FIGURE G.2 LLNL Budget for FY2004-FY2010. SOURCE: Alice Williams, Livermore Site Office Manager, presented to the committee on April 27, 2011, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.

FIGURE G.3 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) FY2011 Annual Budget. SOURCE: Michael Anastasio, LANL Director, presented to the committee by on April 11, 2011, at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

LABORATORY WORKFORCE DEMOGRAPHICS

FIGURE G.5 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s workforce. SOURCE: Tomas Diaz de la Rubia, LLNL Deputy Director of Science and Technology, presentation to the committee on April 26, 2011, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.

Recruiting and retaining a quality workforce critical to continued success of laboratory and stewardship

For Fiscal Year 2011, LANL reported:

- 2,079 peer-reviewed publications which was the highest since 2006

- LANL won three R&D 100 Awards

- The number of post-doctorial candidates was an all-time high

FIGURE G.6 Los Alamos National Laboratory’s workforce. SOURCE: Michael Anastasio, LANL Director, presented to the committee on April 11, 2011, at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

FIGURE G.7 Sandia National Laboratory’s workforce. SOURCE: Paul Hommert, SNL Director, presentation to the committee on March 22, 2011, at Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

LABORATORY SITE OFFICE STAFF NUMBERS

FIGURE G.8 Livermore Site Office (LSO). NOTE: This figure gives the organizational structure of the Livermore Site Office. Listed under each Assistant Manager (AM) position are the names of the individuals that the respected AM manages. According to the data in this figure, the size of the Livermore Site Office totals 106 employees, which includes all Assistant Managers (vacant and non-vacant positions), the staff they supervise, the Technical Deputies, and the positions located in the Manager’s Office: Site Office Manager, Chief of Staff, Site Counsel, Senior Technical Safety Advisor, Public Affairs Director, and HR Liaison. SOURCE: Alice Williams, Livermore Site Office Manager, presentation to committee on April 27, 2011, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.

LABORATORY CONTRACT TERM FEES

FIGURE G.13 Sandia Corporation Contract Fee Structure. SOURCE: Excerpted from the Sandia Corporations Management and Operating Contract, Part I, Section B-2.

TABLE G.1 Approximate Annual Fee Structures (in millions of dollars)

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LANL AND LLNL CONTRACT CHANGES

When the contracts changed at LANL and LLNL, cost changes were incurred. Some of these were savings, and others were additional costs. Some were one-time charges or savings (or transfers), while others affect each year’s budget. Many of the changes were changes in the cost to the government of running the laboratories that do not affect the budgets of the laboratories directly because they are paid directly by the government to some other entity without going through the laboratory.

Of particular concern to the laboratories are those additional costs and expenses that must be borne out of the laboratory budget. These affected operations at the laboratories because they caused net reductions in the overall money available to pay for laboratory activities.

Specifically, three categories are of major concern: (1) increases in the management fees; (2) changes in personnel costs due to changes in health and pension benefit plans as laboratory personnel transitioned from being U Cal employees to being employees of their respective LLCs (LANS, LLNS); and (3) changes in state and local tax obligations associated with the transition from a public institution (U Cal) to a private corporation. This last was much more significant at LANL and at LLNL.

At each of these two laboratories, the annual cost of doing business increased by very roughly$100 million per year.

•   LANL

—  The annual fee increased from less than $10 million to about $60 million, as shown in the contract excerpt in the preceding section. The actual amount varies by year and by performance. This increase is typically $40 million to $50 million

—  State and local tax obligations increased by $65 million

—  Pension plan changes necessitated a $30 million contribution to the new defined contribution plan.

The total increase is therefore on the order of $140 million per year.

•   LLNL

—  The annual fee increased from less than $10 million to about $45 million, as shown in the contract excerpt in the preceding section. The actual amount varies by year and by performance. This increase in typically $30 million.

—  Pension plan changes necessitated a $30 contribution

—  Healthcare costs increased about $10 million.

—  There were no substantial tax changes at LLNL; taxes decreased by about $2 million.

The total increase is therefore on the order of $70 million per year.

At both labs, there were also large decreases in costs to the government. Since these amounts were not part of the laboratory budgets, they are not included in this accounting, and the laboratories did not benefit directly from them.

TENURES OF LABORATORY DIRECTORS

TABLE G.2 Tenures of Laboratory Directors

LABORATORY PRODUCTIVITY

Laboratory productivity can be measured in a number of ways, including number of peerreviewed journal articles published each year, and through the various awards earned by laboratory scientists. Several of the laboratories’ key achievements from recent years are highlighted below.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

In FY2011:

•   LANL had 2,079 peer-reviewed publications, the highest since 2006.

•   The laboratory’s number of post-doctoral candidates was at an all-time high.

TABLE G.4 Journal Papers Resulting from LDRD-Funded Research as a Percentage of All LLNL Papers from 2004 to 2008