FBI HQ in PG!

[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.

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.

Oh please. It was not Wray who kept the FBI in DC - that was Trump. For purely venal unpresidential reasons.

[Anonymous]

The funny thing is that Albert's antics ensured Maryland will not get the deal.

It's gonna be great watching this blow up in her face.

[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.

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.

GSA’s own assessment is that construction would not begin at Greenbelt for 42 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Oh please. It was not Wray who kept the FBI in DC - that was Trump. For purely venal unpresidential reasons.

Really?

https://cnsmaryland.org/2022/04/29/selection-process-for-new-fbi-headquarters-back-on-track-and-maryland-has-two-sites/

BY ASHKAN MOTAMEDI - APRIL 29, 2022

[...]

“It’s been known for quite some time that Director (Christopher) Wray doesn’t want to move,” Connolly said. “One director does not get to make this kind of decision, nor does he get to circumvent the law.”

Wray's appointment will last until Fall 2027, another 4 years. His end goal is that the FBI stays in DC until his term is over. If they went ahead with Greenbelt, he would likely be moving into that building before his term was over. Springfield, there is no chance. Plus just forcing a Congressional review and getting them to return to the drawnig board would achieve his goal of staying downtown until his term is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Oh please. It was not Wray who kept the FBI in DC - that was Trump. For purely venal unpresidential reasons.

Really?

https://cnsmaryland.org/2022/04/29/selection-process-for-new-fbi-headquarters-back-on-track-and-maryland-has-two-sites/

BY ASHKAN MOTAMEDI - APRIL 29, 2022

[...]

“It’s been known for quite some time that Director (Christopher) Wray doesn’t want to move,” Connolly said. “One director does not get to make this kind of decision, nor does he get to circumvent the law.”

Wray's appointment will last until Fall 2027, another 4 years. His end goal is that the FBI stays in DC until his term is over. If they went ahead with Greenbelt, he would likely be moving into that building before his term was over. Springfield, there is no chance. Plus just forcing a Congressional review and getting them to return to the drawnig board would achieve his goal of staying downtown until his term is over.

The Greenbelt HQ will not be finished by 2027. They might not even break ground by then. Wray is putting the agency first and cares more about agency operations than metro or equity in the region.

[Anonymous]

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

I sure hope not.

[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.

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 political 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.

From the previous administration, too.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good point. If the stares leaders don't support the FBI, then why should they locate to that state?

I'm fine to let VA have all the traffic and gridlock they want.

[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.

Steny Hoyer? What exactly would her relationship to Steny Hoyer be? Like there’s no evidence of that. Metro? I’m sorry this just doesn’t hold up.

[Anonymous]

While I think that Greenbelt was the best site of the three options, I've lived through an agency relocation from the District to the suburbs and it can be extremely disruptive to the lives of employees. I'm sure they could have found a suitable building in the District, but I'm guessing the security hawks insisted on things like setbacks and perimeter fencing that made that impossible (all of which is silly when you actually know what most HQ staff do).

[Anonymous]

This seems like a red herring. There is no vested interest in Nina Albert awarding this to Greenbelt, and the fact is, outside of DC, it is the best option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a red herring. There is no vested interest in Nina Albert awarding this to Greenbelt, and the fact is, outside of DC, it is the best option.

The strange thing about it is, outside of DC, Springfield is the best option. So why did she change it and pick Greenbelt instead? There doesn't seem to be a vested interest anywhere. So what was she doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Oh please. It was not Wray who kept the FBI in DC - that was Trump. For purely venal unpresidential reasons.

Really?

https://cnsmaryland.org/2022/04/29/selection-process-for-new-fbi-headquarters-back-on-track-and-maryland-has-two-sites/

BY ASHKAN MOTAMEDI - APRIL 29, 2022

[...]

“It’s been known for quite some time that Director (Christopher) Wray doesn’t want to move,” Connolly said. “One director does not get to make this kind of decision, nor does he get to circumvent the law.”

Wray's appointment will last until Fall 2027, another 4 years. His end goal is that the FBI stays in DC until his term is over. If they went ahead with Greenbelt, he would likely be moving into that building before his term was over. Springfield, there is no chance. Plus just forcing a Congressional review and getting them to return to the drawnig board would achieve his goal of staying downtown until his term is over.

Absolutely no way the building would be complete in 2027. Even if everyone accepted the decision and there were no hearings or exposes on the whole process or lack thereof, a contract still has to be awarded and that’s only step one. And, who knows what kind of delays they’ll run into in the construction. 2027 is optimistic even if the process went forward smoothly with no delays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a red herring. There is no vested interest in Nina Albert awarding this to Greenbelt, and the fact is, outside of DC, it is the best option.

The strange thing about it is, outside of DC, Springfield is the best option. So why did she change it and pick Greenbelt instead? There doesn't seem to be a vested interest anywhere. So what was she doing?

Apparently not, though.