FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, MITRE is done with RIFs now?

Next round seems likely sometime in 1Q CY 2026.

Projects expiring in the new year.

Reorg coming for a certain center.

HSSEDI?

We can only hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, MITRE is done with RIFs now?

Next round seems likely sometime in 1Q CY 2026.

Projects expiring in the new year.

Reorg coming for a certain center.

HSSEDI?

We can only hope.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, MITRE is done with RIFs now?

Next round seems likely sometime in 1Q CY 2026.

Projects expiring in the new year.

Reorg coming for a certain center.

HSSEDI?

We can only hope.

Why?

Toxic executive management, nepotism (old Ft. Monmouth crew), a push to sell/bring in new work at any cost vs. do real FFRDC work, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

Is it obvious to everyone? Jason's failures to manage the internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis due too Trump is the reason for RANDs very serious troubles right now.

I have no idea what you mean by the "internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis". The market for science and analysis changed very abruptly and very dramatically. Projects were not just not renewed, they were cancelled over the coarse of a couple months. All related firms experienced this. Was RAND hit more? I have no information to suggest that is true, but information is scarce, so maybe? Seems like our competitors were hit hard and took earlier losses.

As I said before, I am not uncritical of Jason’s choices and management. President and CEO Jim Thompson had all research division directors report to him. Too many direct reports? Maybe, but he loved the research, and wanted to know what was interesting and important that RAND was doing. Michael Rich was deeply involved in research unit activities until he became president, and created a layer between himself and the units. But he still wanted to be involved in Division reviews where divisions could highlight their interesting work and important challenges.

From what I hear (possibly wrong) Jason does not participate in Division reviews, and has minimal one-on-one contact with division leaders. Unlike prior presidents, he reportedly does not help vet and shape research briefings for our Board of Trustees. I worry that if these are true, he may be too far removed from our research strengths and current challenges to effectively design a value proposition that distinguishes us from Booz Allen. If we stop publishing (it’s happening), if we stop trying to have our work make impact through press releases, Congressional outreach, op Ed’s and commentaries, I don’t know how we are different and worth the higher costs. Publication keeps us transparent, honest, and critically reviewed. Publication is what allows us to hire the best young people who aspire to make names for themselves in the academic and policy worlds.

So, I hope it’s clear I am not an apologist here. I just don’t think the market can be blamed on Jason.

The "fallout" that the other person is referencing probably refers to bad press from the NY Times, Fox News, and other outlets - which focused on issues with Jason’s priorities. This bad press only amplified the damage from Trump. Jason’s inability to cut his friends he hired to carry out these priorities in GER also seems to have made these problems even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any information on how FFRDCs are handling with the shutdown? Curious about not just the couple mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

How is Aerospace? And tangentially In-Q-Tel?

Aerospace always was much much smaller, and always wildly more focused on its customers (i.e., scrupulously sticking in the FFRDC swim lane; not trying to grow at any cost; not trying to cover the entire Federal Government). Their web site indicates they still are hiring. No sign of any significant layoff. No need for any WARN filings.

In-Q-tel is not an FFRDC. It is the VC arm of the intel community. It has a tiny staff. A completely different animal, in short, so no way to compare with an FFRDC.

JPL just had layoffs, so this is not 100% true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any information on how FFRDCs are handling with the shutdown? Curious about not just the couple mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

How is Aerospace? And tangentially In-Q-Tel?

Aerospace always was much much smaller, and always wildly more focused on its customers (i.e., scrupulously sticking in the FFRDC swim lane; not trying to grow at any cost; not trying to cover the entire Federal Government). Their web site indicates they still are hiring. No sign of any significant layoff. No need for any WARN filings.

In-Q-tel is not an FFRDC. It is the VC arm of the intel community. It has a tiny staff. A completely different animal, in short, so no way to compare with an FFRDC.

JPL just had layoffs, so this is not 100% true.

JPL is a NASA FFRDC. Very different beast. Also, Aerospace is 1.4B/year. It's not small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any information on how FFRDCs are handling with the shutdown? Curious about not just the couple mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

How is Aerospace? And tangentially In-Q-Tel?

Aerospace always was much much smaller, and always wildly more focused on its customers (i.e., scrupulously sticking in the FFRDC swim lane; not trying to grow at any cost; not trying to cover the entire Federal Government). Their web site indicates they still are hiring. No sign of any significant layoff. No need for any WARN filings.

