Nuclear Weapons Complex Reform Could Mean Pay Cut For Contractors


A Sandia National Laboratories scientist works on a project related to modernizing U.S. nuclear weapons. A key Energy Department official says reducing the amount of money the government pays to the companies that run the national labs -- and simultaneously increasing the amount of funds available for scientific work -- could improve overall performance at the facilities.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
See more stories about...
Douglas P. Guarino
May 14, 2014, 10:55 a.m.

The for-profit com­pan­ies that run the U.S. nuc­le­ar weapons com­plex might have a pay cut in their fu­ture, though by how much and ex­actly when is still un­clear.

For dec­ades the com­plex — which in­cludes the na­tion­al labor­at­or­ies and oth­er fa­cil­it­ies re­spons­ible for de­vel­op­ing and main­tain­ing the na­tion’s atom­ic ar­sen­al — op­er­ated on a non-profit basis. Tax­pay­er dol­lars sunk in­to it went dir­ectly to­ward sci­entif­ic work re­lated to weapons de­vel­op­ment and non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ef­forts.

Since the early 2000s, however, the sites have been run by for-profit, lim­ited li­ab­il­ity com­pan­ies. A por­tion of the an­nu­al budget for each fa­cil­ity is set aside as an “in­cent­ive fee.” The bet­ter the job a con­tract­or does man­aging a fa­cil­ity’s work in a giv­en year, the lar­ger the per­cent­age of the total avail­able in­cent­ive fee the com­pany gets to take home.

Lately these con­tracts have been un­der in­creased scru­tiny due to re­peated cost over­runs, delays and se­cur­ity fail­ures across the nuc­le­ar weapons com­plex. In one of the most dra­mat­ic ex­amples, an 82-year-old nun and two oth­er peace act­iv­ists in 2012 were able to in­filt­rate the Y-12 Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Com­plex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., where bomb-grade urani­um is stored.

As­so­ci­ate Deputy En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Bruce Held has been ques­tion­ing wheth­er what he de­scribes as “large fees” cur­rently paid to man­age the weapons sites are the best way to mo­tiv­ate all play­ers in­volved.

Per­form­ance at the na­tion­al labs might ac­tu­ally im­prove, the former CIA of­ficer says, if less money went to­ward the fees meant to mo­tiv­ate the man­age­ment com­pan­ies that run the sites, and if more funds went dir­ectly to the sci­entif­ic work that the fa­cil­it­ies con­duct.

“What mo­tiv­ates the people at the na­tion­al labor­at­or­ies is ex­cel­lence in sci­ence and bring­ing ex­cel­lence in sci­ence to the in­terest of the na­tion “¦ They’re not mo­tiv­ated by profit in­cent­ives,” Held told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire in a re­cent in­ter­view. “They’re hu­man be­ings, they need a salary — you can mo­tiv­ate them at the mar­gins by giv­ing them a pay raise or a pay de­crease or something like that — but their core mo­tiv­a­tion and what makes them tick is sci­entif­ic ex­cel­lence. 

“So if I have a choice between a dol­lar of fee for the “¦ con­tract­or that runs it, or a dol­lar in lab-dir­ec­ted re­search and de­vel­op­ment and I want to mo­tiv­ate sci­entif­ic ex­cel­lence, I’d go with” the dol­lar in lab-dir­ec­ted re­search and de­vel­op­ment, Held con­tin­ued.

It is not com­pletely clear, however, how Held, who says he was coaxed out of re­tire­ment from fed­er­al ser­vice spe­cific­ally to work on the con­tracts ques­tion, would re­con­fig­ure the cur­rent for-profit ap­proach.

Held, who com­pleted a 10-month stint as act­ing head of the En­ergy De­part­ment’s semi­autonom­ous Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion last month, ad­voc­ates for mov­ing to­ward a “pub­lic in­terest mod­el.” He sug­gests, however, that he and oth­er of­fi­cials work­ing for En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Ern­est Mon­iz are still wrest­ling with ex­actly what that means.

One sig­ni­fic­ant change that ap­pears to be in the works is an ef­fort to make the max­im­um fee po­ten­tially avail­able to the con­tract­or smal­ler, and to have much of that fee be based on a fixed amount.

