DOE Management: Selected Information on the Workforce at DOE's Livermore
Laboratory (Letter Report, 03/16/95, GAO/RCED-95-88).
The Energy Department (DOE) hires contractors to manage its facilities
and pays for the salaries and benefits of the employees at these
facilities. In response to congressional concerns about the overall
size of the federal government, including contractors and consultants,
this report provides information on the workforce at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, one of the facilities operated for DOE by
the University of California. GAO discusses (1) the number of personnel
by job category, such as scientist and engineer; (2) the salaries of the
personnel in these job categories; and (3) the benefits provided to
them. GAO also provides information on how salaries and benefits for
university employees at the laboratory are determined.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-88
TITLE: DOE Management: Selected Information on the Workforce at
DOE's Livermore Laboratory
DATE: 03/16/95
SUBJECT: Employee benefit plans
Contractor personnel
Federal facilities
Salary increases
Laboratories
Employee medical benefits
Contractors
Colleges/universities
Federal employees
Energy research
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Post Office
and Civil Service, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate
March 1995
DOE MANAGEMENT - SELECTED
INFORMATION ON THE WORKFORCE AT
DOE'S LIVERMORE LABORATORY
GAO/RCED-95-88
DOE's Livermore Laboratory
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOE - Department of Energy
GAO - General Accounting Office
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-259941
March 16, 1995
The Honorable David H. Pryor
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee
on Post Office and Civil Service
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Dear Senator Pryor:
To accomplish its missions, the Department of Energy (DOE) hires
contractors to manage and operate its facilities and pays for the
salaries and benefits of the employees at these facilities. Because
of concerns about the overall size of the federal government
including the "shadow government"--contractors and consultants--you
asked us to provide you with information on the workforce at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (laboratory), one of the
facilities operated for DOE by the University of California
(university). Specifically, for the laboratory's workforce (DOE,
university, and other personnel), we are providing you with
information on (1) the number of personnel by occupational category,
such as scientist and engineer; (2) the salaries of the personnel in
these occupational categories; and (3) the benefits provided to them.
In addition, we are providing you with information on how salaries
and benefits for the university's employees at the laboratory are
determined.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
As of September 30, 1994, there were 9,706 personnel at the
laboratory, including 114 DOE employees, 8,378 university employees,
and 1,214 other personnel--supplemental labor personnel obtained
through contracts with outside vendors to provide administrative and
technical support. When we divided this workforce into six broad
occupational categories, about 36 percent were in the scientists and
engineers category (the largest category); about 25 percent were in
the technicians category; about 25 percent were in the administrative
category; and the remainder were in the security and safety;
management; and facilities, machinists, and other categories.
As of September 30, 1994, the highest maximum salaries were paid to
the university's scientists and engineers. Within this occupational
category, the annual salaries for the university's scientists and
engineers ranged up to $170,000, while the salaries for DOE's
scientists and engineers ranged up to $93,516. These salaries were
not comparable because even when DOE's and the university's employees
were in the same occupational category, they were not necessarily
performing the same functions. For example, DOE's scientists and
engineers generally were responsible for DOE's program management
activities, such as administrative and technical oversight of the
laboratory's work, while the university's scientists and engineers
generally conducted or managed the actual research.
The laboratory's workforce received benefits that included annual and
sick leave, paid holidays, medical and life insurance, and retirement
benefits. In general, the benefits offered to the university's
employees and supplemental labor personnel were fully paid by the
employer, while DOE's employees had to pay for a portion of their
benefits.
DOE sets overall annual salary increases for the university's
employees at the laboratory and reviews all salaries exceeding
specified thresholds. DOE requires the university to justify its
annual request for salary increases at the laboratory via surveys of
salaries in the competitive market. DOE's approval is required for
annual salary increases and salaries exceeding specified thresholds.
Since August 1994, the threshold has been $100,000. The university's
management at the laboratory, however, has the discretion to
establish the starting salaries of newly hired employees, and DOE has
agreed that the university's employees at the laboratory will receive
the same package of benefits offered to the university's other
employees.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
DOE operates a network of facilities engaged in research and nuclear
weapons production, such as the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in California. A feature of DOE's management is its
extensive reliance on contractors, a legacy from its use of
contractors for the wartime "Manhattan Project," which designed and
built the world's first atomic bombs.
