FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

Being confident you are going to win <> "process is rigged".

It's like an athlete who's super confident they are going to win. Does that mean the refs were throwing the game for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

1 person making a decision of this magnitude is not good. Albert had a simplistic rating system from best to worst-blue, green, yellow. And some very subjective language in the written reports. Figure skating is more complex than FBI headquarters? Sorry to say but it's true. https://www.usfigureskating.org/about/scoring-system

The FBI is looking for a DC downtown site as well to house about 1000 employees so exactly what is going to Greenbelt? https://www.enr.com/articles/57548-fbi-to-build-new-headquarters-at-suburban-maryland-site Some basic facts Albert turned subjective:

1. Greenbelt has wetlands, is a triangular site, and has over 1.5 acres less buildable land than Springfield.
2. Both of those sites totaled 42 months to start time with fudged numbers on GSA Federal Govt relocating junk in warehouses. That includes used office furniture https://hallways.cap.gsa.gov/app/#/gateway/of...urniture-your-office
Back in 2014 GSA tried to remove the Springfield site from consideration because of the warehouses.
3. Distance to Quantico. Greenbelt is 60 miles from Quantico. Drive 30 miles on I95 past Springfield and then 30 more to Quantico
4. Quantico-Laboratory Division, Operational Technology Division, and FBI Academy. Key word is operational and mission critical Back office data centers etc can be anywhere and are in locations not in the DMV.
5. Greenbelt - Albert approached ths as the FBI equivalant to an anchor tenant for development like a Macys in a mall. Maryland looks at it as a jobs program for PG, Baltimore, Baltimore County etc? What about the current employees?
6. VA looks at it as operational efficiency for the FBI. Most advantageous for the government as concluded in a document signed by 3 on a panel. Criteria #1 decreased in importance due to politics. Criteria #1: FBI Proximity to Mission-Related Locations (subcriteria are of equal
importance).
1a- Springfield blue. Greenbelt yellow
1b-Springfield blue-Greenbelt yellow
1c- Springfield green- Greenbelt yellow- Landover blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

The rules were changed in the middle of the process to benefit the Greenbelt site. The FBI director chooses his words carefully. If the process had been satisfactory, he would accept the result.

I bet he would've complained about something. People who lose always complain about the "process" after the fact. Look at the OH GOP who are trying to block the will of the people, or Jan 6 insurrectionists.

[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.

Shouldn't the customer's (FBI) needs come first? The FBI has a very important mission for national security and law enforcement.

FBI location in Greenbelt doesn't really impact their mission. FBI used to have a Rockville site a few years ago. A friend used to work at that site.

Taxpayers are footing this bill. The government isn't a private company that serves the will of the agency head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This decision will be reversed. The FBI will headquarter in Springfield.

Like how the 2020 election will be reversed and Trump will be POTUS soon, very soon, they're saying.

[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.

Shouldn't the customer's (FBI) needs come first? The FBI has a very important mission for national security and law enforcement.

FBI location in Greenbelt doesn't really impact their mission. FBI used to have a Rockville site a few years ago. A friend used to work at that site.

Taxpayers are footing this bill. The government isn't a private company that serves the will of the agency head.

We're talking about the main building here, not another satellite office.

The main FBI building. There will be daily visits there by lawmakers. This isn't just another building.

Read all the docs if you are going to hang your hat on cost. So that you'll know what taxpayers are footing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This decision will be reversed. The FBI will headquarter in Springfield.

Like how the 2020 election will be reversed and Trump will be POTUS soon, very soon, they're saying.

The reverse, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

The rules were changed in the middle of the process to benefit the Greenbelt site. The FBI director chooses his words carefully. If the process had been satisfactory, he would accept the result.

What this leaves out is that the initial criteria was set out to unfairly benefit the Springfield site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

1 person making a decision of this magnitude is not good. Albert had a simplistic rating system from best to worst-blue, green, yellow. And some very subjective language in the written reports. Figure skating is more complex than FBI headquarters? Sorry to say but it's true. https://www.usfigureskating.org/about/scoring-system

The FBI is looking for a DC downtown site as well to house about 1000 employees so exactly what is going to Greenbelt? https://www.enr.com/articles/57548-fbi-to-build-new-headquarters-at-suburban-maryland-site Some basic facts Albert turned subjective:

1. Greenbelt has wetlands, is a triangular site, and has over 1.5 acres less buildable land than Springfield.
2. Both of those sites totaled 42 months to start time with fudged numbers on GSA Federal Govt relocating junk in warehouses. That includes used office furniture https://hallways.cap.gsa.gov/app/#/gateway/of...urniture-your-office
Back in 2014 GSA tried to remove the Springfield site from consideration because of the warehouses.
3. Distance to Quantico. Greenbelt is 60 miles from Quantico. Drive 30 miles on I95 past Springfield and then 30 more to Quantico
4. Quantico-Laboratory Division, Operational Technology Division, and FBI Academy. Key word is operational and mission critical Back office data centers etc can be anywhere and are in locations not in the DMV.
5. Greenbelt - Albert approached ths as the FBI equivalant to an anchor tenant for development like a Macys in a mall. Maryland looks at it as a jobs program for PG, Baltimore, Baltimore County etc? What about the current employees?
6. VA looks at it as operational efficiency for the FBI. Most advantageous for the government as concluded in a document signed by 3 on a panel. Criteria #1 decreased in importance due to politics. Criteria #1: FBI Proximity to Mission-Related Locations (subcriteria are of equal
importance).
1a- Springfield blue. Greenbelt yellow
1b-Springfield blue-Greenbelt yellow
1c- Springfield green- Greenbelt yellow- Landover blue.

