FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

I'm worried that DoD funding will be redirected from FFRDC's to restock ammo used in Iran

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

There’s a lot of overlap in FFRDC contracts that could be rebid. Why does DHS use both MITRE and RAND? Why does OSD contract with RAND, MITRE and IDA? Why does the Air Force rely on both Aerospace Corp and RAND?

Does any part of the gov actually rely on any ffrdc ?

there are reasons the ndri vehicle was extended to 01/27 and wasn’t fully renewed this year….

What insights do you have into renewals of specific FFRDCs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA's issue isn't necessarily its FFRDC unit, but its IPR unit, which is all Fed Gov-contract-based. Fed contracts have been lost or not recompeted, and as a result, some staff have been fired.

Has CNA tried RIFing their experts and replacing them with AI slop?

No, CNA is keeping its experts in the FFRDC; you probably are thinking of RAND.

MITRE also RIF'd it's best people (the highly skilled and experienced yet not part of the cronyism culture) and now they believe AI will save them from becoming irrelevant. A shell of what that great company once was

Did they RIF its best people? The numbers show they RIF’d MPS people, who had/have no work to do because that side of the business is sunsetting while defense grows. The people working on the MPS side of the house weren’t of value to the MNS business that will be all that survives.

They did not give people in the MPS side in opportunity to seek work on the MNS side. In a tech world it's common to put employees on administrative leave and allow them time to apply for other jobs in the company before they are fully cut off. Mitre did not give that opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA's issue isn't necessarily its FFRDC unit, but its IPR unit, which is all Fed Gov-contract-based. Fed contracts have been lost or not recompeted, and as a result, some staff have been fired.

Has CNA tried RIFing their experts and replacing them with AI slop?

No, CNA is keeping its experts in the FFRDC; you probably are thinking of RAND.

MITRE also RIF'd it's best people (the highly skilled and experienced yet not part of the cronyism culture) and now they believe AI will save them from becoming irrelevant. A shell of what that great company once was

Did they RIF its best people? The numbers show they RIF’d MPS people, who had/have no work to do because that side of the business is sunsetting while defense grows. The people working on the MPS side of the house weren’t of value to the MNS business that will be all that survives.

They did not give people in the MPS side in opportunity to seek work on the MNS side. In a tech world it's common to put employees on administrative leave and allow them time to apply for other jobs in the company before they are fully cut off. Mitre did not give that opportunity.

This supports the PP who mentioned that it's possible that DOGE visits were a convenient pretext for Mitre to RIF. Never waste a good crisis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA's issue isn't necessarily its FFRDC unit, but its IPR unit, which is all Fed Gov-contract-based. Fed contracts have been lost or not recompeted, and as a result, some staff have been fired.

Has CNA tried RIFing their experts and replacing them with AI slop?

No, CNA is keeping its experts in the FFRDC; you probably are thinking of RAND.

MITRE also RIF'd it's best people (the highly skilled and experienced yet not part of the cronyism culture) and now they believe AI will save them from becoming irrelevant. A shell of what that great company once was

The Jason’s destroyed RAND and MITRE

I agree. MITRE won't lead with its unimaginative technocrat president who believes that AI-branding it's work is the solution for everything. I agree with the PP that MITRE used to be an exceptional organization and now it's one of many trying to peddle the AI commodity and it's sad to see how low it's fallen

Some say that the "unimaginative technocrat" is very smart and used the convenient cover of DOGE to reshape the org to their liking (which is their right) without appearing as the villain who derailed careers. Many believe the RIFs were disproportionate to the DOGE cuts and some believe the RIFs would have occurred DOGE or no DOGE. It's all a self-serving pantomime.

The early rifs were mostly performance based. However, they realized they had an opportunity and the latter 2 were used as retaliation against certain employees. Many of those people had deep relationships with the gov and took that work with them or it just flatlined. Odd for managers to derail work programs when bonuses depend on revenue and growth?

Depressing aura around the place now, people continue to leave even though they no longer get a payout because there is no community left and work is slow to come in.

MPS sponsors (esp for a certain center) are now an overhead piggy bank for the $$$$$ management team. There are many other suitable contractor options available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA's issue isn't necessarily its FFRDC unit, but its IPR unit, which is all Fed Gov-contract-based. Fed contracts have been lost or not recompeted, and as a result, some staff have been fired.

Has CNA tried RIFing their experts and replacing them with AI slop?

No, CNA is keeping its experts in the FFRDC; you probably are thinking of RAND.

MITRE also RIF'd it's best people (the highly skilled and experienced yet not part of the cronyism culture) and now they believe AI will save them from becoming irrelevant. A shell of what that great company once was

The Jason’s destroyed RAND and MITRE

I agree. MITRE won't lead with its unimaginative technocrat president who believes that AI-branding it's work is the solution for everything. I agree with the PP that MITRE used to be an exceptional organization and now it's one of many trying to peddle the AI commodity and it's sad to see how low it's fallen

Some say that the "unimaginative technocrat" is very smart and used the convenient cover of DOGE to reshape the org to their liking (which is their right) without appearing as the villain who derailed careers. Many believe the RIFs were disproportionate to the DOGE cuts and some believe the RIFs would have occurred DOGE or no DOGE. It's all a self-serving pantomime.

