Reply to FFRDCs

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "FFRDCs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.
  [/quote]

There’s a lot of overlap in FFRDC contracts that could be rebid. Why does DHS use both MITRE and RAND? Why does OSD contract with RAND, MITRE and IDA? Why does the Air Force rely on both Aerospace Corp and RAND?[/quote]

Does any part of the gov actually rely on any ffrdc ?[/quote]

The answer very much depends on what one means by "rely".

If it means the government absolutely cannot function without an FFRDC, then that answer clearly is no.

If it means "it is more convenient" or perhaps means "it is helpful" to the government to have an FFRDC, then some parts of the government will say yes. Much of the advantage is that once the FFRDC contract is in place, the government can add $MM of work to that company without further competitive bidding. Those contracts often last 5 years with at least one no-bid 5yr extension being possible.

The FFRDC structure also has a near twin called a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC). A local example is the Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Lab (JHU/APL). Penn State (and I think UT at Austin) each also have separate UARCs also using the APL moniker (e.g., PSU/APL). Utah State University has its Space Dynamics Laboratory (USU/SDL). There are several more of these UARCs.

FFRDCs and UARCs originally were created to provide independent advice and technical services - independent primarily meaning they did not also sell widgets to the government.

Any work done today by a UARC or FFRDC also could be done (and in many cases already is) by SETA contractors. Maybe 30 years ago a company (think: Lockheed, Boeing, BAe) could both offer SETA services and sell widgets to the government. That has been completely disallowed now for many years. In the first decade of this century, as an example, Lockheed was forced to spin out all of its SETA work to a separate non-affiliated company.

SETA firms now are NOT allowed also to sell widgets, which removes their prior Organizational Conflict of Interest issue. This also weakens the justification for FFRDCs and UARCs. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics