FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

They cut the wrong things at CNA. That funding line pays for the field deployed analysts (think: aboard combat ships, overseas, and in the combat zones) and also pays for Navy Quick Reaction support to Naval combat commands like PACFLT and III MEF. Those direct warfighter support items are where CNA adds the most value.

So, SETAs?

None of the usual SETA firms put people in harm's way. Many of those billets are in harm's way, so no. And a random SETA would not be able to reach back to get the depth of Navy-specific knowledge that CNA has in-house - to get the answers a commander at sea or in the field can get from CNA.

More fundamentally than this… no, CNA field people just don’t do SETA-type work.

What kind of non-SETA work does CNA do?

It's an odd framing of the question. "This company that does A, B, and C -- what kind of non-D work do they do?"

Some FFRDCs, like Mitre and Aerospace, do systems engineering, including via SETA support. Studies and analysis FFRDCs do not. On-site support by a technically-inclined person does not in general equal SETA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

They cut the wrong things at CNA. That funding line pays for the field deployed analysts (think: aboard combat ships, overseas, and in the combat zones) and also pays for Navy Quick Reaction support to Naval combat commands like PACFLT and III MEF. Those direct warfighter support items are where CNA adds the most value.

So, SETAs?

None of the usual SETA firms put people in harm's way. Many of those billets are in harm's way, so no. And a random SETA would not be able to reach back to get the depth of Navy-specific knowledge that CNA has in-house - to get the answers a commander at sea or in the field can get from CNA.

More fundamentally than this… no, CNA field people just don’t do SETA-type work.

What kind of non-SETA work does CNA do?

It's an odd framing of the question. "This company that does A, B, and C -- what kind of non-D work do they do?"

Some FFRDCs, like Mitre and Aerospace, do systems engineering, including via SETA support. Studies and analysis FFRDCs do not. On-site support by a technically-inclined person does not in general equal SETA.

Whatever work CNA does today won't exist in a few months because their funding is about to get cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about CNA?

27% cut in CNA's core.

FY25 = 43,648,000
FY26 = 31,695,000

Brutal.

They cut the wrong things at CNA. That funding line pays for the field deployed analysts (think: aboard combat ships, overseas, and in the combat zones) and also pays for Navy Quick Reaction support to Naval combat commands like PACFLT and III MEF. Those direct warfighter support items are where CNA adds the most value.

So, SETAs?

None of the usual SETA firms put people in harm's way. Many of those billets are in harm's way, so no. And a random SETA would not be able to reach back to get the depth of Navy-specific knowledge that CNA has in-house - to get the answers a commander at sea or in the field can get from CNA.

More fundamentally than this… no, CNA field people just don’t do SETA-type work.

What kind of non-SETA work does CNA do?

It's an odd framing of the question. "This company that does A, B, and C -- what kind of non-D work do they do?"

Some FFRDCs, like Mitre and Aerospace, do systems engineering, including via SETA support. Studies and analysis FFRDCs do not. On-site support by a technically-inclined person does not in general equal SETA.

Whatever work CNA does today won't exist in a few months because their funding is about to get cut.

If that is true, then the main adverse impact will be on the deployed warfighter . CNA has fundamental differences from orgs like Mitre or even IDA and Rand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typo - meant OMB...

And Palantir's DOGEies. https://www.18theses.com/

Some odd things about that. First, the person never figured out that UARCs exist — or that the UARCs all do systems engineering and prototyping. Second, they did not seem to figure out that one of Mitre’s biggest competitors is JHU/APL, which is a UARC. Third, they don’t seem to understand that many UARCs are visibly larger than the smaller FFRDCs. Most UARCs have 1000+ employees, but some FFRDCs (e.g., CMU/SEi, CNA) are below 500 employees,

Also, they did not figure out that the only way to really shrink the size of the overall FFRDC+UARC community is to lower the per-FFRDC/per-UARC ceiling on the total aggregate funding they can receive each FY. Cutting the handful of line items in the budget has much less impact than cutting the ceiling would have, because the vast majority of FFRDC/UARC work is done on project funds that gets sent via no-bid task orders using the applicable FFRDC/UARC prime contract. Ceilings actually went UP this year, FY 25, as did the authorized “exclusions from ceiling”, meaning more work is going to FFRDCs and more is going to UARCs.

Maybe the real story is that all these FFRDC changes and cuts are just for show, just marketing, and changing the landscape is not the real goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typo - meant OMB...

And Palantir's DOGEies. https://www.18theses.com/

Some odd things about that. First, the person never figured out that UARCs exist — or that the UARCs all do systems engineering and prototyping. Second, they did not seem to figure out that one of Mitre’s biggest competitors is JHU/APL, which is a UARC. Third, they don’t seem to understand that many UARCs are visibly larger than the smaller FFRDCs. Most UARCs have 1000+ employees, but some FFRDCs (e.g., CMU/SEi, CNA) are below 500 employees,

Also, they did not figure out that the only way to really shrink the size of the overall FFRDC+UARC community is to lower the per-FFRDC/per-UARC ceiling on the total aggregate funding they can receive each FY. Cutting the handful of line items in the budget has much less impact than cutting the ceiling would have, because the vast majority of FFRDC/UARC work is done on project funds that gets sent via no-bid task orders using the applicable FFRDC/UARC prime contract. Ceilings actually went UP this year, FY 25, as did the authorized “exclusions from ceiling”, meaning more work is going to FFRDCs and more is going to UARCs.

