FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

You do realize that Rand sells expert labor, not Salesforce admin support?

Still there, huh?

As a sponsor, I find these salaries surprising, as well as their defense on here.

You find the pay range for the Salesforce person surprising? Why? Do you often hire for that skill set?

Because the basic pay range for an SES is 150k to 225k.

Do you think that they're competing for labor? Do you think that contractor salaries should be pegged to SES salaries? Is this the same argument as "no one should make more than a Senator"? If RAND isn't doing a good job for you--and I totally believe they aren't--then that's the problem, and it wouldn't be better if they paid less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

You do realize that Rand sells expert labor, not Salesforce admin support?

Still there, huh?

As a sponsor, I find these salaries surprising, as well as their defense on here.

You find the pay range for the Salesforce person surprising? Why? Do you often hire for that skill set?

Because the basic pay range for an SES is 150k to 225k.

Do you think that they're competing for labor? Do you think that contractor salaries should be pegged to SES salaries? Is this the same argument as "no one should make more than a Senator"? If RAND isn't doing a good job for you--and I totally believe they aren't--then that's the problem, and it wouldn't be better if they paid less.

I am a different poster.

Our FFRDC is department-owned, not RAND's. RAND just hosts it. We must question why costs appear excessive relative to output, particularly a cost like a Salesforce admin making a SES-level salary. Do CNA and IDA pay similar salaries for these positions? I doubt it. The value added to our FFRDC by this role is questionable and in my opinion warrants scrutiny to ensure the entity hosting our FFRDC is being good stewards of taxpayer money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

You do realize that Rand sells expert labor, not Salesforce admin support?

Still there, huh?

As a sponsor, I find these salaries surprising, as well as their defense on here.

You find the pay range for the Salesforce person surprising? Why? Do you often hire for that skill set?

Because the basic pay range for an SES is 150k to 225k.

Do you think that they're competing for labor? Do you think that contractor salaries should be pegged to SES salaries? Is this the same argument as "no one should make more than a Senator"? If RAND isn't doing a good job for you--and I totally believe they aren't--then that's the problem, and it wouldn't be better if they paid less.

I am a different poster.

Our FFRDC is department-owned, not RAND's. RAND just hosts it. We must question why costs appear excessive relative to output, particularly a cost like a Salesforce admin making a SES-level salary. Do CNA and IDA pay similar salaries for these positions? I doubt it. The value added to our FFRDC by this role is questionable and in my opinion warrants scrutiny to ensure the entity hosting our FFRDC is being good stewards of taxpayer money.

It was $120-$180k. In DC, that's a GS-12 step 7 to a GS-15 step 3. A huge number of contractors make somewhere within that salary range including from various FFRDCs, as do a huge number of feds. It is bizarre to call that an "SES-level salary."

If the value RAND is adding is questionable, it should be easy to make that case by pointing to the research they are delivering to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

You do realize that Rand sells expert labor, not Salesforce admin support?

Still there, huh?

As a sponsor, I find these salaries surprising, as well as their defense on here.

You find the pay range for the Salesforce person surprising? Why? Do you often hire for that skill set?

Because the basic pay range for an SES is 150k to 225k.

Do you think that they're competing for labor? Do you think that contractor salaries should be pegged to SES salaries? Is this the same argument as "no one should make more than a Senator"? If RAND isn't doing a good job for you--and I totally believe they aren't--then that's the problem, and it wouldn't be better if they paid less.

I am a different poster.

Our FFRDC is department-owned, not RAND's. RAND just hosts it. We must question why costs appear excessive relative to output, particularly a cost like a Salesforce admin making a SES-level salary. Do CNA and IDA pay similar salaries for these positions? I doubt it. The value added to our FFRDC by this role is questionable and in my opinion warrants scrutiny to ensure the entity hosting our FFRDC is being good stewards of taxpayer money.

It was $120-$180k. In DC, that's a GS-12 step 7 to a GS-15 step 3. A huge number of contractors make somewhere within that salary range including from various FFRDCs, as do a huge number of feds. It is bizarre to call that an "SES-level salary."

If the value RAND is adding is questionable, it should be easy to make that case by pointing to the research they are delivering to you.

