FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA has high overhead.

They’ve tried to lower it by getting rid of offices and combining or creating additional cost centers, etc.

This is happening to many FFRDCs.

RAND’s overhead is even higher than CNA. They have 20 Vice Presidents!

I think RAND’s overhead is like 80%, but I could be mistaken.

[Anonymous]

As a taxpayer. I totally would support a hard overhead cap on all Federally funded work, research, etc. S soon as one existed, organizations would cut expenses until they were at/under the cap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a taxpayer. I totally would support a hard overhead cap on all Federally funded work, research, etc. S soon as one existed, organizations would cut expenses until they were at/under the cap.

Nonprofits LOVE overhead expenses because it gives them a slush fund to move federal dollars around for their other pet projects - some of which have nothing to do with the thing the feds are giving them $ to do in the first place. Direct charging come with a lot of strings attached. Poke around those indirect charges and you'll find a ton of public dollars spent on things that have absolutely nothing to do with the scope of work for specific federal grants or contracts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a taxpayer. I totally would support a hard overhead cap on all Federally funded work, research, etc. S soon as one existed, organizations would cut expenses until they were at/under the cap.

This is good and I think what is happening with NIH is correct. They charge non-profits 15% overhead but seems reasonable to charge from anywhere between 60-200% to federal research $ss. WTF!

[Anonymous]

All I see at IDA is people using old technology and selling same report everywhere. It disgusts me to see how this one report involves 15-20 FTEs and cost us $3M/year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I see at IDA is people using old technology and selling same report everywhere. It disgusts me to see how this one report involves 15-20 FTEs and cost us $3M/year.

does the report have sophisticated technical analyses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA has high overhead.

They’ve tried to lower it by getting rid of offices and combining or creating additional cost centers, etc.

This is happening to many FFRDCs.

RAND’s overhead is even higher than CNA. They have 20 Vice Presidents!

I think RAND’s overhead is like 80%, but I could be mistaken.

Is this correct? That seems really really high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're getting crushed because you make software and you annoyed palantir. This isn't that complicated.

+1

DOGEes got to grift.

?

Palantir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA has high overhead.

They’ve tried to lower it by getting rid of offices and combining or creating additional cost centers, etc.

This is happening to many FFRDCs.

RAND’s overhead is even higher than CNA. They have 20 Vice Presidents!

That’s crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA has high overhead.

They’ve tried to lower it by getting rid of offices and combining or creating additional cost centers, etc.

This is happening to many FFRDCs.

RAND’s overhead is even higher than CNA. They have 20 Vice Presidents!

I think RAND’s overhead is like 80%, but I could be mistaken.

Is this correct? That seems really really high.

I think it might be even higher

[Anonymous]

We use a local university for some engineering / scientific work. Work is performed by *cleared* US citizens who are FT faculty or FT research staff — no students involved. Their overhead is about 55%, meaning we would pay $1.55 per hour if the university pays the employee $1.00 per hour. That overhead covers benefits, retirement, facilities, Computers, printers, and so on.

If they can do this at 55%, I do not understand why some other non-profit is charging 70%, 80%, or more in overhead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We use a local university for some engineering / scientific work. Work is performed by *cleared* US citizens who are FT faculty or FT research staff — no students involved. Their overhead is about 55%, meaning we would pay $1.55 per hour if the university pays the employee $1.00 per hour. That overhead covers benefits, retirement, facilities, Computers, printers, and so on.

If they can do this at 55%, I do not understand why some other non-profit is charging 70%, 80%, or more in overhead.

Interesting. What universities have you used? We should look into that too.

[Anonymous]

I think URC is a good non-profit that can do this for $1.55 or close to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I see at IDA is people using old technology and selling same report everywhere. It disgusts me to see how this one report involves 15-20 FTEs and cost us $3M/year.

does the report have sophisticated technical analyses?

Not really. Repeat of old work mostly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think URC is a good non-profit that can do this for $1.55 or close to that.

What’s URC?