SPSE Officer Jeff Colvin submitted and presented the UPTE FACT Sheet as his remarks to the NAS Committee
on April 5, 2004.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Remarks
On
Forthcoming Request For Proposal To
Operate National Laboratories Currently Managed by UC and Others
April 5, 2004
Chair and members of the panel, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the upcoming Request for Proposal. I am speaking to you on behalf of the Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers as an elected member of the executive committee. I will illustrate points my colleagues have made with my personal experience.
My previous work for public and private organizations, both large and small, gives me a broad perspective on the procurement. I began my career as an officer in the US Army Chemical Corps working at the Natick Research and Development Center, then moved to one of the largest international oil companies, and finally to a minority owned small business before joining LLNL. I also have experience in government as a former chair of the County of Alameda Planning Commission.
As my SPSE colleagues have emphasized, the procurement action absolutely must maintain and enhance the integrity of scientific research and the integrity of analyses of a great variety of information and policies. In comparison to my previous experience in the private and public sectors, the integrity displayed by LLNL management and professionals has been sterling. Here is just one of many examples of that integrity.
My colleagues here at LLNL recently produced a report that was at odds with the federal government’s official position and public statements of elected officials. Instead of burying that report, as I had expected based on my previous experience, UC management encouraged issuance of the report and later recognized my colleagues in an awards ceremony for their outstanding work. Such integrity and freedom of inquiry is the reason I work at this lab and not elsewhere.
The RFP must provide incentives for bidders primarily dependent on federal government funding to protect their integrity in the face of pressures exerted by project sponsors, especially the federal government, and, as UC has done, even reward them for constructively dissenting with their funding sources.
I began my career in the private sector just when continuous improvement was being introduced to our nation’s largest corporations. The improvements in morale, work efficiency and product quality wrought by continuous improvement in the manufacturing and consulting sectors have been absolutely astounding. These improvements engendered by countless quality improvement programs accounted for much of the unprecedented economic expansion in the 1990s.
I have also been impressed by the Integrated Safety Management Program here at LLNL. The program empowers employees, has succeeded in instilling a culture of continuous improvement, and periodically gauges its progress versus meaningful metrics. SPSE encourages you to include in your evaluation criteria metrics for gauging the effectiveness of proposed continuous improvement programs for not only safety, but also for security, procurement, and human resources, especially grievance procedures, performance evaluations and outplacement services.
My work here has reinforced what I already knew when I joined LLNL, the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories are a national treasure. By addressing in the RFP issues identified by SPSE, you will insure that the forthcoming procurement adds to that treasure.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments to the NRC/NAS Study Committee
Douglas B. Clarke
Physicist,
Earth Sciences Division, E&E Directorate, LLNL
My name is Douglas Clarke. I am a physicist in the Earth Sciences Division of the Energy and Environment Directorate at LLNL. Today I am representing the Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers (SPSE), affiliated with University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE), the campus union, a local of the Communication Workers of America.
I am here to address two aspects of the bidding process for the management contracts to operate LLNL and the other two Labs. These are concerned with (a) avoiding separation of scientific mission and laboratory management and (b) intellectual and scientific freedom for Laboratory scientists and engineers.
First, there should be no separation of scientific mission and laboratory management.
One contractor should manage all operations at any one site. The contract shall not be divided among several prime contractors for parts of the operations. Furthermore all current UC employees should continue as employees of the new contractor.
Secondly the contract must address the issue of Intellectual and Scientific Freedom. The new contract should state,
“Intellectual and Scientific Freedom shall be maintained to ensure research of the highest possible quality. The contractor shall foster an environment conducive to scientific inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, with rights for employees to publish their work and to participate in open debate at scientific meetings at the laboratories and/or elsewhere.”
Additionally the free exchange of ideas among Laboratory scientists and colleagues at universities and other scientific facilities is vital to the success of the scientific work of the Laboratory.
We believe it essential that a clear and fair process, independent of contractor management, should be established to resolve issues of scientific dissent and misconduct.
Finally weighting factors in awarding the contract should give the greatest weight to the ability of the contractor to provide the environment and support for great science in the national interest.
Specifically, it is vital to select a contractor who is not so dependent on the revenue from the management contract that they cannot stand up to pressure from officials promoting a particular political agenda, for example, that human activities are (or are not) a factor in currently occurring global warming. In my view, a university would be a better choice than a non-profit institute or a profit-making corporation, especially if contracts or other activities funded by the U.S. Government were a major part of the total revenue of that institute or corporation.
It may be useful to provide a few specific examples.
A few years ago, according to news reports, the Pentagon attempted to silence an MIT physicist whose work was critical of DOD plans for ballistic missile defense (BMD). That news story caught my attention, because when I was in D-Division (now Q-Division) I worked on BMD warhead effectiveness studies. LLNL has ongoing work for that program. What if research here at LLNL produced results contrary to the official position of the BMD program office?
Disputes can arise inside the Laboratory, for example, between scientists and program managers who are ambitious to succeed with their program. Scientific results or conclusions which call into question the goals or success of a program are not going to be welcomed by the management of a program. Such a dispute might occur particularly if the results appeared to undermine an ongoing, and large Laboratory program planned to grow significantly if funding was approved.
We know of a specific case where that happened. As a result of the dispute the scientist had his funding cut off, and was forbidden to do additional work on that subject. It appears some progress has been made in resolving the scientific dispute, but the circumstances and the way the scientist was threatened still seem ominous to me.
It is interesting to note specific wording in one section of the current UC contract to operate LLNL. The wording underlines the importance of
The scientific integrity of the advice of the persons required to provide the President and the Congress assurances on the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons force.
In conclusion, Laboratory scientists need to be able to talk honestly to sponsors in Washington — at DOE, DOD, and DHS and elsewhere— about their research results even if those results are opposed to the views of important people in official positions.
Thank you.
Douglas B. Clarke
Earth Sciences, E&E Directorate
(925) 422-6593 E-mail: clarke1@llnl.gov
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Written Statement Provided to the National Academy of Sciences Public Meeting
Held at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
April 5, 2004
Jayne M Tonowski
Engineering Associate, Engineering Directorate
Executive Board Member, Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers
LLNL
I want to take this opportunity to commend the National Academy of Sciences and the DOE in particular for commissioning the Academy to solicit stake holder input for the upcoming Request for Proposal for operating the Los Alamos, Lawrence Berkeley, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. The RFP needs to written in such a way as to encourage the best possible bidders to apply. The RFP also needs to be written in such a way as to preserve the already existing scientific work force. Others speaking before me have provided you with specifics as to what needs to be in the RFP in order to recruit and retain quality staff. I refer you to the UPTE Fact Sheet provided to you by Jeff Colvin.
I just want to add that national security and defense work does not happen on the cheap. I believe the work performed by the national labs should be managed by a non-profit organization- not one beholding to a bottom line trying to increase profit share. I also believe that the collaborative nature of our work with our sister Labs should be preserved. I want to encourage that the RFP be written for all three national labs concurrently. My last point is that the RFP process should not trample the rights of employees at the Labs or screw up our national security and defense initiatives.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
End