FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:200 layoff at RAND today

If you have inside information about this layoff, you can email Andrew Mark Miller at [e-mail].

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:200 layoff at RAND today

That is terrible news and very sorry to hear it. I wish the best to all affected. I know firsthand how difficult this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s happening at CNA?

IPR's work slowed down but the FFRDC is going fine

I heard about 20+ RIFs coming soon.

Are the RIFs in IPR or the Center for Naval Analysis or both?

ipr

CNA Management meets every week to reassess the number of how many IPR staff needed...some of the reassessment is bleeding over into overhead staff (VP of business development was fired about a month ago), and now FFRDC.

Very sorry to hear the FFRDC is also starting to cut. It already is very small.

I haven’t heard about RIFs in the FFRDC side during CNA management meetings I have been at.

Seems unlikely that someone who attends “CNA management meetings” would have such poor judgement as to post about it on DCUM.

Different poster here. They probably are talking about division management meetings, not meetings with Katherine, Jonathan, and Christine. The FFRDC is still hiring.

FFRDC/Katherine will soon try to get rid of IPR...sell it to someone...it's been an albatross...run by Tim B. We are in different times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:200 layoff at RAND today

Why is RAND still hiring summer associates and term-limited AI researchers? This seems like a purge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 layoff at RAND today

Why is RAND still hiring summer associates and term-limited AI researchers? This seems like a purge.

Months ago, they announced they would start hiring analysts as term positions. The language used was that it was a proof of concept or a few test cases of an idea, which several in leadership spoke about in hopeful tones that it could later be expanded to all incoming analysts and researcher roles. They made sure to reassure everyone that it wouldn’t impact current employees, as it is illegal to change a current employee status to term….

[Anonymous]

So, MITRE is done with RIFs now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 layoff at RAND today

Why is RAND still hiring summer associates and term-limited AI researchers? This seems like a purge.

Months ago, they announced they would start hiring analysts as term positions. The language used was that it was a proof of concept or a few test cases of an idea, which several in leadership spoke about in hopeful tones that it could later be expanded to all incoming analysts and researcher roles. They made sure to reassure everyone that it wouldn’t impact current employees, as it is illegal to change a current employee status to term….

An FFRDC hiring only short-term staff seems to violate the core intent of FAR 35.017. The regulation explicitly encourages long-term relationships and continuity to attract and retain high-quality personnel for long-term government R&D needs. A policy of only offering temporary positions defeats this purpose and is a liability that could lead to a negative finding in a formal sponsor review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 layoff at RAND today

Why is RAND still hiring summer associates and term-limited AI researchers? This seems like a purge.

Months ago, they announced they would start hiring analysts as term positions. The language used was that it was a proof of concept or a few test cases of an idea, which several in leadership spoke about in hopeful tones that it could later be expanded to all incoming analysts and researcher roles. They made sure to reassure everyone that it wouldn’t impact current employees, as it is illegal to change a current employee status to term….

An FFRDC hiring only short-term staff seems to violate the core intent of FAR 35.017. The regulation explicitly encourages long-term relationships and continuity to attract and retain high-quality personnel for long-term government R&D needs. A policy of only offering temporary positions defeats this purpose and is a liability that could lead to a negative finding in a formal sponsor review.

Most of the term positions listed now aren't for any of the FFRDCs. A few are. But at this point, given how shaky everything is if your business model involves the federal government, you don't have job security whether that's official or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200 layoff at RAND today

Why is RAND still hiring summer associates and term-limited AI researchers? This seems like a purge.

Months ago, they announced they would start hiring analysts as term positions. The language used was that it was a proof of concept or a few test cases of an idea, which several in leadership spoke about in hopeful tones that it could later be expanded to all incoming analysts and researcher roles. They made sure to reassure everyone that it wouldn’t impact current employees, as it is illegal to change a current employee status to term….

An FFRDC hiring only short-term staff seems to violate the core intent of FAR 35.017. The regulation explicitly encourages long-term relationships and continuity to attract and retain high-quality personnel for long-term government R&D needs. A policy of only offering temporary positions defeats this purpose and is a liability that could lead to a negative finding in a formal sponsor review.

Most of the term positions listed now aren't for any of the FFRDCs. A few are. But at this point, given how shaky everything is if your business model involves the federal government, you don't have job security whether that's official or not.

Expanding term positions is just asking for headaches down the road when it comes to managing contract renewal (speaking as an 1102).

[Anonymous]

To avoid a FAR Cost Accounting Standards violation, the FFRDC must consistently classify this new labor category (Direct vs. Indirect) and must update their estimates and disclosures. Failure to maintain this consistency and transparency risks significant cost disallowance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To avoid a FAR Cost Accounting Standards violation, the FFRDC must consistently classify this new labor category (Direct vs. Indirect) and must update their estimates and disclosures. Failure to maintain this consistency and transparency risks significant cost disallowance.

I disagree with this conclusion. The risk of disallowance is high if that new labor category is performing work similar to direct-charged FFRDC employees but is classified and accounted for differently, especially if it it exists in an organizational 'silo' with unique (and lower) indirect cost structures that the FFRDCs. Any inconsistent classification of costs, even in less extreme scenarios, is a direct CAS violation. Nobody with any common sense would sign off on this type of extreme arrangement in my experience.

[Anonymous]

The detailed discussion of the FAR and CAS fills me with joy during these dark times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The detailed discussion of the FAR and CAS fills me with joy during these dark times.

Sounds like people associated with DCAA are posting. If I was RAND, that would fill me with fear.

[Anonymous]

More DCAA attention on MITRE and RAND might be very healthy for the broader FFRDC/UARC ecosystem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To avoid a FAR Cost Accounting Standards violation, the FFRDC must consistently classify this new labor category (Direct vs. Indirect) and must update their estimates and disclosures. Failure to maintain this consistency and transparency risks significant cost disallowance.

I disagree with this conclusion. The risk of disallowance is high if that new labor category is performing work similar to direct-charged FFRDC employees but is classified and accounted for differently, especially if it it exists in an organizational 'silo' with unique (and lower) indirect cost structures that the FFRDCs. Any inconsistent classification of costs, even in less extreme scenarios, is a direct CAS violation. Nobody with any common sense would sign off on this type of extreme arrangement in my experience.

I think GER is doing this.