FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:rand auditors appear to have found ‘material weakness in internal controls’ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/951958142

Page 13 sats "As of September 30, 2025, one donor makes up approximately 68% of gross contributions receivable." 1 donor props up 68% of contributions to RAND? Wow, who's that donor with so much influence?

With those research skills, I can't imagine why you haven't found another job yet.

You sound like management...which makes me wonder why you're still hanging out on a mommy forum while the whole place is imploding.

Really? Management sounds like this? If anyone in RAND management has said to you so much as a "you seem unhappy here, maybe you should leave", name names and I'll revise my estimate of them slightly upward.

Yikes. Does anyone at RAND respect their management?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:rand auditors appear to have found ‘material weakness in internal controls’ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/951958142

Page 13 sats "As of September 30, 2025, one donor makes up approximately 68% of gross contributions receivable." 1 donor props up 68% of contributions to RAND? Wow, who's that donor with so much influence?

With those research skills, I can't imagine why you haven't found another job yet.

You sound like management...which makes me wonder why you're still hanging out on a mommy forum while the whole place is imploding.

Really? Management sounds like this? If anyone in RAND management has said to you so much as a "you seem unhappy here, maybe you should leave", name names and I'll revise my estimate of them slightly upward.

Yikes. Does anyone at RAND respect their management?

1) I'm not at RAND.
2) No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitre audit

https://pp-990-audits.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2025-12-GSAFAC-0000414971.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA266MJEJYTM5WAG5Y%2F20260424%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260424T055239Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=64e56bdef34f269518c162c25d78bbc2c4bec4a9ff52d1c1056122f831660bde

Broken link…

https://pp-990-audits.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2025-12-GSAFAC-0000414971.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA266MJEJYTM5WAG5Y%2F20260425%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260425T205507Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=a550c1f7751a1b6e5708bcdc3fcdd980ea09519035f8a7ebd6cca183c6243ee4

Still broken. Need to find a link not to AWS...

There is an audit here
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/42239742

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why don't they shut down these expensive FFRDCs such as RAND. I doubt they are contributing as much as they are charging. IDA had significant layoffs of about 150+ recently and overall business is still good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why don't they shut down these expensive FFRDCs such as RAND. I doubt they are contributing as much as they are charging. IDA had significant layoffs of about 150+ recently and overall business is still good.

FFRDCs should prioritize their government sponsors in accordance with their sponsor agreements, rather than becoming distracted by non-governmental donors.

[Anonymous]

There's a misconception here. IDA and RAND are not FFRDCs. They are non-profit organizations which manage FFRDCs. IDA has a useful page explaining this: https://www.ida.org/en/ida-ffrdcs
Organizations managing FFRDCs are subject to significant oversight and audit to make sure government investments in FFRDCs are not unfairly used to prop up other work.
FFRDCs are subject to regular government review. Sponsors can and do recompete work and can move FFRDCs to other management organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a misconception here. IDA and RAND are not FFRDCs. They are non-profit organizations which manage FFRDCs. IDA has a useful page explaining this: https://www.ida.org/en/ida-ffrdcs
Organizations managing FFRDCs are subject to significant oversight and audit to make sure government investments in FFRDCs are not unfairly used to prop up other work.
FFRDCs are subject to regular government review. Sponsors can and do recompete work and can move FFRDCs to other management organizations.

Oh please. You can still be a holding company for FFRDCs but try not to do things that may appear to some that you are violating your sponsor agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a misconception here. IDA and RAND are not FFRDCs. They are non-profit organizations which manage FFRDCs. IDA has a useful page explaining this: https://www.ida.org/en/ida-ffrdcs
Organizations managing FFRDCs are subject to significant oversight and audit to make sure government investments in FFRDCs are not unfairly used to prop up other work.
FFRDCs are subject to regular government review. Sponsors can and do recompete work and can move FFRDCs to other management organizations.

Not sure how this point is relevant to anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a misconception here. IDA and RAND are not FFRDCs. They are non-profit organizations which manage FFRDCs. IDA has a useful page explaining this: https://www.ida.org/en/ida-ffrdcs
Organizations managing FFRDCs are subject to significant oversight and audit to make sure government investments in FFRDCs are not unfairly used to prop up other work.
FFRDCs are subject to regular government review. Sponsors can and do recompete work and can move FFRDCs to other management organizations.

MITRE falls in the same bucket.

[Anonymous]

As does CNA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a misconception here. IDA and RAND are not FFRDCs. They are non-profit organizations which manage FFRDCs. IDA has a useful page explaining this: https://www.ida.org/en/ida-ffrdcs
Organizations managing FFRDCs are subject to significant oversight and audit to make sure government investments in FFRDCs are not unfairly used to prop up other work.
FFRDCs are subject to regular government review. Sponsors can and do recompete work and can move FFRDCs to other management organizations.

I fear the FFRDC model has reached its end-of-life with this administration. They don't seem to understand the value of FFRDCs and their great contributions. It's all about "warrior ethos" and "readiness" and simple things that their followers like. Education, science, and experise are no match to the populism with the magotry

[Anonymous]

The costs of many FFRDCs has risen so much that the cost exceeds the value proposition. The fewer the number of genuine experts with decades of experience at a given FFRDC the worse the value proposition becomes.

Separately, a few FFRDCs only put people at program offices to shovel/divert RDT&E projects back to HQ. Annual evaluations at such places stress revenue generation, rather than value to the paying customer. Those projects really ought either to be bid out or possibly ought to given to a (lower cost, with similar or better expertise) Federal (civil service) lab or systems center.

[Anonymous]

Now that SETA work cannot be done by firms that build widgets, the "conflict of interest" issue has gone away.

Amentum, as an arbitrary example, only does SETA work on the government team. They do not build or sell any widgets. They do not do work for other than government.

The FFRDC model now is outdated and needs GAO review and a Congressional re-think.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it’s outdated, but it does feel like there’s a need to return to basics, focusing on the routine, often underpaid work that keeps the federal government running.

[Anonymous]

With the high cost of the war with Iran, the use of expensive FFRDC services will be considered non-essential to war fighting and will be significantly reduced. more RIFs