FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

And then, as soon as she made the decision, she immediately left the federal government.

Curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

This is a very helpful explanation for those of us who don’t know the process. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

And then, as soon as she made the decision, she immediately left the federal government.

Curious.

I wonder why this is curious? It would be curious if she left to go somewhere with a vested interest in the FBI decision, but she went to the D.C. government.

The GSA counsel signed off on her decision. I assume this means that it was legally defensible. GSA management also approved the decision. No one in the government just makes decisions all by themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

This is a very helpful explanation for those of us who don’t know the process. Thank you.

Nah. The decision is supposed to be clear, transparent. Government decisions should be reliable, dependable.
Not opaque and giving the appearance of something untoward.

PP didn't describe how the process is supposed to go.

[Anonymous]

It's the best deal for taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

And then, as soon as she made the decision, she immediately left the federal government.

Curious.

I wonder why this is curious? It would be curious if she left to go somewhere with a vested interest in the FBI decision, but she went to the D.C. government.

The GSA counsel signed off on her decision. I assume this means that it was legally defensible. GSA management also approved the decision. No one in the government just makes decisions all by themselves.

Just like the GSA okayed the Trump Hotel? They're not looking good lately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

And then, as soon as she made the decision, she immediately left the federal government.

Curious.

Also wonder why you think this is curious. People typically continue to work and fulfill their employment obligations up until their last day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

Is it 25 million dollars or is it a billion dollars? Where are these numbers coming from? And in terms of “rounding errors,” isn’t it more likely that it will be way MORE than 25 million dollars? Isn’t that how construction goes? And if it were your company, wouldn’t you rather NOT pay 25 million dollars extra?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

Is it 25 million dollars or is it a billion dollars? Where are these numbers coming from? And in terms of “rounding errors,” isn’t it more likely that it will be way MORE than 25 million dollars? Isn’t that how construction goes? And if it were your company, wouldn’t you rather NOT pay 25 million dollars extra?

Estimated costs are 26 million for Greenbelt, 64 million for Springfield and over 100 million for Landover. So about 40 million more for Springfield.

Springfield has about twice the amount of buildable space. No idea how large the building needs to be but future expansion could be limited at Greenbelt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

That is not the biggest concern - shouldn't the biggest concern (heavily weighted criteria) be the best location for the agency?

NOPE. One BILLION dollars is actually too much to spend just so a group of people get to to have exactly what they want with someone else's money. There is not an unlimited supply of money and would be a very imprudent waste of taxpayer dollars. Yes, the Virginians will have to commute farther to work in Greenbelt, but that is not and should not be a top criteria for the site selection. One billion dollars is not worth that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

Is it 25 million dollars or is it a billion dollars? Where are these numbers coming from? And in terms of “rounding errors,” isn’t it more likely that it will be way MORE than 25 million dollars? Isn’t that how construction goes? And if it were your company, wouldn’t you rather NOT pay 25 million dollars extra?

$25M is the cost to demo the existing warehouses and prep the site for construction.

The $1B estimate includes the cost estimates for the agencies in those 16 warehouses to relocate. In some of the instances, they have specially configured and constructed the warehouses to a design for what is stored there. Several of the agencies have said that to move out of the warehouses, they would need to relocate to a place where they could set up the same custom configuration to store what is being moved. So the cost of finding a site, acquiring it, building the new facilities to store the government property properly and relocating add up, especially when you are dealing with multiple agencies and multiple requirements. This is not a trivial or inexpensive task to move these folks out.

The people from Virginia think it's like calling your college buddies to come and help you move the basement furniture. But it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

I'm pretty sure that if you asked taxpayers the question: "Do you think the government should choose a building option that would save taxpayers $40mil?", most people, especially conservatives would say yes.

Telling taxpayers that the government made a decision based on what a government employee, and one that was appointed at that, wanted rather than what was the best use of taxpayer money would not go over well.

I'm fairly certain that in a different scenario, if they had chosen MD over VA and the cost of building in MD was going to be more than double, lots of VA people would be up in arms over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

Is it 25 million dollars or is it a billion dollars? Where are these numbers coming from? And in terms of “rounding errors,” isn’t it more likely that it will be way MORE than 25 million dollars? Isn’t that how construction goes? And if it were your company, wouldn’t you rather NOT pay 25 million dollars extra?

$25M is the cost to demo the existing warehouses and prep the site for construction.

The $1B estimate includes the cost estimates for the agencies in those 16 warehouses to relocate. In some of the instances, they have specially configured and constructed the warehouses to a design for what is stored there. Several of the agencies have said that to move out of the warehouses, they would need to relocate to a place where they could set up the same custom configuration to store what is being moved. So the cost of finding a site, acquiring it, building the new facilities to store the government property properly and relocating add up, especially when you are dealing with multiple agencies and multiple requirements. This is not a trivial or inexpensive task to move these folks out.

The people from Virginia think it's like calling your college buddies to come and help you move the basement furniture. But it's not.

One of the GSA reports noted that the Springfield site was the best because it is already owned whereas the other sites would need to be purchased. Hmm.