[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN THE FEDERAL GOV-
                  ERNMENT: AN EXAMINATION OF GSA'S SITE 
                  SELECTION FOR THE FBI HEADQUARTERS

=======================================================================

                                (118-37)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 
                              EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           DECEMBER 12, 2023

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]             


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                             
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-355 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
 Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking 
              Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  District of Columbia               Arkansas
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Daniel Webster, Florida
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Thomas Massie, Kentucky
John Garamendi, California           Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaian Babin, Texas
Andre Carson, Indiana                Garret Graves, Louisiana
Dina Titus, Nevada                   David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California           Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey     Brian J. Mast, Florida
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Salud O. Carbajal, California          Puerto Rico
Greg Stanton, Arizona,               Pete Stauber, Minnesota
  Vice Ranking Member                Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Colin Z. Allred, Texas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois     Vice Chairman
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Tracey Mann, Kansas
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      Burgess Owens, Utah
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Patrick Ryan, New York               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska         Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 John James, Michigan
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
                                     Mike Collins, Georgia
                                     Mike Ezell, Mississippi
                                     John S. Duarte, California
                                     Aaron Bean, Florida
                                     Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Vacancy
                                ------                                7

      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                          Emergency Management

    Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman
Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Garret Graves, Louisiana
  District of Columbia               Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Sharice Davids, Kansas,                Puerto Rico
  Vice Ranking Member                Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon,
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana              Vice Chairman
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Anthony D'Esposito, New York
John Garamendi, California           Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................     v

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
  Management, opening statement..................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, 
  opening statement..............................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7

                               WITNESSES

Elliot D. Doomes, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. 
  General Services Administration, oral statement................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    10
Nicholas Dimos, Assistant Director, Finance and Facilities 
  Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, oral statement......    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    15

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Elliot D. Doomes, Commissioner, Public Buildings 
  Service, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Rick 
  Larsen.........................................................    39
Questions to Nicholas Dimos, Assistant Director, Finance and 
  Facilities Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, from Hon. 
  Rick Larsen....................................................    40

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            December 8, 2023

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Ensuring Transparency 
in the Federal Government: An Examination of GSA's Site 
Selection for the FBI Headquarters''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, 
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure will meet on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, at 
10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to 
receive testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Ensuring 
Transparency in the Federal Government: An Examination of GSA's 
Site Selection for the FBI Headquarters.'' The purpose of the 
hearing is to examine the history of the new Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) Headquarters, the site selection process, 
and next steps. Participants will include the General Services 
Administration (GSA), the FBI, and former GSA Public Buildings 
Commissioner, Nina Albert.

                             II. BACKGROUND

    The pursuit for a new FBI Headquarters (HQ) building dates 
back more than 15 years, but the current plan can be traced to 
2011 with the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) 
Committee adopting a resolution directing GSA to do a building 
project survey report on the ``feasibility and need to 
construct or acquire a replacement consolidated headquarters 
facility to house the FBI in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan 
region.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ GSA Capitol Investment Leasing Program Resolution, S. EPW Comm. 
(July 13, 2011) (on file with Comm.) [hereinafter GSA Resolution].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The resolution was adopted pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3315(b), 
which authorizes Senate EPW and the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I or Committee) to direct 
GSA to produce a prospectus for consideration, effectively 
allowing the Committees to initiate specific projects.\2\ The 
resolution further directed GSA to identify alternative 
strategies, including strategies to leverage the value of the 
existing FBI HQ's building.\3\ In response, in 2011, both the 
FBI and GSA submitted separate proposals for a new FBI HQ.\4\ 
GSA recommended traditional Federal construction, which would 
require access to the full cost of construction upfront.\5\ The 
FBI, noting the unlikelihood of a large amount of funds 
becoming available, proposed a lease/lease-back arrangement in 
which the Federal Government would ground lease land to a 
private developer who would build the facility and lease back 
to the Federal Government.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  3315(b).
    \3\ GSA Resolution, supra note 1.
    \4\ GSA, Report No. BDC-13001, Report of Building Project Survey 
Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Consolidation Washington, 
DC, Metropolitan Region (Oct. 17, 2011); FBI, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Headquarters Consolidation Project Report (Aug. 2011).
    \5\ GSA, Report No. BDC-13001, Report of Building Project Survey 
Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Consolidation Washington, 
DC, Metropolitan Region (Oct. 17, 2011).
    \6\ FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Consolidation 
Project Report (Aug. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FBI's justification for a new building included that in 
2011, just 52 percent of headquarters staff were housed in the 
J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) FBI Building with the remainder in 20 
leased locations in the National Capital Region, effecting its 
mission and operations.\7\ In addition, the JEH Building did 
not meet the Interagency Security Committee security 
standards.\8\ The FBI argued consolidation would improve its 
operations, shrink overall space, and reduce costs by as much 
as $44 million per year.\9\ On December 8, 2011, Senate EPW 
authorized the FBI's proposal to proceed as a public-private 
partnership (lease/lease-back) with certain limitations 
including, to the extent possible, requiring the new FBI HQ be 
located a certain distance from a Metro rail and 2.5 miles from 
the Capital Beltway, the site was not to exceed 55 acres, and 
not exceed 2.1 million square feet.\10\ The limitations on 
locations, effectively excluded most of the District of 
Columbia from being considered.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ GSA Capitol Investment Leasing Program Resolution, FBI 
Consolidated Headquarters, National Capitol Region, S. Comm. on 
Environ. and Public Works, 112th Cong. (Dec. 8, 2011) (on file with 
Comm.).
    \11\ Cong. Rsch. Serv., Buffers of Capital Beltway and Metro Rail 
Stations for New Building Location, (Feb. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, GSA, contrary to the FBI's analysis and 
recommendation, and Senate EPW's direction, concluded that 
traditional Federal construction would be the least expensive 
approach at a 2011 present value cost of $1.86 billion and 
asserted that the JEH Building value of $610 million at that 
time could be used to offset the costs through an exchange or 
disposal and proceeded with this option.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ GSA, Report No. BDC-13001, Report of Building Project Survey 
Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Consolidation Washington, 
DC, Metropolitan Region (Oct. 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GSA and FBI issued a Request for Information (RFI) in 
December 2012 which resulted in a procurement strategy 
developed in October 2013.\13\ The developed requirements 
effectively excluded sites in the District of Columbia from the 
original procurement.\14\ The process involved GSA selecting 
sites that would meet the FBI requirements completed in 2014 
and included sites in Springfield, Virginia; Landover, 
Maryland; and Greenbelt, Maryland.\15\ The procurement process 
requested developers compete on constructing the FBI HQ on one 
or more of the three sites.\16\ Developers could submit 
proposals for one or all of the three sites and developers were 
to provide offers on the JEH Building to offset costs.\17\ 
Essentially, the final site would have been selected based on 
competition among developers vying to construct the new FBI HQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ GSA, Request for Information, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Headquarters Consolidation Washington, DC (Dec, 3, 2012).
    \14\ Cong. Rsch. Serv., Buffers of Capital Beltway and Metro Rail 
Stations for New Building Location, (Feb. 12, 2013).
    \15\ Andrea Noble, GSA picks 3 sites as finalists for new FBI 
headquarters, Washington Times, (July 29, 2014), available at https://
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/gsa-picks-3-sites-finalists-
new-fbi-headquarters/.
    \16\ GSA Prospectus, PNCR-FBI-NCR17, FBI Headquarters 
Consolidation, National Capitol Region, Construction, (Feb. 8, 2016) 
(on file with Comm.).
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The timeline for the procurement award continued to shift 
from the target award date of Summer 2015 to April 2017.\18\ In 
2016, GSA submitted a new prospectus to Senate EPW and House 
T&I for authorization of $759 million for a new FBI HQ to be 
built on one of the three sites to consolidate 13 leased 
locations and JEH and accommodate 11,000 personnel and parking 
for 6,000 to 8,000 vehicles.\19\ The prospectus only requested 
authorization for the amount to be funded through GSA's Federal 
Buildings Fund which would be combined with FBI funding and the 
value of the JEH exchange.\20\ The prospectus noted the 
reduction of the consolidation from 21 sites to 14 was a result 
of the FBI taking actions to decrease its footprint.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Memorandum from GSA to Cong. (Nov. 15, 2013); Memorandum from 
GSA to Cong. (Mar. 28, 2014); Memorandum from GSA to Cong. (Oct. 14, 
2015); Memorandum from GSA to Cong. (Jan. 22, 2016); Memorandum from 
GSA to Cong. (Oct. 24, 2016). (on file with Comm.)
    \19\ GSA Prospectus, PNCR-FBI-NCR17, FBI Headquarters 
Consolidation, National Capitol Region, Construction, (Feb. 8, 2016) 
(on file with Comm.).
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 18, 2016, the Senate EPW Committee authorized $759 
million for the FBI headquarters requiring the project to be a 
full consolidation and not greater than 2.1 million rentable 
square feet.\22\ On December 7, 2016, the T&I Committee 
authorized the project but set more direction and limitations 
on the project.\23\ Specifically, the Committee authorized $834 
million from GSA's Federal Buildings Fund and set an overall 
project limit of $2.11 billion to include all funding sources, 
except the value of JEH, required the project to be a full 
consolidation, and set an expiration date indicating that the 
authorization to award would expire two years from the date of 
the resolution.\24\ During this same time, both the House and 
Senate committees on appropriations expressed concern with 
respect to the timeline and the funding strategy for the FBI HQ 
project.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ GSA Capitol Investment Leasing Program Resolution, PNCR-FBI-
NCR17, Construction, FBI Consolidated Headquarters, National Capitol 
Region, S. Comm. On Environ. and Public Works (May 18, 2016) (on file 
with Comm.).
    \23\ GSA Capitol Investment Leasing Program Resolution, PNCR-FBI-
NCR17, Construction, FBI Consolidated Headquarters, National Capitol 
Region, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure (Dec. 7, 2016) (on file 
with Comm.).
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ See S. Comm. on Appropriations, Report To Accompany Financial 
Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2017, 114th Cong. 
(2016) (S. Rept. 114-280); H. Comm. on Appropriations, Report To 
Accompany Financial Services and General Government Appropriations 
Bill, 2017, 114th Cong. (2016) (H. Rept. 114-624).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In July 2017, GSA announced the cancellation of the 
procurement for the new FBI HQ indicating that full funding was 
needed to award; however, there remained a $882 million funding 
gap.\26\ That same month, the House Committee on Appropriations 
directed in its report accompanying the Financial Services and 
General Government Appropriations Bill of 2018 that GSA develop 
an alternative plan for the consolidation of the FBI HQ within 
60 days after enactment of the Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Press Release, GSA, GSA releases statement on FBI 
Headquarters, (July 11, 2017), available at https://www.gsa.gov/about-
us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-releases-statement-on-fbi-headquarters-
07112017.
    \27\ H. Comm on Appropriations, Report To Accompany Financial 
Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2018, 115th Cong. 
(2017) (H. Rept. 115-234).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A revised consolidation plan was submitted to Congress in 
February 2018.\28\ That plan noted action was needed on a new 
FBI HQ indicating that JEH is on the path to catastrophic 
failure and estimating the cost of inaction to be $84 million 
per year.\29\ The revised plan reduced the scope of the FBI HQ 
requirements from approximately 11,000 personnel to 8,300 
personnel with some functions relocating to Alabama, West 
Virginia, and Idaho.\30\ The plan would not move the FBI HQ, 
but rather proposed demolishing the existing building and 
replacing with new construction at a total cost of $3.3 
billion, including swing space costs.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ GSA & FBI, FBI Headquarters: Revised Nationally-Focused 
Consolidation Plan (Feb. 12, 2018).
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, the revised plan was never executed and in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, Congress directed GSA 
to select a site from one of three sites previously identified 
in Maryland and Virginia for a new consolidated FBI HQ and 
directed GSA to conduct detailed consultations with individuals 
representing the sites to further consider ``perspectives 
related to mission requirements, sustainable siting and equity 
. . . .'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-328, 
136 stat. 4687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      III. SITE SELECTION PROCESS