For ex­ample, in fisc­al 2012, Los Alam­os Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity, a lim­ited li­ab­il­ity com­pany formed by Bechtel, Bab­cock & Wil­cox, URS Corp. and the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia, had the po­ten­tial to earn up to $74.5 mil­lion for its man­age­ment of the Los Alam­os Na­tion­al Labor­at­ory in New Mex­ico, roughly 3 per­cent of the fa­cil­ity’s $2 bil­lion budget for that year.

Based on an an­nu­al per­form­ance eval­u­ation, the gov­ern­ment ul­ti­mately paid the com­pany $59.7 mil­lion, 80 per­cent of what it could have earned with a per­fect per­form­ance rat­ing.

In the fu­ture, however, a fa­cil­ity like Los Alam­os might be paid a fee that is only 1 per­cent of the site’s budget, or closer to $20 mil­lion, an NNSA of­fi­cial ex­plains. Most of that fee — say, $18 mil­lion — would be a fixed, guar­an­teed pay­ment, mean­ing only a $2 mil­lion por­tion could be re­duced due to less-than-stel­lar per­form­ance.

An­oth­er change En­ergy De­part­ment of­fi­cials are pur­su­ing is one where the fee amount would be fixed over the life of a mul­ti­year con­tract, rather than hav­ing it rene­go­ti­ated an­nu­ally, said the NNSA of­fi­cial, who was not au­thor­ized to dis­cuss the is­sue pub­licly and asked not to be named.

When fees are rene­go­ti­ated an­nu­ally “there’s not an in­cent­ive to re­duce your budget be­cause the [lar­ger the] budget, the more fee you get when you’re basing your fee on the budget,” the NNSA of­fi­cial said. “We’re try­ing to in­centiv­ize them to find ef­fi­cien­cies and have a more ef­fi­cient mis­sion that drives sav­ings.”

Un­der this mod­el, fees paid to the con­tract­or would only be rene­go­ti­ated on an an­nu­al basis if a fa­cil­ity’s costs de­vi­ated from the pres­id­ent’s budget re­quest by more than 10 per­cent, ac­cord­ing to the NNSA of­fi­cial. The semi­autonom­ous En­ergy De­part­ment agency already im­ple­men­ted this change at its Kan­sas City Plant in Mis­souri in 2010 when it ex­ten­ded the con­tract with the Hon­ey­well Corp. to run the fa­cil­ity, the of­fi­cial says.


Held hin­ted at some of these changes dur­ing his brief in­ter­view with GSN.

“San­dia [Na­tion­al Labor­at­or­ies in New Mex­ico and Cali­for­nia — now run by Lock­heed Mar­tin] used to be a dol­lar a year,” Held noted, re­fer­ring to a pri­or ar­range­ment in which the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia and oth­er or­gan­iz­a­tions man­aged the na­tion­al labs for a nom­in­al fee.

“We’re not go­ing to get back to a dol­lar a year, but I think maybe we should do a fixed fee, not a per­cent of turnover. If you have per­cent of turnover, then you have an in­cent­ive to drive up your over­all turnover rate.”

When, and to what ex­tent, these changes are to oc­cur, is yet to be de­term­ined. Cur­rent con­tracts for Los Alam­os and Lawrence Liv­er­more Na­tion­al Labor­at­ory in Cali­for­nia are in place un­til at least 2018, and they in­clude op­tions that could ex­tend them as far out as 2026. The cur­rent con­tract for San­dia, the third ma­jor lab, is set to ex­pire this year. 

“Typ­ic­ally the best time to [make a change] is when you’re award­ing a new con­tract,” the NNSA of­fi­cial says. “Once you’re in a con­tract, it’s a ne­go­ti­ation with the con­tract­or you have in place, so it would have to be a bi­lat­er­al agree­ment “¦ It’s easi­er in a com­pet­i­tion, of course.”

How the con­tract­ors might re­act to any changes is still un­clear, ac­cord­ing to Held.

“We’re already en­ga­ging” with in­dustry, he said. “We’re start­ing to talk to people but we’re not quite there yet.”

Los Alam­os Labor­at­ory Dir­ect­or Charles Mc­Mil­lan, who also serves as pres­id­ent of the Los Alam­os Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity LLC, de­clined to say much about the is­sue after a Sen­ate hear­ing last month, dur­ing which he raised con­cerns about labor­at­ory budget cuts gen­er­ally.

