Go back to the SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/
UC/DOE Contract Renewal Meet and Discuss (07/31/2000)
On Monday, July 31, 2000, SPSE's Larry Madison, Bill O'Connell,
and Robert Kim Yates met with the Lab's Robert Perko (LLNL Office
of Staff Relations) and John Gilpin (LLNL Office of Contract Management)
to ask them questions about the future of the University's administration
of the weapons labs for the Department of Energy. Here is a summary.
The answers below should not be construed as literal quotes. Rather
they are our earnest distillation of what was communicated to
us over the course of an hour-long discussion.
Q1. What is the timetable for the contract negotiations?
A. Since 1952, contracts have been for concurrent five-year periods at the weapons labs. On October 1, 2002, the current contracts by which UC administers the labs are set to expire. These contracts were signed during a special meeting of the UC Regents on September 18, 1997, and went into force on October 1, 1997. In the formal contract negotiation process, there is an "extend-or-compete" decision that must be made by DOE 18 months before the current contract expires. Hence, on March 1, 2001, after an internal study, the DOE will issue a statement revealing whether or not it intends to keep UC as the contractor and extend the contract with UC for another five years. If the March 1, 2001 decision is to extend, then DOE enters into exclusive negotiation with UC over the terms and conditions of the future contract. However, if the March 1, 2001 decision is instead to compete, then the contract is open to bid. In past years UC has always said that if the contract renewal process is ever open to bid, UC would tend to view this as the end of the special UC/DOE relation with the weapons labs that has existed since 1952, and that UC would not compete.
On a timetable and track separate from the five-yearly contract negotiation, there are other negotiations which impact some terms of the contract. There is now a study/negotiation, started immediately after the new NNSA Administrator was confirmed this past spring, about restructuring the UC contracts in light of the new organization and goals, for example addressing security management and large project management. In this, there is a senior management group from UC and the Labs working with DOE. The deadline is a report to Secretary Richardson on Sept. 5, which he will then review. [See also Q3 below.]
Also, within the present contract period, there are annual (FY) performance measures developed each year. [See Q5 below.]
Q2. Do the negotiations stipulate a public hearings period? Is there any opportunity for community input, or are lawyers from DOE and UC's Office of the President the only players?
A. To first order, this is not a public process. Negotiating positions are private, as are discussions between the two parties.
Q3. How will security be handled in the new contract? Now that polygraphs have been a workplace reality for some time, will UC press for any changes in the new contracts regarding this practice particularly with regards to consequences of false positives and concern for employee rights in relationship to being polygraphed?
A. The nature of any proposed changes in security is not known. Talks on security arrangements are occurring in "real time" even now, between NNSA's John Gordon and UC officials, with a recommendations report due by September 5, 2000 to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. The content of these discussions and exchanges is not available to the public. [See Q1 above.]
Q3a. If a UC-LLNL staff member declines to take a screening polygraph examination, will the Lab find him or her another position? (DOE's Code of Federal Regulations section says that this is to be done for Federal employees in a similar situation.)
A. If a UC-LLNL staff member declines to take a screening polygraph examination, the Lab will find him or her another position at the Lab. This is not written down in a policy, but the Lab follows this practice.
Q3b. If a UC-LLNL staff member declines to take a polygraph examination in an investigation (such as at LANL, where in the missing hard drives case, approximately forty-two employees were asked to take a polygraph examination) will there be any repercussions for the employee from UC?
A. The matter at LANL is a criminal investigation; the requests are up to the FBI. A citizen has a right to refuse to take a polygraph exam. UC has a system-wide policy that no employment-related decision will be taken based on a polygraph test.
Q4. Are any new labor, personnel policy, and/or employee workforce issues to be negotiated in the contract? Is UC pressing for any, or will UC be confronted by any coming from DOE? If so, are there any mechanisms in place to solicit or consider employee input on these issues?
A. It would be premature to speculate on what workforce issues will be part of negotiations. If DOE should open the contract to bids, DOE usually puts some personnel management criteria, in a general way, into the request for bids. The final provisions are fully open to negotiation.
Q5. What parameters are used to assess UC performance in the annual review to DOE? Are any of these quantitative? What impact has NIF had on these assessments?
A. Performance-based management at the Labs is not new with the NIF troubles this Spring. Rather, it was first instituted at the Lab with the start of the 1992-1997 contract. DOE assessment of Lab performance is in two broad categories: Science and Technology, and Operations and Administration. The full details are spelled out in the web page for the Laboratory's Office of Contract Management at http://www.llnl.gov/OCM/, particularly in its Appendix F. Also see the FAQs sub-heading there at http://www.llnl.gov/OCM/FAQs/.
On the Science and Technology side, performance assessment criteria take 3 pages.
On the Operations and Administration side, performance assessment criteria take 50 pages.
Since 1992 the Labs performance-based assessments by DOE have been favorable ones. Administratively the Lab's business practices are regarded highly by the government. In a recent National Performance Review, LLNL was ranked in the top 30 of 130 similarly-sized public and private institutions "doing it right." Also on the good side of performance-based management, DOE has partnered with the Lab, for some years now. During the year there are regular operational oversight visits by DOE. At the end of each FY there is a self-assessment process by the Lab as to its own performance on DOE metrics.
Lab Operations and Administration (A&O) officers also were regarded highly for negotiating a workforce reduction through the Voluntary Incentive Separation Program (VSIP) a few years back without any layoffs and without hurting the Lab's core scientific mission. Ultimately, some 400 business/administrative employees were replaced by scientific hires, saving the contract expenses some $95M annually.
However, the fallout from NIF in terms of lost credibility to Lab A&O in the eyes of DOE has been significant.
Q5a. Under enhanced contractor accountability, are any of the following issues being brought forward as a point of contractor performance?
(i) effective protection of whistle blowers (employees who have reported improper safety, health or environmental activities);
(ii) effective zero-tolerance for incidents of discrimination and racial profiling;
(iii) salary management and manager compensation relative to workers;
(iv) fairness of the grievance policies, management relative to workers;
(v) more equitable and broader access to career development (educational assistance and work related training) for management and employees alike;
A. (i) and (ii): No.
(iii) - (v): These are all subsumed under UC/LLNL HR practices that UC takes into the contract as its operating protocols.
Q6. What happens to the pension fund (approximately $640 million of assets in the UC Retirement System) if the contract with UC is not renewed?
A. Everything has to be negotiated. If the contract with UC is not renewed, then this and countless other material issues of termination of the UC/DOE relation with the Labs would have to be put into conditions of bid of the new contract.
| Go back to the SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/ |