    In September 2022, GSA published the Site Selection Plan 
for the FBI Suburban Headquarters.\33\ Per the Fiscal Year 2022 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, the sites GSA considered in 
this site selection plan included: Greenbelt, Maryland; 
Landover, Maryland; and Springfield, Virginia.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Site Selection Plan Federal Bureau of Investigation Suburban 
Headquarters, GSA, (Sept. 2022).
    \34\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-103, 
136 stat. 276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The three proposed sites were evaluated by an eleven-person 
panel which included three voting members--two from GSA and one 
from the FBI. The remainder of the panel consisted of eight 
non-voting technical advisors.\35\ The panel was directed to 
consider five criteria when making its site 
recommendations.\36\ The five criteria were then weighted (out 
of 100 points) by the predetermined multiplier.\37\ After 
assessing the criteria, the panel made a recommendation to the 
site selection authority (SSA)--the one person empowered to 
make the final decision. As outlined in the Site Selection 
Plan, the SSA can reject the panel's recommendation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Site Selection Plan Federal Bureau of Investigation Suburban 
Headquarters, GSA, (Sept. 2022).
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the site selection process, GSA amended the Site 
Selection Plan twice: first in November 2022 and then again in 
July 2023.\39\ The July 2023 amendment was significant because 
it changed the weight given to different criterion. Criteria #1 
(FBI Mission Requirements) was decreased from 35 to 25 points 
and Criteria #2 (Transportation Access) was decreased from 25 
to 20 points. Meanwhile, Criteria #4 (Promoting Sustainable 
Siting and Advancing Equity) was increased from 15 to 20 points 
and Criteria #5 (Cost) was increased from 10 to 20 points. No 
changes were made to Criteria #3 (Site Development).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Garrett Hatch, FBI Headquarters Site Selection Process, CRS 
(updated Nov. 13, 2023) available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/
IN12204?source=search.
    \40\ Site Selection Plan (Amendment 2), Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Suburban Headquarters, GSA, (July 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The final criteria and multipliers are as follows:

CRITERIA #1: FBI PROXIMITY TO MISSION-RELATED LOCATIONS (25 POINTS)

     LThe Proximity of the Site to the FBI's Quantico 
Facility
     LThe Proximity of the Site to Non-Consolidating 
Operationally Significant FBI/NCR Real Estate Assets
     LThe Proximity of the Site to Downtown Facilities 
(United States Department of Justice, United States Capitol, 
and White House)

CRITERIA #2: TRANSPORTATION ACCESS (20 POINTS)

     LThe Walking Distance from the Site to a Station 
on the Metrorail System Operated by the Washington Metropolitan 
Area Transit Authority
     LThe Walking Distance from the Site to Virginia 
Railway Express (VRE) or the Maryland Area Regional Commuter 
(MARC)
     LAccessibility to Major Bus Line Stop(s)
     LThe Site's Proximity to the Nearest Commercial 
Airport

CRITERIA #3: SITE DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY AND SCHEDULE RISK (15 POINTS)

     LSite area and Site Geometry
     LSchedule Risk

CRITERIA #4: PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE SITING AND ADVANCING EQUITY (20 
                    POINTS)

     LAdvancing racial equity and support for 
underserved communities through the Federal Government
     LPromoting sustainable locations for Federal 
facilities and strengthening the vitality and livability of the 
communities in which Federal facilities are located

CRITERIA #5: COST (20 POINTS)

     LCost to Acquire Site + Cost to Prepare Site + 
Cost of Off-Site Improvements + Relative Cost Difference of 
Expected Construction Start Dates \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Id.

    In August 2023, the Site Selection Panel completed its 
Recommendation Report which stated that, ``the consensus 
recommendation of the panel was that Springfield is the site 
most advantageous to the Government.'' \42\ The Recommendation 
Report found that the Springfield site best met the needs of 
criteria #1, #2, and #3 which accounted for 60 percent of the 
weighted criteria points and the Greenbelt location was found 
to best meet the needs of criteria #4 and #5.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Site Selection Panel Recommendation Report Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Headquarters, GSA, (Aug. 2023).
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, on November 9, 2023, GSA announced that Greenbelt, 
Maryland. had been selected as the location for the new FBI HQ, 
as ultimately determined by the SSA, Ms. Albert, the GSA Public 
Buildings Commissioner at the time.\44\ The newly published 
final report found the Greenbelt site best met the needs of 
criteria #2, #3, #4, and #5, while the Springfield site only 
best met the needs of criteria #1 and was equally advantageous 
to the government for criteria #3.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Press Release, GSA, GSA releases statement on site selection 
for FBI Headquarters, (Nov. 9, 2023), available at https://www.gsa.gov/
about-us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-selects-greenbelt-maryland-for-new-
fbi-headquarters-campus-location-11092023.
    \45\ Site Selection Decision Summary Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Suburban Headquarters, GSA, (Nov. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is important to note that in addition to the announced 
Greenbelt campus, GSA is also working to identify a downtown 
Washington, DC, location.\46\ According to the GSA this new 
location will accommodate 750 to 1,000 FBI employees and ``will 
allow for continued FBI accessibility to the Department of 
Justice and other key partners, as well as move the FBI out of 
the JEH Building, which is at the end of its useful life.'' 
\47\ The current plan also seems to include the exchange or 
disposal of the JEH Building in the arrangement.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ GSA releases statement on site selection for FBI Headquarters, 
Press Release, General Services Administration, (Nov. 9, 2023), 
available at https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-
selects-greenbelt-maryland-for-new-fbi-headquarters-campus-location-
11092023.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ GSA, FBI headquarters Consolidation (last reviewed Nov. 13, 
2023), available at https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/gsa-regions/region-11-
national-capital/buildings-and-facilities/development-projects/fbi-hq-
consolidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI CRITICISMS OF SITE SELECTION PROCESS