“I’m not really in a po­s­i­tion to com­ment right now,” Mc­Mil­lan told GSN. “I know Bruce [Held] is think­ing a lot about those is­sues, and at some level this is an is­sue that the gov­ern­ment is the one that has to make the de­cision.”

Mean­while, fail­ures across the nuc­le­ar weapons com­plex — which, in ad­di­tion to the Y-12 break-in also in­clude nu­mer­ous delays and cost over­runs to vari­ous pro­jects — have re­kindled a long-sim­mer­ing de­bate in Con­gress over how the fa­cil­it­ies should be man­aged.

The Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship of the House Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee in re­cent years has favored le­gis­la­tion that would fur­ther lim­it the En­ergy De­part­ment’s over­sight of the fa­cil­it­ies. Over­sight by the de­part­ment, which owns the sites, was pre­vi­ously scaled back by the cre­ation of the semi­autonom­ous Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion in the early 2000s. That move fol­lowed a pri­or string of scan­dals across the com­plex.

Re­pub­lic­ans on oth­er House com­mit­tees, along with sen­at­ors from both parties, largely scuttled ma­jor le­gis­lat­ive re­forms in fa­vor of cre­at­ing a new con­gres­sion­al ad­vis­ory pan­el to first study a broad ar­ray of gov­ernance is­sues fa­cing the weapons com­plex. How to best struc­ture the man­age­ment con­tracts is on the agenda of the pan­el, whose fi­nal re­port is ex­pec­ted this year.

So far, the lead­ers of the so-called “Con­gres­sion­al Ad­vis­ory Pan­el on the Gov­ernance of the Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity En­ter­prise” have said it is clear that the “‘NNSA ex­per­i­ment,’ in­volving cre­ation of the semi­autonom­ous or­gan­iz­a­tion, has failed,” in a gen­er­al sense, but they have yet to of­fer any spe­cif­ic fixes.

Pan­el Co-Chair­man Richard Mies, a re­tired Navy ad­mir­al, said, however, that the group has ob­served in­con­sist­ences in how con­tracts are struc­tured across En­ergy De­part­ment labor­at­or­ies, in­clud­ing those that work un­der its Of­fice of Sci­ence and the NNSA sites.

“When you com­pare all the labor­at­or­ies across the En­ergy De­part­ment there isn’t a kind of stand­ard tem­plate for how they’re awar­ded — what per­cent­age is fixed fee, what per­cent­age is award fee, how much of the fee is a per­cent­age of their budget — those kind of is­sues,” Mies told GSN. “I think there needs to be some stand­ard­iz­a­tion.”

Mies said that, in his view, the fee NNSA lab man­age­ment con­tract­ors re­ceive cur­rently “is not ex­or­bit­ant,” however.

“The fee is three per­cent of the total budget,” Mies said. “A stand­ard util­ity makes a 10 per­cent profit “¦

“But there is this in­equity where some labs are get­ting one per­cent of the budget — oth­er labs are get­ting a three per­cent fee,” Mies ad­ded. “So, why the dif­fer­ence? Shouldn’t there be more con­sist­ency and bal­ance? Clearly the dif­fer­ence between fixed fee and award fee makes a dif­fer­ence, as well. We’re look­ing at all of those is­sues to try to find some reas­on­able bal­ance.”

Pan­el Co-Chair­man Nor­man Au­gustine said there are pros and cons to hav­ing for-profit com­pan­ies in­volved in the man­age­ment of the NNSA labs.

“With [a DOE Of­fice of Sci­ence] lab, they can get a uni­versity, which is ba­sic­ally a not-for-profit in­sti­tu­tion,” Au­gustine told GSN. “But when you’re do­ing man­u­fac­tur­ing and man­aging huge pro­grams — [those are] not things that uni­versit­ies are very good at.

“So that means you have to get the cor­por­ate world in­volved, and when you bring the cor­por­ate world in, they have share­hold­ers they have to ac­com­mod­ate,” Au­gustine ad­ded. “They also care about the na­tion­al in­terest “¦ but there has to be some reas­on­able bal­ance and we hope we can strike that.”

Cla­ri­fic­a­tion: This story was mod­i­fied after pub­lic­a­tion to re­flect that Los Alam­os Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity LLC also in­cludes URS Corp.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.