tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post7419551347150336486..comments2023-08-27T06:53:36.768-06:00Comments on LANL: The Rest of the Story: Frank Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-8636444037322443742008-04-16T00:10:00.000-06:002008-04-16T00:10:00.000-06:00Let's just get it over with and let Bechtel rename...Let's just get it over with and let Bechtel rename LANL to "Los Alamos Production, Construction, Restoration, and Pits" (LAPCRAP).<BR/><BR/>It's becoming increasingly clear who really controls the future direction of this lab.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-51371809829315830302008-04-15T20:29:00.000-06:002008-04-15T20:29:00.000-06:009:45 am: "PBIs are **EVERYTHING** at today's LANL....9:45 am: "PBIs are **EVERYTHING** at today's LANL. They trump all other issues -- good science, worker moral, lab efficiency and high costs, etc."<BR/><BR/>Absolutely true. The corporate big shots on the LANS Board are driving this bus. In theory, Mikey is the President of LANS, but in reality, he knows he's a mere corporate pawn, not like he thought it would be when he came from Livermore to be the savior for LANL. Money cures a lot of misgivings, however. Even so, it's mere weeks before he is gone, I predict. Same with the other Livermites in AD positions. Like any fundamentally decent folks, they don't need this crap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-66605908771239747752008-04-15T09:45:00.000-06:002008-04-15T09:45:00.000-06:00"It's all about PBIs, baby." - 9:37 AMPBIs are **E..."It's all about PBIs, baby." - 9:37 AM<BR/><BR/><BR/>PBIs are **EVERYTHING** at today's LANL. They trump all other issues -- good science, worker moral, lab efficiency and high costs, etc. <BR/><BR/>Your position and salary are now closely hooked to what you do to help the PBIs along. If the PBIs get high scores then NNSA can crow about complex "improvements" and LANS upper level management can get fatter salaries. Nothing else matters.<BR/><BR/>'Nuf said?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-21809072279939008262008-04-14T09:37:00.000-06:002008-04-14T09:37:00.000-06:006:20, your opinion is meaningless to anyone who ma...6:20, your opinion is meaningless to anyone who matters. It's all about PBIs, baby.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-21781038002339983062008-04-13T22:16:00.000-06:002008-04-13T22:16:00.000-06:00Salaries for most employees at LANL have grown sta...Salaries for most employees at LANL have grown stagnant and will probably remain that way for many years. Meanwhile, LANS' upper echelon doled out huge salary boosts in their favor with the creation of the LLC. They are currently banking on juicy 20% bonuses for being NNSA's sweet little bee-yach. <BR/><BR/>As you work harder and harder to help meet all those contract performance items so you can keep your job, 6:20 PM, those "idiots" you speak of get to take the credit and most of the future monetary rewards.<BR/><BR/>Idiots? I think not. Look elsewhere for the hordes of idiots in LANL's midst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-76494455079092854852008-04-13T20:20:00.000-06:002008-04-13T20:20:00.000-06:006:20 pm: "Mike is an idiot and so are the so-calle...6:20 pm: "Mike is an idiot and so are the so-called science-ADs and Wallace. What scientific leadership - all this for some bonus bucks."<BR/><BR/>"Idiots"?? Wow, you are obviously oblivious to the fact that most people work for MONEY. Do you think LANL upper managers care more about your definition of "leadership" than they care about their paychecks (including contract fee)? Big paycheck, big retirement, and a reputation (in the circles that count to them) as effective "leaders." Where's the downside for them? Not "idiots," just looking out for Number 1. And, they've created a situation where the folks who actually do the work they take credit for, and get paid for, can't do a thing about it. "idiots" indeed. Not hardly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-18448305028507497232008-04-12T18:23:00.000-06:002008-04-12T18:23:00.000-06:00Everyone knows the truth. Well, everyone except ou...Everyone knows the truth. Well, everyone except our Congressional members who have declined to step in and fix this impending disaster.<BR/>=============<BR/><BR/>Fix it??!!! Congress is the entity that<BR/>CAUSED that problem.