    On September 22, 2023, the FBI submitted a memorandum and 
follow-up questions to GSA seeking clarification on the site 
selection process.\49\ The FBI was provided two different draft 
decision documents and a briefing on the decision, but claims 
it received different explanations in all three 
occurrences.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Letter from Christopher Wray, Director, FBI, to Robin 
Carnahan, Administrator, GSA (Oct. 12, 2023) available at https://
www.gsa.gov/system/files/FBI%20New%20HQ%20Letter
%2010.12.23.pdf.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an October 12, 2023, letter to GSA, the FBI cited 
additional concerns with Ms. Albert's involvement as the SSA 
and former role with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority (WMATA) and the potential for conflict of interest as 
WMATA is the landholder of the Greenbelt site.\51\ GSA 
acknowledged the concerns in a November 3, 2023, letter and 
directed the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to conduct a 
review of the site selection process, but ultimately informed 
the FBI it would continue with the roll-out of the announcement 
on November 9, 2023.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Letter from Christopher Wray, Director, FBI, to Robin 
Carnahan, Administrator, GSA (October 12, 2023) available at https://
www.gsa.gov/system/files/FBI%20New%20HQ%20Letter
%2010.12.23.pdf.
    \52\ Letter from Robin Carnahan, Administrator, GSA, to Christopher 
Wray, Director, FBI (Nov. 3, 2023) available at https://www.gsa.gov/
system/files/GSA%20Response_11.3.23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             IV. CONCLUSION

    Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec.  3307, Committee approval for 
new GSA Capital Investment and Program prospectuses is required 
when the total cost of a exceeds the current threshold of 
$3.613 million per year.\53\ Since the 2016 Committee 
resolution expired two years after adoption, GSA must submit a 
new prospectus for the FBI Headquarters to proceed with the 
project.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  3307.
    \54\ Committee Resolution, Construction, FBI Headquarters 
Consolidation, National Capital Region, PNCR-FBI-NCR17, Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of 
Representatives, (Dec. 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              V. WITNESSES

PANEL I

     LMr. Elliot Doomes, Commissioner, Public Buildings 
Service, General Services Administration
     LMr. Nicholas Dimos, Assistant Director, Finance 
and Facilities Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

PANEL II

     LMs. Nina Albert, Former Commissioner, Public 
Buildings Service, General Services Administration

 
  ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: AN EXAMINATION OF 
             GSA'S SITE SELECTION FOR THE FBI HEADQUARTERS

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
               Buildings, and Emergency Management,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry 
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Perry. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will 
come to order.
    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to 
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on 
the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into 
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
    The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an 
opening statement for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
    CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC 
              BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    Mr. Perry. I want to thank our witnesses for being here 
today to discuss the site selection process for a new Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, headquarters building.
    At some point, this committee is expected to receive an 
official General Services Administration prospectus requesting 
our authorization for a new FBI headquarters building. I will 
say upfront I am not convinced the FBI needs a brandnew 
building. While the world has become more dangerous, the FBI 
finds time to investigate parents at school board meetings and 
uses its resources to try and silence dissent across the 
country. So, I am not on board with the idea that the FBI needs 
a shiny new building at the taxpayers' expense.
    But what I may agree with the FBI on are the questions 
surrounding the current GSA site selection process, a process 
that this committee specifically oversees. The process to build 
a new FBI headquarters is probably a textbook example of why 
big Government and bureaucracy is so bad, inefficient, and 
generally ineffective at the end of the day. This whole process 
started more than 15 years ago.
    I mean, 15 years ago, you think about it. If you are trying 
to build a new home for yourself and somebody told you that you 
were going to probably have to wait 15 years--and I know I am 
not casting aspersions on you two fine gentlemen--but America 
looks at that and says, ``What the heck is wrong with you 
folks?'' And after 15 years, there hasn't been a shovel in the 
ground. And of course, the cost has, as you know, ballooned, 
probably out of sight.
    Ironically, if it wasn't for the bureaucratic maze and 
politics, right now there would already be a new FBI 
headquarters in Maryland or Virginia, likely.
    Going as far back as 2011, neither the FBI nor Congress 
thought it was realistic to rely on appropriated funds for the 
project. No one thought Congress would appropriate what grew to 
billions of dollars for new construction.
    The FBI, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
and members of this committee all expressed that if this was 
going to get done, it would need to be done as a public-private 
partnership, leveraging private financing. But they were all 
overruled by whom? Unelected bureaucrats in the executive 
branch who just don't like P3s, or public-private partnerships.
    So, it came as no great surprise when the GSA canceled the 
procurement in 2017 for a lack of funds--more precisely, a 
shortfall of over $800 million. But when the Trump 
administration attempted to propose a more realistic solution, 
including a P3, the Democrats cried foul again and began 
investigations into allegations which again halted the project. 
Ironically, the current Department of Justice inspector general 
found no evidence--no evidence--of any improper considerations 
or motives as the Democrats claimed at the time.
    So, instead of going back to evaluate the FBI's current 
needs, language was slipped into an appropriations bill 
directing GSA to select from among three sites evaluated a 
decade ago. Again, so efficient, and I am sure right in line 
with the FBI's mission and needs. The language went further to 
require GSA to consider not just mission requirements, but also 
sustainability and equity.
    So, here we are today.
    To the witnesses, I get what you are doing, what the 
appropriations language has directed you to do, or I get that 
that's what you are doing. But now there are questions about 
the recent site selection process. During the process, GSA 
adjusted the weighting of the factors considered, including 
increasing the value given to equity and decreasing the value 
for mission.
    I have got to tell you, as a former member of the U.S. 
military, the mission is what drove everything I did: what time 
I woke up, how I dressed, how I prepared myself, what I ate. 
Every single thing I did was dependent on the mission; all the 
other stuff was irrelevant to me, and it should be the same for 
the FBI. It should be the same. They have got a very important 
job, and they need to remain focused on that. And it's not 
their fault in this regard that we have taken their eye off the 
prize, we have forced them to do that.
    GSA increased the value for cost, but it is not clear what 
costs were considered. Ultimately, the Site Selection Authority 
selected the Greenbelt, Maryland, site, overruling the panel 
that was convened, and there appears to be little explanation 
as to why.
    So, we convened a panel to do this, and once they came up 
with a decision, then it was countermanded, which begs the 
question, why even have the panel, if you are just going to 
decide otherwise. I hope today we can get some answers as the 
committee prepares to review any proposal for the new FBI 
headquarters.
    Finally, I want to note we wanted to hear from Ms. Albert 
about her role in this process. And despite being invited well 
in advance, we learned just on Friday she would not appear 
before the subcommittee today. So, we will no longer have a 
second panel, but we will be sending her a letter to continue 
to seek the answers we need and will have to consider other 
options available to the subcommittee so that we can hear her 
perspective in the future, which will be very important to 
getting to the bottom of this issue.
    [Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress 
 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
    Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the 
site selection process for a new Federal Bureau of Investigation 
headquarters building.
    At some point, this committee is expected to receive an official 
General Services Administration (GSA) prospectus requesting our 
authorization for a new FBI headquarters building.
    I will say upfront I am not convinced the FBI needs a brand new 
building. While the world has become more dangerous, the FBI finds time 
to investigate parents at school board meetings and uses its resources 
to try and silence dissent. So I am not on board with the idea the FBI 
needs a shiny new building at the taxpayers' expense.
    But what I may agree with the FBI on are the questions surrounding 
the current GSA site selection process--a process that this committee 
specifically oversees. The process to build a new FBI headquarters is 
probably a textbook example of why big government and bureaucracy is so 
bad. This whole process started more than 15 years ago, but there 
hasn't even been a shovel in the ground and the cost has ballooned.
    Ironically, if it wasn't for the bureaucratic maze and politics, 
right now there would already be a new FBI headquarters in Maryland or 
Virginia.
    Going as far back as 2011, neither the FBI nor Congress thought it 
was realistic to rely on appropriated funding for the project. No one 
thought Congress would appropriate what grew to billions of dollars for 
new construction.
    The FBI, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and 
members of this committee all expressed that if this was going to get 
done, it would need to be done as a public-private partnership (P3)--
leveraging private financing. But they were all overruled by whom? 
Unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch who just don't like P3s.
    So it came as no great surprise when GSA canceled the procurement 
in 2017 for lack of funds--more precisely, a shortfall of over $800 
million.
    But when the Trump Administration attempted to propose a more 
realistic solution, including a P3, the Democrats cried foul and began 
investigations into allegations, which again halted the project. 
Ironically, the current Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General 
found no evidence of any improper considerations or motives as the 
Democrats claimed at the time.
    So instead of going back to evaluate the FBI's current needs, 
language was slipped into an appropriations bill directing GSA to 
select from among three sites evaluated a decade ago. The language went 
further to require GSA to consider not just mission requirements but 
also ``sustainability, and equity.''
    So here we are today.
    To the witnesses, I get that you are doing what the appropriations 
language has directed you to do. But now there are questions about the 
recent site selection process. During the process, GSA adjusted the 
weighting of the factors considered, including increasing the value 
given to equity and decreasing the value for mission. GSA increased the 
value for cost, but it is not clear what costs were considered. 
Ultimately, the Site Selection Authority selected the Greenbelt, 
Maryland, site, overruling the panel that was convened, and there 
appears to be little explanation as to why.
    I hope today we can get some answers as the Committee prepares to 
review any proposal for a new FBI headquarters.
    Finally, I want to note we wanted to hear from Ms. Nina Albert 
about her role in this process, and despite being invited well in 
advance, we learned on Friday she would not appear before the 
Subcommittee today. So, we will no longer have a second panel, but we 
will be sending her a letter to continue to seek the answers we need 
and will have to consider other options available to the Subcommittee 
so that we can hear her perspective in the future.

