which now characterizes our deterrent and the complex responsible for it." (Robinson)

Bravo! At least someone with knowledge of the subject matter realizes what is happening with the current NNSA complex.

It's quickly going down the tubes since NNSA began their ill-advised privatization efforts to profit the likes of powerful corporate entities like Bechtel/BWXT/etc.

Anonymous said...

Any of this below sound familiar?

Should we shut down the DOJ? Denounce them as buttheads?

How about we demand that the DOJ be privatized and handed over to "for-profit" corporate entities?

If only DOJ had Six-Sigma programs, I'm sure none of this would have ever happened!


news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/
gonzales_security_breach

------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers: Gonzales mishandled classified data
------------------------------------------------------

- AP News Sep1 '08

WASHINGTON - Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales mishandled highly classified notes about a secret counterterror program, but not on purpose, according to a memo by his legal team.

The memo, obtained by The Associated Press, acknowledges that Gonzales improperly stored notes about the program and might have taken them home at one point.

Removing secret documents from specially secured rooms violates government policy.

Gonzales' lawyers wrote in their memo that there is no evidence the security breach resulted in secret information being viewed or otherwise exposed to anyone who was not authorized.

...Sensitive compartmentalized information is one of the highest and most sensitive levels of classified documents and is deemed top secret. It usually relates to national security cases.

Gonzales' lawyers acknowledge that he kept the notes in a safe in his fifth-floor office at the Justice Department, along with a small number of other highly classified papers, instead of in the special facilities accessible only by certain people with top secret security clearances.

He also may have taken the notes home at one point in 2005 as he was moving out of the White House counsel's office, where he served until he was sworn in as attorney general at the start of President Bush's second term, the memo says.

Anonymous said...

WTF?

"mishandled highly classified notes... but not on purpose"

"Gonzales' lawyers acknowledge that he kept the notes in a safe in his fifth-floor office at the Justice Department"

OK, what's "not on purpose" about removing documents from a SCIF and locking them in your office safe?

I don't know how it works at DOJ, but every time I leave a LANL SCIF there's a guard who checks whether I'm carrying out any classified.

"Removing secret documents from specially secured rooms violates government policy."

There's an understatement.

Anonymous said...

The Gonzales news reinforces an ongoing story. The rules don't seem to apply to the elites. You've seen that story over and over during the last few years but it is still somewhat difficult to comprehend. Just look at how our government is bailing out their friends, the investment bankers, with taxpayer dollars.

It's been said many times of late:

"Privatized gains for a select few and socialized losses for the rest".

That appears to be our future, both as a nation and as a newly privatized National Lab.

Anonymous said...

Surprise! Surprise!

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/
ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_security_breach

---------------------------------------------------
Gonzales won't face charges for mishandling info
---------------------------------------------------

- AP News, Sep 2, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department refused to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for improperly — and possibly illegally — storing in his office and home classified information about two of the Bush administration's most sensitive counterterrorism efforts.

...The report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found that Gonzales risked exposing at least some parts of the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program, as well as interrogations of terrorist detainees. Some aspects of the surveillance program explicitly referred to in the documents were "zealously protected" by the NSA, the report found.

Fine referred the case to the Justice Department's National Security Division to see if charges should be brought against Gonzales. But prosecutors dropped the case after an internal review that began earlier this year, said Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd.

"After conducting a thorough review of the matter and consulting with senior career officials inside and outside of the division, the NSD ultimately determined that prosecution should be declined," Boyd said in a statement.

Anonymous said...

It time for Congress to just shut NNSA down... move nuclear weapons production sites to DOD and the three national labs back under DOE. Simple, straight forward, makes sense, and won't happen.

DOT doesn't design/build tanks and ships for DOD... NASA doesn't design/build spy satellites for DOD... So why must a separate agency design and build DOD's nuclear weapons.

Anonymous said...

9/2/08 11:24 PM

I thought that this has been corrected in 2000 years but apparently is still valid: "Quod licet Gonzali, non licet Quintanae", if my Latin is correct...

Anonymous said...

Congress wanted a competition for the NNSA lab contracts, but it was NNSA that demanded that these contracts be "for-profit" and that they must go to a corporate LLC entity.

