FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you have any data to support this speculation? My understanding is that IDA had a RIF, relating to the DOT&E decision. A focus on core government sponsors has its own risks as this shows.

Most of our DOT&E work is back and SAC hit ceiling. Things seem fine.

It's not that hard for an FFRDC to meet ceiling.

[Anonymous]

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.

CNA's fundamental difference from the other FFRDCs are that at any given moment many of its analysts are forward deployed, in combat zones (e.g., afghanistan and iraq in the early part of this century), on carriers inside the WEZ (e.g., during Houthi attacks in the Red Sea), in front line foreign countries (e.g., in middle east and asia/pacific). Others are also working in safer jobs as analysts for NSWDG, Pacific Fleet, 7th Fleet, and so on.

The other dimension of difference is that nothing CNA does is systems engineering or prototyping. They are not competing with any SETA or any product company.

You are focusing on the Navy/Marine side of CNA...what about IPR (their government contracting division)? Contracts are being lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious what people think of MITRE's investment in a supercomputer. The non-DoD side has been investing heavily in advancing technologies/partnerships that move MITRE into highly technical advanced work. But so far big price tags and limited ROI. Is there a path forward?

The Trump Administration is killing off all inconvenient results of science/analytics, destroying underlying data/data sources, and eliminating Federal Agencies and contractors involved in all such work.

Not exactly clear how any moderately self-respecting organization could generate a path forward.

Rest assured that some places are managing this better than others.

Did you note “self-respecting”?

CNA is self-respecting.

MITRE’s issues are primarily Federal Civil. I’m not particularly familiar with CNA’s Treasury or HHS work.

HHS work is toast. So is their FAA work. CNA does not have any Treasury work.

[Anonymous]

RAND is the most depressing place to work right now. None of their FFRDCs will meet ceiling this year.

[Anonymous]

Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are focusing on the Navy/Marine side of CNA...what about IPR (their government contracting division)? Contracts are being lost.

IPR is not an FFRDC. Thread is specifically about FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RAND is the most depressing place to work right now. None of their FFRDCs will meet ceiling this year.

This is not unique to your organization. It's very bad at many places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is the most depressing place to work right now. None of their FFRDCs will meet ceiling this year.

This is not unique to your organization. It's very bad at many places.

DP. It is bad at many places, but it looks like RAND's CEO is going to get fired soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is the most depressing place to work right now. None of their FFRDCs will meet ceiling this year.

This is not unique to your organization. It's very bad at many places.

Have the CEOs of other places faced multiple negative Politico articles and Congressional investigations into their strategic initiatives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is the most depressing place to work right now. None of their FFRDCs will meet ceiling this year.

This is not unique to your organization. It's very bad at many places.

Have the CEOs of other places faced multiple negative Politico articles and Congressional investigations into their strategic initiatives?

Are you aware of what's happening in the federal government right now? Have you actually talked to any of your clients about what's going on there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is the most depressing place to work right now. None of their FFRDCs will meet ceiling this year.

This is not unique to your organization. It's very bad at many places.

Have the CEOs of other places faced multiple negative Politico articles and Congressional investigations into their strategic initiatives?

Are you aware of what's happening in the federal government right now? Have you actually talked to any of your clients about what's going on there?

Yes. I am the client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is the most depressing place to work right now. None of their FFRDCs will meet ceiling this year.

This is not unique to your organization. It's very bad at many places.

Have the CEOs of other places faced multiple negative Politico articles and Congressional investigations into their strategic initiatives?

Are you aware of what's happening in the federal government right now? Have you actually talked to any of your clients about what's going on there?

Yes. I am the client.

You're kidding. You work for Pete Hegseth or Kristi Noem, your org has been through various probationary firings, DRPs, etc., and you're commenting on how *RAND* is depressing and getting called out in Politico?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND is the most depressing place to work right now. None of their FFRDCs will meet ceiling this year.

This is not unique to your organization. It's very bad at many places.

Have the CEOs of other places faced multiple negative Politico articles and Congressional investigations into their strategic initiatives?

Are you aware of what's happening in the federal government right now? Have you actually talked to any of your clients about what's going on there?

Yes. I am the client.

You're kidding. You work for Pete Hegseth or Kristi Noem, your org has been through various probationary firings, DRPs, etc., and you're commenting on how *RAND* is depressing and getting called out in Politico?

I am a different poster than the person you’re referencing.

[Anonymous]

Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory just was awarded a new multi-year contract with AFRL (Kirtland AFB) that has a $1B ceiling (a) for work with AFRL on Space Vehicles and also (b) for supporting USSF generally.

"https://www.sdl.usu.edu"

(Yea, USU/SDL is UARC not an FFRDC, but the two groups have many similarities.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory just was awarded a new multi-year contract with AFRL (Kirtland AFB) that has a $1B ceiling (a) for work with AFRL on Space Vehicles and also (b) for supporting USSF generally.

"https://www.sdl.usu.edu"

(Yea, USU/SDL is UARC not an FFRDC, but the two groups have many similarities.)

$1B? Seems high. Link?