    Mr. Perry. With that I yield. I now recognize the ranking 
member, Ranking Member Titus, for 5 minutes for her opening 
statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER, 
  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 
                      EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing.
    Thank you both for coming to help us understand this 
process better. I would like to go back over some of the 
history, too, that has been mentioned by the chairman, but just 
to put a point on it.
    In 2011, both the GSA and FBI developed plans for a new, 
consolidated, suburban headquarters for the FBI. The plan cited 
the need for a new building, defined its requirements, and 
recommended the use of a public-private partnership via a 
ground-lease leaseback with a private developer. GSA's plan, 
also called an 11b report, recommended Federal construction 
which would require upfront full appropriations.
    By 2017, however, after years of work by the GSA and the 
FBI; authorization by this committee and the Senate Committee 
on the Environment and Public Works; an extensive environmental 
impact study process; a complex request for information and 
request for proposal process with the private sector; a 
shifting program of requirements; funding strategy revisions; 
changes in the leadership of the FBI, the GSA, and the White 
House; and multiple requests for funding, all of that, the GSA 
canceled the procurement, citing insufficient funding.
    In 2018, the Senate required GSA to submit a revised plan 
for the project. That plan was also frustrating. Attempting to 
justify FBI Director Wray's newfound desire to remain on 
Pennsylvania Avenue, the plan claimed that tearing down the 
Hoover Building and rebuilding a new facility on the site could 
be accomplished for the same cost as building a new suburban 
campus, whether that campus was to be in Virginia or in 
Maryland.
    What the 2018 plan did not acknowledge was that GSA 
determined they could build a new building for the same price 
because they were going to shrink the workforce, as they 
planned on moving more than 2,000 FBI staff to other FBI 
facilities around the country. At the time, GSA also avoided 
mentioning that a building on Pennsylvania Avenue could not 
possibly meet the highest level of security required for 
Federal construction, otherwise known as Interagency Security 
Committee Level V.
    Then the fiscal year 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act 
directed GSA to select a site from one of the three that had 
been included in GSA's 2017 prospectus. There were two in 
Maryland and one in Virginia. That process and the actions of 
GSA's site selection officials is what we need to talk about 
today, and I am confident that some of our questions about the 
process will be resolved after this discussion.
    I don't want to wait, however, to examine the structural 
weaknesses in the previous FBI headquarters procurement 
process, so, hopefully, we can avoid those same mistakes in the 
future.
    The last time around, I believe GSA obfuscated and evaded. 
Questions about funding differences and strategies were never 
answered. Details about the market value of the Hoover Building 
were never produced. Shortcomings in the 2018 plan were never 
acknowledged. And I do believe that some of the GSA staff at 
the time were less than truthful to Congress.
    At this hearing I will be looking, like the chairman, for 
information about GSA's procurement strategy and funding needs. 
I want to know how GSA is going to provide the FBI with the 
secure, modern facility that it needs, one where hunks of 
concrete aren't falling out of the ceiling onto the desks of 
employees.
    The current Hoover Building is the only Level V Federal 
facility in the midst of an urban area. It is a 
counterintelligence disaster just waiting to happen and, as 
such, is a threat to our national security. We cannot forget 
our commitment to providing our law enforcement with the tools 
they need to protect all Americans.
    So, again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
our witnesses for being here, and I look forward to having some 
of these questions addressed.
    I yield back.
    [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress 
from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
        Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    Thank you, Chairman Perry, for holding this hearing.
    In 2011 both the GSA and the FBI developed plans for a new, 
consolidated, suburban headquarters for the FBI. The FBI's plan cited 
the need for a new building, defined its requirements, and recommended 
the use of a public-private partnership via a ground-lease lease-back 
with a private developer. GSA's plan, also called an 11b report, 
recommended Federal construction which would require full up-front 
appropriations.
    By 2017, however, after years of work by GSA and FBI staff; 
authorization by this committee and the Senate Committee on the 
Environment and Public Works; an extensive environmental impact study 
process; a complex Request for Information and Request for Proposal 
process with the private sector; a shifting Program of Requirements; 
funding strategy revisions; changes in the leadership of the FBI, GSA, 
and the White House; and multiple requests for funding, GSA canceled 
the procurement citing insufficient funding.
    In 2018, the Senate required GSA to submit a revised plan for the 
project and that plan was also frustrating. Attempting to justify FBI 
Director Wray's new-found desire to remain on Pennsylvania Avenue, the 
plan claimed that tearing down the Hoover Building and rebuilding a new 
facility on the site could be accomplished for the same cost as 
building a new suburban campus, whether it be in Virginia or Maryland.
    What the 2018 plan did not own up to was that GSA determined they 
could build a new building for the same price because they were going 
to shrink the workforce; they planned on moving more than 2,000 FBI 
staff to other FBI facilities around the country. At the time, GSA also 
avoided mentioning the fact that a building on Pennsylvania Avenue 
could not possibly meet the highest level of security required for 
Federal construction, otherwise known as Interagency Security Committee 
Level 5.
    The FY22 Consolidated Appropriations Act directed GSA to select a 
site from one of the three that had been included in GSA's 2017 
prospectus: two in Maryland and one in Virginia. That process, and the 
actions of GSA's site selection officials, will be discussed today in 
detail. I have confidence that questions about the process will be 
resolved.
    I don't want to wait, however, to examine the structural weaknesses 
in the previous FBI HQ procurement process, so we can ensure that 
mistakes are not repeated.
    The last time around, GSA obfuscated and evaded. Questions about 
funding differences and strategies were never answered. Details about 
the market value of the Hoover Building were never produced. 
Shortcomings in the 2018 plan were never acknowledged, and I do believe 
GSA staff, at the time, was untruthful to Congress.
    At this hearing. I will be looking for information about GSA's 
procurement strategy and funding needs. I want to know how GSA is going 
to provide the FBI with the secure, modern facility it needs, one where 
hunks of concrete will not be falling on the desks of employees.
    The current Hoover Building is the only level 5 Federal facility in 
the middle of an urban area. It is a counter-intelligence disaster 
waiting to happen and a threat to our national security.
    Have we forgotten our commitment to providing our law enforcement 
with the tools they need to protect all Americans?
    I want to thank our witnesses again for being here and I look 
forward to today's discussion.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 
Larsen, for 5 minutes.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING 
     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair. And thank you 
for calling today's hearing to examine the site selection 
process for the FBI headquarters, and thanks to our witnesses 
for participating.
    Commissioner Doomes, let me officially welcome you back to 
the subcommittee. I am sure you would be more comfortable over 
here than where you are sitting today, but it is always a 
pleasure to have former staff testify before us.
    GSA, the FBI, and Congress worked together from 2011 
through 2018 to put the FBI in a new building that would meet 
the FBI's current and future security, space, and operational 
requirements. Those efforts to date have failed.
    In 2022, Congress directed the GSA to start the process 
again by picking one of the three sites identified in the first 
procurement. Last month, as we know, GSA selected the site in 
Greenbelt, Maryland, but multiple parties have expressed 
concern about that decision.
    While those concerns are being examined by GSA's inspector 
general, it is useful for this committee to understand how and 
why the first procurement failed so we can help GSA and the FBI 
avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.
    I want to hear from GSA what the agency learned from the 
previous failure and what steps are being taken to ensure 
success this time around. For instance, is the GSA prepared to 
carry out a project of this magnitude?
    I also want to hear from GSA and the FBI about their plans 
to secure the funding needed to complete the project.
    Finally, I would like to know the effect on the FBI's staff 
and operational capabilities if a new headquarters building is 
not built in the near future. The FBI has an important mission, 
and its employees deserve a safe, secure, and functional 
workspace.
    So, I look forward to discussing how this committee can 
help to ensure the FBI has the headquarters it needs today and 
in the future.
    And with that, I yield back.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chairman Perry, for calling today's hearing to examine 
the site selection process for the new Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) headquarters and thank you to our witnesses for participating.
    Commissioner Doomes, let me officially welcome you back to the 
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
Management. I am sure you would be more comfortable on this side of the 
dais than at the witness table, but it is always a pleasure to have 
former T&I staff testify before the committee.
    GSA, the FBI and Congress worked together from 2011 through 2018 to 
put the FBI in a new headquarters building that would meet the FBI's 
current and future security, space, and operational requirements. Those 
efforts failed.
    In 2022, Congress directed the GSA to start the process again by 
picking one of the three sites identified in the first procurement.
    Last month, GSA selected the site in Greenbelt, Maryland, but 
multiple parties have expressed concern about GSA's decision.
    While those concerns are being examined by GSA's Inspector General, 
it is useful for this committee to understand how and why the first 
procurement failed so we can help GSA and the FBI avoid repeating the 
same mistakes.
    I want to hear from GSA what the agency learned from the previous 
failure and what steps are being taken to ensure success this time 
around.
    For instance, is GSA prepared to carry out a project of this 
magnitude?
    I also want to hear from GSA and the FBI about their plans to 
secure the funding needed to complete the project.
    Finally, I want to know the effect on the FBI's staff and 
operational capabilities if a new headquarters building is not built in 
the near future.
    The FBI has an important mission, and its employees deserve safe, 
secure and functional workspace.
    I look forward to discussing how this committee can help ensure the 
FBI has the headquarters it needs today and in the future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    Briefly, I would like to take a moment to explain our 
lighting system to our witnesses. There are three lights in 
front of you. Green means go, yellow means you are running out 
of time, and red means to conclude your remarks. And hopefully, 
they will keep working. If they don't, we will just be on the 
lookout for that, because we had a little issue at the 
beginning of the hearing.
    I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements 
be included in the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided 
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 
writing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or witnesses included in the record of 
today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made part of the record, 
the subcommittee asks that each one of our witnesses limit 
their oral remarks to 5 minutes.
    With that, Mr. Doomes, you are recognized for 5 minutes for 
your testimony.

