Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think both are really good locations. I think it should go to Greenbelt though. The plan there is just better. I also think it's time for the government to put more in PG.
I think the Greenbelt location is better too. The one thing that will probably kill it though is that a ton of high level FBI brass live in Northern Virginia around McLean, Fairfax, Arlington and Vienna. Some live in Montgomery County, but hardly any live in PG county. I can see them trying to steer it to Springfield if the bids are close to avoid a longer commute. Those guys all drive.
Greenbelt is only 12 or so miles from the FBI's current location. Proximity to those other agencies really isn't an issue from locations within or near the Beltway, which was why being near the Beltway was a requirement. There are more compelling arguments other than proximity to defense agencies.
The same goes for airports. Drop a flag anywhere within the Beltway and the relative distance is negligible. Especially near mass transit options.
Inside the Beltway, within 5 minute walk to the Metro, shovel ready, proximity to NSA, BWI, and DC. Greenbelt wins.
I don't see any reason not to choose PG county and hope they do.
I think the Greenbelt location is better too. The one thing that will probably kill it though is that a ton of high level FBI brass live in Northern Virginia around McLean, Fairfax, Arlington and Vienna. Some live in Montgomery County, but hardly any live in PG county. I can see them trying to steer it to Springfield if the bids are close to avoid a longer commute. Those guys all drive.
Just because high level brass may live in one concentrated area doesn't mean the GSA will automatically choose that area. There would be no need for the GSA if agency executives can choose where they want entire agencies with thousands of employees to go for their own convenience.
Even if a majority of FBI executives live in NoVa, do we expect them to remain at the FBI for the next 30 years? Where agency heads live has little bearing on where the GSA decides to put the FBI. Remember these are bureaucratic civil servants, not CEOs of private companies who can yank up their operations and put them where they want at any time. The FBI still has to answer to the GSA and the GSA has to answer to congress and the current administration.
I know people want it to be as simple as locating where the agency heads are located, but we all know that is not the case. Especially when agency heads are appointed on a regular basis. What if the next administration picks an FBI director that lives in Baltimore and he brings in people from DC and MD? Then what?
Just because high level brass may live in one concentrated area doesn't mean the GSA will automatically choose that area. There would be no need for the GSA if agency executives can choose where they want entire agencies with thousands of employees to go for their own convenience.
You are missing my point. If Greenbelt is the clear winner on the metrics, it will win. If it is close, the senior leadership of the agency has a tremendous amount of influence. They aren't going to say, hey, I don't want a big commute and neither do my lieutenants and I am afraid they are going to quit to work at some big law or security firm if I double their commute.
All the bids will have strengths and weaknesses and he'll just provide input that highlights the weaknesses of the places he doesn't like and highlight the strengths of the places he likes. They do have a big say in where an agency goes and how their requirements are met.
Comey is on a 10 year term. He has a vested interest on where the FBI headquarters will be. If Springfield is totally inadequate, he won't push for it. But if there isn't a big difference, human nature kicks in and the selfish desire to avoid a pain in the butt commute is often the result. Comey may care, he might not. Just don't be surprised if Springfield gets picked.
You are missing my point. If Greenbelt is the clear winner on the metrics, it will win. If it is close, the senior leadership of the agency has a tremendous amount of influence. They aren't going to say, hey, I don't want a big commute and neither do my lieutenants and I am afraid they are going to quit to work at some big law or security firm if I double their commute.
All the bids will have strengths and weaknesses and he'll just provide input that highlights the weaknesses of the places he doesn't like and highlight the strengths of the places he likes. They do have a big say in where an agency goes and how their requirements are met.
Comey is on a 10 year term. He has a vested interest on where the FBI headquarters will be. If Springfield is totally inadequate, he won't push for it. But if there isn't a big difference, human nature kicks in and the selfish desire to avoid a pain in the butt commute is often the result. Comey may care, he might not. Just don't be surprised if Springfield gets picked.
Agreed!! That is government 101. Low level employees do not have much influence at all, especially when it comes to major decisions. The government is very much about who you know than what you know. If there are high level people that do not want the agency to move to a certain facility, their opinion carries weight. Even though the GSA will make this decision they are surely going to ask FBI for their opinion and most high level government management do not go below their pay grade for opinions.
You are missing my point. If Greenbelt is the clear winner on the metrics, it will win. If it is close, the senior leadership of the agency has a tremendous amount of influence. They aren't going to say, hey, I don't want a big commute and neither do my lieutenants and I am afraid they are going to quit to work at some big law or security firm if I double their commute.
All the bids will have strengths and weaknesses and he'll just provide input that highlights the weaknesses of the places he doesn't like and highlight the strengths of the places he likes. They do have a big say in where an agency goes and how their requirements are met.
Comey is on a 10 year term. He has a vested interest on where the FBI headquarters will be. If Springfield is totally inadequate, he won't push for it. But if there isn't a big difference, human nature kicks in and the selfish desire to avoid a pain in the butt commute is often the result. Comey may care, he might not. Just don't be surprised if Springfield gets picked.
