Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the cover of DOGE cuts, a big FFRDC RIFd most of their remote employees, which had been an RTO inconvenience. Never waste a good crisis

Who?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior researchers are a dime a dozen. It's much harder to find folks with technical skills who want to work at a non-profit instead of Google. I know RAND looks at comparable salaries when setting ranges.

How do you know? Is RAND HR monitoring this thread?

I used to work there as a researcher. Definitely not HR. FFRDCs to do comps pretty carefully when doing government work to justify salaries. What can researchers make in academia? What do other organizations pay? That said the comps are not Wall Street.

It was always harder to find folks for the tech support side, and hard to keep them. In Silicon Valley they're the stars and at FFRDCs they are make it possible for researchers to do their work.

I know folks at all the local FFRDCs. Mostly really smart and mission driven people. A lot of them could have made more money in other organizations.

Not sure I buy this point. The pay range for a "Technical AI Policy Associate" at RAND is listed at $47,100- $156,500, requiring a BA but preference for a higher degree. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC-DC-Metro-Area/Technical-AI-Policy-Associate_R3217-1)

RAND is paying a "Grants Proposal Manager" between $75,700-$112,400, requiring a high school diploma but a BA is preferred. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC/Grants-Proposal-Manager_R3234)

That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ LESS than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

*Correction: That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ MORE than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

The AI position isn't even government funded. And if they underpay, they won't get good people. Why would that be your business,.or DOGE's?

It’s my business because I’m a taxpayer and my employer (a defense contractor) has to compete with these bloated FFRDCs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior researchers are a dime a dozen. It's much harder to find folks with technical skills who want to work at a non-profit instead of Google. I know RAND looks at comparable salaries when setting ranges.

How do you know? Is RAND HR monitoring this thread?

I used to work there as a researcher. Definitely not HR. FFRDCs to do comps pretty carefully when doing government work to justify salaries. What can researchers make in academia? What do other organizations pay? That said the comps are not Wall Street.

It was always harder to find folks for the tech support side, and hard to keep them. In Silicon Valley they're the stars and at FFRDCs they are make it possible for researchers to do their work.

I know folks at all the local FFRDCs. Mostly really smart and mission driven people. A lot of them could have made more money in other organizations.

Not sure I buy this point. The pay range for a "Technical AI Policy Associate" at RAND is listed at $47,100- $156,500, requiring a BA but preference for a higher degree. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC-DC-Metro-Area/Technical-AI-Policy-Associate_R3217-1)

RAND is paying a "Grants Proposal Manager" between $75,700-$112,400, requiring a high school diploma but a BA is preferred. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC/Grants-Proposal-Manager_R3234)

That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ LESS than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

*Correction: That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ MORE than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

The AI position isn't even government funded. And if they underpay, they won't get good people. Why would that be your business,.or DOGE's?

Anonymous wrote:GSA is also looking into FFRDC work. Is that normal?

Anonymous wrote:GSA is also looking into FFRDC work. Is that normal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

Don't the services do test and evaluation? Why does the office even need to exist?

Joint acquisition was tested and evaluated by OSD DOTE. Service-unique was tested and evaluated by that service. DOTE was not duplicative testing because a lot of acquisition is joint.

saves lives, too

I don't understand the difference. Can you explain more? Also, PP says a whole division at IDA does work for DOTE. Is IDA the only contractor DOTE works with?

Service specific things are bought by a particular service, often through a "Systems Command". Other things are bought by OSD/A&S because those other things are joint instead of service-specific.

As different poster noted, DOTE also maintains shared / joint test and evaluation resources - because that sharing saves money and avoids duplication.

Bottom line is that DOTE exists because it saves taxpayer dollars compared with abolishing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

Don't the services do test and evaluation? Why does the office even need to exist?

Joint acquisition was tested and evaluated by OSD DOTE. Service-unique was tested and evaluated by that service. DOTE was not duplicative testing because a lot of acquisition is joint.

I don't understand the difference. Can you explain more? Also, PP says a whole division at IDA does work for DOTE. Is IDA the only contractor DOTE works with?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

Don't the services do test and evaluation? Why does the office even need to exist?

Same reason there’s anything Joint — standardization, coordination, and oversight. And because 40 years ago Congress got tired of the services’ “it’s fine, really, this program isn’t screwed up and everything works fine” approach to T&E.

DOT&E also maintains test resources (physical and analytical) that would be too duplicative and/or expensive for the services to maintain separately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

Don't the services do test and evaluation? Why does the office even need to exist?

Anonymous wrote:Under the cover of DOGE cuts, a big FFRDC RIFd most of their remote employees, which had been an RTO inconvenience. Never waste a good crisis

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big cuts at DOT&E (who needs oversight, we can trust the contractors to deliver, right?) probably means significant impact to a whole division at IDA. I feel sorry for all the people I know there, most of whom do good and necessary work with little appreciation, but this wasn’t exactly unforeseen.

How big?

https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/28/2003725153/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-REORGANIZATION-OF-THE-OFFICE-OF-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-OPERATIONAL-TEST-AND-EVALUATION.PDF

Don't the services do test and evaluation? Why does the office even need to exist?

Joint acquisition was tested and evaluated by OSD DOTE. Service-unique was tested and evaluated by that service. DOTE was not duplicative testing because a lot of acquisition is joint.