You must not know much about the Federal government or FFRDCs. See: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2025/ES.pdf

Also, you should read up on FAR 31.201-3 and FAR 31.205-6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

You do realize that Rand sells expert labor, not Salesforce admin support?

Still there, huh?

As a sponsor, I find these salaries surprising, as well as their defense on here.

You find the pay range for the Salesforce person surprising? Why? Do you often hire for that skill set?

Because the basic pay range for an SES is 150k to 225k.

Do you think that they're competing for labor? Do you think that contractor salaries should be pegged to SES salaries? Is this the same argument as "no one should make more than a Senator"? If RAND isn't doing a good job for you--and I totally believe they aren't--then that's the problem, and it wouldn't be better if they paid less.

I am a different poster.

Our FFRDC is department-owned, not RAND's. RAND just hosts it. We must question why costs appear excessive relative to output, particularly a cost like a Salesforce admin making a SES-level salary. Do CNA and IDA pay similar salaries for these positions? I doubt it. The value added to our FFRDC by this role is questionable and in my opinion warrants scrutiny to ensure the entity hosting our FFRDC is being good stewards of taxpayer money.

It was $120-$180k. In DC, that's a GS-12 step 7 to a GS-15 step 3. A huge number of contractors make somewhere within that salary range including from various FFRDCs, as do a huge number of feds. It is bizarre to call that an "SES-level salary."

If the value RAND is adding is questionable, it should be easy to make that case by pointing to the research they are delivering to you.

umm..... not to run a salesforce database

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

You do realize that Rand sells expert labor, not Salesforce admin support?

Still there, huh?

As a sponsor, I find these salaries surprising, as well as their defense on here.

You find the pay range for the Salesforce person surprising? Why? Do you often hire for that skill set?

Because the basic pay range for an SES is 150k to 225k.

Do you think that they're competing for labor? Do you think that contractor salaries should be pegged to SES salaries? Is this the same argument as "no one should make more than a Senator"? If RAND isn't doing a good job for you--and I totally believe they aren't--then that's the problem, and it wouldn't be better if they paid less.

I am a different poster.

Our FFRDC is department-owned, not RAND's. RAND just hosts it. We must question why costs appear excessive relative to output, particularly a cost like a Salesforce admin making a SES-level salary. Do CNA and IDA pay similar salaries for these positions? I doubt it. The value added to our FFRDC by this role is questionable and in my opinion warrants scrutiny to ensure the entity hosting our FFRDC is being good stewards of taxpayer money.

It was $120-$180k. In DC, that's a GS-12 step 7 to a GS-15 step 3. A huge number of contractors make somewhere within that salary range including from various FFRDCs, as do a huge number of feds. It is bizarre to call that an "SES-level salary."

If the value RAND is adding is questionable, it should be easy to make that case by pointing to the research they are delivering to you.

You must not know much about the Federal government or FFRDCs. See: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2025/ES.pdf

Also, you should read up on FAR 31.201-3 and FAR 31.205-6

If your criteria for calling something "SES-level" is that it overlaps with the SES salary range, than a GS-13 is also SES-level, and so are tons of mid-level technical contractor jobs. It's the dumbest and most inflammatory way of describing a salary range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

You do realize that Rand sells expert labor, not Salesforce admin support?

Still there, huh?

As a sponsor, I find these salaries surprising, as well as their defense on here.

You find the pay range for the Salesforce person surprising? Why? Do you often hire for that skill set?

Because the basic pay range for an SES is 150k to 225k.

Do you think that they're competing for labor? Do you think that contractor salaries should be pegged to SES salaries? Is this the same argument as "no one should make more than a Senator"? If RAND isn't doing a good job for you--and I totally believe they aren't--then that's the problem, and it wouldn't be better if they paid less.

I am a different poster.

Our FFRDC is department-owned, not RAND's. RAND just hosts it. We must question why costs appear excessive relative to output, particularly a cost like a Salesforce admin making a SES-level salary. Do CNA and IDA pay similar salaries for these positions? I doubt it. The value added to our FFRDC by this role is questionable and in my opinion warrants scrutiny to ensure the entity hosting our FFRDC is being good stewards of taxpayer money.

