Learn more :: Media Coverage :: Bill may force uc to bid

Bill may force UC to bid on lab contracts
by Andrea Widener, November 8, 2003

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's contract may go up for a bid for the first time in the nuclear weapons lab's 51-year history, a move forced by Congress in a bill unveiled Friday.

In an unexpected move, the same bill could also put Lawrence Berkeley Lab's contract up for a bid for the first time since the multidisciplinary science lab was founded in 1931.

This could mean that the University of California may have to compete to run all three of its research labs -- the two Bay Area labs and the nuclear weapons lab Los Alamos in New Mexico -- within a short period of time. UC has never before had to compete to run the labs, which it has run for more than a half century for the federal Department of Energy.

This compressed three-lab competition could be difficult for the university, which was already concerned about the time and money needed to compete for a single contract. DOE officials announced earlier this year that UC's Los Alamos lab contract would be put up for a bid after business problems were uncovered there.

"The effect (could be) very onerous and burdensome on any contractor that would have three facilities up for a bid at one time," said Scott Sudduth, UC's head of government relations.

The bill did contain some good news for UC and its regents, who will ultimately decide whether they want to compete to run the labs. Originally, the amendment had several provisions that would have made competition hard for UC, including one that would not have allowed UC to use its multimillion-dollar lab management fees to prepare a bid and another that would expand the pension plans competitors could offer.

Those were stricken from the final version of the amendment, which will be voted on by both the House and the Senate as part of the massive Energy and Water Appropriations bill, likely next week

These changes may allow UC a chance to compete with private companies and other public institutions, said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D- Alamo, but it still leaves open the specifics of what a competition will look like. UC officials have said they are proceeding as though they will compete while they wait for the details.

"Frankly, there are more questions now than there were before," said Tauscher, who had lobbied for the changes in her role as the Livermore area's representative.

"We embrace competition, embrace the opportunity to always do better and to be ensured that we have not only the best management for the lab but for the nation. (But) we have a lot to understand, not only on the timing issue ... but how do we make sure that we don't endanger the ability for UC to compete," she said.

Many of those decisions will be made by the DOE, as it sets up the competition for the labs. Both Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore's contracts expire in September 2005. Lawrence Berkeley is in the middle of a one-year extension to allow them to negotiate a new contract, which is now up in the air.

Few people had seen the amendment's specifics on Friday, but a representative for the amendment's author, Rep. David Hobson, said all labs with contracts that have gone 50 years without a competition will be forced up for a bid as quickly as possible. In addition to the three UC labs, this impacts Argonne Laboratory outside Chicago and the Ames Laboratory in Iowa.

It also allows a possible two-year extension on some contracts because it can take up to 18 months to run a competition, explained Chris Galm, spokesman for Hobson, R-Ohio.

Officials at Lawrence Berkeley, which has close physical and research ties to the UC Berkeley campus and sits on UC land, had hoped they would be immune from the rule because they were already negotiating a new contract. They had been exempted in the bill's original language because of these negotiations, but they were specifically included in the final version of the bill.

What will happen with the Berkeley lab contract remains unclear. Lab spokesman Ron Kolb refused to comment Friday because lab officials had not yet seen the details. If they are granted the extension, this would put the competition at about the same time as the weapons labs contracts expire.

Doug Owen, who represents employees in the Berkeley lab's employee union, said he is for competition, but UC has been a good manager.

"I can only assume that the government will make the best choice in who would best administer the lab," he said. "I'm glad that we've got our particular set of problems and challenges rather than some of the other lab's problems and challenges."

At Livermore lab, spokesperson Lynda Seaver said this decision was not a surprise, and they will wait for more information on what the competition will look like. "In the meantime, we continue to focus on the work," she said.

And George Zimmerman, a lab defense scientist who helped collect signatures on a pro-UC petition earlier this year, said his group's focus may now shift to encourage UC to compete if its commitment starts to waver.

Originally published by the Contra Costa Times.

Learn more :: Media Coverage :: Bill may force uc to bid