The University of California, one of DOE's earliest contractors, is
paid to manage and operate the laboratory within the programmatic
guidance and direction and budgetary authority provided by DOE.\1
Dating from 1952, the original contract with the university has been
extended numerous times; the latest 5-year extension commenced on
October 1, 1992. Under the contract with the university, DOE
reimburses the university for the overall costs of operating the
laboratory, including the salary and benefits of the university's
employees employed at the laboratory and the costs of the
supplemental labor contracts.
The number of full- and part-time personnel at the laboratory has
decreased since the end of fiscal year 1992 and in the last 5 fiscal
years was at its lowest level at the end of fiscal year 1994, as
shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Changes in the
Laboratory's Full- and
Part-Time Workforce, End of
Fiscal Years 1990 Through 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's and the laboratory's data.
--------------------
\1 DOE also contracts with the university for the management and
operation of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California and the
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
THE SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
CATEGORY HAD THE LARGEST NUMBER
OF EMPLOYEES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
As shown in table 1, the scientists and engineers occupational
category--comprising 3,453 personnel, or about 36 percent of the
9,706 personnel at the laboratory, was the largest occupational
category.\2 This category included occupations such as biologists;
physicists; environmental, mechanical, and nuclear engineers;
mathematicians; computer scientists; and medical doctors. We used
the laboratory's categorization; that is, scientists and engineers
who serve in managerial positions were classified by the laboratory
as scientists and engineers rather than as management. The next two
largest categories were technicians and administrative personnel.
Technicians included personnel who have technical knowledge in
scientific, engineering, computer, and other areas and who assist the
laboratory's scientists and engineers. Administrative personnel
included a wide range of personnel, such as secretaries, accountants,
budget staff, procurement and contracting specialists, human
resources staff, information systems analysts, and technical writers
and editors.
Table 1
Full-and Part-Time DOE, University, and
Supplemental Labor Personnel at the
Laboratory as of September 30, 1994
Occupational DO Universi Supplement Tota Percen
category E ty al labor l t
-------------------- -- -------- ---------- ---- ------
Management 6 143 0 149 1.5
Scientists and 50 3,361 42 3,45 35.6
engineers 3
Technicians 0 2,179 282 2,46 25.4
1
Facilities, 0 657 254 911 9.4
machinists, and
others
Administrative 57 1,777 574 2,40 24.8
8
Security and safety 1 261 62 324 3.3
============================================================
Total 11 8,378\a 1,214\b 9,70 100.0
4 6
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Eight of these personnel held joint appointments as both
laboratory employees and university professors. While they were
teaching, their salaries were paid by the university.
\b The laboratory procured the services of these personnel from 16
different vendors under 20 different contracts.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's and the laboratory's data.
--------------------
\2 As of September 30, 1994, the laboratory classified its employees
under 262 job classifications that were arranged into 15 structures,
or occupational groups. We condensed these groups into six broad
occupational categories. We categorized DOE's employees and the
supplemental labor personnel using these same six broad categories.
HIGHEST SALARIES PAID TO
UNIVERSITY'S SCIENTISTS AND
ENGINEERS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
As shown in tables 2 and 3, as of September 30, 1994, the highest
maximum salary for personnel at the laboratory was for the
university's scientists and engineers, who earned up to $170,000
annually. The salaries for supplemental labor personnel were not
available because the laboratory paid the supplemental labor vendors
an hourly billing rate, which included the individuals' salary and
benefits and the vendors' profit and overhead.
Of the four occupational categories with both DOE and university
employees, the university's average salaries for the management
category and the scientists and engineers category were higher. For
the remaining two categories--administrative and safety and
security--DOE's average salaries were higher. However, meaningful
comparisons between DOE's and the university's salaries cannot be
made because the personnel in the same occupational categories were
not necessarily performing the same functions. For example, DOE's
scientists and engineers at the laboratory were responsible for DOE's
program management activities, such as administrative and technical
oversight of the laboratory work, while the university's scientists
and engineers generally conducted or managed the actual research.
Table 2
Average Annual Salary by Occupational
Category for the University's Full-and
Part-Time Employees at the Laboratory as
of September 30, 1994
Number
of
employee Minimu Maximu Averag
Occupational category s m m e
-------------------------- -------- ------ ------ ------
Management 143 $57,42 $130,0 $80,33
0 00 5
Scientists and engineers 3,361 9,996 170,00 71,658
0
Technicians 2,179 15,496 90,180 47,378
Facilities, 657 12,480 60,258 42,468
machinists, and others
Administrative 1,777 17,472 78,000 39,729
Security and 261 24,482 97,680 37,577
safety
============================================================
Total 8,378 $9,996 $170,0 $55,48
00 8
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of the laboratory's data.
