FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

Okay, so why change the pick to the more problematic (wetlands) site from the better-located (proximity to Quantico etc.) site? It's inexplicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

Okay, so why change the pick to the more problematic (wetlands) site from the better-located (proximity to Quantico etc.) site? It's inexplicable.

Cost and schedule. Remember the Greenbelt site was the original one selected. The reports people are posting are merely recommendations to inform decisions by political appointees. If you have a problem with it, elect a Republican.

[Anonymous]

This isn't happening in Greenbelt. Mark my words.

[Anonymous]

No way this gets changed after two rounds and Biden supporting the decision. It'll go to Greenbelt and the FBI will get some $ for field offices during the transition.

[Anonymous]

[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

How many times has a political appointee rejected a unanimous recommendation from an expert panel? If you’re really a GSA employee, I suspect you can answer this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

How many times has a political appointee rejected a unanimous recommendation from an expert panel? If you’re really a GSA employee, I suspect you can answer this.

Ashley Courthouse in Region 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't happening in Greenbelt. Mark my words.

A war in Ukraine, Middle East war, immigration, inflation, Trump, etc. All of these issues will overshadow public attention on the GSA's decision to build a new FBI HQ in 8 to 10 years. Even today, most people outside of DC don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

Okay, so why change the pick to the more problematic (wetlands) site from the better-located (proximity to Quantico etc.) site? It's inexplicable.

Cost and schedule. Remember the Greenbelt site was the original one selected. The reports people are posting are merely recommendations to inform decisions by political appointees. If you have a problem with it, elect a Republican.

But no, those were not the reasons given in the final decision.

You're just trying to make sense of something that makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

How can you possibly know that there was no corruption involved? The FBI Director has asserted that there was a conflict of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

How can you possibly know that there was no corruption involved? The FBI Director has asserted that there was a conflict of interest.

FBI Director has no say in these decisions. He's trying to keep his employees happy and to wrangle some $ for regional field offices in VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

Okay, so why change the pick to the more problematic (wetlands) site from the better-located (proximity to Quantico etc.) site? It's inexplicable.

Cost and schedule. Remember the Greenbelt site was the original one selected. The reports people are posting are merely recommendations to inform decisions by political appointees. If you have a problem with it, elect a Republican.

But no, those were not the reasons given in the final decision.

You're just trying to make sense of something that makes no sense.

Sounds like you're trying to justify an alternative outcome after a final outcome has been made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

How can you possibly know that there was no corruption involved? The FBI Director has asserted that there was a conflict of interest.

A conflict (or the appearance of a conflict) of interest does not necessarily mean corruption. It’s possible that Metro had a sympathetic ear in the process, or more likely that Hoyer had more political influence than the VA senators. That said, I’d bet that the process is reopened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People can name call and try and put down arguments they don’t agree with, but the fact of the matter is there are legitimate questions about how GSA handled itself during this process.

I’ll be interested to see what surfaces.

- MD resident

As an employee of the Public Buildings Service, this was a closely scrutinized process, there was no corrupt practices involved, our lawyers reviewed the decision thoroughly, and the Director of the FBI does not have authority to overrule or influence the decision. This will die down in 3 or so months when public attention focuses on something more interesting than federal procurement of buildings.

-VA resident

How can you possibly know that there was no corruption involved? The FBI Director has asserted that there was a conflict of interest.

A conflict (or the appearance of a conflict) of interest does not necessarily mean corruption. It’s possible that Metro had a sympathetic ear in the process, or more likely that Hoyer had more political influence than the VA senators. That said, I’d bet that the process is reopened.

Doubtful. -Springfield resident