In a year when Los Alamos National Laboratory was closed for more than a week while narrowly escaping the Las Conchas Fire, the laboratory completed its most profitable year yet, earning nearly $84 million in fees.

The National Nuclear Security Administration authorized about 13 percent more in performance-based fees for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. The fees were 28 percent more than Los Alamos National Security LLC earned in 2007, after the first full year of the contract.

Additionally, LANS captured another year's extension on a contract still worth some $37.5 billion at current levels for the 15 years remaining on the agreement.

NNSA released a summary document Monday, confirming the final numbers. LANS is a partnership of the University of California, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services and URS Energy and Construction,

Lab Director Charles McMillan, who is also president of LANS, called the outcome "a banner year in terms of dollars." Speaking to community leaders last month, he emphasized that $528 million in laboratory procurements were spent in New Mexico, including $342 million in Northern New Mexico.

The one-page summary evaluation cited several accomplishments in general terms, including the lab's leadership transition -- McMillan took over from Michael Anastasio, who retired at the end of June 2011 -- along with contributions to LANL's upkeep of the nuclear stockpile and global nonproliferation programs. Also highlighted were the lab's "outstanding response to the Las Conchas Fire" and progress in cleaning up nuclear waste.

For the last three years, the nuclear weapons agency refused to make public the Performance Evaluation Reports that contain details about how the bottom line award was determined in relation to a set of goals and incentives for high-priority achievements. Past reports contained pointed criticism by the laboratory's supervisors, as well as the laboratory's own self-assessment.

Based on a ruling by a procurement official, NNSA now defers to contractors about whether to disclose the performance evaluations, but none of them has chosen to do so.

Despite requests and at least one court decision favoring the release of the information, the agency continues to consider the information proprietary and subject to a three-year delay prior to distribution.

The lack of transparency is criticized by leading arms control experts and open-government advocates.

Stephen I. Schwartz, editor of The Nonproliferation Review at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, has written and spoken extensively on the historic difficulties in accounting for nuclear spending since the program began nearly 70 years ago.

"If there is a performance bonus for doing a better job, it seems in time of austerity incumbent on government officials to level with the taxpayers and the public," he said. "Why? What's the big secret?"

"It's a disappointing move," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. "By withholding this information from the public, NNSA only generates suspicion and distrust."

Contact Roger Snodgrass at roger.sno@gmail.com.