FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people here seem to resent the FFRDC contract vehicle. I get it that some people genuinely believe that some FFRDC contracts are ‘bloated", but this has been the argument of the Professional Services Council (PSC) for years, and it is the PSC companies thriving, not the FFRDCs that are prohibited from competing with the PSC companies for contracts. Maybe RAND, MITRE and others are "bloated", but compared to Booz, or McKinsey or other orgs gunning for the FFRDC’s business are FFRDC’s bloated? Do we have anything like the profit margin these attacking organizations in the PSC have? The whole idea of FFRDC’s in the FAR is to create an organization that has long term institutional knowledge of their sponsor, and has the independence to provide unwelcome analysis, if it’s right. PSC orgs have the capability to offer this, but not the incentive. The FFRDC contract serves a valuable national interest, and should be supported.

What about the FFRDCs that take donor money and appear to be running an astroturfing campaign in support of a narrow set of policy positions?

Nobody is doing that

Yeah, I’m not familiar with this problem. Please give an example. (And note that some companies like RAND have business lines outside of their FFrDCs.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people here seem to resent the FFRDC contract vehicle. I get it that some people genuinely believe that some FFRDC contracts are ‘bloated", but this has been the argument of the Professional Services Council (PSC) for years, and it is the PSC companies thriving, not the FFRDCs that are prohibited from competing with the PSC companies for contracts. Maybe RAND, MITRE and others are "bloated", but compared to Booz, or McKinsey or other orgs gunning for the FFRDC’s business are FFRDC’s bloated? Do we have anything like the profit margin these attacking organizations in the PSC have? The whole idea of FFRDC’s in the FAR is to create an organization that has long term institutional knowledge of their sponsor, and has the independence to provide unwelcome analysis, if it’s right. PSC orgs have the capability to offer this, but not the incentive. The FFRDC contract serves a valuable national interest, and should be supported.

What about the FFRDCs that take donor money and appear to be running an astroturfing campaign in support of a narrow set of policy positions?

Nobody is doing that

Yeah, I’m not familiar with this problem. Please give an example. (And note that some companies like RAND have business lines outside of their FFrDCs.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/technology/nvidia-china-chip-sales-ai-doomerism.html

"Nvidia and Mr. Sacks have been particularly pointed in their criticism of RAND Corporation, a federally funded think tank that does national security research on semiconductors and other subjects, said four people familiar with their lobbying efforts who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the conversations were private. Nvidia has focused some of its criticisms on Jason Matheny, a deputy assistant to President Biden on technology and national security who is now chief executive of RAND."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people here seem to resent the FFRDC contract vehicle. I get it that some people genuinely believe that some FFRDC contracts are ‘bloated", but this has been the argument of the Professional Services Council (PSC) for years, and it is the PSC companies thriving, not the FFRDCs that are prohibited from competing with the PSC companies for contracts. Maybe RAND, MITRE and others are "bloated", but compared to Booz, or McKinsey or other orgs gunning for the FFRDC’s business are FFRDC’s bloated? Do we have anything like the profit margin these attacking organizations in the PSC have? The whole idea of FFRDC’s in the FAR is to create an organization that has long term institutional knowledge of their sponsor, and has the independence to provide unwelcome analysis, if it’s right. PSC orgs have the capability to offer this, but not the incentive. The FFRDC contract serves a valuable national interest, and should be supported.

What about the FFRDCs that take donor money and appear to be running an astroturfing campaign in support of a narrow set of policy positions?

Nobody is doing that

Yeah, I’m not familiar with this problem. Please give an example. (And note that some companies like RAND have business lines outside of their FFrDCs.)

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/01/federal-lobbying-on-artificial-intelligence-grows-as-legislative-efforts-stall/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people here seem to resent the FFRDC contract vehicle. I get it that some people genuinely believe that some FFRDC contracts are ‘bloated", but this has been the argument of the Professional Services Council (PSC) for years, and it is the PSC companies thriving, not the FFRDCs that are prohibited from competing with the PSC companies for contracts. Maybe RAND, MITRE and others are "bloated", but compared to Booz, or McKinsey or other orgs gunning for the FFRDC’s business are FFRDC’s bloated? Do we have anything like the profit margin these attacking organizations in the PSC have? The whole idea of FFRDC’s in the FAR is to create an organization that has long term institutional knowledge of their sponsor, and has the independence to provide unwelcome analysis, if it’s right. PSC orgs have the capability to offer this, but not the incentive. The FFRDC contract serves a valuable national interest, and should be supported.

