FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT/LL’s master contract with USD/R&E expires soon, and would need to be renewed. Lots of anxiety there about the delays with the renewal.

Same with RAND. Lot of anxiety.

RAND is flush w/ donor $. No worries here.

This aged well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed and the same to MITRE. Adrift at sea and the nepotism won't save them. Very sad

The massive internal management issues and bloat aside, the government needs to decide how they want to use mitre. If gov doesn't want tough answers to hard problems then the corporation will continue to whither...how long can it last in this state?

Mitre moved deeply into the generic SETA space under Jason's "growth no matter what" policy. That has been their biggest single problem. Their offerings just aren't that different from Amentum or ManTech these days - with only a very few genuine technical SMEs as exceptions.

Mitre needs to shrink, hire fewer new grads, and hire more genuine technical experts to get back to their original competency - expertise that is not available elsewhere.

Mitre needs to say a quick goodbye to residual Fort Monmouth and not just at the VP level. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed and the same to MITRE. Adrift at sea and the nepotism won't save them. Very sad

The massive internal management issues and bloat aside, the government needs to decide how they want to use mitre. If gov doesn't want tough answers to hard problems then the corporation will continue to whither...how long can it last in this state?

Mitre moved deeply into the generic SETA space under Jason's "growth no matter what" policy. That has been their biggest single problem. Their offerings just aren't that different from Amentum or ManTech these days - with only a very few genuine technical SMEs as exceptions.

Mitre needs to shrink, hire fewer new grads, and hire more genuine technical experts to get back to their original competency - expertise that is not available elsewhere.

They moved into SETA category because their own employees were not bringing anything new by being scientific advisors and SETA is the only category they saw growth in. Most of the staff is outdated in technology and still spends majority of their time writing reports. I had to let 3 guys go from MITRe because their bosses would compel them to write reports and waste time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed and the same to MITRE. Adrift at sea and the nepotism won't save them. Very sad

The massive internal management issues and bloat aside, the government needs to decide how they want to use mitre. If gov doesn't want tough answers to hard problems then the corporation will continue to whither...how long can it last in this state?

Mitre moved deeply into the generic SETA space under Jason's "growth no matter what" policy. That has been their biggest single problem. Their offerings just aren't that different from Amentum or ManTech these days - with only a very few genuine technical SMEs as exceptions.

Mitre needs to shrink, hire fewer new grads, and hire more genuine technical experts to get back to their original competency - expertise that is not available elsewhere.

Mitre needs to say a quick goodbye to residual Fort Monmouth and not just at the VP level. Problem solved.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT/LL’s master contract with USD/R&E expires soon, and would need to be renewed. Lots of anxiety there about the delays with the renewal.

Same with RAND. Lot of anxiety.

RAND is flush w/ donor $. No worries here.

This aged well.

Donor $s doesn't pay for peoples' salaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MIT/LL’s master contract with USD/R&E expires soon, and would need to be renewed. Lots of anxiety there about the delays with the renewal.

Same with RAND. Lot of anxiety.

RAND is flush w/ donor $. No worries here.

This aged well.

Donor $s doesn't pay for peoples' salaries.

It seems to pay for some people's salaries who aren't being RIF'd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

I bemoan the good old days of working for an employer who didn't lose money and whose leadership had a clear strategic plan.

You'd have to go back pre-2000 for that. I remember them bragging about raising the headcount cap with no mention of raising revenue. Turned out the idea was to flatten salaries. Eventually the non-mafia and best people left.

Right now, we’re all fighting over the few project scraps left, while leadership moves everyone into 3 year term gigs that basically turn us into a staffing agency... and meanwhile Jason’s friends in GER are out there writing think pieces about how AI is going to end the world.

You want them to make money, but you don't like GER, which fundraised to do the kind of work you're criticizing. You don't like that they brought in some weird Trump guy, presumably to help with the administration. (I don't know anything about him or their plan, but what else could it be?) There isn't a plan for solvency which involves whatever they were doing previously, whether it was five years ago or 25.

lots of ways to make money.... onlyfans, drop shipping, scalping tickets...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread has degenerated into what's wrong with each FFRDC - as if what's wrong the FFRDC was the problem. It's not.

This Administration is about controlling facts and analysis. All contradictory facts and analysis are thought crimes and any organization/process that might generate a thought crime and all results from prior crimes - regulations, laws, ... have been/are being eliminated through a combination of defunding, personnel replacement, Schedule F, EOs, ...

Under this administration, one source of thought crimes are the FFRDCs. FFRDCs were set up/funded for 60+ years to be in the business of generating thought crimes. Prior administrations didn't always love the crimes, but they didn't just accept that it was OK for the FFRDCs to generate them, the Feds helped set up and funded them (as well as many Federal facts and analysis orgs that also generate such crimes - NIH, FDA, NCAR, BLS) because they understood their value.

A posting on the Political Discussion thread https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/330/1316799.page illustrates the value of thought crimes (as the current Administration would have them). It discusses a Salon article https://www.salon.com/2026/03/11/the-us-had-a-blueprint-to-avoid-civilian-war-casualties-trump-officials-scrapped-it-partner/ about a DoD organization that was spawned from a Rand analysis/report. The purpose of the Org was minimization of civilian casualties in war with effects as needed on rules of engagement. Among their recommendations/changes were, to the extent possible, ensuring that targeting information was based on current information. 160 schoolgirls died because Hesgeth made sure that wasn't done.

