FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RIFs happened today, bunch of employees planning to retire within the next three months were apparently hit.

I'm so sorry for them. RIFs are hard for any organization.

[Anonymous]

My understanding from an employee at MITRE is that the worst case scenario is that they will end 2025 with 50% of the employees they had at the beginning (something like 9,000).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RIFs happened today, bunch of employees planning to retire within the next three months were apparently hit.

That is... A primary rationale FFRDCs exist in the FAR is the level of understanding/engagement it takes to support large-scale/long-term Federal programs. The "bunch of employees" are ones who've dedicated significant portions of their careers to specific Federal agencies/programs, and, depending on the program/agency, are, in fact, the Federal institutional knowledge. Without Project 2025/DOGE, they'd probably have retired over a period of years, reducing hours, etc. while training the next generation. That training's not going to happen...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIFs happened today, bunch of employees planning to retire within the next three months were apparently hit.

That is... A primary rationale FFRDCs exist in the FAR is the level of understanding/engagement it takes to support large-scale/long-term Federal programs. The "bunch of employees" are ones who've dedicated significant portions of their careers to specific Federal agencies/programs, and, depending on the program/agency, are, in fact, the Federal institutional knowledge. Without Project 2025/DOGE, they'd probably have retired over a period of years, reducing hours, etc. while training the next generation. That training's not going to happen...

I don't know how FFRDC's will be able to comply with FAR 35.017 with all of these large-scale RIFs.

[Anonymous]

RE: I don't know how FFRDC's will be able to comply with FAR 35.017 with all of these large-scale RIFs.

As a former MITRE employee, I witnessed this breaking apart at least 15 years ago as we handed over our research and prototypes to for profit government contractors who bid on task orders to continue the research or operationalize the prototypes. Our initial work and expertise gained resulted in no follow on work for some programs rather we had to initiate new research programs (that were also turned over eventually).

My point is that we no longer had a unique edge and the only spout of skilled staff and expertise. And my younger colleagues were fleeing to the for profit large contractors for cool work with higher pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upthread someone said RIFs were happening this week … for MITRE. Not sure if trying to return there makes sense.

The RIF is another 600 people by August 11th. One more RIF "potentially" in October.

That’s the total # employees @CNA! Technical and administrative staff.

Govie here. I've been seeing some stuff that makes me think some of the less-well-run FFRDCs are gonna have a rough few years. From what I've heard, it sounds like Mitre was already a mess thanks to their old president, and now RAND is heading down the same path. CNA, IDA, and LL are also taking some hits, but it seems like their leadership is doing a better job of handling things than the others.

IDA had contracts cancelled so they RIFd people. Same as everywhere else. What exactly do you think was different in terms of leadership?

http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2023/12/rand-corp-received-millions-from.html

I was asking what CNA, IDA, and LL specifically are doing well now, weirdo RAND person.

These things aren’t happening at CNA.

Because of something their leadership is doing correctly, which IDA and LL also are doing correctly? If so, what? Because IDA did have RIFs.

RAND never had a problem with meeting ceiling under Michael.

Who’s Mike?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a former MITRE employee, I witnessed this breaking apart at least 15 years ago...(edited to shorten)

My point is that we no longer had a unique edge and the only spout of skilled staff and expertise. And my younger colleagues were fleeing to the for profit large contractors for cool work with higher pay.

Not sure if I agree on the cause, but I would agree many parts of MITRE no longer had uniquely expert staff and were off track -- at least 15 years ago.

I am sorry for those affected by the RIFs, but MITRE's internal leadership has been problematic for a while now. DOGE cuts are only part of their problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RE: I don't know how FFRDC's will be able to comply with FAR 35.017 with all of these large-scale RIFs.

As a former MITRE employee, I witnessed this breaking apart at least 15 years ago as we handed over our research and prototypes to for profit government contractors who bid on task orders to continue the research or operationalize the prototypes. Our initial work and expertise gained resulted in no follow on work for some programs rather we had to initiate new research programs (that were also turned over eventually).

My point is that we no longer had a unique edge and the only spout of skilled staff and expertise. And my younger colleagues were fleeing to the for profit large contractors for cool work with higher pay.

Were you in CEM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Were you in CEM?

No, I worked in departments supporting IC and DoD sponsors.

Sometimes our tasks would abruptly end if we were caught doing non-FFRDC work. That was back in the days 15+ years ago when MITRE management enforced it or when defense contractors complained to COTRs if we performed SETA tasks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RE: I don't know how FFRDC's will be able to comply with FAR 35.017 with all of these large-scale RIFs.

As a former MITRE employee, I witnessed this breaking apart at least 15 years ago as we handed over our research and prototypes to for profit government contractors who bid on task orders to continue the research or operationalize the prototypes. Our initial work and expertise gained resulted in no follow on work for some programs rather we had to initiate new research programs (that were also turned over eventually).

My point is that we no longer had a unique edge and the only spout of skilled staff and expertise. And my younger colleagues were fleeing to the for profit large contractors for cool work with higher pay.

But, this is exactly the point of FFRDCs. We are allowed to prototype, but not allowed to operationalize. The prototypes should be turned over to others (commercial entities) who can take on the work. The point of FFRDCs is to be at the cutting edge, and continuously develop new work the government will need in the future. We are not contractors. It's a hard niche to fill, but it's the entire purpose of the niche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RE: I don't know how FFRDC's will be able to comply with FAR 35.017 with all of these large-scale RIFs.

As a former MITRE employee, I witnessed this breaking apart at least 15 years ago as we handed over our research and prototypes to for profit government contractors who bid on task orders to continue the research or operationalize the prototypes. Our initial work and expertise gained resulted in no follow on work for some programs rather we had to initiate new research programs (that were also turned over eventually).

My point is that we no longer had a unique edge and the only spout of skilled staff and expertise. And my younger colleagues were fleeing to the for profit large contractors for cool work with higher pay.

But, this is exactly the point of FFRDCs. We are allowed to prototype, but not allowed to operationalize. The prototypes should be turned over to others (commercial entities) who can take on the work. The point of FFRDCs is to be at the cutting edge, and continuously develop new work the government will need in the future. We are not contractors. It's a hard niche to fill, but it's the entire purpose of the niche.

Yes. This is the role the systems engineering FFRDCs are supposed to fill. And if everything they do transitions, then they might not be far enough out on the cutting edge.

Those same people are also supposed to be a available for short term specialized scientific advice to the government - so expert that ordinary SETAs cannot handle the questions.

[Anonymous]

When the prototypes were transferred to defense contractors, new projects or research dollars not always available or ready to begin so mitre would have SMEs on the bench or deployed to tasks requiring lower skill levels, who would eventually quit.

Company mismanagement (and insufficient innovative work) led to Brain drain!