Table 3
Average Annual Salary by Occupational
Category for DOE's Full-and Part-Time
Employees at the Laboratory as of
September 30, 1994
Number
of
employee Minimu Maximu Averag
Occupational category s m m e
-------------------------- -------- ------ ------ ------
Management 6 $53,47 $71,93 $65,61
8 8 5
Scientists and engineers 50 43,522 93,516 61,039
Technicians 0 0 0 0
Facilities, 0 0 0 0
machinists, and others
Administrative 57 21,395 73,619 45,229
Security and 1 53,478 53,478 53,478
safety
Total 114 $21,39 $93,51 $53,30
5 6 8
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
As shown in table 3, the highest salary earned by DOE's employees at
the laboratory was $93,516. However, 307 of the university's
employees earned more than $100,000 annually.\3 Salaries for 14 of
the 143 university employees in the management occupational category
ranged from $100,809 to $130,000--the average salary being $113,321.
Salaries for 293 of the 3,361 employees categorized as scientists and
engineers ranged from $100,000 to $170,000--the average salary being
$115,667. Scientists and engineers who are also managers were
classified as scientists and engineers. For example, the salary of
$170,000, the highest laboratory salary, was paid to a physicist who
also was the laboratory's acting director.
The laboratory also employed consultants to provide needed expertise.
The laboratory employed 284 consultants during fiscal year 1994 at a
cost of about $2.65 million plus about $0.5 million in travel costs.
On the average, each consultant was paid almost $9,360 plus about
$1,830 in travel expenses, or about $11,190 in total. The daily
rates paid to consultants ranged from $146 to $2,000, and the average
daily rate was about $530.
--------------------
\3 As of August 1994, salaries above this level for the university's
employees at the laboratory needed DOE's approval.
THE LABORATORY'S EMPLOYEES
RECEIVED MORE EMPLOYER-PAID
BENEFITS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
DOE has agreed that the university's employees at the laboratory will
receive the same package of benefits offered to the university's
other employees. University and supplemental labor personnel
generally received the same type of benefits as DOE's employees at
the laboratory.\4 For example, all personnel received annual and sick
leave, paid holidays, medical and life insurance, and retirement
benefits.
DOE paid the cost of the benefits for the laboratory's entire
workforce--through direct payments for DOE's own employees and
contract reimbursement for university and supplemental labor
personnel. In general, benefits for university and supplemental
labor personnel at the laboratory were fully paid by the employer.
DOE's employees had to pay a share of the cost of their benefits.
For example, the university and supplemental labor personnel were
offered at least two medical insurance plans that were fully paid by
the employer. On the other hand, DOE's employees had to pay at least
25 percent of the cost of medical insurance.
The university's personnel also received an employer-paid benefit not
offered to DOE's employees. As required by California state law, the
university provided its personnel with disability insurance for
nonwork-related injuries. The university funds this coverage instead
of paying into the state's disability insurance fund.
Appendix I describes in detail the benefits offered to DOE,
university, and supplemental labor personnel.
--------------------
\4 The laboratory's standard contracts with supplemental labor
vendors require that supplemental labor employees receive
employer-paid leave, medical insurance, life insurance, and
retirement benefits that are generally similar to those offered to
the university's employees.
DOE REVIEWS AND APPROVES SALARY
INCREASES AND SALARIES OVER
SPECIFIED AMOUNTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Under the contract, DOE's approval is required for annual salary
increases and salaries exceeding a specified threshold. The
university's management at the laboratory establishes the starting
salaries of newly hired personnel.
The contract specifies a process for authorizing annual salary
increases designed to enable the laboratory to pay market rates for
similar work outside the laboratory in order to maintain a
competitive position. This process requires the laboratory to
support its request for salary increases with survey data that
reflect competitive market salaries for similar jobs. Although the
laboratory is required to use a DOE-specified survey for scientists
and engineers, the laboratory selects or conducts the market surveys
for other occupational categories as well.