In-Q-tel is not an FFRDC. It is the VC arm of the intel community. It has a tiny staff. A completely different animal, in short, so no way to compare with an FFRDC.

JPL just had layoffs, so this is not 100% true.

JPL (operated by CalTech as an FFRDC for NASA) is different from and unrelated to Aerospace Corporation (which operates an FFRDC for the US Dept of Air Force). DAF includes both USAF and USSF.

Aerospace Corporation is what was being discussed previously in this thread. It was not commentary about the (lower case) aerospace sector in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any information on how FFRDCs are handling with the shutdown? Curious about not just the couple mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

How is Aerospace? And tangentially In-Q-Tel?

Aerospace always was much much smaller, and always wildly more focused on its customers (i.e., scrupulously sticking in the FFRDC swim lane; not trying to grow at any cost; not trying to cover the entire Federal Government). Their web site indicates they still are hiring. No sign of any significant layoff. No need for any WARN filings.

In-Q-tel is not an FFRDC. It is the VC arm of the intel community. It has a tiny staff. A completely different animal, in short, so no way to compare with an FFRDC.

JPL just had layoffs, so this is not 100% true.

JPL is a NASA FFRDC. Very different beast. Also, Aerospace is 1.4B/year. It's not small.

A year ago (before all the Mitre layoffs) Aerospace was a bit less than half the size of Mitre by head count. So it is much smaller than Mitre (by head count), but it is clearly not tiny like CNA is.

Like many, I am unsure of Mitre's current head count, which is why I use the pre-layoff analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Toxic executive management, nepotism (old Ft. Monmouth crew), a push to sell/bring in new work at any cost vs. do real FFRDC work, etc.

These in a nutshell are reasons I left. (Before the RIFs started.)

Does anyone know if YBs contract was renewed? I had heard it was up for renewal this month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Toxic executive management, nepotism (old Ft. Monmouth crew), a push to sell/bring in new work at any cost vs. do real FFRDC work, etc.

These in a nutshell are reasons I left. (Before the RIFs started.)

Does anyone know if YBs contract was renewed? I had heard it was up for renewal this month.

How could losing a whole center lead to a renewal? I guess if you are from Ft Monmouth anything is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any information on how FFRDCs are handling with the shutdown? Curious about not just the couple mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

How is Aerospace? And tangentially In-Q-Tel?

Aerospace always was much much smaller, and always wildly more focused on its customers (i.e., scrupulously sticking in the FFRDC swim lane; not trying to grow at any cost; not trying to cover the entire Federal Government). Their web site indicates they still are hiring. No sign of any significant layoff. No need for any WARN filings.

In-Q-tel is not an FFRDC. It is the VC arm of the intel community. It has a tiny staff. A completely different animal, in short, so no way to compare with an FFRDC.

JPL just had layoffs, so this is not 100% true.

JPL is a NASA FFRDC. Very different beast. Also, Aerospace is 1.4B/year. It's not small.

A year ago (before all the Mitre layoffs) Aerospace was a bit less than half the size of Mitre by head count. So it is much smaller than Mitre (by head count), but it is clearly not tiny like CNA is.

Like many, I am unsure of Mitre's current head count, which is why I use the pre-layoff analysis.

Is Aerospace’s business model to publish like RAND? They seem to constantly discuss system /enterprise threats and vulnerabilities through papers and posts on social media (podcasts). When I was in the FFRDC world we were more circumspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

Is it obvious to everyone? Jason's failures to manage the internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis due too Trump is the reason for RANDs very serious troubles right now.

I have no idea what you mean by the "internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis". The market for science and analysis changed very abruptly and very dramatically. Projects were not just not renewed, they were cancelled over the coarse of a couple months. All related firms experienced this. Was RAND hit more? I have no information to suggest that is true, but information is scarce, so maybe? Seems like our competitors were hit hard and took earlier losses.

As I said before, I am not uncritical of Jason’s choices and management. President and CEO Jim Thompson had all research division directors report to him. Too many direct reports? Maybe, but he loved the research, and wanted to know what was interesting and important that RAND was doing. Michael Rich was deeply involved in research unit activities until he became president, and created a layer between himself and the units. But he still wanted to be involved in Division reviews where divisions could highlight their interesting work and important challenges.