So, what's an organization built to develop thought crimes to do? Continue to generate crimes until the Administration zeroes out their funding thus putting them out of business? Stop being an organization for development of thought crimes and, instead, develop approved lies on alternative facts? Attempt to get this Administration to understand the value of thought crimes?

yes. this. this entire thread illustrates what the administration does best. Get everyone to focus their blame elsewhere. Sure the Jasons and mistres of the world might deserve to get fired. But in my view the worst thing they’ve done is violate Tim snyder’s rule 1 over and over again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has degenerated into what's wrong with each FFRDC - as if what's wrong the FFRDC was the problem. It's not.

This Administration is about controlling facts and analysis. All contradictory facts and analysis are thought crimes and any organization/process that might generate a thought crime and all results from prior crimes - regulations, laws, ... have been/are being eliminated through a combination of defunding, personnel replacement, Schedule F, EOs, ...

Under this administration, one source of thought crimes are the FFRDCs. FFRDCs were set up/funded for 60+ years to be in the business of generating thought crimes. Prior administrations didn't always love the crimes, but they didn't just accept that it was OK for the FFRDCs to generate them, the Feds helped set up and funded them (as well as many Federal facts and analysis orgs that also generate such crimes - NIH, FDA, NCAR, BLS) because they understood their value.

A posting on the Political Discussion thread https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/330/1316799.page illustrates the value of thought crimes (as the current Administration would have them). It discusses a Salon article https://www.salon.com/2026/03/11/the-us-had-a-blueprint-to-avoid-civilian-war-casualties-trump-officials-scrapped-it-partner/ about a DoD organization that was spawned from a Rand analysis/report. The purpose of the Org was minimization of civilian casualties in war with effects as needed on rules of engagement. Among their recommendations/changes were, to the extent possible, ensuring that targeting information was based on current information. 160 schoolgirls died because Hesgeth made sure that wasn't done.

So, what's an organization built to develop thought crimes to do? Continue to generate crimes until the Administration zeroes out their funding thus putting them out of business? Stop being an organization for development of thought crimes and, instead, develop approved lies on alternative facts? Attempt to get this Administration to understand the value of thought crimes?

yes. this. this entire thread illustrates what the administration does best. Get everyone to focus their blame elsewhere. Sure the Jasons and mistres of the world might deserve to get fired. But in my view the worst thing they’ve done is violate Tim snyder’s rule 1 over and over again

Uhh, Did Trump make RAND’s president ignore the core business and star in an indie film while RIFing his top tier talent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

I bemoan the good old days of working for an employer who didn't lose money and whose leadership had a clear strategic plan.

You'd have to go back pre-2000 for that. I remember them bragging about raising the headcount cap with no mention of raising revenue. Turned out the idea was to flatten salaries. Eventually the non-mafia and best people left.

Right now, we’re all fighting over the few project scraps left, while leadership moves everyone into 3 year term gigs that basically turn us into a staffing agency... and meanwhile Jason’s friends in GER are out there writing think pieces about how AI is going to end the world.

You want them to make money, but you don't like GER, which fundraised to do the kind of work you're criticizing. You don't like that they brought in some weird Trump guy, presumably to help with the administration. (I don't know anything about him or their plan, but what else could it be?) There isn't a plan for solvency which involves whatever they were doing previously, whether it was five years ago or 25.

lots of ways to make money.... onlyfans, drop shipping, scalping tickets...

It's good to brainstorm ideas for if they finally let you out of the room in Pentagon City where I assume they are holding you captive and forcing you to work for them.

[Anonymous]

Oh please, the only thing holding anyone captive in Pentagon City is your desperate need to simp for failed leadership while the rest of us actually notice the ship sinking....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, the only thing holding anyone captive in Pentagon City is your desperate need to simp for failed leadership while the rest of us actually notice the ship sinking....

My problems with RAND are longstanding and also the reason I'm not there. See how that goes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, the only thing holding anyone captive in Pentagon City is your desperate need to simp for failed leadership while the rest of us actually notice the ship sinking....

My problems with RAND are longstanding and also the reason I'm not there. See how that goes?

You don’t work there anymore. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed and the same to MITRE. Adrift at sea and the nepotism won't save them. Very sad

The massive internal management issues and bloat aside, the government needs to decide how they want to use mitre. If gov doesn't want tough answers to hard problems then the corporation will continue to whither...how long can it last in this state?

Mitre moved deeply into the generic SETA space under Jason's "growth no matter what" policy. That has been their biggest single problem. Their offerings just aren't that different from Amentum or ManTech these days - with only a very few genuine technical SMEs as exceptions.

Mitre needs to shrink, hire fewer new grads, and hire more genuine technical experts to get back to their original competency - expertise that is not available elsewhere.

They moved into SETA category because their own employees were not bringing anything new by being scientific advisors and SETA is the only category they saw growth in. Most of the staff is outdated in technology and still spends majority of their time writing reports. I had to let 3 guys go from MITRe because their bosses would compel them to write reports and waste time.

Did you give them feedback? Did you give them tasks that were more relevant to you? I keep seeing posts on this thread about people being dissatisfied with the work. It is up to the government to write appropriate task orders and scope the work in alignment with their needs. Otherwise it's a huge waste of time for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, the only thing holding anyone captive in Pentagon City is your desperate need to simp for failed leadership while the rest of us actually notice the ship sinking....

My problems with RAND are longstanding and also the reason I'm not there. See how that goes?

It's so much worse now than when you were there and I don't even need to know exactly when that was.