 TESTIMONY OF ELLIOT D. DOOMES, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
  SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND NICHOLAS 
  DIMOS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FINANCE AND FACILITIES DIVISION, 
                FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

 TESTIMONY OF ELLIOT D. DOOMES, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
         SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. Doomes. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member 
Titus, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name 
is Elliot Doomes, and I am the Commissioner of the Public 
Buildings Service at GSA. I am honored to appear before the 
subcommittee to discuss GSA's site selection for the FBI 
headquarters.
    My written testimony goes into detail on the extensive 
history of the project, so, in the interest of time, I will 
start in 2022, when the search for a suburban headquarters was 
restarted in earnest by Congress.
    The Fiscal Year 2022 Appropriations Act directed GSA to 
expeditiously select a headquarters site from among one of the 
three previously identified sites in Virginia and Maryland. In 
September 2022, GSA released its site selection plan.
    Subsequently, in December 2022, Congress passed the Fiscal 
Year 2023 Appropriations Act, which directed GSA to pause its 
site selection process and conduct separate consultations with 
Maryland and Virginia officials before resuming with the 
selection. GSA and FBI held these consultations in March of 
2023, and after carefully considering what was shared by both 
jurisdictions, GSA released an update to the plan in July 2023.
    The updates, made in close collaboration with the FBI, 
adjusted weights to reflect new governmentwide directives and 
provide better taxpayer value. It also changed the Site 
Selection Authority to the PBS Commissioner. Consistent with 
GSA's commitment to transparency, the updates to the criteria 
and weighting were shared publicly.
    Following the release of the updated plan, GSA resumed the 
site selection process. Extensive information was compiled 
about each site, including information received from both 
delegations during the consultation process. The panel, which 
was comprised of two GSA employees and one FBI employee, 
convened to review the information about the sites and 
submitted their report to the Site Selection Authority. With 
this report in hand, the authority was then responsible for 
``fully evaluating all attributes of the sites, and selecting 
the site which is truly most advantageous to the Government, 
regardless of the recommendation provided by the panel.'' This 
is GSA's typical process.
    As explained in detail in the site selection decision, the 
Site Selection Authority determined that Greenbelt was the best 
option for the FBI and the public. Greenbelt was chosen 
because, as outlined in the decision document, Greenbelt 
provides the best access to transportation and is the most 
transit accessible. It provides the Government with the 
greatest project schedule certainty, offers the greatest 
opportunity to positively impact the Washington, DC, region, 
and has the lowest overall cost to taxpayers of all the three 
sites. The decision report is publicly available and details 
the authority's analysis and ratings for all criteria for each 
site.
    Since the site selection announcement, some stakeholders 
have raised questions about the process and decision. Let me 
clarify those misconceptions with a few facts.
    The Site Selection Authority did not inappropriately change 
the panel's recommendation. The Site Selection Authority is the 
only official charged with making a decision and is charged 
with exercising independent judgment. In fact, during the 
downselect in 2014, from dozens of potential headquarters sites 
down to three finalists, the Site Selection Authority rejected 
the site selection's unanimous recommendation to exclude the 
Springfield site.
    Number two, the Site Selection Authority did not change the 
criteria. As is clear in the final agency decision, the Site 
Selection Authority operated under the same July 2023 site 
selection plan that governed the panel.
    Number three, the Site Selection Authority did not make 
changes in favor of a specific site. Rather, the Site Selection 
Authority carefully followed the plan and documented their 
assessments. In those instances where the Site Selection 
Authority differed with the panel, the reason for those 
differences are fully explained in the decision document.
    And number four, GSA conducted the site selection process 
in full compliance with all ethical laws, regulations, and 
policies. This includes those concerning potential conflicts of 
interest. GSA ran a fair and transparent process and followed 
the publicly outlined plan. The site selection decision, as 
well as the panel's evaluation and recommendation, are all 
available on our website. GSA has also released correspondence 
between GSA and FBI, including the legal review conducted by 
GSA's Office of General Counsel in response to the FBI's 
questions.
    We took the questions they raised seriously, and we welcome 
a review of our processes and our conclusion. We believe the 
record reflects that our decisionmaking official made this 
determination according to the plan and the process, and in the 
best interest of the FBI and the public. Throughout this 
project, GSA has acted pursuant to directives enacted into law. 
The next step is for GSA to develop and submit a prospectus to 
Congress, and we are working with the FBI on that document.
    In closing, I want to note that while GSA may disagree with 
the FBI about this phase of the process, there is no 
disagreement about the need for a new headquarters here in the 
Washington region. This is a national security imperative. GSA 
remains committed to working with the FBI and this committee on 
this important project.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, 
and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [Mr. Doomes' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Elliot D. Doomes, Commissioner, Public Buildings 
             Service, U.S. General Services Administration
    Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Elliot Doomes, 
and I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service (``PBS'') at 
the U.S. General Services Administration (``GSA''). I appreciate the 
Committee's invitation to discuss GSA's site selection for the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (``FBI'') Headquarters suburban campus.
                  The Need for a New FBI Headquarters
    The critical thing that brings us together today is the 
increasingly dire need for a new FBI Headquarters facility. The FBI has 
continuously occupied the J. Edgar Hoover Building (the ``Hoover 
Building'') since 1974. As multiple studies have demonstrated, the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') has reported, and many 
members and staff of this Committee have seen firsthand, the Hoover 
Building does not fully support the FBI's long-term security, space, 
and building condition requirements; is not designed to meet the needs 
of today's FBI; is nearing its life-cycle age; and is exhibiting signs 
of complete deterioration. As the FBI has said, they need a new 
headquarters to achieve significant cost savings and to better support 
the agency's mission-critical activities and strategic priorities. The 
dispersion of FBI elements across multiple locations in the National 
Capital Region (``NCR'') has created significant challenges to 
effectively managing the FBI's divisions and offices and impedes the 
FBI's ability to rapidly respond to ever changing threats. As GAO has 
highlighted, this was true at the start of the process examining the 
need for a new FBI building in 2011, and the issues have worsened since 
that time.
                            Project History
    The history of the FBI Headquarters Consolidation project is 
complex and dates back more than 15 years spanning multiple 
Administrations. While the contours of the project have changed over 
time, since the beginning, GSA and FBI have been focused on replacing 
the aging Hoover Building and delivering a new state-of-the-art 
