Monday, February 05, 2007

 

All-hands meeting with Mike

This was just sent in. Why do you suppose LANS is waiting two more weeks before holding a meeting? There will be plenty of news breaking before then. Perhaps Mike is waiting until after the next tidal wave of revelations to have his little chat with us.

In any event, here is my list of questions to ask Mike:
  1. When will the findings of the ongoing FBI investigations be made public?
  2. Was John Mitchell's sudden departure from LANL security related, as rumored?
  3. Since when were all of LANL's security problems caused by "arrogant scientists"?
  4. Are you as embarrassed by LANS' performance at LANL to date as we are?
  5. Have we run out of JB Weld yet?
  6. Why was NNSA's security solution of cardboard and red duct tape over their USB ports not discussed in the hearings?
  7. How do you justify an FTE rate of $400K per staff member?

-Pat

**************************************

Mike will speak to the LANL employees about his testimony before the House subcommittee meeting on LANL security on Feb. 12. So let's prepare for the Q&A session.




Perhaps a question ought to be asked about "Workforce Mobility." Here's something from the Union (UPTE):

"(1) Is Workforce Mobility Just One Step from Out the Door?
As LANS keeps falling short of money because of management's unanticipated need to pay for gross receipts taxes, groups all around the lab are running short on funds. Employees in these groups are being placed in the workforce mobility program. Often this means great disruption to their former group and a new job that may not fit their skills. While the lab is adhering to the promise of no layoffs for the first year under the new contract, UPTE-CWA is worried that those on workforce mobility will be the first pushed out the door on July 1 when the first year is over.

"If you have been placed on workforce mobility, UPTE wants to hear from you. Send us an email or call us at 662-4679. Tell us how long you have been at the lab, whether you chose TCP1 or TCP2, what you did at your old job and what you do in your new job. We will keep all information confidential.

"We need to know if LANS is doing its best to find work for current employees, or if they are discriminating against certain groups that they hope to layoff in the near future. Only with your input can the union present testimony to legislators and take effect action to ensure that all are treated fairly. We look forward to hearing from you. "

Comments:
Where's the question about daycare?

He's waiting because he hopes that what he's reading on the blog is all hot air.
 
Here are a couple more:

1. Do you think the LANS contract will be terminated for cause, as was discussed in the hearings?

2. Is Linda Wilbanks, NNSA CIO as stupid and incompetent as she sounds?
 
"7. How do you justify an FTE rate of $400K per staff member?"

Perhaps a follow-up question to this. Do you see this rate decreasing next year? Within five years?
 
Bush just released his budget for FY08. From the looks of it, his budget is going to be DOA on Capitol Hill. Expect to see another year of CR's and further cut-backs at the labs as we enter into FY08. Bush's budget had numbers that were so off-the-wall, you almost get the suspicion that the Whitehouse wants to bring about a CR in FY08. Perhaps it's all part of a foxy plan to enforce Federal cost savings thru CR's and, at the same time, blame the Dems for stalling the budget process and not supporting "a strong national defense" (in preparation for the 2008 elections)? It will take a miracle for the Whitehouse, GOP, and Dems to come together and pass a budget for FY08. Don't expect to see any miracles.

On the lab-specific side, there is increased funding for energy research. However, it's unlikely that LANL would ever see a large chunk of this money. Most of it is destined for other labs that have a long history of energy research.

I think LANL is in for very hard times in FY08. The chances of a lab-wide RIF in FY08 are probably running about 80% as of today. If you don't have adequate funding in FY08 you are going to be at risk as never before. It will be interesting to see if Mike again gives a "no RIF, no plans for a RIF" message during his next All-Hands meeting. He may mention the rosey budget figures in Bush's FY08 budget, as Bodman did just today. However, don't believe for a minute that you'll be able to take those figures as reality.
 
