LANL's future was left hanging in 2005.
In what threatens to be the biggest cliffhanger of the year, employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory may well head home for the holidays without knowing who'll be signing their paychecks six months from now. Hanging in the balance isn't just the fate of 8,000 employees, some 3,000 contract workers and an annual budget of $2.2 billion, but the governance of the nation's nuclear stockpile into 2012 and possibly beyond.
***image4***This saga debuted two years ago when the Department of Energy announced it would put the LANL management contract up for competitive bid for the first time in the lab's history. The University of California has managed the lab since 1943, but had come under fire for a series of safety and financial missteps at LANL.
The drama took center stage in May when the agency released its request for proposals. Despite all the hype, response to the RFP was underwhelming. By July, when bids were due, LANL was left standing with a near-empty dance card. The University of California reapplied for its management job and teamed up with Bechtel National, Inc. and two lesser-known corporations, BWX Technologies and Washington Group International. Their main competition was a bid led by the University of Texas and defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. A consortium of more than 33 universities, including several in New Mexico, also signed on to the Lockheed/UT bid. A third bid submitted by the Santa Fe-based advocacy group Nuclear Watch New Mexico and Tri-Valley CAREs of Livermore, Calif., was rejected almost as soon as the postman delivered it [SFR Talk, Aug. 24:
].
Over the summer the smart money was on the Lockheed/UT-led proposal. A few contrarians noted it was too soon to count UC out.
Then came the delays.
The DOE was scheduled to name the bid winner by Dec. 1, a date that came-and went. (A decision still hadn't been announced by press time.)
"This could be a sign that the UC/Bechtel bid is actually more competitive than everyone previously thought," says Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico.
***image1***Joni Arends of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety puts a finer point on it: "I think the delay indicates that politics has now entered the process and our congressional leaders are trying to broker a deal, meaning they may be trying to figure out a way to keep New Mexico universities in the picture, even if the other bid wins." If Arends is right, New Mexico's reps on Capital Hill aren't the only ones workin' the backroom. According to the Contra Costa Times, California's congressional delegation sent a letter, signed by more than 50 leaders, including US Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to DOE Secretary Sam Bodman that emphasized UC's strengths as a premier research institution.
NNSA Spokesman Bryan Wilkes, who says rumors about the contract intensify with each passing week, claims none of them is true. "These rumors are really just people guessing. The people who are part of the decision-making process are making sure that everything is done carefully because everybody knows there's a lot at stake here. They aren't discussing the process with anyone, even internally. When a decision is made we'll announce it."
***image3*** Over at the lab workers are "in a state of anxiety," according to Manuel Trujillo, a project team leader at LANL and president of the lab's University, Professional and Technical Employees. The longer the delay, he says, the "more the impact on employees. The major question employees are asking is, 'are we still going to have adequate time to review the benefit package of the new contractor?'"
Of course, the question of who gets the contract ultimately may be less important than another issue that has receded since Dec. 1: For the first time since it was founded in 1943 LANL will have a for-profit corporation as its co-manager.
"One of the trends of the homeland security apparatus under the Bush administration is that so much of it is privatized," says Peter Simonson, executive director of the ACLU of New Mexico. "The border between government and private industry is blurred. As national security becomes more privatized so, too, does information."
Coghlan, reminding that neither the UC/Bechtel nor the UT/Lockheed proposal was made available to the public, agrees. "No matter who wins the contract the future of the laboratory is being withheld from the public."