Headquarters that will best serve the FBI and the public for years to 
come.
    Of most relevance to the current Congressionally-directed site 
selection process, I'd like to provide a brief overview of the timeline 
starting in January 2013, when GSA issued a Request for Information 
(``RFI'') to garner feedback from members of the development community, 
local and state jurisdictions, and other interested parties regarding 
feasibility, issues, and considerations of a potential exchange 
transaction. The 38 responses to the RFI helped to inform GSA's 
strategic planning for the project. In November 2013, the RFI was 
followed by a Request for Expressions of Interest (``REOI'') for sites 
within the region to be used for the development of a new FBI 
headquarters. Under the REOI process, GSA and FBI evaluated dozens of 
sites across the region against more than a dozen minimum and 
additional criteria that the government considered.\1\ In contravention 
to the Panel's unanimous recommendation (they recommended excluding 
Springfield, VA), the site selection authority at that time identified 
three acceptable sites: one in Fairfax County, Virginia (Springfield) 
and two in Prince George's County, Maryland (Landover and 
Greenbelt).\2\ These sites were identified because they all met the 
baseline requirements of the FBI, including being able to accommodate 
the size of a new headquarters facility and meet the Government's 
unique security requirements, among other items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Further information can be found online at: https://
www.gsa.gov/system/files?
file=2013%20FBI%20Headquarters%20Site%20Identification%20and%20Evaluatio
n
%20Approving%20Officials%20Decision_Redacted%20%281%29.pdf.
    \2\ The 2022 site selection process was designed similarly to the 
process from 2013, which was also typical. That is, the process called 
for a panel of GSA and FBI officials to provide expert counsel and 
advice to GSA's site selection authority, and directed the authority to 
make a final decision, irrespective of the recommendations of the 
panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These three finalist sites were then included in a two-phase 
developer competition process that began at the end of 2014. This 
competition included exchanging the Hoover Building for services that 
would help defray the overall cost of the project, and allowed for a 
developer to submit a proposal for construction on one or more of the 
three finalist sites.\3\ In conjunction with the solicitation process, 
GSA conducted a full regulatory review, and issued a 2016 Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (``DEIS'') pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''). Furthermore, at that time, GSA 
sought and received Congressional approval of this project strategy 
from the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and also received some 
appropriations (though not enough to make a full award). For a variety 
of reasons, on July 11, 2017, GSA issued a public statement announcing 
the decision to cancel the procurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ On December 19, 2014, GSA issued a Phase I Request for 
Proposals (``RFP'') seeking an exchange partner to develop, design, 
construct, and deliver the new facility. The Phase I RFP process was 
used to select a short list of up to five qualified offerors to compete 
in the Phase II procurement. In January 2016, GSA issued the Phase II 
RFP to the shortlisted offerors, which detailed the requirements of the 
new facility and information on the three selected sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While this project strategy and process was a number of years back, 
there are two important factors that are relevant for today. First, 
each of the three sites had been determined to meet the mission needs 
of the FBI. And second, there had been exhaustive review and assessment 
of all three sites as part of the solicitation process.
             Developing the Current Site Selection Process
    After the cancellation of the previous solicitation in 2017, 
several other options were considered over the intervening years for 
the FBI Headquarters. Then, in the Fiscal Year 2022 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-103), Congress directed GSA to 
expeditiously select one of the three previously identified sites for 
the FBI Suburban Headquarters: Springfield, VA; Greenbelt, MD; or 
Landover, MD. To make a selection, GSA and FBI committed to developing 
a fair and transparent process to guide GSA's decision-making. In 
September 2022, GSA released an initial site selection plan, which was 
created in close collaboration with the FBI, outlining how the process 
and criteria by which the agency would determine which of the three 
sites would best meet the needs of the FBI and the public. In December 
2022, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (P.L. 
117-328) which directed GSA to conduct separate consultations with 
individuals representing the sites from the State of Maryland and 
Commonwealth of Virginia prior to any action by the GSA Site Selection 
Panel for the new Federal FBI headquarters. GSA and FBI held these 
consultations in March 2023 with the delegations from Maryland and 
Virginia. In July 2023, after holding the Congressionally directed 
consultations and carefully considering what was shared by each 
jurisdiction, GSA released an update to the plan.
                           Updating the Plan
    The updates, contained within Amendment 2 \4\ and made in close 
collaboration with the FBI,\5\ incorporated new government-wide 
directives and increased the consideration of cost to deliver better 
value for taxpayers. They also adjusted the weighting of the criteria 
and simplified the scoring methodology. Finally, the Amendment also 
changed the Site Selection Authority, shifting it from the PBS Regional 
Commissioner to the PBS Commissioner.\6\ This was done as a reflection 
of the significance of this decision, as well as the scrutiny GSA 
understood that any official would face--regardless of which site was 
selected. GSA believed, and still believes, that it was appropriate to 
make the agency's top real estate official the site selection authority 
for this project.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The prior amendment to the plan, Amendment 1, was largely 
administrative.
    \5\ GSA and FBI worked closely together on the changes to the site 
selection plan. Per a June 26, 2023 FBI letter to GSA, although the FBI 
indicated they preferred the initial site selection plan, they 
ultimately shared ``We acknowledge the thoughtful process that GSA 
developed to assess the plan, proposed changes to the plan, and justify 
those changes--we have seen firsthand the diligence, professionalism, 
and expertise that the team at GSA has applied to a difficult and 
complex task. In light of that assessment and GSA commitment to these 
changes appropriately reflect its best practices, the FBI respectfully 
defers to GSA's final judgment on specific percentages.''
    \6\ Prior to a final decision by the agency, it is typical for GSA 
to redact the name of the specific decision-making official (as well as 
all panelists). This is to avoid any attempts at undue influence of the 
independent decision-making process. Once a decision has been made, the 
identity of the decision-making official is typically available to the 
public, while the panelists' names remain redacted.
    \7\ Similarly, in the 2013 REOI process, the Site Selection 
Authority was the PBS Deputy Commissioner, not the PBS Regional 
Commissioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overall, Amendment 2 was intended to better align with GSA's 
principles to create a process that is fair and transparent, is 
grounded in the agency's best practices for site selection, and results 
in selecting a site that best meets the needs of the FBI and the 
American people for years to come. The core of the plan remained the 
same, including the five major criteria each site would be evaluated 
against:
    (1)  FBI Proximity to Mission-Related Locations;
    (2)  Transportation Access;
    (3)  Site Development Flexibility and Schedule Risk;
    (4)  Promoting Sustainable Siting and Advancing Equity; and
    (5)  Cost.