FYI,

Here's a quick analysis of where the $400 K FTE figure comes from. Take a PhD with a salary of $120 K per year. The LANL budgeting worksheets for hourly costs put this person at around $195 to $205 per hour, depending on the division they are in. Let's use an average of $200 per hour.

54 weeks x 40 hrs/week = 2160 hrs per year

2160 hrs x $200 per hour = $432 K FTE.

Let's do a little bit more dissection of this figure. Assume you are receiving funding, but the sponsor is not paying for your vacation, sick leave, etc., as that's bundled into the overhead that is part of that $200 per hour figure.

However, the sponsor is paying additional taxes that come off the top of every dollar received at LANL. Let's assume this person takes all of their vacation and holidays, but none of their sick leave:

12 days holidays x 8 hrs = 96 hrs

21 days vacation x 8 hrs = 168 hrs

2160 hrs - 96 hrs - 168 hrs = 1896 hrs per year

1896 hrs x $200 per hour = $379,200 per FTE (before "off-the-top" taxes)

Now, realize that before this money even gets to your group to pay for your hourly costs, DOE may take a cut of about 3.5%, the various Program Offices will take another amount, say around 6.5% (depends on which offices are in line for a cut), and LDRD will take a whoping 8% off the top. For simplicity, I'm just going to gang all these percentages into one top rate tax figure. As a rough estimate, assume you'll need to now add about 15% in taxes to your group funding figures to cover for these "off-the-top" taxes.

$379 K x 15% = $57 K

$379 K + $57 K = $436 K per FTE

Now, realize this is the FTE cost, sans ANY vacation or equipment. Overhead charges are added on to any of these extra costs. Add in a couple of trips and a new PC and this amount quickly runs up to over $450 K per FTE.

Bottom line is that the $400 K FTE figure is a pretty good estimate of what it costs for a PhD FTE at LANL. If anything, is probably a bit too low of a figure. It's much more for some in the higher salary categories, maybe a little bit less for those making a slightly smaller salary.

We need to bring this figure down, and we need do it quickly, else the funding pie is going to be sliced much thinner for everyone at LANL. LANS should shoot for a figure of around $300 K per FTE (fully costed with all taxes). Failure to bring this figure down is going to end up killing off a large amount of our existing outside funding and will also quickly eat up the NNSA funds that come our way. It's in almost everyone's interest at LANL to see this figure reduce. Even if you are sitting comfortably in a management position and live off the overhead, realize that you are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. When the goose dies, so will your comfortable managerial position.
 
Correction on FTE Cost post:

"Now, realize this is the FTE cost, sans ANY *vacation* or equipment. "

Should read:

"Now, realize this is the FTE cost, sans ANY *lab travel* or equipment. "
 
Anonymous at 2/05/2007 12:24 PM wrote:
"It will be interesting to see if Mike again gives a 'no RIF, no plans for a RIF' message....."

Mike is probably not lying. These clowns did not plan for the RIF of the contractors last summer either. They were too busy planning for their bonusses.
 
On that "FTE Correction", don't be so quick.

For some lucky folks at LANL, "lab travel" == "vacation".

Ever take a look at the places that some lucky LANL staff get to travel to? I'm not talking about business trips to LLNL, Washington DC or DOE HQ. I know of plenty of staff that have finagled a very nice "vacation" via the use of supposedly official lab travel.
 
What's going on with the LLNL RFP? When I checked the DOE sites for info, it appeared that little had been done in regards to completing RFP specifications. Most of what I see is simple "boiler plate" stuff. In fact, I couldn't find anything specifying how LLNL benefits will be executed in the LLNL RFP.

I'm guessing that D'Agostino is under teriffic pressure for awarding the LANL contract to UC/Bechtel. I suspect that NNSA may now try and stall the LLNL RFP for a year or two and then sneak it by at some later date when the heat is off.

Are you people at LLNL hearing any news on your RFP? Have the NNSA guys come by yet and given you pep talks about your new benefits package? Is the transition date still set for Oct 1, 2007? If so, there is not much time left to finish awarding the RFP. What are you guys at LLNL hearing? Anything?
 