From what I hear (possibly wrong) Jason does not participate in Division reviews, and has minimal one-on-one contact with division leaders. Unlike prior presidents, he reportedly does not help vet and shape research briefings for our Board of Trustees. I worry that if these are true, he may be too far removed from our research strengths and current challenges to effectively design a value proposition that distinguishes us from Booz Allen. If we stop publishing (it’s happening), if we stop trying to have our work make impact through press releases, Congressional outreach, op Ed’s and commentaries, I don’t know how we are different and worth the higher costs. Publication keeps us transparent, honest, and critically reviewed. Publication is what allows us to hire the best young people who aspire to make names for themselves in the academic and policy worlds.

So, I hope it’s clear I am not an apologist here. I just don’t think the market can be blamed on Jason.

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

Is it obvious to everyone? Jason's failures to manage the internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis due too Trump is the reason for RANDs very serious troubles right now.

I have no idea what you mean by the "internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis". The market for science and analysis changed very abruptly and very dramatically. Projects were not just not renewed, they were cancelled over the coarse of a couple months. All related firms experienced this. Was RAND hit more? I have no information to suggest that is true, but information is scarce, so maybe? Seems like our competitors were hit hard and took earlier losses.

As I said before, I am not uncritical of Jason’s choices and management. President and CEO Jim Thompson had all research division directors report to him. Too many direct reports? Maybe, but he loved the research, and wanted to know what was interesting and important that RAND was doing. Michael Rich was deeply involved in research unit activities until he became president, and created a layer between himself and the units. But he still wanted to be involved in Division reviews where divisions could highlight their interesting work and important challenges.

From what I hear (possibly wrong) Jason does not participate in Division reviews, and has minimal one-on-one contact with division leaders. Unlike prior presidents, he reportedly does not help vet and shape research briefings for our Board of Trustees. I worry that if these are true, he may be too far removed from our research strengths and current challenges to effectively design a value proposition that distinguishes us from Booz Allen. If we stop publishing (it’s happening), if we stop trying to have our work make impact through press releases, Congressional outreach, op Ed’s and commentaries, I don’t know how we are different and worth the higher costs. Publication keeps us transparent, honest, and critically reviewed. Publication is what allows us to hire the best young people who aspire to make names for themselves in the academic and policy worlds.

So, I hope it’s clear I am not an apologist here. I just don’t think the market can be blamed on Jason.

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.

Put it on Manifold then.

[Anonymous]

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.



I very much doubt that you hear this from anyone relevant to this decision.
—Longtime RAND staffer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

Is it obvious to everyone? Jason's failures to manage the internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis due too Trump is the reason for RANDs very serious troubles right now.

I have no idea what you mean by the "internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis". The market for science and analysis changed very abruptly and very dramatically. Projects were not just not renewed, they were cancelled over the coarse of a couple months. All related firms experienced this. Was RAND hit more? I have no information to suggest that is true, but information is scarce, so maybe? Seems like our competitors were hit hard and took earlier losses.

As I said before, I am not uncritical of Jason’s choices and management. President and CEO Jim Thompson had all research division directors report to him. Too many direct reports? Maybe, but he loved the research, and wanted to know what was interesting and important that RAND was doing. Michael Rich was deeply involved in research unit activities until he became president, and created a layer between himself and the units. But he still wanted to be involved in Division reviews where divisions could highlight their interesting work and important challenges.

From what I hear (possibly wrong) Jason does not participate in Division reviews, and has minimal one-on-one contact with division leaders. Unlike prior presidents, he reportedly does not help vet and shape research briefings for our Board of Trustees. I worry that if these are true, he may be too far removed from our research strengths and current challenges to effectively design a value proposition that distinguishes us from Booz Allen. If we stop publishing (it’s happening), if we stop trying to have our work make impact through press releases, Congressional outreach, op Ed’s and commentaries, I don’t know how we are different and worth the higher costs. Publication keeps us transparent, honest, and critically reviewed. Publication is what allows us to hire the best young people who aspire to make names for themselves in the academic and policy worlds.

So, I hope it’s clear I am not an apologist here. I just don’t think the market can be blamed on Jason.

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.

Put it on Manifold then.

Isn’t Manifold Markets associated with EA?