On the basis of its review of the laboratory's survey materials, DOE
determines the overall amount of the annual salary increase. The
increase is split between the amounts provided for merit increases
and promotions. Table 4 shows the salary increases at the laboratory
for the last 3 fiscal years.
Table 4
DOE-Approved Salary Increases for the
University's Employees at the Laboratory
Meri Promotio Tota
Fiscal year t n l
-------------------------------------- ---- -------- ----
1993 4.35 0.56 4.91
1994 None 0.50 0.50
1995 4.22 0.50 4.72
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
For fiscal year 1994, DOE froze the wages and salaries--except for
promotions--of all its contractor employees for a period of 1 year.
To ensure that the contractors' salaries were not increased in
following years to negate the savings resulting from this freeze, DOE
is limiting the annual salary merit increases for the next 5 fiscal
years. For fiscal year 1995, DOE limited the increase to 4.22
percent rather than the 5.2 percent that would have been needed to
achieve comparability with the market.
Any merit increase, promotion, or hiring of new employees that
results in an annual salary exceeding the contractually specified
threshold must be approved by DOE. This threshold has increased over
time, and as of August 1994 was $100,000.\5 As of September 30, 1994,
14 managers and 293 scientists and engineers had salaries over
$100,000.
--------------------
\5 According to the contract, the level of salaries requiring DOE's
review is being gradually increased, and eventually only the
laboratory director's salary will be approved by DOE.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
At the conclusion of our field work, we provided DOE with a detailed
statement of the facts presented in this letter and requested a
meeting with program officials to discuss their comments. DOE saw no
need to meet because it generally concurred with the information
contained in this report. However, DOE's Office of Energy Research
did question the value of the information, since the university's and
DOE's employees in the same occupational category were generally not
performing the same functions, as noted in this letter.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We conducted our review from June 1994 through December 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II provides a detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
the Secretary of Energy; appropriate congressional committees; and
the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make
copies available to others upon request.
Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are shown in appendix
III.
Sincerely yours,
Victor S. Rezendes
Director, Energy and
Science Issues
BENEFITS PROVIDED TO DOE,
UNIVERSITY, AND SUPPLEMENTAL LABOR
PERSONNEL AT THE LABORATORY
=========================================================== Appendix I
This appendix provides information on the basic employer-paid
benefits that were provided to Department of Energy (DOE), University
of California, and supplemental labor personnel at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory as of September 30, 1994.\1
--------------------
\1 Benefits may vary according to the time worked and duration of the
assignment.
LEAVE BENEFITS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
The vacation leave, holidays, and sick leave for the laboratory's
workforce are shown in table I.1.
Table I.1
Annual Leave Benefits for the
Laboratory's Workforce as of September
30, 1994
Years Numb Years Years
of er of Number of Number
servic of servic of servic of
Benefit e days e days e days
-------------- ------ ---- ------ ------ ------ ------
Vacation days Under 13 Under 15 Under 10
3 10 5
20 18 15
3 to 10 to 5 to
15 26 15 21 15 20
15 15 to 24 15 to 25
plus 20 25
20 25
plus plus
Holidays All 10 All 12 All 12
Sick leave All 13 All 12 All 12
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's, the university's, and the
laboratory's data and the Federal Employees Almanac 1994.
MEDICAL INSURANCE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
As shown in table I.2, the university paid the full cost of three
medical plans for the university's employees,\2 while DOE generally
paid 60 percent, but no more than 75 percent, of the premium for its
employees' medical coverage. In addition, the university provided
dental and optical plans at no cost to the employees; DOE paid only a
share of the cost if such care happened to be included in the medical
plan selected by the DOE employee. As with the university's
employees, supplemental labor personnel were offered at least one
fully employer-paid medical, dental, and optical plan.
Table I.2
Medical Insurance Benefits for the
Laboratory's Workforce as of September
30, 1994
Benefit DOE University Supplemental labor
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Medical plan Government offers University offers Vendor must provide
many plans for five health at least one fully
which it normally maintenance paid health
pays 60 but not organization plans maintenance
more than 75 (two of which are organization plan
percent of the fully paid by the and one fee-for-
premium. university) and service plan for
two fee-for- which the employer
service plans (one pays 75 percent.
of which is fully
paid by the
university).
Dental plan Government pays Two plans fully Vendor must offer at
share if medical paid by the least one fully paid
plan includes such university are plan.
coverage. offered.