<BR/><BR/>It was Congress that demanded a private,<BR/>for-profit, structured contract.<BR/><BR/>Congress wanted to have someone to <BR/>punish by withholding fees whenever<BR/>there is a security breach, or other<BR/>incident.<BR/><BR/>Congress was fed-up with UC being <BR/>indemnified because they were a <BR/>non-profit public entity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-1479221971930698662008-04-12T17:50:00.000-06:002008-04-12T17:50:00.000-06:00Unfortunately, DOE/NNSA has decided to collect the...Unfortunately, DOE/NNSA has decided to collect the entire fee. Thus if LANS doesn't qualify for it in its entirety, the rest of it will be kept by DOE/NNSA. It will NOT be reinvested in LANL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-57117405131981028252008-04-12T17:24:00.000-06:002008-04-12T17:24:00.000-06:00from Anonymous at 4/12/08 2:37 PM"It would be simp...from Anonymous at 4/12/08 2:37 PM<BR/>"It would be simpler to not screw things up and for LANS to invest a portion of their fee in diversification."<BR/><BR/>RIGHT! Sure this is going to<BR/>happen. You can pull the management fee from their cold dead fingers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-80374011319097676982008-04-12T17:19:00.000-06:002008-04-12T17:19:00.000-06:001:19LANS takes a fee of up to $79M per year. The ...1:19<BR/><BR/>LANS takes a fee of up to $79M per year. The rest of the $100M extra costs that LANS brought with them do come in the form of GRT and extra pension costs. UC, being a nonprofit organization, didn't have to pay these costs. UC cost $8M/year, LANS costs $175M/year. It doesn't get any simpler than that.<BR/><BR/>As DOE did not plus up the LANL budget to pay for these LANS costs, some of this exhorbitant increase does translate to less money available for programmatic work, but since LANS didn't significantly raise the overhead rate, most of these costs comes out of the overhead budget. That's why LANS had to lay off 500 contractors. What did you think these contractors were doing, science?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-22621417825319802982008-04-12T14:37:00.000-06:002008-04-12T14:37:00.000-06:00It would be simpler to not screw things up and for...It would be simpler to not screw things up and for LANS to invest a portion of their fee in diversification. Nah. Come to think of it, that could never happen. I guess 2:10's plan is better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-80686251264271480652008-04-12T14:10:00.000-06:002008-04-12T14:10:00.000-06:00OK! Here's the plan.We screw up a lot of stuff. Ha...OK! Here's the plan.<BR/>We screw up a lot of stuff. Have<BR/>a few safety and security incidents.<BR/>LANS gets a small fee next year<BR/>and the money saved goes to fund safety improvements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-15432516902411244622008-04-12T13:19:00.000-06:002008-04-12T13:19:00.000-06:00That's a very nice rant, and I don't disagree with...That's a very nice rant, and I don't disagree with the general sentiment, but what do LANS-related costs have to do with glove box safety?<BR/><BR/>LANS does not "take" $175M. As I understand it, that is the total cost to DOE of a maximum possible fee and NM gross receipts tax. I think that bonuses come from another pot. If true, that makes it worse.<BR/><BR/>Let's say LANS-related costs result in 10% less programmatic money. A fraction of programmatic money is spent on safety. From my vantage point, it looks like the fraction is increasing, leaving less money for technical work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-29978704711048659242008-04-12T10:29:00.000-06:002008-04-12T10:29:00.000-06:00Sorry, it's just not credible that LANS can corre...Sorry, it's just not credible that LANS can correct these kinds of safety issues. LANS takes $175M per year from the LANL budget to pay for their management fee and other costs. UC took $8M per year. This extra $167M that now pays management bonuses IS the funding that would have paid for improvements in engineered safety barriers, safety training, and would have paid for the maintenance staff to keep these safety systems operating within specifications.<BR/><BR/>Sorry LANS. Sorry NNSA. Everyone knows the truth. Well, everyone except our Congressional members who have declined to step in and fix this impending disaster.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com