Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A perspective from a RAND alum that some in here might find interesting.
https://riskparody.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-president-of

After "Booz Allen, Deloitte, and MITRE" as the competitors, I don't know why anyone would keep reading.

competing with commercial players like Booz Allen, Deloitte, and MITRE, whose models often prioritize faster, cheaper, and more polish.


Since when is mitre faster, cheaper or more polished?

Or commercial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about him ignoring our core business and missing the early signals surrounding changes in Federal priorities. You’re right that all of our peers were hurt, but it seems that RAND was hit MUCH harder. -Longtime RAND researcher without strong views on our CEO

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

This thread's 100k+ page views has delivered more impact to RAND than any of it's craptastic AI research.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A perspective from a RAND alum that some in here might find interesting.
https://riskparody.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-president-of

After "Booz Allen, Deloitte, and MITRE" as the competitors, I don't know why anyone would keep reading.

competing with commercial players like Booz Allen, Deloitte, and MITRE, whose models often prioritize faster, cheaper, and more polish.


Since when is mitre faster, cheaper or more polished?

RAND should avoid the silly sci fi fiction it produces with donor $, stop public release of everything, make short reports with pictures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A perspective from a RAND alum that some in here might find interesting.
https://riskparody.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-president-of

After "Booz Allen, Deloitte, and MITRE" as the competitors, I don't know why anyone would keep reading.

competing with commercial players like Booz Allen, Deloitte, and MITRE, whose models often prioritize faster, cheaper, and more polish.


Since when is mitre faster, cheaper or more polished?

Anonymous wrote:A perspective from a RAND alum that some in here might find interesting.
https://riskparody.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-president-of

Matheny's realizing you can't just smooth-talk your way out of being a lousy executive-his failures are proof of that.

Anonymous wrote:A perspective from a RAND alum that some in here might find interesting.
https://riskparody.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-president-of

After "Booz Allen, Deloitte, and MITRE" as the competitors, I don't know why anyone would keep reading.

A perspective from a RAND alum that some in here might find interesting.
https://riskparody.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-president-of

Anonymous wrote:More DCAA attention on MITRE and RAND might be very healthy for the broader FFRDC/UARC ecosystem.

https://www.dcaa.mil/About-DCAA/Hotline/

https://www.dodig.mil/Components/Administrative-Investigations/DoD-Hotline/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To avoid a FAR Cost Accounting Standards violation, the FFRDC must consistently classify this new labor category (Direct vs. Indirect) and must update their estimates and disclosures. Failure to maintain this consistency and transparency risks significant cost disallowance.

I disagree with this conclusion. The risk of disallowance is high if that new labor category is performing work similar to direct-charged FFRDC employees but is classified and accounted for differently, especially if it it exists in an organizational 'silo' with unique (and lower) indirect cost structures that the FFRDCs. Any inconsistent classification of costs, even in less extreme scenarios, is a direct CAS violation. Nobody with any common sense would sign off on this type of extreme arrangement in my experience.

I think GER is doing this.

More DCAA attention on MITRE and RAND might be very healthy for the broader FFRDC/UARC ecosystem.

Anonymous wrote:The detailed discussion of the FAR and CAS fills me with joy during these dark times.

Sounds like people associated with DCAA are posting. If I was RAND, that would fill me with fear.

The detailed discussion of the FAR and CAS fills me with joy during these dark times.

Anonymous wrote:To avoid a FAR Cost Accounting Standards violation, the FFRDC must consistently classify this new labor category (Direct vs. Indirect) and must update their estimates and disclosures. Failure to maintain this consistency and transparency risks significant cost disallowance.

I disagree with this conclusion. The risk of disallowance is high if that new labor category is performing work similar to direct-charged FFRDC employees but is classified and accounted for differently, especially if it it exists in an organizational 'silo' with unique (and lower) indirect cost structures that the FFRDCs. Any inconsistent classification of costs, even in less extreme scenarios, is a direct CAS violation. Nobody with any common sense would sign off on this type of extreme arrangement in my experience.