Good Post.

Regarding #5: You are absolutely correct. Maryland is unable to attract and grow jobs on its own, so it must prey on the federal government for any meaningful economic growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

The rules were changed in the middle of the process to benefit the Greenbelt site. The FBI director chooses his words carefully. If the process had been satisfactory, he would accept the result.

What this leaves out is that the initial criteria was set out to unfairly benefit the Springfield site.

Y'all just can't admit that Quantico is in Virginia. That's where it is and it's not moving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

1 person making a decision of this magnitude is not good. Albert had a simplistic rating system from best to worst-blue, green, yellow. And some very subjective language in the written reports. Figure skating is more complex than FBI headquarters? Sorry to say but it's true. https://www.usfigureskating.org/about/scoring-system

The FBI is looking for a DC downtown site as well to house about 1000 employees so exactly what is going to Greenbelt? https://www.enr.com/articles/57548-fbi-to-build-new-headquarters-at-suburban-maryland-site Some basic facts Albert turned subjective:

1. Greenbelt has wetlands, is a triangular site, and has over 1.5 acres less buildable land than Springfield.
2. Both of those sites totaled 42 months to start time with fudged numbers on GSA Federal Govt relocating junk in warehouses. That includes used office furniture https://hallways.cap.gsa.gov/app/#/gateway/of...urniture-your-office
Back in 2014 GSA tried to remove the Springfield site from consideration because of the warehouses.
3. Distance to Quantico. Greenbelt is 60 miles from Quantico. Drive 30 miles on I95 past Springfield and then 30 more to Quantico
4. Quantico-Laboratory Division, Operational Technology Division, and FBI Academy. Key word is operational and mission critical Back office data centers etc can be anywhere and are in locations not in the DMV.
5. Greenbelt - Albert approached ths as the FBI equivalant to an anchor tenant for development like a Macys in a mall. Maryland looks at it as a jobs program for PG, Baltimore, Baltimore County etc? What about the current employees?
6. VA looks at it as operational efficiency for the FBI. Most advantageous for the government as concluded in a document signed by 3 on a panel. Criteria #1 decreased in importance due to politics. Criteria #1: FBI Proximity to Mission-Related Locations (subcriteria are of equal
importance).
1a- Springfield blue. Greenbelt yellow
1b-Springfield blue-Greenbelt yellow
1c- Springfield green- Greenbelt yellow- Landover blue.

Good Post.

Regarding #5: You are absolutely correct. Maryland is unable to attract and grow jobs on its own, so it must prey on the federal government for any meaningful economic growth.

How exactly does this boost growth for PG relative to NoVa or Montgomery? PG already has more fed buildings and more fed jobs than Fairfax. Did the fed complex in Suitland spur any growth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

Being confident you are going to win <> "process is rigged".

It's like an athlete who's super confident they are going to win. Does that mean the refs were throwing the game for them?

I am just going by what he said. His own words. A gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Maybe his staff can "clarify" for him. Cardin's Senate colleagues in Virginia are outraged by the process and decision.

[Anonymous]

Even if the FBI builds in Greenbelt, the PG economy will not benefit absent the Starbucks closest to the facility. FBI employees, especially GS-14 and above, live in PG County? No, everyone who can afford to live closer will choose AA or Howard counties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

1 person making a decision of this magnitude is not good. Albert had a simplistic rating system from best to worst-blue, green, yellow. And some very subjective language in the written reports. Figure skating is more complex than FBI headquarters? Sorry to say but it's true. https://www.usfigureskating.org/about/scoring-system

You don’t know anything about government operations if you think one person ever gets to unilaterally make these types of decisions. The final memo itself was signed by Albert and the GSA General Counsel. They knew this was a controversial decision and I’m sure many, many people voiced their approval before this was signed by those two figureheads.

Further, the “three person panel” y’all are crying about ALSO used a blue-green-yellow rating system. But again, this isn’t about the “process,” it’s about an outcome you don’t like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

1 person making a decision of this magnitude is not good. Albert had a simplistic rating system from best to worst-blue, green, yellow. And some very subjective language in the written reports. Figure skating is more complex than FBI headquarters? Sorry to say but it's true. https://www.usfigureskating.org/about/scoring-system

You don’t know anything about government operations if you think one person ever gets to unilaterally make these types of decisions. The final memo itself was signed by Albert and the GSA General Counsel. They knew this was a controversial decision and I’m sure many, many people voiced their approval before this was signed by those two figureheads.

Further, the “three person panel” y’all are crying about ALSO used a blue-green-yellow rating system. But again, this isn’t about the “process,” it’s about an outcome you don’t like.

Look at the process, then come back to us.