FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FY 2025 FFRDC Attrition Rates (Page 34, Figure 15) -- Rand and Mitre are the only two FFRDCs with double-digit attrition.

http://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Defense-Research-Enterprise-Review.pdf

They were targeted.

By who? For what?

They are gatekeepers. They evaluate systems (products and vendors) with an
unbiased viewpoint and cannot personally profit off their recommendations. Inconvenient truths that can cause others to lose business.

The report is correct in identifying the nsec ceiling as an arbitrary barrier. In today's world FFRDC funding is in the noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FY 2025 FFRDC Attrition Rates (Page 34, Figure 15) -- Rand and Mitre are the only two FFRDCs with double-digit attrition.

http://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Defense-Research-Enterprise-Review.pdf

They were targeted.

By who? For what?

They are gatekeepers. They evaluate systems (products and vendors) with an
unbiased viewpoint and cannot personally profit off their recommendations. Inconvenient truths that can cause others to lose business.

The report is correct in identifying the nsec ceiling as an arbitrary barrier. In today's world FFRDC funding is in the noise.

Why wasn't attrition high for CNA, IDA, Aerospace, LL, and SEI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FY 2025 FFRDC Attrition Rates (Page 34, Figure 15) -- Rand and Mitre are the only two FFRDCs with double-digit attrition.

http://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Defense-Research-Enterprise-Review.pdf

They were targeted.

By who? For what?

They are gatekeepers. They evaluate systems (products and vendors) with an
unbiased viewpoint and cannot personally profit off their recommendations. Inconvenient truths that can cause others to lose business.

The report is correct in identifying the nsec ceiling as an arbitrary barrier. In today's world FFRDC funding is in the noise.

Why wasn't attrition high for CNA, IDA, Aerospace, LL, and SEI?

if I remember correctly, didn't mitre have a thing where they would siphon off some funds for admin that they would use to fund internal research. Then fruits of that research would be completely owned by mitre instead of tech transferred? I remember some people being upset about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FY 2025 FFRDC Attrition Rates (Page 34, Figure 15) -- Rand and Mitre are the only two FFRDCs with double-digit attrition.

http://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Defense-Research-Enterprise-Review.pdf

They were targeted.

By who? For what?

They are gatekeepers. They evaluate systems (products and vendors) with an
unbiased viewpoint and cannot personally profit off their recommendations. Inconvenient truths that can cause others to lose business.

The report is correct in identifying the nsec ceiling as an arbitrary barrier. In today's world FFRDC funding is in the noise.

These days, any DoW SETA also has an unbiased viewpoint and also cannot profit off of any advice or recommendations. There are very strict rules preventing any SETA from having Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) now. Firms like Amentum or Arcfield were spun out as totally independent firms to comply with the current strict OCI rules.

In the 1990s, these strict OCI rules did not exist and OCI issues were a good reason to have FFRDCs. Now that OCI is legally prohibited for all DoW SETAs, and very strictly enforced, the need for FFRDCs honestly is much much lower.