It was NNSA that demanded that benefits be cut back for lab workers.

It's NNSA that is working on plans to layoff large segments of the scientific workforce and turn the complex into mostly a production facility (something which Congress emphatically does not want!).

When PNNL (a DOE lab) came up for contract renewal, they were allowed to have the non-profit Batelle Institute remain in charge. LBL was allowed to stay under non-profit UC control during their contract competition.

NNSA is quickly destroying what is left of the scientific core of the nuclear weapons labs with their ill conceived policies.

It's time to rip these labs away from an incompetent NNSA and put them under DOD, where they belong.

Anonymous said...

52 am: "So why must a separate agency design and build DOD's nuclear weapons."

The history of the decision to take control of the design and development of atomic weapons from the military and give it to the new AEC with the signing of the first Atomic Energy Act in 1946 by Truman, is complex and interesting, with many colorful characters such as Groves, Lillienthal, Vannevar Bush, and the rest. One should understand the historical context and consider whether the reasons at the time still apply, before blithely assuming it's a good idea for the DoD to be in control.

Anonymous said...

So 9/3/08 11:02 AM,

go ahead and make your argument... otherwise I vote for moving away from the distant past of WWII and into the present reality... NNSA is no AEC, and LANS is no UC...

Anonymous said...

10:33 AM is right on the money, but no one in Congress is listening or cares about the death of the national labs under NNSA's rule.

Anonymous said...

Paul Robinson has it exactly right. The US has no nuclear weapons strategy and the NNSA is unilaterally disarming the US. The damage done to LANL and LLNL by privatization is immeasurable. Now the focus is on earning "fee," not doing what's right for the country. Think about it, does a model of "nuclear weapons for profit" make sense? Does making the earning of fee the sole metric for the labs sound like the right choice for the country? This model inspires NNSA to pressure lab personnel to make problems go away, say everything is "OK" even when things are NOT "OK." The impact on morale cannot be overstated. Early and mid-career people are leaving in droves. As a 20+ year weaponeer I'm stuck at LANL until I retire, but I would never (NEVER) encourage anyone (unless I hated them) to choose my career path now. It's a thankless, dead-end career focused on inane efforts to earn fee, think up easily accomplished PBIs, and demonstrate mindless compliance. What a waste, and what a pity.

Anonymous said...

"The impact on morale cannot be overstated. Early and mid-career people are leaving in droves." - 10:14 PM


Just today, I heard mention of two more bright, mid-career scientists who have decided to call it quits and bail from LANL. The lab is hemorrhaging talent. This, after already losing lots of seasoned personnel with the recent SSP.

LANS upper management appears clueless about what is occurring at this lab. I take that back. They probably aren't clueless. They just don't care.

The fee is all that appears to matter to LANS and they can get that by having:

(a) No security problems,
(b) No safety problems, and
(c) Doing the cleanup work.

Other than that, the rest of the lab can pretty much go to hell as far as LANS is concerned.

This is no longer the place at which to nurture an effective scientific career. Management is currently pushing the scientific staff to bring in more post docs, but that would be immoral given the sad state of morale and the dim future of this lab.

Anonymous said...

"My deeply held conviction is that the GOCO model has deteriorated so far, that it must now either be eliminated or drastically rejuvenated (with a new agency and a “clean sheet of paper.”)" (Robinson)


It's time for drastic action. Do it before we decline to the point that there is little worth keeping at these labs.

Not in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined that things could deteriorate to the point at which we see now at LANL, and LLNL is not far behind.

It's not working and we need more than just some minor tweaking. We need major change and we need it quickly. The combined "two punch" of NNSA plus privatization is slowly killing off the weapons labs.

Eric said...

The comments to this posting have been very interesting and have brought in some new facts.

Long ago, Eldridge Cleaver (inspired by his wife Kathleen) said,

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

In this light, I would appreciate some clarification.

There has been a lot of commenting consisting of "Change we believe in." but almost none in which the commenter proposes making any of the changes himself or herself.

What holds a particular commenter back from trying to implement these changes, even in a small way?

If a commenter views the needed changes as impossible, why would a commenter spend time railing against the situation and why would a commenter expect some other person, a big gun, to implement positive changes without any help or support from the commenter. Basically, the big gun is expected to take all the risks and get no support.

