Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take is that a lot of these FFRDCs are just sucking up budgets w/o bringing extra value. A lot has happened which require change and big 4s and FFRDC are the one that need to cut the fat the most.

Don't disagree at all. The idea behind FFRDCs isn't bad, the recent implementation has been pretty bad.

How so?

Poor choice of words, maybe "things I've seen after a few years"

Worked at two FFRDCs over the years. Maybe my view is biased on what I've seen. At the core each was the SME on the topic that's being worked, helping the government solve the hard problem, or help with acquisition, or to evaluate the performer solution in an unbiased way, create regulations for things like AI. This is awesome and much needed.

At each, work ebbs and flows and you don't always need all that expertise. So then what happens? Papers are published for the sake of publishing papers. Overhead dollars are spend on building tools the government may need one day. Etc.


I get it, you have to run a business... but... feels like a huge waste

To put it more bluntly -- work is made up to keep the SMEs employeed. The government often didn't ask, didn't want and/or didn't need that work. And that's not the intended vision of FFRDCs.

Philanthropy is the only viable funding source for tackling long-term, cutting edge, existential problems. FFRDCs are on life support.

Philanthropy spawned Project 2025. What we need is a viable Federal Government.

Rumor is that Jason was at a GER offsite in San Francisco during our last round of layoffs at RAND.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take is that a lot of these FFRDCs are just sucking up budgets w/o bringing extra value. A lot has happened which require change and big 4s and FFRDC are the one that need to cut the fat the most.

Don't disagree at all. The idea behind FFRDCs isn't bad, the recent implementation has been pretty bad.

How so?

Poor choice of words, maybe "things I've seen after a few years"

Worked at two FFRDCs over the years. Maybe my view is biased on what I've seen. At the core each was the SME on the topic that's being worked, helping the government solve the hard problem, or help with acquisition, or to evaluate the performer solution in an unbiased way, create regulations for things like AI. This is awesome and much needed.

At each, work ebbs and flows and you don't always need all that expertise. So then what happens? Papers are published for the sake of publishing papers. Overhead dollars are spend on building tools the government may need one day. Etc.


I get it, you have to run a business... but... feels like a huge waste

To put it more bluntly -- work is made up to keep the SMEs employeed. The government often didn't ask, didn't want and/or didn't need that work. And that's not the intended vision of FFRDCs.

Philanthropy is the only viable funding source for tackling long-term, cutting edge, existential problems. FFRDCs are on life support.

Philanthropy spawned Project 2025. What we need is a viable Federal Government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More RIFs at CNA coming soon. IPR.

Some full-time staff being switched to part-time.

Just IPR or also the FFRDC?

For now, it’s been mostly IPR as they are wholly reliant on Fed contracts (some states) and grants (see Justice group).

I’ve heard of some FFRDC RIFs (very little) and there have been some FFRDC lifers who’ve decided to retire. Finally.

FFRDC is still hiring now. It's stop and go, but not in free fall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitre recently furloughed many people - without pay - in lieu of a formal layoff. Management seems to be hoping a bunch of the lost work will return in coming months.

What about hssedi?

Looks like the IDIQ came in a few days ago. $400M, 3 years

https://app.g2xchange.com/fedciv/posts/mitre-attains-400m-dhs-st-security-systems-engineering-and-development-institute-hssedi-idiq

Smaller than expected. Who will do the work? Favored few remaining are not the best and brightest.

That's a 72% cut to ceiling. Yikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitre recently furloughed many people - without pay - in lieu of a formal layoff. Management seems to be hoping a bunch of the lost work will return in coming months.

What about hssedi?

Looks like the IDIQ came in a few days ago. $400M, 3 years

https://app.g2xchange.com/fedciv/posts/mitre-attains-400m-dhs-st-security-systems-engineering-and-development-institute-hssedi-idiq

Smaller than expected. Who will do the work? Favored few remaining are not the best and brightest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitre recently furloughed many people - without pay - in lieu of a formal layoff. Management seems to be hoping a bunch of the lost work will return in coming months.

What about hssedi?

