FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior researchers are a dime a dozen. It's much harder to find folks with technical skills who want to work at a non-profit instead of Google. I know RAND looks at comparable salaries when setting ranges.

How do you know? Is RAND HR monitoring this thread?

I used to work there as a researcher. Definitely not HR. FFRDCs to do comps pretty carefully when doing government work to justify salaries. What can researchers make in academia? What do other organizations pay? That said the comps are not Wall Street.

It was always harder to find folks for the tech support side, and hard to keep them. In Silicon Valley they're the stars and at FFRDCs they are make it possible for researchers to do their work.

I know folks at all the local FFRDCs. Mostly really smart and mission driven people. A lot of them could have made more money in other organizations.

Not sure I buy this point. The pay range for a "Technical AI Policy Associate" at RAND is listed at $47,100- $156,500, requiring a BA but preference for a higher degree. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC-DC-Metro-Area/Technical-AI-Policy-Associate_R3217-1)

RAND is paying a "Grants Proposal Manager" between $75,700-$112,400, requiring a high school diploma but a BA is preferred. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC/Grants-Proposal-Manager_R3234)

That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ LESS than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

*Correction: That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ MORE than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

The AI position isn't even government funded. And if they underpay, they won't get good people. Why would that be your business,.or DOGE's?

It’s my business because I’m a taxpayer and my employer (a defense contractor) has to compete with these bloated FFRDCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior researchers are a dime a dozen. It's much harder to find folks with technical skills who want to work at a non-profit instead of Google. I know RAND looks at comparable salaries when setting ranges.

How do you know? Is RAND HR monitoring this thread?

I used to work there as a researcher. Definitely not HR. FFRDCs to do comps pretty carefully when doing government work to justify salaries. What can researchers make in academia? What do other organizations pay? That said the comps are not Wall Street.

It was always harder to find folks for the tech support side, and hard to keep them. In Silicon Valley they're the stars and at FFRDCs they are make it possible for researchers to do their work.

I know folks at all the local FFRDCs. Mostly really smart and mission driven people. A lot of them could have made more money in other organizations.

Not sure I buy this point. The pay range for a "Technical AI Policy Associate" at RAND is listed at $47,100- $156,500, requiring a BA but preference for a higher degree. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC-DC-Metro-Area/Technical-AI-Policy-Associate_R3217-1)

RAND is paying a "Grants Proposal Manager" between $75,700-$112,400, requiring a high school diploma but a BA is preferred. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC/Grants-Proposal-Manager_R3234)

That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ LESS than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

*Correction: That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ MORE than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

The AI position isn't even government funded. And if they underpay, they won't get good people. Why would that be your business,.or DOGE's?

How do you know if it is government funded?

I can use Google. Can you?

[Anonymous]

RAND is a complex business involved a lot of different markets. It makes sense why they would need to pay some of their support staff more money to get high caliber people with knowledge of different markets.

[Anonymous]

Grants managers would be supporting getting funds from foundations. That is a skill that is in higher demand across the research community.
Some of those skills are translatable to private industry, for example helping companies get alternative contracts. President Trump has de-emphasized degree requirements, and the so-called "paper ceiling" is getting more attention. Why can't someone with a high school degree and good experience earn a good living.

So there may be bloat at a variety of organizations, but supply and demand analyses of the job market actually does help set a salary that can attract strong candidates.

[Anonymous]

The only skills that matter to organizations are Excel and PowerPoint.

[Anonymous]

Agreed! Managing by PowerPoint with sharp-looking dumbed-down presentations with no substance
but great animations. In the Army, we called them PowerPoint Rangers

[Anonymous]

Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grants managers would be supporting getting funds from foundations. That is a skill that is in higher demand across the research community.
Some of those skills are translatable to private industry, for example helping companies get alternative contracts. President Trump has de-emphasized degree requirements, and the so-called "paper ceiling" is getting more attention. Why can't someone with a high school degree and good experience earn a good living.

So there may be bloat at a variety of organizations, but supply and demand analyses of the job market actually does help set a salary that can attract strong candidates.

Tell DOGE that and see if they don’t terminate your contract for convenience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior researchers are a dime a dozen. It's much harder to find folks with technical skills who want to work at a non-profit instead of Google. I know RAND looks at comparable salaries when setting ranges.

How do you know? Is RAND HR monitoring this thread?

I used to work there as a researcher. Definitely not HR. FFRDCs to do comps pretty carefully when doing government work to justify salaries. What can researchers make in academia? What do other organizations pay? That said the comps are not Wall Street.

It was always harder to find folks for the tech support side, and hard to keep them. In Silicon Valley they're the stars and at FFRDCs they are make it possible for researchers to do their work.

I know folks at all the local FFRDCs. Mostly really smart and mission driven people. A lot of them could have made more money in other organizations.

Not sure I buy this point. The pay range for a "Technical AI Policy Associate" at RAND is listed at $47,100- $156,500, requiring a BA but preference for a higher degree. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC-DC-Metro-Area/Technical-AI-Policy-Associate_R3217-1)

RAND is paying a "Grants Proposal Manager" between $75,700-$112,400, requiring a high school diploma but a BA is preferred. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC/Grants-Proposal-Manager_R3234)

That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ LESS than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

*Correction: That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ MORE than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

The AI position isn't even government funded. And if they underpay, they won't get good people. Why would that be your business,.or DOGE's?

Based on a link in the job posting by PP, it looks like the position is located in what is called the "Technology and Security Policy Center" that seems to be funded by a lot of non-government donors: https://www.rand.org/global-and-emerging-risks/centers/technology-and-security-policy/funding.html

Why is this DOGE's business? Surely there are conflict of interest clauses in RAND's sole-sourced government contracts. It's the primary reason why RAND gets to hold these very high-dollar value, sole-sourced contracts. Unless these positions at RAND are located in a subsidiary that is completely independent from these sole-sourced contracts, it is definitely something that government auditors would (and probably should) be looking into. Based on my quick perusing of rand.org it seems like they are jumbling together their work from their sole-sourced contracts with the other non-government funded activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

This is devastating. Who will make sure the "Golden Dome" actually works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

whoa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

Don't the services do test and evaluation? Why does the office even need to exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

Don't the services do test and evaluation? Why does the office even need to exist?

Joint acquisition was tested and evaluated by OSD DOTE. Service-unique was tested and evaluated by that service. DOTE was not duplicative testing because a lot of acquisition is joint.