Thanks in advance for whatever clarity anyone can bring to this long running lack of positive action, action that is in the commenter's own self interest.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of PBIs - I noticed in the 4 or 5 emails emails I got regarding the deadline for upadating technical worker info at the WCI site that some of them mentioned it was a PBI, and others omitted that information.

Anonymous said...

"Change we believe in"

Several post have been made stating that the demise of LANL/Weapons Complex is the result of President Bush & his Administration.

So, with the upcoming election of Sen. Obama & his Admin in Control of Congress, all this bad is going to be corrected and we can all live happily ever after.

Sorry Frank, but there'll be no further need for your blog.

;)

Anonymous said...

10:14 PM could not have said it better: "The impact on morale cannot be overstated. Early and mid-career people are leaving in droves."

LANL, and now LLNL have been losing talent for the last several years with scores of smart - and mind you, patriotic folks - leaving. The problem is larger than LANS: the problem is NNSA and its pathetic excuse for a team of civilian federal "leaders," who don't know or care about what the nuclear enterprise means for this country and its future.

Anonymous said...

9/4/08 8:47 PM

"...the problem is NNSA and its pathetic excuse for a team of civilian federal "leaders,..."

From my perspective, the arrogance among the Feds is what's so pathetic. They create an adversarial relationship as if it's the key to successful oversight of the NWC. It's led to a dysfunctional NWC & there seems to be no plan to correct the situation. Dr. C. Paul Robinson is trying to bring attention to the problems but I'm afraid he's one voice in a black hole.

Anonymous said...

"Basically, the big gun is expected to take all the risks and get no support."

Eric, you are a certified fuckwit. Every day, thousands of LANL employees continue to speak up for what is rational, and sane, and efficient, and logical. They volunteer their time on committees in the vain hope that they can make some tiny difference. Every day middle managers continue to try to do the right thing for their employees while voicing rational proposals up a chain that consistently breaks somewhere on the way up.

And what do we get? Senior managers who tell us that there is nothing wrong with Procurement, it's just that the technical people don't fill out the forms correctly. They promise employees better lateral and vertical career paths as a result of CPD, and roll it out without any sort of plan as to how this movement is supposed to occur. They promise that growth in TR programs will offset losses in DP, but then freeze employee movement between organizations in the name of "head count management." We get year-end faux-success stories about the Lab graduating future leaders from the DDP (doh! cancelled after the November 2007 graduation, sorry suckas!) and streamlining the process for procurements over $5M (because the technical staff needs soooo many procurements of that size!).

I'm reminded of the scene in The American President where Michael J. Fox says "The people are so thirsty for leadership they'll crawl through the desert and when they find it's only a mirage, they'll drink the sand."

I'm so tired of drinking sand, I find myself longing for the Pete Nanos days when I at least knew that somebody stood for something around here. How warped is that?

So please, Eric the Great, point me toward that fearless leader who would be guiding the lost LANL-ites out of the desert, if only he had a few loyal followers to help him carry the mantle of office.

Please. I await your wisdom.

Anonymous said...

"The problem is larger than LANS: the problem is NNSA and its pathetic excuse for a team of civilian federal "leaders," who don't know or care about what the nuclear enterprise means for this country and its future." - 8:47 PM


Tyler Przybylek, Former Chairman of the NNSA Source Evaluation Board, recent executive new hire at NNSA contractor Pro2Serve, and creator of the famous con-man phrase: "substantially equivalent"...

-------------------------
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 2008 –Charles S. (Tyler) Przybylek, the former Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), has joined Professional Project Services, Inc. (Pro2Serve) as an Advisor to the Board of Directors. In this capacity, Mr. Przybylek will provide strategic guidance to Pro2Serve’s Board and corporate leadership as it continues to expand its role in providing critical infrastructure engineering services in support of national security. In his former role as NNSA’s Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Przybylek served as the headquarters interface for integration of field and headquarters operations. He also served as NNSA’s chief legal officer and served as the Source Evaluation Board Chairman for the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) contract competition and as the Source Selection Authority for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) contract competition.

