Lawmakers Grill FBI, GSA Officials On Greenbelt Selection

The decision to relocate the FBI to Maryland was again under the microscope on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning.

Lawmakers pressed FBI and General Services Administration officials about the path to choosing the 40-acre WMATA-owned site in Greenbelt after the selection last month sparked backlash from Virginia lawmakers — and reportedly from the FBI itself. The GSA inspector general is also investigating the selection process, he announced in a Nov. 30 letter.

The GSA's newly appointed Public Buildings Service commissioner, Elliot Doomes, who previously led the agency's D.C.-area footprint, joined FBI Finance and Facilities Division Assistant Director Nicholas Dimos Tuesday testifying before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

Nina Albert, who served as PBS commissioner until October and now serves as D.C.'s acting deputy mayor for planning and economic development, was initially scheduled to appear Tuesday but wasn't able to attend. On the same day, D.C. officials were negotiating with the owner of the Wizards and Capitals to keep the teams from moving to Virginia. 

Doomes pushed back against assertions the GSA’s process in selecting the FBI headquarters was flawed or improperly influenced. He reiterated previous agency statements that it chose Greenbelt because it provided the best transportation access, the greatest certainty of project schedule and the lowest overall cost to taxpayers. 

“We consider this one of the most transparent site selection processes that GSA has ever been involved in,” Doomes testified.

It was the first time a congressional panel heard directly from the FBI since the decision and after The Washington Post reported that FBI Director Christopher Wray didn't accept the decision and sought to restart the process. 

Dimos said the agency doesn't object to the Greenbelt location but disagreed with how it was selected. He said that while the GSA and FBI worked together for the vast majority of the selection process, that changed near the end. 

“In the final weeks of the process, the FBI identified process concerns we were unable to resolve with GSA,” he said.

Among the concerns were the fact that Albert and the GSA diverged from the recommendations of a three-person panel and that the final decision didn't, in the agency's view, adhere to the criteria, Dimos said. 

“It is not easy nor do we take lightly that we have raised this area of disagreement,” he said. 

He said he didn't mean to suggest a lack of integrity on Albert's part. 

“However, for a decision of this magnitude, the process needs to be above reproach, and we continue to hold concerns about how the final stage of the process was conducted,” he said, adding that the FBI welcomes the inspector general's inquiry.

Lawmakers also raised questions about the fact that the GSA's decision went against the recommendation of the panel.

“We convened a panel to do this, and once they came up with a decision, then it was countermanded, which begs the question of why even have the panel,” Scott Perry, a Republican from Pennsylvania who serves as chairman of the committee, said in his opening statement. 

While the site selection plan allows the GSA's final decision to differ from the panel's, lawmakers pressed Doomes on how often that happens.

Doomes said that although the GSA doesn’t keep these exact records, the situation has occurred “a couple” of times in the last 25 years, including the decision to place Springfield among the three finalists in this same procurement process. 

“The site selection plan allowed for this divergence, but I can say that within the FBI’s own site procurement shop, this is exceedingly rare,” Dimos said.  

Lawmakers also questioned if there was any improper political pressure, including from the White House, on the final decision. 

Doomes testified that no one outside the agencies asked to change the decision. He also agreed to work with the committee to provide documentation on White House communications regarding the project, though he said he wasn't sure there were any. 

The issue of the GSA changing the selection criteria a few months before the announced selection was also a hot-button issue during the hearing, with lawmakers asking about the implications of those seemingly last-minute changes. 

“How did equity come to play a bigger role in this, and how does advancing equity allow us to advance the mission of the FBI? That’s what I’m not understanding,” Rep. Anthony D'Esposito of New York asked Dimos.  

Dimos pointed to executive orders from President Joe Biden to align real estate decisions with equity goals. 

But D'Esposito responded that the agency was “following bad executive orders in order to promote politics instead of the mission of the FBI.”

Dimos said the FBI’s opinion was that the previous selection criteria from September 2022 were superior to the revised criteria, but he said the agency deferred to the GSA’s judgment. 

In his opening testimony, Dimos also provided insight into just how bad the situation is at the J. Edgar Hoover Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. He said the building, which he called “failing,” has had instances of concrete falling on employee workspaces and equipment. He said pipes bursting and plumbing challenges are “commonplace” and have led to damaged records and “ever-present” power challenges.

This is the second congressional hearing since the FBI headquarters site was announced. GSA Administrator Robin Carnahan was pressed on the decision by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on Nov. 14. 

The next step in the process is for the GSA to release a prospectus on the FBI project for congressional approval, according to Doomes. The agency is required to share information consistent with the prospectus within 180 days of the site selection, Doomes said, which in this case was in September. Doomes said the GSA will comply with the law.