Maybe the real story is that all these FFRDC changes and cuts are just for show, just marketing, and changing the landscape is not the real goal?

I think you are right. This is all for show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RAND Arroyo went from $38,122,000 in core funding in FY25 to $10,892,000 in FY26. JFC. Who did they piss off in the Army to get at 71% year-over-year cut?

Our CEO doesn’t really care about Arroyo only his AI division, so why not just cut the budget?

[Anonymous]

In the end, Big, Beautiful RIFS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the end, Big, Beautiful RIFS

Largely, no, because the ceilings are still being filled with task orders….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the end, Big, Beautiful RIFS

Largely, no, because the ceilings are still being filled with task orders….

The President's Budget for FY26 has these cuts, the task orders are filling the FY25 ceilings.

As always... whether/how much the Budget reflects the actual Appropriations remains to be seen. Assuming the Budget reflects FY26 reality... and ceilings remain similar to FY25, task orders will have to significantly increase or FY26 RIFs will happen.

FWIW... Having been on an IDIQ-only FFRDC for decades... Cuts to core affect the essential relationship between the Feds and the FFRDC. 1) Core allows a level of FFRDC independence that task orders against ceiling don't. With task orders, just try to tell the Federal project lead he/she's wrong, try going over the lead's head, ...; and 2) Core provides a core stable workforce that really understand the Sponsor's overall needs, task order staff rely on that core expertise, with augmentation for project specific needs, without core, FFRDCs really just become glorified IDIQ commercial contractors with loss of longer term Sponsor understanding. 3) Depending on the Sponsor, core allows the FFRDC stable workforce to provide Sponsor continuity that, given the rate of Sponsor turnover, the Sponsor Agencies themselves don't have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the end, Big, Beautiful RIFS

Largely, no, because the ceilings are still being filled with task orders….

The President's Budget for FY26 has these cuts, the task orders are filling the FY25 ceilings.

As always... whether/how much the Budget reflects the actual Appropriations remains to be seen. Assuming the Budget reflects FY26 reality... and ceilings remain similar to FY25, task orders will have to significantly increase or FY26 RIFs will happen.

FWIW... Having been on an IDIQ-only FFRDC for decades... Cuts to core affect the essential relationship between the Feds and the FFRDC. 1) Core allows a level of FFRDC independence that task orders against ceiling don't. With task orders, just try to tell the Federal project lead he/she's wrong, try going over the lead's head, ...; and 2) Core provides a core stable workforce that really understand the Sponsor's overall needs, task order staff rely on that core expertise, with augmentation for project specific needs, without core, FFRDCs really just become glorified IDIQ commercial contractors with loss of longer term Sponsor understanding. 3) Depending on the Sponsor, core allows the FFRDC stable workforce to provide Sponsor continuity that, given the rate of Sponsor turnover, the Sponsor Agencies themselves don't have.

This is the best explanation I’ve read in a long time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the end, Big, Beautiful RIFS

Largely, no, because the ceilings are still being filled with task orders….

The President's Budget for FY26 has these cuts, the task orders are filling the FY25 ceilings.

As always... whether/how much the Budget reflects the actual Appropriations remains to be seen. Assuming the Budget reflects FY26 reality... and ceilings remain similar to FY25, task orders will have to significantly increase or FY26 RIFs will happen.

FWIW... Having been on an IDIQ-only FFRDC for decades... Cuts to core affect the essential relationship between the Feds and the FFRDC. 1) Core allows a level of FFRDC independence that task orders against ceiling don't. With task orders, just try to tell the Federal project lead he/she's wrong, try going over the lead's head, ...; and 2) Core provides a core stable workforce that really understand the Sponsor's overall needs, task order staff rely on that core expertise, with augmentation for project specific needs, without core, FFRDCs really just become glorified IDIQ commercial contractors with loss of longer term Sponsor understanding. 3) Depending on the Sponsor, core allows the FFRDC stable workforce to provide Sponsor continuity that, given the rate of Sponsor turnover, the Sponsor Agencies themselves don't have.

It’s a vicious cycle where the USG cuts core and/or ceiling, the FFRDCs diversify to non-government funding sources in response to these cuts, and that leads the USG to further cut the FFRDCs.

[Anonymous]

The recently departed Mitre CEO wanted to grow the company with non-FFRDC work, one guesses this was so he could justify a pay raise for himself. And the FFRDC work at Mitre was expanding at the same time he was doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The recently departed Mitre CEO wanted to grow the company with non-FFRDC work, one guesses this was so he could justify a pay raise for himself. And the FFRDC work at Mitre was expanding at the same time he was doing this.

Until it wasn’t growing anymore. RAND’s CEO is trying to do the same thing at the worst possible time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The recently departed Mitre CEO wanted to grow the company with non-FFRDC work, one guesses this was so he could justify a pay raise for himself. And the FFRDC work at Mitre was expanding at the same time he was doing this.

Jason took the FFRDC's for granted, which is why Mark was brought in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recently departed Mitre CEO wanted to grow the company with non-FFRDC work, one guesses this was so he could justify a pay raise for himself. And the FFRDC work at Mitre was expanding at the same time he was doing this.

Jason took the FFRDC's for granted, which is why Mark was brought in.

Respectfully, brought in to do what? Reactive RIFs with the CFO, CEO & new VP of Ops? Anyone can do that