Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

My guess is that it’s probably fellows from RAND. They just fill out a short form over there to become a research fellow. Many seem to have little expertise in the topics they write commentaries on. A lot of what they produce reads more like opinion pieces than serious research reports and many seem to only have bachelor’s degrees so they come across more like interns than SMEEs. Drives me nuts

here is the short form! https://www.rand.org/global-and-emerging-risks/centers/ai-security-and-technology/fellows.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

whoever it could be and they need to bid lower. Most of the FFRDCs work on several contracts and we should not accept their style of just writing reports and be done with it. That style is very old.

That's what DoD is buying. It's not like DoD said "give us a product or give us a report" and the FFRDC said "hmm, I guess we choose report."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

whoever it could be and they need to bid lower. Most of the FFRDCs work on several contracts and we should not accept their style of just writing reports and be done with it. That style is very old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

My guess is that it’s probably fellows from RAND. They just fill out a short form over there to become a research fellow. Many seem to have little expertise in the topics they write commentaries on. A lot of what they produce reads more like opinion pieces than serious research reports and many seem to only have bachelor’s degrees so they come across more like interns than SMEEs. Drives me nuts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

My guess is that it’s probably fellows from RAND. They just fill out a short form over there to become a research fellow. Many seem to have little expertise in the topics they write commentaries on. A lot of what they produce reads more like opinion pieces than serious research reports and many seem to only have bachelor’s degrees so they come across more like interns than SMEEs. Drives me nuts

This is so true. They try to push anyone as an SME when they were not and we had to fire them because they should not be getting top $s for not being one.

Several do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

My guess is that it’s probably fellows from RAND. They just fill out a short form over there to become a research fellow. Many seem to have little expertise in the topics they write commentaries on. A lot of what they produce reads more like opinion pieces than serious research reports and many seem to only have bachelor’s degrees so they come across more like interns than SMEEs. Drives me nuts

This is so true. They try to push anyone as an SME when they were not and we had to fire them because they should not be getting top $s for not being one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

My guess is that it’s probably fellows from RAND. They just fill out a short form over there to become a research fellow. Many seem to have little expertise in the topics they write commentaries on. A lot of what they produce reads more like opinion pieces than serious research reports and many seem to only have bachelor’s degrees so they come across more like interns than SMEEs. Drives me nuts

This is so true. They try to push anyone as an SME when they were not and we had to fire them because they should not be getting top $s for not being one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

My guess is that it’s probably fellows from RAND. They just fill out a short form over there to become a research fellow. Many seem to have little expertise in the topics they write commentaries on. A lot of what they produce reads more like opinion pieces than serious research reports and many seem to only have bachelor’s degrees so they come across more like interns than SMEEs. Drives me nuts

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

who are these 'fellows'?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

I pay for a report, an FFRDC delivers it under the contract, then immediately dumps it into the public domain. Weeks later their staff are writing think pieces off it for Foreign Affairs and the New York Times, and their fellows are roaming the Pentagon using the same report to push the next round of recycled hot takes. At thiis point the whole thing just turns into a taxpayer-funded content mill that counteracts any value the original report created for me.


Valid point. I agree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?

How do you think this works? DoD asks for a particular report and the vendor delivers within the constraints DoD has set, which are significant. A different vendor isn't going to get you what you want because the problems are the assignment and the constraints.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems pretty stupid.

why? more competition is good. For stuff that other contractors could do, why we need to pick FFRDCs? everything is outdated over there and they just care about writing reports and a billing account. They have no incentive to find a solution for DoD

As opposed to who, exactly? Deloitte? Palantir? I've got all the complaints with FFRDCs there are to have, but DoD does this to itself with how it contracts, and it's sure not getting better.

What specific value add has any of the studies and analysis FFRDCs provided since 2020?