FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report and FBI response are available online.

https://www.gsa.gov/reference/freedom-of-information-act-foia/foia-library

I thought PPs were exaggerating but one person really did change the weight of certain criteria and ratings in a way that favored Greenbelt. At the very least, she shouldn’t have been the Site Selection Authority due to conflicts of interest.

It was completely within her purview to do so. And the changes were made with the knowledge of the higher ups at GSA. So while she made the decision, the rest of the GSA executive administration concurred with her assessment.

Despite the "conflict of interest" there was nothing wrong with what happened. She weighed different factors and came to a conclusion that saved the federal government a lot of money and time.

The GSA administration is standing by the assessment and decision and they have the final say. Even if there is an inspector general or congressional investigation, there is no legal argument for overturning this decision. This is just a huge waste of time for Congress when they have much more important things to do, like appropriation bills and funding the government.

Congress loves to waste time with pointless investigations, especially the GOP. But will the GOP be interested in a fight between the FBI and GSA, or VA and MD? I don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See pp 3 here: https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/FBI%20HQ%20Site%20Selection%20Decision%20Fact%20Sheet%20%282%29.pdf

If you excluded the equity and sustainability score only for Greenbelt, keep these originally weighted scores for the other two sites, Greenbelt would still come out ahead.

Those are not the panel’s scores. Those are the ratings as modified by the SSA. She downgraded Springfield for a few criteria and increased Greenbelt’s ratings for others.

It’s shocking that one person — a political appointee — can overturn a career panel and make a decision this huge.

You must be new to DC and the federal government. Political appointees make huge decisions in federal agencies all the time. For example, the majority of the juicy state department assignments (ambassadors and embassies) are political. The career state department staff normally work for them. But while you have career state department staff that are specialists in the region and even the country, the political appointees make the decisions that represent the American government's word in international negotiations. Most of the agency heads of all of the major agencies are political appointees and they make many very important and weighty decisions and they carry the full responsibility for those decisions. Look at the cabinet. They are all political appointees and make the decisions and they are held responsible for those decisions, even when advised by career federal staff.

Regardless of whether there was bias or not, Nina Albert was fully within her job purview to make the decision she did. She did so with the knowledge of other higher up administration within the GSA. They have the authority to make that decision and the agency administration stands fully with the decision. This will go nowhere other than delaying the implementation. Greenbelt will get the site and they will build the campus large enough to house everything originally proposed. Where folks and teams land after the campus is built will be left to the FBI chief at the time it is completed, which most likely will not be Christopher Wray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbelt location is $1B cheaper to build. Sorry, but a cost differential like that is going to be the determinant.

But by all means cry harder about NoVA.

Uh huh. Does that cost savings include the infrastructure requirements? Expanding the Wilson Bridge?

Anyway, all the criteria point towards Springfield. It was shenanigans that moved it to Greenbelt, not cost savings.

Who is crying? I don't prefer one place to another but I want what's best for the FBI. Not what's best for WMATA.

I'm sorry, but the Wilson Bridge does not need to be expanded for several thousand employees to cross the river and that's if all of the staff had to cross the river. But they don't There are about 10K employees and there are some that already live in MD and DC and would not be crossing from Virginia. Additionally, some of the Virginians will be taking the Metro since the Metro stop will be right across the parking lot from the new building. The Woodrow Wilson bridge handles about 250K cars daily. A few thousand more is not going to change much of anything.

No, it wasn't shenanigans to move it to Greenbelt. The GSA has now selected Greenbelt twice and a huge part of this is that it is impractical to relocate the existing government facilities on the Springfield location and it would cost the federal government $1B and several additional years to develop the Springfield site. The Hoover building is currently decaying and is not really safe for the employees to stay there. They need the building sooner, not 3 years later. And it's a waste of taxpayer money to spend all that extra money just because a few thousand people choose to live in Virginia instead of Maryland.

The decision will be reversed and the new FBI facility will be constructed in Springfield.

by whom?

Congress.

Try and keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See pp 3 here: https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/FBI%20HQ%20Site%20Selection%20Decision%20Fact%20Sheet%20%282%29.pdf

If you excluded the equity and sustainability score only for Greenbelt, keep these originally weighted scores for the other two sites, Greenbelt would still come out ahead.

Those are not the panel’s scores. Those are the ratings as modified by the SSA. She downgraded Springfield for a few criteria and increased Greenbelt’s ratings for others.

It’s shocking that one person — a political appointee — can overturn a career panel and make a decision this huge.