----------
May 20, 2005 -- LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- Seeking an overall improvement in the management of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the government's National Nuclear Security Administration announced that it will pay up to $79 million to run the weapons laboratory in an effort to attract the best manager.

"That is a significant increase in the amount that we are willing to pay to have this job done," said NNSA's Tyler Przybylek.

----------
July 17, 2006 -- WASHINGTON, DC -- Proposals will be evaluated and assessed against the criteria contained in the final RFP by a Source Evaluation Board (SEB), a panel of career NNSA officials chaired by Walter Lips, Senior Source Evaluation Advisor. The SEB will submit its evaluation to the Source Selection Official, C.S. “Tyler” Przybylek, Senior Advisor to the Administrator. Przybylek will make the contractor selection decision.

----------
April 22, 2004 -- LOS ALAMOS -- Charles (Tyler) Przybylek, general counsel and acting chief operating officer for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, was at Los Alamos Wednesday to gather input from Lab workers about the future of the operating contract. The visit fulfilled a commitment NNSA Director Linton Brooks made to listen and gather input from Lab employees, community and tribal leaders and elected officials. Although he was not able to respond to specific questions about the contract competition because details are still being formulated, Przybylek added that his visit to Los Alamos Wednesday won't be the only opportunity for Lab workers to provide input to DOE.

(Photo) Przybylek greets Rich Marquez, associate director for administration (ADA) before meeting with Lab workers in the Administration Building Auditorium at Technical Area 3 and those watching on Labnet.

-------------
April 2008 -- NNSA Communique -- The Secretary’s Achievement Award was presented to NNSA for its “Getting the Job Done” initiative. The award is given for accomplishing significant achievements on behalf of the Department. Tyler Przybylek was presented the Secretary’s Exceptional Service Award in recognition of outstanding and unique accomplishment and leadership that exemplifies the highest standards of and dedication to public service.

-------------

Anymore questions about why this mess happened?

Just follow the money. The stench makes it easy.

I have no doubt that Tom D'Agostino already has his eye on a lucrative VP slot at one of the new NNSA contractors.

If you have any further questions, I strongly suggest you read the recent book by Thomas Frank called "The Wrecking Crew". Bechtel and BWXT were the corporate "wrecking crew" hired for LANL, and they are doing a mighty fine job at it.

tcfrank.com/books/the-wrecking-crew

Anonymous said...

There is no comparing Anastasio with Paul Robinson. Anastasio came here because he knew that and feared that if Paul came to LANL Livermore would be threatened. He and the other people from LLNL came to Los Alamos not because they liked it, or wanted to help. They came because they wanted to save Livermore. They had influence at UC that Nanos had lost, and with UC they cut a deal with Bechtel to use its Washington D.C. influence to help them win. NNSA was fooled and fell for the charade. Now Bechtel takes $70M of the taxpayers money each year, pays some in big bonuses to its hired guns and laughs all the way to Riley, their billionaire owners, bank account. Scientists here have to witness the destruction of a great laboratory by a construction company -- all to save Livermore from having to compete with Paul Robinson. It is more than sad.

Anonymous said...

Yes, let us not forget...

LANL, a once great scientific institution, is now being run by a construction company (Bechtel)!

And it's a corrupt, politically connected construction company!

It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Actually, it should not boggle the mind. This result was clear as soon as NNSA awarded the contract to LANS and a person read the history of Bechtel's behavior and the details of the contract.

Whether locals like it or not, Bechtel is behaving the way that gets them government contracts and the way that they have behaved for 60 years.

One question we might ask is "Why does Bechtel's behavior routinely land contracts from the government?"

Remember, if a government employee does not sign off on a contract, Bechtel does not get it.

So Bechtel is doing what someone in Washington wants them to do. Someone in Washington wants LANL to go away.

D.C. is the judge. Bechtel is just the executioner.

The D.C. person needs to hire an executioner, not be one (plausible deniability is important). LANS is the outsourced executioner.

Anonymous said...

"Someone in Washington wants LANL to go away." 7:52 PM

Fine, I'll just take the Sigma 15 knowledge in my head and head out the front gate. That part won't just "go away". It lasts a long time and is well hidden inside my neurons.

Anonymous said...

