Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA's issue isn't necessarily its FFRDC unit, but its IPR unit, which is all Fed Gov-contract-based. Fed contracts have been lost or not recompeted, and as a result, some staff have been fired.

Has CNA tried RIFing their experts and replacing them with AI slop?

No, CNA is keeping its experts in the FFRDC; you probably are thinking of RAND.

MITRE also RIF'd it's best people (the highly skilled and experienced yet not part of the cronyism culture) and now they believe AI will save them from becoming irrelevant. A shell of what that great company once was

The Jason’s destroyed RAND and MITRE

I agree. MITRE won't lead with its unimaginative technocrat president who believes that AI-branding it's work is the solution for everything. I agree with the PP that MITRE used to be an exceptional organization and now it's one of many trying to peddle the AI commodity and it's sad to see how low it's fallen

Some say that the "unimaginative technocrat" is very smart and used the convenient cover of DOGE to reshape the org to their liking (which is their right) without appearing as the villain who derailed careers. Many believe the RIFs were disproportionate to the DOGE cuts and some believe the RIFs would have occurred DOGE or no DOGE. It's all a self-serving pantomime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA's issue isn't necessarily its FFRDC unit, but its IPR unit, which is all Fed Gov-contract-based. Fed contracts have been lost or not recompeted, and as a result, some staff have been fired.

Has CNA tried RIFing their experts and replacing them with AI slop?

No, CNA is keeping its experts in the FFRDC; you probably are thinking of RAND.

MITRE also RIF'd it's best people (the highly skilled and experienced yet not part of the cronyism culture) and now they believe AI will save them from becoming irrelevant. A shell of what that great company once was

Did they RIF its best people? The numbers show they RIF’d MPS people, who had/have no work to do because that side of the business is sunsetting while defense grows. The people working on the MPS side of the house weren’t of value to the MNS business that will be all that survives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As nonprofits operating FFRDCs expanded into work funded by non-government sources, questions have emerged about whether these activities remained consistent with the spirit of their original sponsoring agreements.

And as FFRDCs, such as MITRE, created strong financial incentives for MITRE folks assisting program offices to divert work that should have been competitively bid instead back to MITRE in McLean or Bedford, many government staff have realized that FFRDCs such as MITRE cannot be trusted to provide neutral or independent advice.

And as FFRDCs, such as RAND, took donor $ to create products of potential interest to USG sponsors, raising questions about the motives of these donations.

Anonymous wrote:As nonprofits operating FFRDCs expanded into work funded by non-government sources, questions have emerged about whether these activities remained consistent with the spirit of their original sponsoring agreements.

And as FFRDCs, such as MITRE, created strong financial incentives for MITRE folks assisting program offices to divert work that should have been competitively bid instead back to MITRE in McLean or Bedford, many government staff have realized that FFRDCs such as MITRE cannot be trusted to provide neutral or independent advice.

As nonprofits operating FFRDCs expanded into work funded by non-government sources, questions have emerged about whether these activities remained consistent with the spirit of their original sponsoring agreements.

The common two threads among FFRDCs, UARCs, and SETA firms are that:

1) none sell widgets to the government.

2) all provide Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Assistance services to the government

Some DoEnergy FFRDCs now are operated by for-profit firms.

The (conceptual) non-profits operating FFRDCs in reality operate more like for-profits companies -- because their executives / leaders use size of organization and revenue growth to justify higher compensation for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

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?

Does any part of the gov actually rely on any ffrdc ?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

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?

Does any part of the gov actually rely on any ffrdc ?

there are reasons the ndri vehicle was extended to 01/27 and wasn’t fully renewed this year….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

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?

The FFRDCs have different purposes - Studies&Analysis, Systems Engineering, Research&Development. OSD's description for each and list is at https://rt.cto.mil/ddre-rt/rtl-labs/ffrdc-uarc/

Why not consolidate studies and analysis, systems engineering, and R&D?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

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?

Does any part of the gov actually rely on any ffrdc ?

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

Seems pretty stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ArsTechnica.com reports that NASA plans to competitively rebid the JPL FFRDC contract in 2028, and is encouraging places other than CalTech to bid.

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?

The FFRDCs have different purposes - Studies&Analysis, Systems Engineering, Research&Development. OSD's description for each and list is at https://rt.cto.mil/ddre-rt/rtl-labs/ffrdc-uarc/