Mikey: How in the hell can you justify an overhead rate of approx. $400,000 per Staff? and expect Congress not cut our funding, where and how did you get to this point...And how long do you really think this type of $$$drain be sustaniable? One other thing, "Morale is Improving"? Who in the hell told tou that? Whomever it was they otta be repremended or at least looked at, because they are mis-leading you...
 
You might have heard the joke that is making the rounds:

Mike Anastasio is hauled before the Congressional oversight committee to testify on the latest security issues at the Lab. One Congressman barks at him: "Give me one good reason why we shouldn't just close down the Lab!"

Anastasio looks up at the Congressman with an expression of some surprise, and replies, "but...isn't that what I've been doing?"
 
LLNL contract is expected to be awarded at the end of March.

Regarding high FTE rates, those did not appear overnight. Sponsors complain about our costs all the time. The true measure is when they vote with their feet. Doing biology at a nuclear weapon design lab (with associated security costs) is probably not the best place if cost if your major driver.
 
Rumors have it that an amount equal to one's annual salary may be offered as an incentive to flat out leave LANL.
 
Old rumors don't die at LANL. they just get recycled with each new director. That same rumor (and several variants) were rampant during Kuckuck's temporary stint.

Dream on, boys and girls.
 
Actually, I am surprised Mike could find time to squeeze us into his busy schedule. If it were important to him, he would have spoken to us ASAP, instead it is over a week late. Yeah, I am really getting the strong sense that he thinks highly of the LANL workers. Certainly explains why he hasn't defended us "arrogant scientists."
 
If you own property here in the dead housing market, that increment of cash wouldn't make up for the losses on the sale of your home.
 
Mike got his AD's together last Friday, and told them that "we have 6 months to fix the problems". He didn't say what the "or else" was, but it was pretty obvious.

Also, DOE got raked over the coals for their providing a clearance to Jessica, at the closed meeting with the congressional committee. LANL reps weren't allowed in...
 
"Also, DOE got raked over the coals for their providing a clearance to Jessica, at the closed meeting with the congressional committee. LANL reps weren't allowed in..."

So, naturally, Bodman's response is to blame all of the security problems on "arrogant scientists" at LANL.

Prick.
 
Anonymous said...
"Mike got his AD's together last Friday, and told them that "we have 6 months to fix the problems". He didn't say what the "or else" was, but it was pretty obvious." (2/05/2007 7:56 PM)

Well, hot damn, that'll solve the problems. Those highly qualified and useful ADs have done so much in the past six months, gots themselves a nice $60K bonus. Can't wait to see what they are going to do for us during the next 6 months.

Oh yeah, and that brings us to the magical 1 year anniversary...
 
*** RED ALERT! ***

Even in a Bush budget loaded with pork, the Whitehouse has just decided to cut funding for both LANL and SNL in FY08. If this doesn't convince everyone that hard times are a'coming for the labs, nothing will. We could be looking at close to $100 million in reduced funding for next year. Add in the $200 million deficit due to our new management overhead structure and you're looking at a possible $300 million shortfall for next year.

Yes, Virginia, there will be RIFs in FY08. I would guess at least 10% of the LANL workforce will be hit. If you think the housing market on the Hill is bad now, just wait till next year.

..................

Bush’s Proposed Budget Would Cut Los Alamos, Sandia Budgets - AP, Feb 05, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - New Mexico’s lawmakers are condemning President Bush’s proposed cuts to the state’s nuclear research labs, saying they reflect the wrong priorities.

Bush’s 2008 spending plan — delivered to Congress on Monday — would cut spending by $192 million for Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories.

Although the Democratic-controlled Congress will hash out the budget, the state’s lawmakers say Bush’s proposal is reason to worry about the Energy Department labs.

U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman says he’s concerned the president’s budget choices might undermine future energy security.