    It also maintained the FBI's priorities for the new headquarters: 
fulfill FBI mission needs; meet the needs of the FBI workforce; and 
provide maximum value for taxpayers, relying on GSA's expertise and 
best practices in site selection. The Site Selection Plan, which GSA 
and FBI worked on jointly, set forth a process for evaluating which 
site was the most advantageous to the government on each criteria, 
using a color scale to help guide and inform the final site decision. 
Furthermore, to promote transparency in how the government would 
balance the importance of the criteria, each was weighted. Consistent 
with GSA and FBI's commitment to transparency on this project, the 
updates were all announced publicly and the plan was made publicly 
available.
                  Executing the Site Selection Process
    Following the release of the July 2023 updated Site Selection Plan, 
GSA and FBI commenced the site selection process. The first step was 
for the project team to compile a significant amount of information 
regarding each site, for the use of the Panel and the Site Selection 
Authority. In order to move quickly, and recognizing the extensive 
evaluation GSA had conducted during the 2013 process, the agency also 
leveraged information from the 2016 DEIS. The next step was for the 
Panel, comprised of two GSA employees and one FBI employee, to convene 
to review the information about the sites and come up with ratings and 
recommendations. The Panel then submitted their ratings and 
recommendations \8\ to the site selection authority who, under the Site 
Selection Plan, had the responsibility and authority to use the 
evaluation report developed by the Site Selection Panel to help guide 
and inform a final decision as to which property was in the best 
interest of the United States. As documented in the Site Selection 
Plan, the Site Selection Authority is charged with the responsibility 
to ``fully evaluate all attributes of the sites and select the site 
which is truly most advantageous to the Government, regardless of the 
recommendation provided by the Panel.'' [emphasis added]. This 
process--a panel providing recommendations to a final decision-maker to 
make a final decision--is common practice for major GSA siting 
decisions. It is also part of the process that the decision-maker is 
supposed to exercise their independent judgment. As noted earlier, this 
was the same process GSA used in the 2013 selection of the three 
finalist sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ FBI Site Panel Recommendation Report https://www.gsa.gov/
system/files/FBI%20Site
%20Panel%20Recommendation%20Report%20-%20Aug%202023%20-%20Final%20v2_
Redacted.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             The Selection
    As explained in detail in the Site Selection Decision, the Site 
Selection Authority ultimately determined that Greenbelt, MD was the 
best option for the FBI and the public because the site:
    (1)  Provides the best access to public transportation for FBI 
employees and visitors as it is the most transit accessible site due to 
its short walking distance to Metro and commuter rail;

    (2)  Provides the government the greatest project schedule 
certainty due to the fact that the site is owned by a public entity and 
offers a clear public process and timeline to achieve site control;

    (3)  Offers the greatest opportunity for the government's 
investment to positively impact the Washington, D.C. region through 
sustainable and equitable development; and

    (4)  Has the lowest overall cost to taxpayers of all the three 
sites.

    In short, consistent with the process, the final decision was made 
based on a determination of which site would be best for the FBI and 
the public for years to come. The site selection authority's complete 
40-page decision fully explains their analysis and ratings for all of 
the sites against all of the criteria contained within the plan, 
including an explanation of where their judgment differed from the 
Panel's. This document is publicly available on GSA's website.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ FBI HQ Site Selection Decision Final https://www.gsa.gov/
system/files/FBI%20HQ%20Site%20Selection%20Decision.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Correcting Misconceptions
    In the days following the announcement of the selection of 
Greenbelt, MD, some stakeholders have raised questions about the 
process and decision, and GSA welcomes the opportunity to clarify some 
misconceptions in the public sphere. Here are some of the most 
critical:
1) Misperception: The site selection authority inappropriately 
        ``overturned'' the panel's recommendation
    The site selection authority did not ``overturn'' the panel's 
recommendation. As outlined above, the panel was tasked with making 
recommendations, and the site selection authority was charged with 
making the final selection, ``regardless of the recommendation of the 
panel.'' Under GSA's site selection process, only the site selection 
authority has authority to make a site selection.
2) Misperception: The site selection authority changed the criteria
    The site selection authority did not change the criteria. As is 
clear in the final agency decision, the site selection authority relied 
on the same criteria in making their decision that the Panel relied on 
to make their recommendations.
3) Misperception: The site selection authority made arbitrary changes 
        in favor of a specific site
    The site selection authority carefully followed the plan and the 
process and did not make any arbitrary changes to favor (or disfavor) 
any site. Moreover, as GSA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) review 
determined, the record shows that the Panel and the site selection 
authority demonstrated substantial agreement on their evaluations of 
all three sites; in fact, 9 of the 12 subcriteria ratings were the same 
between the Panel and the site selection authority. In those instances 
where the site selection authority differed from the Panel's 
recommendation, those changes reflect differences in judgment and are 
fully explained in the agency's publicly available decision document.
4) Misperception: The site selection authority had a potential conflict 
        of interest
    Any potential conflicts of interest were reviewed and resolved, in 
accordance with advice from GSA's OGC, at the time the site selection 
authority was appointed PBS Commissioner in July 2021. GSA conducted 
the site selection process in full compliance with all ethical laws, 
regulations, and policies, which GSA's OGC validated as part of their 
review due to stakeholder questions.
                        Conclusion & Next Steps
    GSA ran a fair and transparent process, guided by the agency's best 
practices in site selection. At every step, the GSA team worked to 
carefully follow the process outlined publicly, and to make a decision 
that best meets the needs of the FBI and the public for the long-term. 
Consistent with our commitment to transparency, our agency's full site 
selection decision, as well as the Panel's evaluation and 
recommendation, are all available on our website. Given the questions 
that have been raised, GSA took the additional step of releasing the 
correspondence between GSA and FBI, which includes the legal review 
conducted by GSA's OGC in response to the FBI's questions. GSA has 
publicly stated, and I will reiterate, that we welcome a review of our 
process and our conclusions. We think the record reflects that our 
decision-making official made this determination based on what they 
believed was best for the FBI and the public.
    GSA plans to continue to closely follow the law and Congressional 
directives on this project. Subsequent to Congress directing GSA to 
hold consultations and then select a site, the next step Congress 
directed is to develop a project fact sheet (known as a prospectus) for 
submission to Congress. Developing this will require close 
collaboration with the FBI to ensure the new Headquarters meets its 
mission needs now and in the future, and we look forward to continuing 
to work with them to that end.
    GSA's mission, and my primary duty as PBS Commissioner, is to 
provide the best value in real estate. Working with partner agencies to 
deliver workspaces that allow them to accomplish their missions is what 
we do. And despite disagreements some may have around which site was 
selected, the need for the FBI to have a functioning, safe, and secure 
Headquarters, in order to fulfill their mission, is fundamental. The 
work that the FBI is doing to uphold the Constitution and protect the 
American people is, at this moment, more important than ever--and GSA 
is fully committed to delivering a highly effective Headquarters to 
help them deliver on that mission.
    GSA looks forward to working with the FBI and this Committee on 
this important project. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
you today. I look forward to answering your questions.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Doomes.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dimos for 5 minutes for your 
testimony.

 TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS DIMOS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FINANCE AND 
      FACILITIES DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