It was $120-$180k. In DC, that's a GS-12 step 7 to a GS-15 step 3. A huge number of contractors make somewhere within that salary range including from various FFRDCs, as do a huge number of feds. It is bizarre to call that an "SES-level salary."

If the value RAND is adding is questionable, it should be easy to make that case by pointing to the research they are delivering to you.

You must not know much about the Federal government or FFRDCs. See: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2025/ES.pdf

Also, you should read up on FAR 31.201-3 and FAR 31.205-6

If your criteria for calling something "SES-level" is that it overlaps with the SES salary range, than a GS-13 is also SES-level, and so are tons of mid-level technical contractor jobs. It's the dumbest and most inflammatory way of describing a salary range.

Skip the DCUM semantics. Provide an FFRDC/nonprofit example of a Salesforce Admin hired near $180k to justify the rate under FAR 31.201-3. RAND needs some good accountants.

[Anonymous]

Here is the salesforce job in question. Located in either LA, DC, Pittsburgh, or remote. 6 years of experience.

https://unjobs.org/vacancies/1764633725110

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the salesforce job in question. Located in either LA, DC, Pittsburgh, or remote. 6 years of experience.

https://unjobs.org/vacancies/1764633725110

Minimum High School diploma or GED + Minimum 6 years of experience + remote work for $120,900 - $180,300??? This is the definition of bloat at RAND.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

It seems Jason was convinced by cost center interests that they are more valuable than researchers charging direct to projects and bringing in new work.

[Anonymous]

If some organization’s FFRDc is not adding value at a reasonable cost, then the organization ought to terminate / not renew that FFRDC contract. In that case, the organization ought also ought not put any funding on that contract unless it is legally required to do so.

Then, either decide to rebid the FFRDC or simply choose not to have one at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If some organization’s FFRDc is not adding value at a reasonable cost, then the organization ought to terminate / not renew that FFRDC contract. In that case, the organization ought also ought not put any funding on that contract unless it is legally required to do so.

Then, either decide to rebid the FFRDC or simply choose not to have one at all.

Or just contact DCSA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If some organization’s FFRDc is not adding value at a reasonable cost, then the organization ought to terminate / not renew that FFRDC contract. In that case, the organization ought also ought not put any funding on that contract unless it is legally required to do so.

Then, either decide to rebid the FFRDC or simply choose not to have one at all.

Or just contact DCSA

*DCAA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is also top-heavy...worthless.

I love how this one (I assume) disgruntled ex-CNAer periodically tries to jump into the middle of the RAND/Mitre bashing.

“Guuuys! Come on! CNA sucks too!”

“Who?”

Are you a CNA bootlicker? Current IPR VP making over $250k/year, with high bonuses, can't market IPR work as a former FED even after your restrictions have expired?

The FFRDC portion is safe/sound for now as the Navy/Marine Corps requested changes at the FFRDC. IPR still has a high overhead rate.

Salaries are here in case you were wondering:
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541558882

RAND is hiring for a "Salesforce Business Analyst Administrator" (whatever that means) who may earn more than a "Research Lead - AI Cyber Testing & Evaluation" Totally misplaced priorities.

The salary range for the research lead is $137,000 - $246,600 and $120,900 - $180,300 for the Salesforce role. "May" is doing a lot of work there.

That pay range for merely running a salesforce database seems really high. Doubt your sponsors want to pay for that bloat.

I'm not at RAND. I think RAND has much bigger problems than this. But that's a normal salary range for the kind of moderately skilled technical job that no one wants to do because you're locked into a particular vendor, you're a cost center, it's boring, and there's no prestige in it. One of the consequences of GRT running RAND has been unwillingness to pay enough for non-PhD roles, not understanding that RAND can get a deal on researchers but no one is excited about coming to RAND to do basically anything else.

My office sponsors FFRDC work and these pay ranges really make me mad. We pay a lot of money for FFRDC employees to work from home and give us a giant report in over a year with conclusions that don’t solve the problem we need solved. And they are paying their Salesforce support staff these kind of large salaries and then they can work remote while I have to come in each day and make far less money?

IDA process of report writing is so outdated. By the time, they come up with a report, an alternate solution has already been provided.