You must be new to DC and the federal government. Political appointees make huge decisions in federal agencies all the time. For example, the majority of the juicy state department assignments (ambassadors and embassies) are political. The career state department staff normally work for them. But while you have career state department staff that are specialists in the region and even the country, the political appointees make the decisions that represent the American government's word in international negotiations. Most of the agency heads of all of the major agencies are political appointees and they make many very important and weighty decisions and they carry the full responsibility for those decisions. Look at the cabinet. They are all political appointees and make the decisions and they are held responsible for those decisions, even when advised by career federal staff.

Regardless of whether there was bias or not, Nina Albert was fully within her job purview to make the decision she did. She did so with the knowledge of other higher up administration within the GSA. They have the authority to make that decision and the agency administration stands fully with the decision. This will go nowhere other than delaying the implementation. Greenbelt will get the site and they will build the campus large enough to house everything originally proposed. Where folks and teams land after the campus is built will be left to the FBI chief at the time it is completed, which most likely will not be Christopher Wray.

Yeah, but once decisions break into the public sphere, it's no longer business as usual.

[Anonymous]

I work for GSA PBS. I was not part of the final decision but know people who were. Nothing shady was going on and this was definitely bullet proof given the politics and need to get a new HQ for the customer (FBI) ASAP.

Wray is jockeying for more $ for his field offices in the region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbelt location is $1B cheaper to build. Sorry, but a cost differential like that is going to be the determinant.

But by all means cry harder about NoVA.

Uh huh. Does that cost savings include the infrastructure requirements? Expanding the Wilson Bridge?

Anyway, all the criteria point towards Springfield. It was shenanigans that moved it to Greenbelt, not cost savings.

Who is crying? I don't prefer one place to another but I want what's best for the FBI. Not what's best for WMATA.

I'm sorry, but the Wilson Bridge does not need to be expanded for several thousand employees to cross the river and that's if all of the staff had to cross the river. But they don't There are about 10K employees and there are some that already live in MD and DC and would not be crossing from Virginia. Additionally, some of the Virginians will be taking the Metro since the Metro stop will be right across the parking lot from the new building. The Woodrow Wilson bridge handles about 250K cars daily. A few thousand more is not going to change much of anything.

No, it wasn't shenanigans to move it to Greenbelt. The GSA has now selected Greenbelt twice and a huge part of this is that it is impractical to relocate the existing government facilities on the Springfield location and it would cost the federal government $1B and several additional years to develop the Springfield site. The Hoover building is currently decaying and is not really safe for the employees to stay there. They need the building sooner, not 3 years later. And it's a waste of taxpayer money to spend all that extra money just because a few thousand people choose to live in Virginia instead of Maryland.

The decision will be reversed and the new FBI facility will be constructed in Springfield.

by whom?

Congress.

Try and keep up.

And how will Congress reverse the GSA decision to build the new FBI facility in Greenbelt?

[Anonymous]

The post Covid reality is we need to re think the removal of fed agencies from dc to the lowest, cheapest sites. If dc commercial real estate is now cheaper, and since many people are teleworking all or part of the week, it makes sense to strategically keep agencies in DC. I would prefer fbi, homeland security, justice etc be able to collaborate with in person meetings. It’s not going to be easy to sell the current fbi building in this market by the way. What does gsa plan to do with it? I’m assuming it will be demo.

[Anonymous]

The GSA official who chose the PG Greenbelt site owned by Metro formerly was in charge of Metro’s real estate portfolio. She’s recently gone to work for DC Mayor Bowser as her deputy mayor for planning and development, the same job that John Falcicchio held.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work for GSA PBS. I was not part of the final decision but know people who were. Nothing shady was going on and this was definitely bullet proof given the politics and need to get a new HQ for the customer (FBI) ASAP.

Wray is jockeying for more $ for his field offices in the region.

Maybe it wasn't shady but it sure looks bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The GSA official who chose the PG Greenbelt site owned by Metro formerly was in charge of Metro’s real estate portfolio. She’s recently gone to work for DC Mayor Bowser as her deputy mayor for planning and development, the same job that John Falcicchio held.

What do you think the quid pro quo is, here? Do you think the official holds stock in WMATA? Or that the mayor of DC offered her the job in return for her selection of a site in Maryland? Please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbelt location is $1B cheaper to build. Sorry, but a cost differential like that is going to be the determinant.

But by all means cry harder about NoVA.

Uh huh. Does that cost savings include the infrastructure requirements? Expanding the Wilson Bridge?

Anyway, all the criteria point towards Springfield. It was shenanigans that moved it to Greenbelt, not cost savings.

Who is crying? I don't prefer one place to another but I want what's best for the FBI. Not what's best for WMATA.

