Fw: Comments on LANL DRAFT RFP

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Polsenberg, Johanna<mailto:[email protected]> 
To: RONALD L HAMMOND<mailto:[email protected]> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: Comments on LANL DRAFT RFP


Thank you for contacting me about this issue. I look forward to talking with you further about this but I wanted to be sure you are aware of this meeting (copied below). Please be sure to pass it on to anyone and everyone who might be interested. Thank you, Johanna
 

Johanna F. Polsenberg
Senior Legislative Assistant
Representative Tom Udall (NM-3rd)
1414 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-6190 (phone)
202-226-1331 (fax)

Please visit our website at www.tomudall.house.gov<http://www.tomudall.house.govfor/> for more information about federal legislative issues and events in the U.S. Congress.



UDALL INVITES LANL EMPLOYEES 

TO TOWN HALL MEETING

 

LOS ALAMOS – U.S. Representative Tom Udall, D-N.M., today encouraged Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) employees and the Los Alamos community to attend a special town hall meeting to discuss concerns about the plan for awarding a new management and operating contract for the northern New Mexico lab.

 

            Udall will meet with LANL employees on Monday, January 17, at the Los Alamos High School Speech Theater, 1300 Diamond Drive.  The meeting will begin at noon and end at 1:00 p.m.  Topics will be limited to the lab’s operating contract.  

 

            “This is the first time in Los Alamos’ 60-plus-year history that the contract has been put up for bid. I want to hear directly from the people who are the most impacted by the current contract deliberations – Los Alamos employees themselves,” Udall said. “While I am pleased that the NNSA agreed to my request to extend the comment period, there is widespread agreement that changes need to be made to the draft RFP.  I intend to use this open forum as a way to listen and take these concerns to the NNSA.”

 

The current LANL management and operating contract expires Sept. 30, 2005. NNSA intends to select a contractor this summer and begin full contract performance Oct. 1, 2005.

 

The draft RFP is available at the NNSA Service Center’s LANL M&O Contract Competition Website: http://www.doeal.gov/LANLContractRecompete/Default.htm. 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: RONALD L HAMMOND [mailto:[email protected]]
  Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 4:57 PM
  To: Polsenberg, Johanna
  Subject: Fw: Comments on LANL DRAFT RFP


  Number three.  Ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Charles W. Mikkelson<mailto:[email protected]> 
  To: HAMMOND RON<mailto:[email protected]> 
  Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:13 AM
  Subject: Fwd: Comments on LANL DRAFT RFP




    Begin forwarded message:


      From: "Robert Hayden" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
      Date: December 28, 2004 3:30:24 PM MST
      To: "Nate King" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Frank McGirt" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Pat Beaulieu" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Nathaniel King" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Bonnie Wilson" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
      Subject: Comments on LANL DRAFT RFP

      I sent the e-mail message below to the DOE-AL contact.  My comments and suggestions express my concerns regarding the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the LANL contract.  If you share my concerns or if you have concerns of your own, I suggest that you send your comments to Michael Loera at DOE [email protected]   I also suggest that you send copies of my message or one of your own to your friends who may be affected.  I also plan to send my comments to Senator Bingaman and Representative Heather Wilson.
       
      Your comments must be submitted to DOE by January 7th. 
       
      I have attached a copy of my e-mail in Microsoft WORD format for your use if you want to send a modified version of what I sent.
       
      Bob Hayden
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Robert Hayden 
      To: [email protected] 
      Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 12:38 PM
      Subject: Comments on LANL DRAFT RFP


      Attention:  Michael Leora, DOE-AL

       

      I understand that you are the contact person for comments on the DRAFT RFP for LANL. If you are not the correct person, please advise me by return e-mail. 

       



      The following comments are provided for consideration by the LANL DRAFT RFP review board.

       

       

      There is a provision in the DRAFT RFP that concerns me, and will probably be of concern to all University of California pensioners who worked at DOE facilities.  My concern is Section B, H-37 PENSION PLAN, section (e)(2)(iii) that starts at the bottom of page 47 and ends at the top of page 48.  That provision says, “Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph (e), the Parties agree to consider the desirability of covering pensioners, survivors, and terminated vested and nonvested members under a successor plan”   (Underscoring added.)

       

      The Parties referred to in section (e)(2)(iii) are the DOE/NNSA and the University of California. This provision, which applies if the University of California is not the successful bidder, suggests, among other things, that former University of California/LANL employees who have already retired are at risk of having their pension benefits transferred to a successor contractor and possibly reduced.  One of the superior benefits of working – and staying at Los Alamos – for forty years was the retirement plan.  To have those benefits arbitrarily “moved” to another business entity is very threatening.  For one thing, a successor contractor would have no prior business relationship with many others like me and would probably care little about our welfare.

       

      Consequently, I submit the following observations and suggestions:

       
      1. The primary concern with being “moved” to a successor plan is the potential loss of benefits, especially the cost of living adjustments provided for in UCRP.  My knowledge of ERISA is somewhat dated, but I recall that when employees are to be covered by a successor plan, the provisions of the prior plan are retained in the successor plan and the affected employees then receive the greater benefit of the two combined plans.  Whether or not this provision or ERISA still exists, it is a morally and ethically correct guarantee that should be provided to former LANL employees who have already retired (pensioners) survivors, those on disability and terminated vested employees. 

       
      2. This DRAFT RFP provision seems to ignore the fact that there is another “party” involved:  the group made up of the pensioners, survivors and other vested members.  Therefore, those in this group should be consulted before consideration of covering pensioners under a successor plan.  This might be done in at least two ways after individual mailings to affected members:  (1) conducting hearings in cities or metropolitan areas where at least 100 persons affected live, or (2) conducting a poll of affected members by mail requiring majority vote before mobbing members to an successor plan.  Of course, those affected would have to be informed about the terms and conditions of the successor plan and just how vested benefits will be preserved and protected.

       
      3. An important concern is the funding of the successor plan.  The University of California had obviously done a tremendous and quite unique job of successfully managing the UCRP retirement fund.  It has done so while hundreds, if not thousands, of employers have mismanaged pension funds so that they are vastly under funded and pension benefits are threatened or have been lost.  Other organizations have criminally raided the funds for personal or corporate gain.  If my pension is to be moved to a successor fund to achieve gains by the DOE/NNSA and the University of California, then the federal government should provide guarantees to UCRP pensioners that the fund would remain solvent until all affected UCRP pensioners and survivors are deceased.

       
      4. Another concern involved details that may not be included in the UCRP Summary Plan description and might not be included in a successor plan.  An example is the fact that a portion of the benefits of some pensioners is tax-exempt because the based on deductions from employee paychecks on an after-tax basis.  Losing the right to exclude some portion of pension from taxation would amount to a reduction of benefits.  A successor plan would have to provide the same benefit for it to be acceptable.  This matter should be addressed in the DRAFT RFP.

       



      All of this said, it does not necessarily follow that LANL pensioners would object to movement to a successor plan.  If benefits were properly protected, I would probably not object.  The essential concept is “preservation of benefits” where they are vested rights and based in part on employee contribution, not “comparable” benefits, which would allow too much latitude with regard to vested pension benefits. 

       

      I respectfully request that the DRAFT RFP be revised to provide the preservation of benefits and the protections described above.

       

      Health Insurance for pensioners.   Finally, on a separate but related and very important matter, the DRAFT RFP does not address the matter of health insurance benefits for pensioners as an allowable cost or an essential element of the human resources program or a successor retirement plan. 

       

      I would appreciate knowing if these comments and suggestions will be forwarded to the review board for consideration.

       

      Robert J. Hayden

      Retired from LANL 2001