New Mexico’s senators have promised they will question Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman about several items in the budget.
 
And people thought the nuclear weapon laboratory budgets would rise for... what?

Look, our customer stopped ordering a long time ago. Hello... last phase 1, 2 or 3?

Time to move on.
 
"Sponsors complain about our costs all the time. The true measure is when they vote with their feet. Doing biology at a nuclear weapon design lab (with associated security costs) is probably not the best place if cost if your major driver." (Poster 6:20 PM)

Poster 6:20 PM, they ARE voting with their feet, but perhaps you are too clueless to notice. Using your rationale, I suppose we could raise the FTE levels to $1 million per year as a means to weed out what specialties LANL is truly good at performing. I suppose the answer would be "bloated management", same as it is today. You wouldn't happen to work in LANL management, would you?
 
"Rumors have it that an amount equal to one's annual salary may be offered as an incentive to flat out leave LANL."

Sorry 6:47, I'm inclined to agree with 6:52 that this is a rumor started by some tweaker.

However, on the off chance it does come to pass, please let me know ASAP. I hate waiting in lines.
 
Mike is probably going to do the ol' "Do or Die" speech at his next All-Hands meeting. We'll be told if we can't toe the new line to the letter, then it's best to leave LANL right now. While we won't have an official lab shut-down, in effect what is about to happen will be much like the Nanos shutdown. Think of it as a version of Nanos-Lite. Same great taste, but a bit less filling.
 
Mike Anastasio is Pete Nanos in a fuzzy Ewok costume. He showed his true colors early on at an All-Managers Meeting. When some group leader questioned why he would have to lay off a high-performing contractor instead of a low-performing LANS worker, Mike replied angrily that the manager's job is to manage the resources he is given "and if you're not willing to do that, I'll find someone else who will."

So I can't wait for the inspirational speech. Maybe it will be something along the lines of the St Crispin's day speech from Henry V: "Those of you who are looking for other jobs, please hurry up and leave so the rest of us who are left can have a bigger share of the bonuses, I mean, the glory."
 
1. Why when there is no classified computing taking place in an area are all program disks and all other types of media (cd’s, floppy disks, zip drives, etc.) being marked as unclassified? And if you don’t want them at your work area, why is an unclassified media library is being set up? Why control unclassified media in a library or at your desk?

2. Why are security and safety problems not being reported?


On the subject of morale, I guess that I missed the all hands memo about morale improving. Seriously, it is worse than when "the Admiral" was in charge. Didn’t think it could go lower, but it keeps getting lower every day.

Thanks, Pat: you are a wonderful dog, keep up the guard duty.
 
At this point, almost every good scientist I know is now working on an exit strategy. LANL is going to be left with the dregs, which will cause an even larger burden on our diminishing budget.
 
We expect that the new LLNL contract will be awarded by NNSA in March... its down to two bidding LLCs - one led by UC and the other by Northrup-Grumman. A third LLC comprised of several environmental watchdog groups was rejected by NNSA as not meeting the RFP, this group has filed an appeal with DOE (can you say "snowballs change in hell")...

The UC LLC is similar to LANS LLC, but with a bit more emphasize on science and research. Rumor has it that UC, not Bechtel, is the clear leader and managing partner on Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. UC also add two interesting partners to the LANS, LLC to create LLNS, LLC - Battelle (which already runs Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, Idaho, and Pacific Northwest national labs) and the Texas A&M University System.

The NG LLC includes AECOM Government Services Inc., CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc., Wackenhut Services, Inc. and Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., but no universities or research institutes. According to published reports, NG wanted a university/research partner, but once UC corralled Battelle and Texas A&M, NG could not find anyone willing to join their team. Rumor has it NG tried the major research schools in California - Stanford, Caltech, USC - and none were interested for various reasons.