I'm sorry, but the Wilson Bridge does not need to be expanded for several thousand employees to cross the river and that's if all of the staff had to cross the river. But they don't There are about 10K employees and there are some that already live in MD and DC and would not be crossing from Virginia. Additionally, some of the Virginians will be taking the Metro since the Metro stop will be right across the parking lot from the new building. The Woodrow Wilson bridge handles about 250K cars daily. A few thousand more is not going to change much of anything.

No, it wasn't shenanigans to move it to Greenbelt. The GSA has now selected Greenbelt twice and a huge part of this is that it is impractical to relocate the existing government facilities on the Springfield location and it would cost the federal government $1B and several additional years to develop the Springfield site. The Hoover building is currently decaying and is not really safe for the employees to stay there. They need the building sooner, not 3 years later. And it's a waste of taxpayer money to spend all that extra money just because a few thousand people choose to live in Virginia instead of Maryland.

The decision will be reversed and the new FBI facility will be constructed in Springfield.

by whom?

Congress.

Try and keep up.

And how will Congress reverse the GSA decision to build the new FBI facility in Greenbelt?

Easy, in appropriations bills they write “None of these funds shall be used for the construction of FBI HQ” or something like that. But that’s not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GSA official who chose the PG Greenbelt site owned by Metro formerly was in charge of Metro’s real estate portfolio. She’s recently gone to work for DC Mayor Bowser as her deputy mayor for planning and development, the same job that John Falcicchio held.

What do you think the quid pro quo is, here? Do you think the official holds stock in WMATA? Or that the mayor of DC offered her the job in return for her selection of a site in Maryland? Please explain.

Siting the facility at Greenbelt helps DC by keeping jobs on the east side of the Potomac. Young FBI employees will choose to live in DC rather than suburban Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbelt location is $1B cheaper to build. Sorry, but a cost differential like that is going to be the determinant.

But by all means cry harder about NoVA.

Uh huh. Does that cost savings include the infrastructure requirements? Expanding the Wilson Bridge?

Anyway, all the criteria point towards Springfield. It was shenanigans that moved it to Greenbelt, not cost savings.

Who is crying? I don't prefer one place to another but I want what's best for the FBI. Not what's best for WMATA.

I'm sorry, but the Wilson Bridge does not need to be expanded for several thousand employees to cross the river and that's if all of the staff had to cross the river. But they don't There are about 10K employees and there are some that already live in MD and DC and would not be crossing from Virginia. Additionally, some of the Virginians will be taking the Metro since the Metro stop will be right across the parking lot from the new building. The Woodrow Wilson bridge handles about 250K cars daily. A few thousand more is not going to change much of anything.

No, it wasn't shenanigans to move it to Greenbelt. The GSA has now selected Greenbelt twice and a huge part of this is that it is impractical to relocate the existing government facilities on the Springfield location and it would cost the federal government $1B and several additional years to develop the Springfield site. The Hoover building is currently decaying and is not really safe for the employees to stay there. They need the building sooner, not 3 years later. And it's a waste of taxpayer money to spend all that extra money just because a few thousand people choose to live in Virginia instead of Maryland.

The decision will be reversed and the new FBI facility will be constructed in Springfield.

by whom?

Congress.

Try and keep up.

And how will Congress reverse the GSA decision to build the new FBI facility in Greenbelt?

Easy, in appropriations bills they write “None of these funds shall be used for the construction of FBI HQ” or something like that. But that’s not going to happen.

"Easy" is not the right word for getting agreement in Congress to withhold funding for construction of the new FBI HQ in the appropriations bill. Do they have the legal authority to do it? Yes. Will they be able to do it? Highly unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GSA official who chose the PG Greenbelt site owned by Metro formerly was in charge of Metro’s real estate portfolio. She’s recently gone to work for DC Mayor Bowser as her deputy mayor for planning and development, the same job that John Falcicchio held.

What do you think the quid pro quo is, here? Do you think the official holds stock in WMATA? Or that the mayor of DC offered her the job in return for her selection of a site in Maryland? Please explain.

Siting the facility at Greenbelt helps DC by keeping jobs on the east side of the Potomac. Young FBI employees will choose to live in DC rather than suburban Maryland.

I hope you didn't hurt your back contorting yourself to come up with that argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for GSA PBS. I was not part of the final decision but know people who were. Nothing shady was going on and this was definitely bullet proof given the politics and need to get a new HQ for the customer (FBI) ASAP.

Wray is jockeying for more $ for his field offices in the region.

Maybe it wasn't shady but it sure looks bad.

There is no way it isn't shady. She changed the criteria, vetoed the board, over rode the FBI, and gave the award to her former employer.

It's coming back.