The early rifs were mostly performance based. However, they realized they had an opportunity and the latter 2 were used as retaliation against certain employees. Many of those people had deep relationships with the gov and took that work with them or it just flatlined. Odd for managers to derail work programs when bonuses depend on revenue and growth?

Depressing aura around the place now, people continue to leave even though they no longer get a payout because there is no community left and work is slow to come in.

MPS sponsors (esp for a certain center) are now an overhead piggy bank for the $$$$$ management team. There are many other suitable contractor options available.

CSH? How is that different than pre-RIFs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

There’s a lot of overlap in FFRDC contracts that could be rebid. Why does DHS use both MITRE and RAND? Why does OSD contract with RAND, MITRE and IDA? Why does the Air Force rely on both Aerospace Corp and RAND?

Does any part of the gov actually rely on any ffrdc ?

there are reasons the ndri vehicle was extended to 01/27 and wasn’t fully renewed this year….

What insights do you have into renewals of specific FFRDCs?

NDRI is fine. RAND is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As nonprofits operating FFRDCs expanded into work funded by non-government sources, questions have emerged about whether these activities remained consistent with the spirit of their original sponsoring agreements.

And as FFRDCs, such as MITRE, created strong financial incentives for MITRE folks assisting program offices to divert work that should have been competitively bid instead back to MITRE in McLean or Bedford, many government staff have realized that FFRDCs such as MITRE cannot be trusted to provide neutral or independent advice.

I worked at a FFRDC and there was so much work directed to it via employee details at the sponsoring government department or because it was easier to contract with than bid the work. Not in the system anymore, but I’m surprised that government employees are finally realizing it. Though I’m sure the Deloittes and small government contractors of the world do the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As nonprofits operating FFRDCs expanded into work funded by non-government sources, questions have emerged about whether these activities remained consistent with the spirit of their original sponsoring agreements.

And as FFRDCs, such as MITRE, created strong financial incentives for MITRE folks assisting program offices to divert work that should have been competitively bid instead back to MITRE in McLean or Bedford, many government staff have realized that FFRDCs such as MITRE cannot be trusted to provide neutral or independent advice.

I worked at a FFRDC and there was so much work directed to it via employee details at the sponsoring government department or because it was easier to contract with than bid the work. Not in the system anymore, but I’m surprised that government employees are finally realizing it. Though I’m sure the Deloittes and small government contractors of the world do the same thing.

Doesn't matter whether FFRDC or typical contractors, the real problem is the use of IDIQs - aka "hunting licenses". Awarded based on totally BS made-up "requirements", responded to BS project management/project staffing approaches, ... IDIQs incent underbidding, overstaffing, use beyond the type of work covered by the contract, ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As nonprofits operating FFRDCs expanded into work funded by non-government sources, questions have emerged about whether these activities remained consistent with the spirit of their original sponsoring agreements.

And as FFRDCs, such as MITRE, created strong financial incentives for MITRE folks assisting program offices to divert work that should have been competitively bid instead back to MITRE in McLean or Bedford, many government staff have realized that FFRDCs such as MITRE cannot be trusted to provide neutral or independent advice.

I worked at a FFRDC and there was so much work directed to it via employee details at the sponsoring government department or because it was easier to contract with than bid the work. Not in the system anymore, but I’m surprised that government employees are finally realizing it. Though I’m sure the Deloittes and small government contractors of the world do the same thing.

Doesn't matter whether FFRDC or typical contractors, the real problem is the use of IDIQs - aka "hunting licenses". Awarded based on totally BS made-up "requirements", responded to BS project management/project staffing approaches, ... IDIQs incent underbidding, overstaffing, use beyond the type of work covered by the contract, ...

Agrred

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

There’s a lot of overlap in FFRDC contracts that could be rebid. Why does DHS use both MITRE and RAND? Why does OSD contract with RAND, MITRE and IDA? Why does the Air Force rely on both Aerospace Corp and RAND?

Does any part of the gov actually rely on any ffrdc ?

there are reasons the ndri vehicle was extended to 01/27 and wasn’t fully renewed this year….

What insights do you have into renewals of specific FFRDCs?

contract mods have been getting smaller and smaller….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

There’s a lot of overlap in FFRDC contracts that could be rebid. Why does DHS use both MITRE and RAND? Why does OSD contract with RAND, MITRE and IDA? Why does the Air Force rely on both Aerospace Corp and RAND?

Does any part of the gov actually rely on any ffrdc ?

there are reasons the ndri vehicle was extended to 01/27 and wasn’t fully renewed this year….

What insights do you have into renewals of specific FFRDCs?

contract mods have been getting smaller and smaller….

Those decreases also affect the corporate side where overhead positions are eliminated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?