I disagree. I don't think a person or persons who only have 10 years invested in an agency gets to choose where that agency will locate for the next 50 years. I think that's why leases are the purview of the GSA and not federal employees at an agency who may or may not be employed at that agency for the entire lease term, which is usually more than a few decades.
If the two sites are equal in terms of qualifications, I'm still not sure Comey can sway the GSA or Congress based on his or his lieutenant's commute time. Especially when he or his lieutenants won't be at the FBI for the next 50 years. Comey's 10 year term at the FBI, which started last September, will be up before or just as the new FBI facility is completed. The decision to go with a site won't be made until 2016. Then there is the planning process that could take another two years. Then construction of a major facility like that could take up to 5 years. So, how much should his desire for a shorter commute weigh if he only has to commute to the new facility for a a year or two at the most?
I do agree that they can provide input on the security requirements for the new site. They are the experts in that field. But I feel they have little say on location unless that location can't meet their security requirements at the very least.
I will be very surprised if Springfield gets the FBI. The GSA made a very clear statement giving MD a 66% chance of landing the FBI (2 out of 3 sites). I think it is up to Springfield to convince them otherwise. If you feel the FBI has just as much say, then the FBI also gave MD a 66% chance. That speaks volumes.
I disagree. I don't think a person or persons who only have 10 years invested in an agency gets to choose where that agency will locate for the next 50 years. I think that's why leases are the purview of the GSA and not federal employees at an agency who may or may not be employed at that agency for the entire lease term, which is usually more than a few decades.
If the two sites are equal in terms of qualifications, I'm still not sure Comey can sway the GSA or Congress based on his or his lieutenant's commute time. Especially when he or his lieutenants won't be at the FBI for the next 50 years. Comey's 10 year term at the FBI, which started last September, will be up before or just as the new FBI facility is completed. The decision to go with a site won't be made until 2016. Then there is the planning process that could take another two years. Then construction of a major facility like that could take up to 5 years. So, how much should his desire for a shorter commute weigh if he only has to commute to the new facility for a a year or two at the most?
I do agree that they can provide input on the security requirements for the new site. They are the experts in that field. But I feel they have little say on location unless that location can't meet their security requirements at the very least.
I will be very surprised if Springfield gets the FBI. The GSA made a very clear statement giving MD a 66% chance of landing the FBI (2 out of 3 sites). I think it is up to Springfield to convince them otherwise. If you feel the FBI has just as much say, then the FBI also gave MD a 66% chance. That speaks volumes.
Sheesh! Comey IS NOT GOING TO SAY move to Virginia because he wants it for the commute or otherwise. He, nor anyone at the FBI, is a complete idiot.
If he wants the FBI HQ in Springfield, he just starts to emphasize legitimate negative issues with the other proposals and minimizes similar negative issues with the Springfield proposal. This can distort how the proposals are rated, and IF THEY ARE CLOSE, can tip it in the favor of Springfield.
My cynical OPINION, is simply the brass doesn't want a longer commute, and if they were going to push for one location over another, it would be Springfield. Not that the FBI is going to actually use it as a legitimate factor. They'll use some other excuse.
Anyone would be highly naive to think that the FBI brass doesn't have a huge say that the decision rests how a bunch of a middle managers in the GSA assess points for each factor. I am not saying that is right or wrong (actually it is wrong), but that is how the game is played in politics.
I saw a very similar thing happen years ago when an office lost its lease in Crystal City and the GSA initially proposed a site in Manassas that the brass of that office went ballistic over. The next round the Manassas and the Tyson's sites were eliminated and replaced by reupping in Crystal City or moving to Alexandria with basically no explanation. We knew the real reason was the head of the office put an extreme amount of a political pressure on the GSA and called it chits to make it happen.
I saw a very similar thing happen years ago when an office lost its lease in Crystal City and the GSA initially proposed a site in Manassas that the brass of that office went ballistic over. The next round the Manassas and the Tyson's sites were eliminated and replaced by reupping in Crystal City or moving to Alexandria with basically no explanation. We knew the real reason was the head of the office put an extreme amount of a political pressure on the GSA and called it chits to make it happen.
I agree that brass has some influence. But I still wonder how much. I think this particular move, given the number of employees, the amount of press, the attention of high-level politicians, and the economic impact to an entire region, would cast a very bright spotlight on the decisions of Comey and his brass. Their preferences would have to be pretty convincing to sway the GSA either way and not be called out as BS. I don't think they have that leverage to sway the decision unless the location puts undue stress and hardship on a majority of those affected by the move. Who knows what that majority looks like and how severe is that majority affected?
It reminds me of a similar move by the Treasury Department from Hyattsville, MD to WV. Which is MUCH farther than the 12 or so miles the FBI would move either to Springfield or Greenbelt.
My thinking is that whatever chips Comey and his brass put in, they were for MD. Two out of the three sites are in MD. Not much has been in the press about any reaction negative or otherwise out of the FBI about that selection.
It will be interesting to see public reaction to whichever site is chosen and if that has any bearing. I'm not sure if I can come up an example of when public opinion swayed any GSA decision.
Last edited by adelphi_sky; 08-15-2014 at 02:04 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