What about the FFRDCs that take donor money and appear to be running an astroturfing campaign in support of a narrow set of policy positions?

Nobody is doing that

Yeah, I’m not familiar with this problem. Please give an example. (And note that some companies like RAND have business lines outside of their FFrDCs.)

https://www.stripes.com/opinion/2025-11-10/senate-us-made-ai-computer-chips-19718383.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people here seem to resent the FFRDC contract vehicle. I get it that some people genuinely believe that some FFRDC contracts are ‘bloated", but this has been the argument of the Professional Services Council (PSC) for years, and it is the PSC companies thriving, not the FFRDCs that are prohibited from competing with the PSC companies for contracts. Maybe RAND, MITRE and others are "bloated", but compared to Booz, or McKinsey or other orgs gunning for the FFRDC’s business are FFRDC’s bloated? Do we have anything like the profit margin these attacking organizations in the PSC have? The whole idea of FFRDC’s in the FAR is to create an organization that has long term institutional knowledge of their sponsor, and has the independence to provide unwelcome analysis, if it’s right. PSC orgs have the capability to offer this, but not the incentive. The FFRDC contract serves a valuable national interest, and should be supported.

What about the FFRDCs that take donor money and appear to be running an astroturfing campaign in support of a narrow set of policy positions?

Nobody is doing that

Yeah, I’m not familiar with this problem. Please give an example. (And note that some companies like RAND have business lines outside of their FFrDCs.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/technology/nvidia-china-chip-sales-ai-doomerism.html

"Nvidia and Mr. Sacks have been particularly pointed in their criticism of RAND Corporation, a federally funded think tank that does national security research on semiconductors and other subjects, said four people familiar with their lobbying efforts who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the conversations were private. Nvidia has focused some of its criticisms on Jason Matheny, a deputy assistant to President Biden on technology and national security who is now chief executive of RAND."

yikes... this sounds odd from the ny times article

Nvidia’s complaints about RAND have contributed to the dismissal of at least one member of the Commerce Department’s administrative staff who was partly paid by RAND, said five people familiar with the dismissal who spoke anonymously because it was a personnel matter. The staff member was dismissed after Nvidia complained that licenses were not being granted for its chip sales to China, these people said.

[Anonymous]

CNA's IPR is hanging on... some layoffs, some full-time staff have been switched to part-time, and some are also on part-time call.

CNA's FFRDC piece is relatively stable. Some long-time employees have retired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CNA's IPR is hanging on... some layoffs, some full-time staff have been switched to part-time, and some are also on part-time call.

CNA's FFRDC piece is relatively stable. Some long-time employees have retired.

This assessment is something that I would agree with especially after reading posts about the other FFRDCs.

[Anonymous]

Jason's gone quiet. He’s basically just a fundraising CEO now, chasing checks in private dining rooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jason's gone quiet. He’s basically just a fundraising CEO now, chasing checks in private dining rooms.

Which Jason?

[Anonymous]

at our work in one of the DoW agencies, support contract for IDA is being looked into. There is a lot of bloat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jason's gone quiet. He’s basically just a fundraising CEO now, chasing checks in private dining rooms.

Which Jason?

Jason P? Guessing here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jason's gone quiet. He’s basically just a fundraising CEO now, chasing checks in private dining rooms.

Which Jason?

Jason P? Guessing here

RAND Jason, not MITRE Jason. MITRE Jason was PNGed August '24.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jason's gone quiet. He’s basically just a fundraising CEO now, chasing checks in private dining rooms.

Which Jason?

Jason P? Guessing here

RAND Jason, not MITRE Jason. MITRE Jason was PNGed August '24.

oh I thought Jason was still advising or helping MITRE since retirement but I could be mistaken

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jason's gone quiet. He’s basically just a fundraising CEO now, chasing checks in private dining rooms.

Which Jason?

Jason P? Guessing here

RAND Jason, not MITRE Jason. MITRE Jason was PNGed August '24.

Is RAND Jason running his organization into the ground like MITRE Jason did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jason's gone quiet. He’s basically just a fundraising CEO now, chasing checks in private dining rooms.

Which Jason?

Jason P? Guessing here

RAND Jason, not MITRE Jason. MITRE Jason was PNGed August '24.

Is RAND Jason running his organization into the ground like MITRE Jason did?

MITRE Jason set a high bar, but the thread implied RAND Jason’s exceeding it. Congrats I guess?