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: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 everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account.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?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

My guess is that it’s probably fellows from RAND. They just fill out a short form over there to become a research fellow. Many seem to have little expertise in the topics they write commentaries on. A lot of what they produce reads more like opinion pieces than serious research reports and many seem to only have bachelor’s degrees so they come across more like interns than SMEEs. Drives me nuts

here is the short form! https://www.rand.org/global-and-emerging-risks/centers/ai-security-and-technology/fellows.html

Note - MITRE originally used the word "Fellow" as an honorific the way the old-line Fortune 500 company does - nationally recognized, long-term MITRE employees, total in the low single digits. They added Research Fellow a few years ago as a step beyond the standard ladder for technical people. But... they've corrupted the original purpose by making direct hires as some of them and by over emphasizing research cosplay throughout their technical ladder.

fellow = ai slop

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

whoever it could be and they need to bid lower. Most of the FFRDCs work on several contracts and we should not accept their style of just writing reports and be done with it. That style is very old.

That's what DoD is buying. It's not like DoD said "give us a product or give us a report" and the FFRDC said "hmm, I guess we choose report."

Did DoD ask for op-eds and other comment pieces?

You design the incentive system here and then you complain about what it gets you. You don't like what you're getting, design a better incentive system. If you can't name a vendor who is doing the version of what you want under similar contracting rules, the issue is not the vendor, it's you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

whoever it could be and they need to bid lower. Most of the FFRDCs work on several contracts and we should not accept their style of just writing reports and be done with it. That style is very old.

That's what DoD is buying. It's not like DoD said "give us a product or give us a report" and the FFRDC said "hmm, I guess we choose report."

Did DoD ask for op-eds and other comment pieces?

You design the incentive system here and then you complain about what it gets you. You don't like what you're getting, design a better incentive system. If you can't name a vendor who is doing the version of what you want under similar contracting rules, the issue is not the vendor, it's you.

Who is asking you to have faux fellows write expert insights and op-eds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

whoever it could be and they need to bid lower. Most of the FFRDCs work on several contracts and we should not accept their style of just writing reports and be done with it. That style is very old.

That's what DoD is buying. It's not like DoD said "give us a product or give us a report" and the FFRDC said "hmm, I guess we choose report."

Did DoD ask for op-eds and other comment pieces?

You design the incentive system here and then you complain about what it gets you. You don't like what you're getting, design a better incentive system. If you can't name a vendor who is doing the version of what you want under similar contracting rules, the issue is not the vendor, it's you.

Who is asking you to have faux fellows write expert insights and op-eds?

Oh, absolutely not. I don't work for you all. I've done that, it was very unpleasant, and I'm not doing it again because there are less unpleasant things I can do.

You get the people who didn't decide that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

whoever it could be and they need to bid lower. Most of the FFRDCs work on several contracts and we should not accept their style of just writing reports and be done with it. That style is very old.

That's what DoD is buying. It's not like DoD said "give us a product or give us a report" and the FFRDC said "hmm, I guess we choose report."

Did DoD ask for op-eds and other comment pieces?

You design the incentive system here and then you complain about what it gets you. You don't like what you're getting, design a better incentive system. If you can't name a vendor who is doing the version of what you want under similar contracting rules, the issue is not the vendor, it's you.

Who is asking you to have faux fellows write expert insights and op-eds?

Oh, absolutely not. I don't work for you all. I've done that, it was very unpleasant, and I'm not doing it again because there are less unpleasant things I can do.

You get the people who didn't decide that.

Do you work for RAND?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

whoever it could be and they need to bid lower. Most of the FFRDCs work on several contracts and we should not accept their style of just writing reports and be done with it. That style is very old.

That's what DoD is buying. It's not like DoD said "give us a product or give us a report" and the FFRDC said "hmm, I guess we choose report."

Did DoD ask for op-eds and other comment pieces?

You design the incentive system here and then you complain about what it gets you. You don't like what you're getting, design a better incentive system. If you can't name a vendor who is doing the version of what you want under similar contracting rules, the issue is not the vendor, it's you.

Who is asking you to have faux fellows write expert insights and op-eds?

Oh, absolutely not. I don't work for you all. I've done that, it was very unpleasant, and I'm not doing it again because there are less unpleasant things I can do.

You get the people who didn't decide that.

What less unpleasant things are you doing now? I hope it's fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

My guess is that it’s probably fellows from RAND. They just fill out a short form over there to become a research fellow. Many seem to have little expertise in the topics they write commentaries on. A lot of what they produce reads more like opinion pieces than serious research reports and many seem to only have bachelor’s degrees so they come across more like interns than SMEEs. Drives me nuts

How’s your literature review going for colonials and GS-15s?

[Anonymous]

What are "colonials" other than the former George Washington University moniker? (Now they are the Revolutionaries)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are "colonials" other than the former George Washington University moniker? (Now they are the Revolutionaries)

op likely meant to type colonel and I would guess works in ger

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

whoever it could be and they need to bid lower. Most of the FFRDCs work on several contracts and we should not accept their style of just writing reports and be done with it. That style is very old.

That's what DoD is buying. It's not like DoD said "give us a product or give us a report" and the FFRDC said "hmm, I guess we choose report."

Did DoD ask for op-eds and other comment pieces?

You design the incentive system here and then you complain about what it gets you. You don't like what you're getting, design a better incentive system. If you can't name a vendor who is doing the version of what you want under similar contracting rules, the issue is not the vendor, it's you.

Who is asking you to have faux fellows write expert insights and op-eds?

Oh, absolutely not. I don't work for you all. I've done that, it was very unpleasant, and I'm not doing it again because there are less unpleasant things I can do.

You get the people who didn't decide that.

What less unpleasant things are you doing now? I hope it's fun!

Thank you! I didn't want to leave government but I'm glad I did. I had to spend so much time on things that weren't central to doing my actual job because of a system I didn't build and couldn't change.

I know so many people still in, including trying to improve defense acquisitions. I wish them luck and I know they're trying, but I wouldn't bet on it working this time, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a rumor that the CEO is on a PIP

what CEO?

who?

Appears to refer to the MITRE guy

or Jason and Jim at RAND?

who is 'jason and jimmy at rand''? who is the 'mitre guy'?

[Anonymous]

They are the preeminent visionaries, leaders and saviours of our nation. Gifted individuals with unparalleled intelligence and ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are the preeminent visionaries, leaders and saviours of our nation. Gifted individuals with unparalleled intelligence and ability.

https://i.scdn.co/image/ab6765630000ba8a521de5c60ac47e65294503a5

[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.

It was awarded last in 2022. It's a five year contract. What am I missing? Yes, they could end it anyway early, but it doesn't look up for renewal.

I work in S&T and heard that RAND might lose it.

Will you tell me that IRL on Teams? Or just tell me how that works, since they're not up until 2027?

HSOAC is effectively dead.

[Anonymous]

Recent intel suggests that's not the case.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was awarded last in 2022. It's a five year contract. What am I missing? Yes, they could end it anyway early, but it doesn't look up for renewal.

I work in S&T and heard that RAND might lose it.

Will you tell me that IRL on Teams? Or just tell me how that works, since they're not up until 2027?

HSOAC is effectively dead.