FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

pretty sure the prototypers could figure out operational analysis if tasked to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:pretty sure the prototypers could figure out operational analysis if tasked to do so.

In my experience, the prototypers’ analysis typically shows that the thing they’re already building is exactly what the Joint force needs. Except maybe for a couple of things they originally said they’d include that are turning out to be harder than expected.

But given a couple million dollars more and another year, they can add some new features they’ve dreamed up that will make it even more exactly what the Joint force needs.

[Anonymous]

From a taxpayer perspective, there is value in avoiding any *appearance* of organizational conflicts of interest - even for UARCs and FFRDCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a taxpayer perspective, there is value in avoiding any *appearance* of organizational conflicts of interest - even for UARCs and FFRDCs.

This is the unique value of FFRDCs. If you mess that up, there’s not point in having these unique contracting vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a taxpayer perspective, there is value in avoiding any *appearance* of organizational conflicts of interest - even for UARCs and FFRDCs.

This is the unique value of FFRDCs. If you mess that up, there’s not point in having these unique contracting vehicles.

This is a crucial point. The trust placed in an FFRDC is directly tied to its independence. The moment an FFRDC starts pursuing work that creates a conflict of interest, it breaks that trust. The focus should always be on maintaining that separation and providing unbiased counsel, not on finding ways to operate outside of that core mission. It can be done, but one has to be very very careful especially in this environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a taxpayer perspective, there is value in avoiding any *appearance* of organizational conflicts of interest - even for UARCs and FFRDCs.

This is the unique value of FFRDCs. If you mess that up, there’s not point in having these unique contracting vehicles.

This is a crucial point. The trust placed in an FFRDC is directly tied to its independence. The moment an FFRDC starts pursuing work that creates a conflict of interest, it breaks that trust. The focus should always be on maintaining that separation and providing unbiased counsel, not on finding ways to operate outside of that core mission. It can be done, but one has to be very very careful especially in this environment.

Yes, it is, but independence won't protect FFRDCs under the current Administration. FFRDCs are/are intended to be about data/analytics/science/engineering in the Federal/public interest. An FFRDC that's true to its mission simply cannot support anti-vaxing, cannot support that mankind's carbon admissions aren't driving climate change, cannot support illegal use of Federal information, ... From this Administration's perspective, all of that simply implies that FFRDCs are just part of the deep state that must be destroyed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a taxpayer perspective, there is value in avoiding any *appearance* of organizational conflicts of interest - even for UARCs and FFRDCs.

This is the unique value of FFRDCs. If you mess that up, there’s not point in having these unique contracting vehicles.

This is a crucial point. The trust placed in an FFRDC is directly tied to its independence. The moment an FFRDC starts pursuing work that creates a conflict of interest, it breaks that trust. The focus should always be on maintaining that separation and providing unbiased counsel, not on finding ways to operate outside of that core mission. It can be done, but one has to be very very careful especially in this environment.

Yes, it is, but independence won't protect FFRDCs under the current Administration. FFRDCs are/are intended to be about data/analytics/science/engineering in the Federal/public interest. An FFRDC that's true to its mission simply cannot support anti-vaxing, cannot support that mankind's carbon admissions aren't driving climate change, cannot support illegal use of Federal information, ... From this Administration's perspective, all of that simply implies that FFRDCs are just part of the deep state that must be destroyed.

These seems to be a key contrast in how FFRDCs are navigating the current climate. The quiet, mission-focused approach of organizations like CNA, IDA, and Aerospace seems more stable. In contrast, the public, growth-oriented strategy of Mitre and Rand Corp, particularly Mitre, has shown some vulnerability, as evidenced by recent, publicly-reported layoffs. This suggests that a singular focus on core government sponsors may be a more resilient business model for weathering today's challenges. My intuition is that the former group is faring better in revenue, RIFs, and overall morale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a taxpayer perspective, there is value in avoiding any *appearance* of organizational conflicts of interest - even for UARCs and FFRDCs.

This is the unique value of FFRDCs. If you mess that up, there’s not point in having these unique contracting vehicles.

This is a crucial point. The trust placed in an FFRDC is directly tied to its independence. The moment an FFRDC starts pursuing work that creates a conflict of interest, it breaks that trust. The focus should always be on maintaining that separation and providing unbiased counsel, not on finding ways to operate outside of that core mission. It can be done, but one has to be very very careful especially in this environment.