Think back to the contract announcement. The "win" came down to a few thousand dollars difference in fee.

Anonymous said...

9/6 10:49 pm: You forgot to mention that it's worth a LOT of money in some circles.

Anonymous said...

8:47 PM "Tyler Przybylek, Former Chairman of the NNSA Source Evaluation Board, recent executive new hire at NNSA contractor Pro2Serve, and creator of the famous con-man phrase: "substantially equivalent"..."

If this is true, then what a scam and Congress should be listening. Tyler was on the Chairman of the selection committee; Pro2Serve was proposed by LANS (Bechtel) in their proposal; Pro2Serve gets a healthy contract at LANL; and Tyler ends up with a great job. WOW!! I guess D'Agostino is next like everyone's talking about!

Anonymous said...

Ran across this on Yahoo Jobs....


Bored, Trapped in Your Job?
5 Signs It's Time to Move On

by Jenna Lebel, Experience, Inc.,

When you landed that new job, the world looked great. Now it's been a while, and one of your worst fears has come true -- you're unhappy in your job. When you're spending at least five days a week at work, it makes sense that you'd want to like what you're doing. But there are times when you're in a position or company that doesn't work for you.

If you're unhappy with your job -- and everybody around you probably already knows it -- it might be time for a career transition. Results from an Experience.com survey provide some insight into making the change. According to the survey, the top signal that it's time to transition to a new job is not the boss yelling at you. In fact, the number-one warning sign is:

* Your job has become boring. Most people are not in it just for the money. On the contrary, they're looking for something that gives them the chance to make a difference. If, in fact, you're finding a lack of intellectual stimulation and challenge, you have lots of company -- nearly 30 percent of respondents cited this as their biggest indicator it's time to leave a job.

* Another warning signal to workers that it may be time to make a transition is the lack of growth opportunities. If you're in a dead end job, with no place to move (unless a lot of people grow old and retire), you're in trouble. Twenty-two percent of respondents felt trapped in a position with little room for career progression.

* Others felt they were receiving inadequate pay or benefits. It may not all be about money, but some of it certainly is. Do you feel underpaid? Do you have lousy (or no) benefits? Seventeen percent of employees feel the economic pinch, and when that happens, may have to decide whether their job is really worth it.

* Work friends are very important. If your relationships with co-workers have gone bad, that's a definite sign that it's time to move on. Seventeen percent of those surveyed agreed -- if you're not getting along, you're going to feel like you're suffocating.

* Lack of investment in the company's goals/mission. This is more than just a self-esteem thing, but was mentioned by 13% of the respondents as a key factor indicating a career change. You need to be part of the big picture, or you're not in the picture at all.

Once you encounter the warning signs that it might be time to make a career transition, how long do you wait before you leave?

Most people (52%) said they would wait at least a year to see if it improved. Others were not as patient and hopeful. Thirty-two percent of respondents said they would quit as soon as they found another job, while 16% reported they would stay no longer than six months.

"When you clearly communicate you are under-challenged, wait a few months to see if your superior responds, and if not, it's time to take your knowledge and expertise to a company that will let you grow," one respondent said.
---

Well I'm 4 of 5... that can't be good.

Anonymous said...

Those with 20+ years invested in LANL feel the need to stay due to the pension (if it lasts; I expect it to be frozen sometime in the next few years). However, many of the early and mid-career scientists are already bailing out of LANL.

Not a month goes by that I don't learn about another bright TSM who has left the lab. LANS is being very quiet about all these losses. In fact, many of the people who have left are still listed by LANS as LANL employees! LANS is probably hoping that NNSA doesn't notice, as it might hurt their chances for a bonus based on a science component of the PBIs.

Many of LANL's on-going science projects are now getting desperate for staff to help them out. The "dumbing-down" process and loss of expertise is obvious to many of those who are still left working at LANL.

Anonymous said...

The brute history since June 1, 2006 has proven that LANS, LLC, i.e. UC/Bechtel, e.g. Bechtel, was not capable to run LANL in an effective and positive way, and has not been able to set the course for the future of LANL, and the endgame is near for LANS, either you conquer or die, i.e. surrender the M&O contract of LANL to Lockheed Martin/UT, i.e. Los Alamos Alliance, and Dr. C. Paul Robinson as director, if you don´t improve your whole effort to run LANL.

