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