Optical plan Government pays One plan fully Vendor must offer at
share if medical paid by the least one fully paid
plan includes such university is plan.
coverage. offered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's, the university's, and the
laboratory's data and the Federal Employees Almanac 1994.
--------------------
\2 DOE reimbursed the university for these costs.
LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
COVERAGE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
As shown in table I.3, the university's employees received
employer-paid life insurance coverage for up to the amount of their
salary or $50,000, whichever was less. In contrast, DOE pays
one-third of the cost of coverage equal to the amount of roughly 1
year's salary--up to a maximum of $136,000--while the employee pays
the remainder of the coverage's cost. For DOE's employees at the
laboratory, whose average salary was about $53,300, this amounted to
about $18,000 of government-paid life insurance coverage.
Supplemental labor employees were provided with at least $5,000 in
employer-paid life insurance coverage.
The laboratory's workforce was covered by various government-mandated
disability insurance programs for work-related injuries. As shown in
table I.3, the university's employees were also provided with a
state-required benefit of employer-paid coverage for disabilities not
related to work duties that require a doctor's direct and continual
care. Under this coverage, the university's employees could be paid
up to $800 per month for up to 6 months.
Table I.3
Life and Disability Insurance Benefits
for the Laboratory's Workforce as of
September 30, 1994
Benefits DOE University Supplemental labor
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Life insurance Insurance coverage Insurance coverage Vendor must provide
approximates approximates at least $5,000 in
annual salary annual salary employer-paid group
(maximum (maximum $50,000). life insurance
$136,000). University pays coverage.
Government pays full cost.
one-third of the
cost.
Disability Federal Employees' State workers State workers
insurance Compensation Act compensation compensation covers
covers injuries covers injuries injuries sustained
sustained in sustained in in performance of
performance of performance of duties.
duties. duties.
University pays
full cost of
insurance coverage
for nonwork
injuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's, the university's, and the
laboratory's data and the Federal Employees Almanac 1994.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4
As shown in table I.4, DOE's and the laboratory's employees
participated in defined benefit retirement plans that were primarily
funded through the employer's contributions. Because of a funding
surplus in the university's retirement plan, no contributions from
the employer are currently required, and the contributions of the
university's employees at the laboratory have been redirected to a
separate defined contribution plan. DOE's employees contribute 7
percent of their salary for retirement coverage under one plan or
8.45 percent under the second plan, including Social Security tax.
Both DOE's and the university's employees were recently offered a
voluntary early retirement program. Both programs offered lump-sum
payments--3 months' salary for the university's employees and up to
$25,000 for selected DOE employees. In addition, the university's
employees at the laboratory were offered age and service credits (the
factors that determine the percentage of base pay used to calculate
their retirement income) of 6 years and a 7-percent increase in the
base salary. In contrast, DOE's employees were not offered the age
or service credits or the 7- percent increase. The university's
employees had to meet the minimum eligibility requirements for
retirement (50 years of age with 5 years of service), and DOE's
employees were eligible for the early retirement if they were 50
years of age with 20 years of service or had 25 years of service at
any age. The retirement pay of DOE's employees, however, was reduced
for every year they were below the age of 55.
It is difficult to compare retirement plan benefits because of
different eligibility requirements (such as those discussed above)
and different methods of calculating benefits. The retirement pay
for DOE's employees, for example, is a percentage of base salary that
is determined by their years of service. The retirement pay of an
employee with 30 years of service is at most 56.25 percent of his/her
base salary.\3 On the other hand, the retirement pay of the
university's employees is a percentage of base pay determined by both
their years of service and their age when they retire. The
university's employees retiring with 30 years of service would
receive 72.3 percent of their base pay if they retire at age 60 but
only 45 percent if they retire at age 55.\4
Table I.4
Retirement Benefits for the Laboratory's
Workforce as of September 30, 1994
DOE University Supplemental labor
------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
Government's defined University's defined Vendor must provide a
benefit plans provide benefit plan provides federally approved pension
annuity that is based on benefits that are based plan; employer's
years of service and on age, salary, and years contribution must be at
salary. Retirement prior of service. The employee least 10 percent of the
to age 55 generally must work until age 60 to participant's
results in reduced obtain the highest compensation.
benefits. Maximum percentage of retirement
retirement pay is 80 pay. Maximum retirement
percent of base pay and pay is 100 percent of
would take about 42 years base pay and would take
of service to achieve.\a about 41.5 years of
service to achieve, if
Defined contribution plan retiring after age 60.
is offered.
