RE: "in it for profit"

["Neil, David M" <neildm@id.doe.gov>]

My statement stands.   Non-profit organization simply means that the
corporate entity, AS an entity, has no net profit. No person, from the CEO
to the janitor, volunteered their time without remuneration.  TANSTAAFL!
Universities and institutes can operate as "non-profit" zero sum entities,
since they don't have stockholders who want dividends (as far as I know).  

Several contractors have gotten bloody noses from discovering that they
contracted to do a job, and were actually expected to do it. Per contract.
On time. Within budget. 

As to putting the risk on the contractor, that's what Price-Anderson is
about.  And the phasing out of cost+award fee contracts in favor of
incentive based contracts. These put the risk where the contractor really
feels it ... in the pocketbook.  Which validates my original statement, "in
it for profit".

As for privatization, in my opinion that is a shell game  so the
administration can look like it did something.  Government employment goes
down slightly, private employment goes up more.  Net cost to the taxpayer
goes up, too.

Disclaimer: The foregoing is my own opinions and has no relation to official
policy.  If DOE wanted me to have an official opinion, they would have
issued me one. :-)

Dave Neil		neildm@id.doe.gov

		Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dukelow, James S Jr [SMTP:jim.dukelow@pnl.gov]
> Sent:	Friday, August 11, 2000 12:22 PM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	Re:  "in it for profit"
> 
> 
> Dave Neil wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:43:44 -0600
> From: "Neil, David M" <neildm@id.doe.gov>
> To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: What Should We Do With Plutonium Once Nuclear Weapons Are 
> 
> 	<snip>
> 
> This goes right along with the tendency I have noticed to not
> differentiate
> between DOE and the contractor.  DOE wants things done right, and expends
> effort trying to make it so without going over budget; the contractor is
> in
> it for profit. 
> 
> 	<snip>
> 
> Jim Dukelow replies:
> 
> This is an interesting assertion that is about 180 degrees from the truth.
> I
> work for Battelle Memorial Institute, which operates the Pacific Northwest
> National Laboratory and shares operating responsibilities for Brookhaven
> with
> SUNY-Stony Brook, for Oak Ridge National Laboratory with the U. of
> Tennessee,
> and for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory with Midwest Research
> Institute
> and Bechtol (?).  Battelle is a not-for-profit organization as are SUNY
> and UT;
> I'm not sure about MRI.
> 
> LLNL, LBL, and LANL are still operated by the University of California.
> Argonne
> was run for many years (still?) by a university consortium as was BNL.
> DuPont
> operated Savannah River for many years for a $1 fee and gave up the
> contract
> when the risks associated with operating the facility overwhelmed their
> public
> spirit.
> 
> Some contractors are for-profit.  My sense is that they don't get into the
> business of operating DOE facilities because of the potential for
> enrichment;
> the fees are typically a fairly small fraction of the cash flow (although
> a much
> larger fraction of what they invest and the risks they face).  Just ask
> whatever
> what remains of Westinghouse is calling itself these days about the risks
> associated with operating DOE facilities.  Many other prominent commercial
> firms
> have exited the DOE operations market with bloodied noses and sullied
> reputations, in some cases justly, in other cases not.
> 
> Secretary O'Leary's privatization scheme, which attempted to put more of
> the
> risk of weapons facility cleanup on the private contractors, appears on
> its way
> to being a failure.  DOE is having to re-accept the technical and
> political
> risks of the cleanup for lack of bidders and inability to write a contract
> that
> really puts that risk on the contractor. 
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> Jim Dukelow
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> Richland, WA
> jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
> 
> These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my
> management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html