Yes, it is, but independence won't protect FFRDCs under the current Administration. FFRDCs are/are intended to be about data/analytics/science/engineering in the Federal/public interest. An FFRDC that's true to its mission simply cannot support anti-vaxing, cannot support that mankind's carbon admissions aren't driving climate change, cannot support illegal use of Federal information, ... From this Administration's perspective, all of that simply implies that FFRDCs are just part of the deep state that must be destroyed.

These seems to be a key contrast in how FFRDCs are navigating the current climate. The quiet, mission-focused approach of organizations like CNA, IDA, and Aerospace seems more stable. In contrast, the public, growth-oriented strategy of Mitre and Rand Corp, particularly Mitre, has shown some vulnerability, as evidenced by recent, publicly-reported layoffs. This suggests that a singular focus on core government sponsors may be a more resilient business model for weathering today's challenges. My intuition is that the former group is faring better in revenue, RIFs, and overall morale.

Starting in the mid-1990s, multiple Federal Civil Agencies initiated Systems Engineering FFRDCs to support their enterprise modernizations. MITRE competed for and won nearly all of them or expanded scope of existing FFRDCs to cover the work. Over the intervening years, that work has grown to about 40% of MITRE work, much of it based in the DC area. Not all went well, but, overall, the Feds claimed they needed the support and MITRE provided it. From the DOGE/2025/Trump perspective, the Federal Civil Agencies MITRE supported simply shouldn't exist so MITRE's support for those Agencies just was collateral damage... On the DoD side, there are several types of FFRDCs - Only MITRE and Aerospace manage Systems Engineering ones. MITRE's DoD FFRDCs have supported a wide variety of DoD systems engineering needs; Aerospace's has concentrated on high-level engineering for space missions. Given the difference, MITRE's been a bigger target of the PSCs...

[Anonymous]

Didn't MITRE spin off Mitretek, which then became Noblis in an attempt to disentangle this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a taxpayer perspective, there is value in avoiding any *appearance* of organizational conflicts of interest - even for UARCs and FFRDCs.

This is the unique value of FFRDCs. If you mess that up, there’s not point in having these unique contracting vehicles.

This is a crucial point. The trust placed in an FFRDC is directly tied to its independence. The moment an FFRDC starts pursuing work that creates a conflict of interest, it breaks that trust. The focus should always be on maintaining that separation and providing unbiased counsel, not on finding ways to operate outside of that core mission. It can be done, but one has to be very very careful especially in this environment.

Yes, it is, but independence won't protect FFRDCs under the current Administration. FFRDCs are/are intended to be about data/analytics/science/engineering in the Federal/public interest. An FFRDC that's true to its mission simply cannot support anti-vaxing, cannot support that mankind's carbon admissions aren't driving climate change, cannot support illegal use of Federal information, ... From this Administration's perspective, all of that simply implies that FFRDCs are just part of the deep state that must be destroyed.

These seems to be a key contrast in how FFRDCs are navigating the current climate. The quiet, mission-focused approach of organizations like CNA, IDA, and Aerospace seems more stable. In contrast, the public, growth-oriented strategy of Mitre and Rand Corp, particularly Mitre, has shown some vulnerability, as evidenced by recent, publicly-reported layoffs. This suggests that a singular focus on core government sponsors may be a more resilient business model for weathering today's challenges. My intuition is that the former group is faring better in revenue, RIFs, and overall morale.

Starting in the mid-1990s, multiple Federal Civil Agencies initiated Systems Engineering FFRDCs to support their enterprise modernizations. MITRE competed for and won nearly all of them or expanded scope of existing FFRDCs to cover the work. Over the intervening years, that work has grown to about 40% of MITRE work, much of it based in the DC area. Not all went well, but, overall, the Feds claimed they needed the support and MITRE provided it. From the DOGE/2025/Trump perspective, the Federal Civil Agencies MITRE supported simply shouldn't exist so MITRE's support for those Agencies just was collateral damage... On the DoD side, there are several types of FFRDCs - Only MITRE and Aerospace manage Systems Engineering ones. MITRE's DoD FFRDCs have supported a wide variety of DoD systems engineering needs; Aerospace's has concentrated on high-level engineering for space missions. Given the difference, MITRE's been a bigger target of the PSCs...

Ultimately, FFRDCs that stick to their core mission may be the most stable path forward in the current environment.