Looks like the IDIQ came in a few days ago. $400M, 3 years

https://app.g2xchange.com/fedciv/posts/mitre-attains-400m-dhs-st-security-systems-engineering-and-development-institute-hssedi-idiq

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitre recently furloughed many people - without pay - in lieu of a formal layoff. Management seems to be hoping a bunch of the lost work will return in coming months.

What about hssedi?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More RIFs at CNA coming soon. IPR.

Some full-time staff being switched to part-time.

Just IPR or also the FFRDC?

For now, it’s been mostly IPR as they are wholly reliant on Fed contracts (some states) and grants (see Justice group).

I’ve heard of some FFRDC RIFs (very little) and there have been some FFRDC lifers who’ve decided to retire. Finally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More RIFs at CNA coming soon. IPR.

Some full-time staff being switched to part-time.

Just IPR or also the FFRDC?

Anonymous wrote:More RIFs at CNA coming soon. IPR.

Some full-time staff being switched to part-time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take is that a lot of these FFRDCs are just sucking up budgets w/o bringing extra value. A lot has happened which require change and big 4s and FFRDC are the one that need to cut the fat the most.

Don't disagree at all. The idea behind FFRDCs isn't bad, the recent implementation has been pretty bad.

How so?

Poor choice of words, maybe "things I've seen after a few years"

Worked at two FFRDCs over the years. Maybe my view is biased on what I've seen. At the core each was the SME on the topic that's being worked, helping the government solve the hard problem, or help with acquisition, or to evaluate the performer solution in an unbiased way, create regulations for things like AI. This is awesome and much needed.

At each, work ebbs and flows and you don't always need all that expertise. So then what happens? Papers are published for the sake of publishing papers. Overhead dollars are spend on building tools the government may need one day. Etc.


I get it, you have to run a business... but... feels like a huge waste

To put it more bluntly -- work is made up to keep the SMEs employeed. The government often didn't ask, didn't want and/or didn't need that work. And that's not the intended vision of FFRDCs.

Philanthropy is the only viable funding source for tackling long-term, cutting edge, existential problems. FFRDCs are on life support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take is that a lot of these FFRDCs are just sucking up budgets w/o bringing extra value. A lot has happened which require change and big 4s and FFRDC are the one that need to cut the fat the most.

Don't disagree at all. The idea behind FFRDCs isn't bad, the recent implementation has been pretty bad.

How so?

Poor choice of words, maybe "things I've seen after a few years"

Worked at two FFRDCs over the years. Maybe my view is biased on what I've seen. At the core each was the SME on the topic that's being worked, helping the government solve the hard problem, or help with acquisition, or to evaluate the performer solution in an unbiased way, create regulations for things like AI. This is awesome and much needed.

At each, work ebbs and flows and you don't always need all that expertise. So then what happens? Papers are published for the sake of publishing papers. Overhead dollars are spend on building tools the government may need one day. Etc.


I get it, you have to run a business... but... feels like a huge waste

To put it more bluntly -- work is made up to keep the SMEs employeed. The government often didn't ask, didn't want and/or didn't need that work. And that's not the intended vision of FFRDCs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take is that a lot of these FFRDCs are just sucking up budgets w/o bringing extra value. A lot has happened which require change and big 4s and FFRDC are the one that need to cut the fat the most.

Don't disagree at all. The idea behind FFRDCs isn't bad, the recent implementation has been pretty bad.

How so?

Poor choice of words, maybe "things I've seen after a few years"

Worked at two FFRDCs over the years. Maybe my view is biased on what I've seen. At the core each was the SME on the topic that's being worked, helping the government solve the hard problem, or help with acquisition, or to evaluate the performer solution in an unbiased way, create regulations for things like AI. This is awesome and much needed.

At each, work ebbs and flows and you don't always need all that expertise. So then what happens? Papers are published for the sake of publishing papers. Overhead dollars are spend on building tools the government may need one day. Etc.

I get it, you have to run a business... but... feels like a huge waste

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take is that a lot of these FFRDCs are just sucking up budgets w/o bringing extra value. A lot has happened which require change and big 4s and FFRDC are the one that need to cut the fat the most.

Don't disagree at all. The idea behind FFRDCs isn't bad, the recent implementation has been pretty bad.

How so?