Anonymous said...

"Pro2Serve was proposed by LANS (Bechtel) in their proposal"

Citation and details please? This is news to me.

Anonymous said...

It's news to you since you've never seen the LANS proposal. It has not been made public.

Anonymous said...

8:42

Pay attention.

Just because something is not public does not mean that people have not seen it.

For instance, I have a copy of the final contract.

How did I get it?

I asked nicely.

Anonymous said...

9/9/08, 2:32

Or you looked on the LANS Prime Contract Office webpagewhere the final LANS contract and all of the amendments are available to all.

Anonymous said...

Or are you looking on the NNSA public website with all the M&O Contracts

http://www.doeal.gov/mocd/Default.aspx

Anonymous said...

2:32 pm: "Just because something is not public does not mean that people have not seen it.

For instance, I have a copy of the final contract."

BFD. The contract is a government document. The proposal is LANS proprietary. FOIA will get you the former, but not the latter.

Anonymous said...

A big thanks from DOE, LANS, and NNSA to the commenters here who have, for years now, proven the point that LANL employees are not that smart, are uncontrollable, are lazy, and mouth off.

You now really are

"Butthead cowboys."

The evidence in the comments to this blog is overwhelming and has helped us convince the US Congress to do what we want with the place.

Nice job.

Anonymous said...

Make it so, 8:26.

Anonymous said...

"A big thanks from DOE, LANS, and NNSA to the commenters here who have, for years now, proven the point that LANL employees are not that smart, are uncontrollable, are lazy, and mouth off.

You now really are

"Butthead cowboys."

The evidence in the comments to this blog is overwhelming and has helped us convince the US Congress to do what we want with the place.

Nice job.

9/10/08 8:26 AM"

I take you are just making a joke.

Anonymous said...

"The evidence in the comments to this blog is overwhelming and has helped us convince the US Congress to do what we want with the place." - 8:26 AM

Current approval ratings for Congress are down to single digit values. That is because most Americans now believe you'll find our true buttheads and blowhards walking among the halls Congress.

Come November, American voters will finally have a chance to "do what they want with the place", which is to clean house.

Anonymous said...

9:25 PM.

Sadly, no.

Not a joke, except for black humor.

Los Alamos has lots of competitors, enemies, and people who want to use LANL money for other purposes.

For anyone of these people, a CD containing the archives of comments posted on LANL:The Rest of the Story since its inception would make an excellent weapon against LANL or, possibly, LANS.

Anonymous said...

Since we got off the subject, has anyone found where Pro2serve is named in the proposal or the contract? I am told it is in both! But of what use is it looking for it. Who cares? DOE, NNSA and Congress don't since they are lining themselves up for similar jobs to that which Tyler supposedly received.

Anonymous said...

8:32 PM

Go to http://www.doeal.gov/laso/NewContract.aspx

and look at the LANL contract;

Section J - Appendix E - SubContracting Plan

Under B.2. Method Used to Develop Subcontracting Goals... "In addition to the above mentioned methods used to develop the subcontracting goals, we have teamed with two SB [Small Business] companies to complement our team’s capabilities. Professional Project Services, Inc. (Pro2Serve) will be providing an integrated systems approach to technical and operational security. DreamTech Solutions, LLC, a newly formed subsidiary of the Los Alamos Commerce and Development Corp. (LACDC) will be the conduit used to procure the services of retired LANL employees, as needed, and will perform research and development and technology maturation activities. Both of these companies will share in the common fee pool"

Anonymous said...

"For anyone of these people, a CD containing the archives of comments posted on LANL:The Rest of the Story since its inception would make an excellent weapon against LANL or, possibly, LANS.

9/11/08 1:40 PM"

OMG you really believe that!!! Please get some help you are you are 10 on the delusional meter.

Anonymous said...

9/10 11:11 pm: "Come November, American voters will finally have a chance to "do what they want with the place", which is to clean house."

Right. They did that two years ago - nothing happened, despite the Dem's promises for the "first 100 days." No matter what the "voters" do, the situation will remain the same, until the US is attacked and thousands die again. THEN there will be change.