Short of a major meltdown at LANL it looks like the UC LLC is a lock on LLNL. Even if more issues surface with LANS LLC at LANL, the LLNS LLC will argue (given the addition of Battelle and Texas A&M) that it is not the same as LANS, and that Battelle has a proven track record running DOE labs and would help LLNS "improve" LLNL operations. Also UC appears to see the writing on the wall, and looks to be positing the LLNL to do more national security work and less nuke weapon design work - UC was behind the proposal to build a National Bio and Agro-defense research center at Site 300, funded by the US Homeland Security Dept at about $450 million and adding 300 jobs.

LLNL management is moving forward at full steam for a transition to an LLC on October 1 this year. Employees are being told that all major decision or changes to lab operations need to be done by June, and then we'll be in a holding pattern until the new management takes over. The feeling is that if the UC LLC wins that there will be few management shakeups at LLNL. Most feared changes have to do with UC funded activities and staff benefits (dual campus/lab appointments, students, police/fire) at LLNL that hinge on LLNL currently being a UC site and the staff UC employees.

If the NG LLC wins, all bets are off and life at LLNL gets real interesting, real fast...
 
9:47, any idea of how much an avg TSM FTE costs at LLNL, and how it would change?
 
"At this point, almost every good scientist I know is now working on an exit strategy. LANL is going to be left with the dregs, which will cause an even larger burden on our diminishing budget."

The scientists aren't the only ones; a sh*tload of us "support" types are sending out resumes and letters, too.

When the dust settles, Mikey may just be standing at the center of a very small circle (maybe 20 or so...?) of "Death Eaters" holding his _____!

I don't think the Bechtel bozos had a CLUE what they were getting into when they came to LANL. And it's unfortunate for all of us.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
"NG LLC includes AECOM Government Services Inc., CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc., Wackenhut Services, Inc. and Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc."
WACKENHUT ? ? ?
WACKENHUT ? ! ? !
Is this some kind of prison joke ? ! ? !
I know that LLNL is one square mile surrounded by chain-link topped with concertina wire, but THIS is over the top !
This makes UC look like a reasonable alternative, even if Bechtel is thrown into the mix.
HURL!
(Sorry, hair ball. Been at LANSL too long, I guess.)
 
Pat, the Dog said...

"NG LLC includes AECOM Government Services Inc., CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc., Wackenhut Services, Inc. and Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc."
WACKENHUT ? ? ?
WACKENHUT ? ! ? !
Is this some kind of prison joke ? ! ? !
I know that LLNL is one square mile surrounded by chain-link topped with concertina wire, but THIS is over the top !
This makes UC look like a reasonable alternative, even if Bechtel is thrown into the mix.
HURL!
(Sorry, hair ball. Been at LANSL too long, I guess.)

The protective force at LLNL is a proprietary force. Perhaps that LLC wants to contract it out. Pro Force status varies across the Complex.
 
Re: Workforce Mobility...

I was informed this week that I was no longer 'covered'. They appreciate my almost 30 years of service, but they just don't have enough funding. They did some checking and found another Division that I might fit into and they set up a meeting for me next week. If I don't take this position, they will be forced to place me on workforce mobility (in MY mind, they already HAVE!)

Check out the Lab homepage re: workforce mobility and you'll see that once you're on it the 'receiving organization' can reduce your salary. Those of you thinking that your HAPC will continue to rise, albeit slightly, need to realize that your current HAPC is what your retirement will be based on. If you're lucky enough to not have your salary reduced, future raises will likely be in the form of bonuses (thus not an increase in your base salary.)

LANS will continue to make it harder and harder to work here. Their goal of course is to get rid of the employees 'close' to retirement--those with the highest salaries and in the steepest part of the 'retirement factor' curve. This will not only result in immediate savings (younger people are cheaper than older ones) but will also save them money down the road since people will likely retire earlier than they originally planned.

As we cirlce the bowl for the final few times, it's becoming painfully obvious: LANL will NEVER recover now...

Bumper sticker seen between the Hill and Pojoaque: "God I miss Sig...Hell, I even miss PETE!"
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?