Defined contribution plan
is offered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Under the second retirement plan available to DOE's employees,
there is no maximum; however, it would take over 70 years to achieve
80 percent of base pay.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's, the university's, and the
laboratory's data and the Federal Employees Almanac 1994.
The supplemental labor vendors were required to provide a retirement
plan, and the employers' contribution to this plan had to be at least
10 percent of the participants' compensation.
--------------------
\3 An employee earns up to 16.25 percent for the first 10 years of
service and up to 2 percent for each additional year after than.
\4 The percentage gradually increases from 1.09 percent for every
year of service if an employee retires at age 50 to the maximum of
2.41 percent for every year of service if an employee retires at age
60.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II
Our objectives for this review were to identify, for the DOE,
university, and other personnel at the laboratory, information on the
(1) number of personnel by occupational category, (2) salaries by
occupational category, and (3) benefits provided to them. In
addition, we also obtained information on how salaries and benefits
for the university's employees at the laboratory are determined.
Information and data used in this report were obtained primarily from
DOE's Oakland Operations Office and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.
To determine the number of full- and part-time personnel in the
laboratory's workforce by occupational categories, we obtained
personnel data from the laboratory on the university's employees at
the laboratory. As of September 30, 1994, the laboratory classified
its employees into 262 job descriptions that were arranged into 15
structures, or occupational groups. We accepted these laboratory
classifications, even though some were debatable. For example,
scientists and engineers who were also managers were classified as
scientists and engineers. We condensed these data into six broad
occupational categories. We then obtained similar data for the DOE
and supplemental labor personnel from DOE and the laboratory,
respectively. We analyzed these data and categorized the personnel
into the same six broad occupational categories. We also obtained
historical data from DOE and the laboratory on the number of
personnel in the laboratory's workforce.
To determine the salaries of the personnel in the laboratory's
workforce, we obtained salary information from DOE and the laboratory
for DOE's and the university's employees at the laboratory as of
September 30, 1994. We then determined the range of salaries and
calculated the average annual salaries for each occupational category
for both DOE's and the university's employees. While we presented
the information for the two groups by using the same occupational
categories, a Personnel Management Specialist from the Office of
Personnel Management pointed out that it would be misleading to
compare salary data for DOE's and the university's employees by these
broad occupational categories or even more specific job titles.
According to the specialist, valid comparisons between organizations
can be made only when one is comparing salaries for comparable work.
For the work to be comparable, individuals would have to have similar
responsibilities, knowledge, degree of independence or required
supervision, and education. To identify comparable positions would
require a detailed analysis of a sample of individuals in both
organizations. Such an analysis was beyond the scope of this
assignment.
Salary data for supplemental labor personnel were not available from
the laboratory because the laboratory paid the supplemental labor
vendors an hourly rate that included the vendors' profit and overhead
as well as the salary and benefits for the individuals doing the
work.
To determine the benefits provided to the university and supplemental
labor personnel at the laboratory, we interviewed laboratory
officials and obtained copies of the university's and the
laboratory's benefit program documentation. For DOE employees, we
interviewed DOE officials and consulted the Federal Employees Almanac
1994. We used the Almanac because it provides a concise and easily
understood summary of federal benefits, but we verified the accuracy
of the information by tracing the key provisions to title 5 of the
U.S. Code, Government Organization and Employees. Some of the
university's employees were employed before the establishment of the
University of California Retirement Plan. As of September 30, 1994,
180 university employees at the laboratory were covered by the older
and larger California Public Employees Retirement System, which
covers California's state and local government employees. Neither
this plan nor the benefits provided to its members were discussed in
the report.
To obtain information on the process used to determine the salaries
of and benefits for the university's employees at the laboratory, we
interviewed DOE and laboratory officials, reviewed applicable
contract provisions, and examined the laboratory's requests for
annual salary increases and DOE's review process. In addition, we
reviewed DOE's approval process for salaries exceeding specified
limits.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ENERGY AND
SCIENCE ISSUES
Jeffrey E. Heil, Assistant Director
Joanne E. Weaver, Assignment Manager
James L. Ohl, Evaluator-in-Charge
Brad C. Dobbins, Site Senior