FBI HQ in PG!

[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.

Again I ask you to explain the supposed “shadiness.”

[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.

Umm. Doesn't this just mean that she has a lot of expertise in real estate for public agencies? It doesn't make sense that she would steer it owards Metro's property just because she worked there, who cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

So she knew all of this but the board and everyone involved before her didn't consider any of it when they came up with the criteria?

The government decides on a project, comes up with criteria, and moves forward. Changing the criteria at the last minute is corrupt. Wray properly made it public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

So she knew all of this but the board and everyone involved before her didn't consider any of it when they came up with the criteria?

The government decides on a project, comes up with criteria, and moves forward. Changing the criteria at the last minute is corrupt. Wray properly made it public.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing continues to be a mess.

Nina Albert’s unilateral move to reverse the the GSA board’s decision on Springfield — even if legal — will cause a Congressional investigation. Given that this issue is already a political football on Capitol Hill and Congress has to appropriate funds, it’s fair to predict a few things will happen:

1) Further delay in any finalized plan.
2) Relocation of some FBI operations currently at HQ to other cities in order gain support from key members of Congress.

The bottom line is that there’s a very low probability Maryland ultimately gets all the FBI jobs currently in DC that will move with the new HQ. The best Greenbelt can realistically hope for is a smaller HQ. And there’s risk that MD could get nothing at all when this all comes out of the political wash.

This +1

[Anonymous]

[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

So she knew all of this but the board and everyone involved before her didn't consider any of it when they came up with the criteria?

The government decides on a project, comes up with criteria, and moves forward. Changing the criteria at the last minute is corrupt. Wray properly made it public.

+1

+2

It’s funny how some people (presumably MD boosters) have rapidly become the most ardent defenders of GSA processes in GSA’s history.

I happen to live in MD and think this whole thing smells bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

Is appears that the GSA’s defensive spinning was “shovel ready”!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

Is appears that the GSA’s defensive spinning was “shovel ready”!

How is it shovel ready? GSA doesn’t own the land yet.

[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.

Look like a political favor to Hoyer and a big financial favor to Metro. No particular upside for DC, but would observe Bowser’s track record for her DMPED appointments raises questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

Is appears that the GSA’s defensive spinning was “shovel ready”!

How is it shovel ready? GSA doesn’t own the land yet.

What’s clearly shovel ready is the BS from GSA.

[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.

Look like a political favor to Hoyer and a big financial favor to Metro. No particular upside for DC, but would observe Bowser’s track record for her DMPED appointments raises questions.

More contortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look like a political favor to Hoyer and a big financial favor to Metro. No particular upside for DC, but would observe Bowser’s track record for her DMPED appointments raises questions.

More contortions.

Bowser knows how to pick ‘em.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

So she knew all of this but the board and everyone involved before her didn't consider any of it when they came up with the criteria?

The government decides on a project, comes up with criteria, and moves forward. Changing the criteria at the last minute is corrupt. Wray properly made it public.

Wray is another poliical appointee and he has his own agenda. He has been opposed to the FBI moving out of DC since he was appointed. He has made no bones about his opposition to moving out of DC for years. He is transparent. He was going to object to any of the locations. His entire end goal is that the FBI is not going to leave DC on his watch. So, by doing this, he's delayed the process longer because there will be an IG and Congressional review. With everything on Congress' plate, this is not going to be fast. And, if Springfield gets selected, that adds another 2-3 years before they can even start the new construction. Greenbelt was his least favorite, because the site is ready to go. They can begin digging on that site as soon as they can get a contractor. The initial designs were already made and submitted with the proposal. Greenbelt could start within months. Springfield would not start for at least 3 years. All of this means that he is more likely to keep the FBI in DC until he is replaced and that is his only goal. If you think he cares are anything else, you have not been paying attentiont to the man for the last 6 years.

[Anonymous]

Will the J. Edgar Hoover honorary name transfer to the new FBI HQ?