    Mr. Dimos. Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
discuss the new FBI headquarters project with you today.
    My name is Nick Dimos, and I am a career employee at the 
FBI and serve as the chief financial officer, and I am 
responsible for all FBI facilities. I have been the lead FBI 
executive coordinating with GSA on the new headquarters plan 
for the past couple of years.
    The FBI J. Edgar Hoover Building, referred to as JEH, is, 
quite frankly, failing. Netting is placed around the perimeter 
to prevent falling concrete from hitting pedestrians. Concrete 
deterioration is occurring inside the building, as well, with 
instances of concrete even falling over employee workspaces and 
equipment. Pipe bursts and plumbing challenges are commonplace, 
leading to the damage of FBI space, IT, and records. JEH power 
and network infrastructure challenges are ever present, 
resulting in disruptions to connectivity needed to coordinate 
FBI cases nationwide.
    From a cost perspective, the Government is currently 
spending millions of dollars for expensive commercial leases in 
the NCR as the FBI workforce is scattered across multiple 
locations beyond JEH. The headquarters plan will consolidate 
these sites, and reflects the thousands of positions that the 
FBI has already relocated to Huntsville, Alabama, and other 
locations outside the national capital region. The current 
proposal will allow for a smaller footprint in the NCR, 
compared to our request back in 2017.
    Now, with the need for a facility so great, the FBI and GSA 
committed to establishing a fair and transparent process by 
which a site would be selected. The GSA and FBI together 
succeeded in this process goal through so much of the project. 
However, in the final weeks of the process, the FBI identified 
process concerns that we were unable to resolve with GSA.
    First, when the SSA provided their report to us in August, 
we were surprised to see that the SSA came to a different 
conclusion than the Site Selection Panel's consensus 
recommendation. The site selection plan allowed for this 
divergence, but I can say that within the FBI's own procurement 
shop, this is exceedingly rare.
    Second, when the FBI reviewed the SSA's decision report, we 
observed that the SSA prioritized subcriteria in a way that was 
inconsistent with the published plan, and applied outside 
information that repeatedly benefited the Greenbelt site and 
disadvantaged the Springfield site compared to the panel 
recommendation. The site selection plan gave the SSA authority 
to come to a different conclusion than the panel, but the 
consistent one-directional nature of the changes favoring 
Greenbelt caused concerns for the FBI.
    These concerns were exacerbated by the fact that the SSA's 
immediate prior employer was the owner of the Greenbelt site. 
The FBI raised its concerns in a briefing and through two 
letters to GSA to move the project forward. The FBI requested 
GSA select a new SSA to rerun the final step of the process, 
picking an individual who did not have any previous affiliation 
with the three sites. Ultimately, GSA did not accept this 
request, and our concerns were not sufficiently addressed.
    To be clear, the FBI does not object to the Greenbelt 
location itself, and we are not suggesting a lack of integrity 
on the part of the SSA. 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.
    The FBI needs a new facility here in the national capital 
region. The status quo is a drain on taxpayer dollars to 
sustain a failing JEH facility that doesn't meet the needs of 
our workforce or mission. But the fairness and transparency of 
the process are essential, and we welcome the GSA Office of 
Inspector General's review of the site selection process.
    It is not easy, nor do we take lightly that we have raised 
this area of disagreement. The FBI is grateful to the dedicated 
public servants at GSA who have worked tirelessly to support 
the FBI's new headquarters project. We look forward to the 
OIG's review so that we can continue forward with GSA to 
construct a new facility with the support of Congress.
    Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions that you 
may have.
    [Mr. Dimos' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Nicholas Dimos, Assistant Director, Finance and 
          Facilities Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of 
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 
today to testify about the new Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 
headquarters project.
    The FBI has occupied the J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) building since 1974. 
Since that time, the mission of the FBI has evolved, particularly in 
complex national security investigations and cases requiring 
sophisticated technology tradecraft and tools--but the building and 
technical infrastructure of the facility have not kept pace. Moreover, 
the facility infrastructure of JEH has deteriorated to the point where 
hundreds of millions--if not billions--of dollars would be required to 
fully renovate and sustain it. Concrete on the exterior of the building 
is crumbling, and netting is attached around the building's perimeter 
to catch concrete from falling onto pedestrians passing by on sidewalks 
below. There have also been instances where interior concrete has 
fallen into employee workspaces. Pipes routinely leak or burst, which 
has resulted in damage to FBI technology, records, and space.
    The General Services Administration (GSA) has conducted several 
Building Evaluation Reports (in 2001, 2011, and 2019) that all reached 
the same conclusion--the building is in poor condition and action is 
required to address life safety issues and failing equipment. Given 
that JEH has been scheduled for replacement for over a decade, longer 
term facility infrastructure investments have been deferred, 
exacerbating the operations and maintenance challenges typically 
associated with a 50-year-old facility. Each year, the FBI and GSA are 
forced to reprioritize limited funding to conduct emergency, stop-gap 
repairs to ensure the safety of personnel working in the building and 
to maintain continuity of operations.
    The FBI must fight against 21st century threats, not those of 1974. 
The men and women of the FBI need access to modern, high-tech tools and 
spaces to seamlessly communicate and collaborate with FBI operators and 
partners located across the country and world. Due to the nature of the 
FBI's work, which requires access to classified and sensitive 
information and networks, personnel need to work in FBI office space to 
support day-to-day FBI operations. Deteriorating infrastructure and 
failing technology of the current headquarters building will continue 
to make it more and more difficult to rapidly address developing 
threats and collaborate across FBI divisions and programs.
    As the FBI planned for the replacement of JEH, we reassessed what 
functions need to remain in the national capital region (NCR) versus 
those that can be re-located to other parts of the United States. Based 
on this multi-year reassessment of the facility footprint, FBI 
headquarters now consists of many different locations across the 
country. The FBI has moved and consolidated its data centers from 
costly leased locations in downtown areas to owned facilities with 
significantly lower costs of power and infrastructure. The FBI 
relocated certain mission areas and training functions to Redstone 
Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama that were either originally housed in 
costly space in the NCR or were subject to space and capacity 
constraints at the FBI campus in Quantico, Virginia. The FBI also 
relocated its records management facilities, and we have expanded our 
operations in Clarksburg, West Virginia.
    Because of this realignment of workforce functions across the 
country over the past several years, the new facility that would 
replace JEH here in the NCR would include less total square footage 
than previous iterations of this project and will house those personnel 
and functions that must remain in the NCR.
    The FBI is committed to ensuring that any new facility is a good 
deal for the taxpayer, and the new suburban FBI headquarters would 
allow the FBI to consolidate space and eliminate the need for multiple 
leased locations in the NCR, thereby saving tens of millions of dollars 
in annual lease payments. We have also worked to reduce costs in other 
ways, such as by consolidating case files and evidence storage to 
centralized locations in lower cost areas.
    While the FBI has relocated thousands of headquarters personnel 
outside of the NCR, many functions need to remain in the NCR to fulfill 
the mission. The NCR houses many key members of the Intelligence 
Community, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and other law enforcement 
partners that the FBI works with each day to fulfill our law 
enforcement and national security responsibilities. Also, many FBI 
headquarters functions coordinate directly and frequently with 
operations in Quantico, to include the FBI Laboratory, Operational 
Technology Division, Critical Incident Response Group, and Training 
Division, which are not slated to consolidate into the new NCR 
headquarters facility.
    The FBI has worked closely with our colleagues at GSA over the past 
decade on potential solutions that meet the FBI's space needs while 
recognizing the considerable challenges of funding such a large and 
complex project. We were encouraged that the previous procurement 
process in 2017 resulted in considerable interest by the private sector 
to help secure a new headquarters facility. However, without full 
funding, the FBI and GSA determined that continuing to move forward 
with the 2017 procurement would have put the government at risk for 
project cost escalations, which was made more complicated by the 
exchange proposal for the JEH parcel of land. For these reasons, the 
FBI and GSA jointly made the decision to cancel the prior procurement.
    From 2018 to 2021, the FBI and GSA advanced a proposal for the FBI 
headquarters to remain in downtown Washington, D.C., in a newly 
constructed facility. This new downtown facility would have been 
smaller than the proposed 2017 facility, but would have allowed for 
consolidated space in close proximity to DOJ and other mission 
partners, in a centralized location for the FBI workforce and other FBI 
mission locations like Quantico. Then, in March 2022, through the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Congress directed GSA to choose 
one of the three sites identified through the prior 2017 procurement--
Greenbelt, Maryland; Landover, Maryland; or Springfield, Virginia--to 
be the future home of the FBI's suburban campus in the NCR. As a 
result, through the spring and summer of 2022, the GSA and FBI worked 
together to develop a site selection plan and process by which the 
suburban site would be selected from these three locations, with a 
clear focus on what is best for the FBI workforce, the mission, and the 
American taxpayer. In September 2022, GSA publicly released the site 
selection plan that would be used to pick the site, which was closely 
coordinated with the FBI. This plan considered five criteria: FBI 
Mission Requirements, Transportation Access, Site Development 
Flexibility, Promoting Sustainable Siting and Advancing Equity, and 
Cost.
    Following the release of the plan, in December 2022, Congress 
passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which directed GSA to 
hold consultations with representatives for each of the three sites to 
discuss the site selection plan. Those consultations took place in 
March 2023. Following the consultations, GSA amended the site selection 
plan in July 2023 and then commenced the site selection process, which 
included convening a panel of three career GSA and FBI officials to 
make a consensus recommendation. After the panel submitted its 
recommendation of Springfield, Virginia, the GSA Site Selection 
Authority (SSA) conducted their own review and chose Greenbelt, 
Maryland as the suburban headquarters location.
    Throughout the selection process, the FBI coordinated closely with 
GSA. Of paramount importance to the FBI has always been fairness and 
transparency in the process--irrespective of the specific site chosen. 
When GSA provided the FBI with its site selection decision, the FBI 
identified several areas of concern regarding the process, which we 
promptly expressed to GSA. In a September 2023 memorandum, FBI 
Associate Deputy Director (ADD) Brian Turner laid out the FBI's 
identified process concerns. Specifically, the FBI noted in this 
memorandum our view that the SSA did not follow the site selection plan 
regarding the weighting of specific subcriteria. The published site 
selection plan states, ``subcriteria are of equal importance,'' whereas 
the FBI observed instances where we believe the SSA applied independent 
analysis indicating the relative importance of some subcriteria over 
others. The SSA also included outside information when evaluating the 
three sites. The site selection plan allows for this, but the FBI felt 
obligated to raise its concern that outside information was included in 
a way that from FBI's perspective consistently benefited the Greenbelt 
site. This concern was intensified when the SSA did not accept the 
consensus recommendation of the panel. The FBI observed that with one 
immaterial exception, each of the SSA's deviations from the panel's 
recommendation either benefited the Greenbelt site or disfavored the 
panel's recommended site of Springfield, Virginia. Lastly, in this 
memorandum, the FBI expressed concern about the appearance of a lack of 
impartiality by the SSA, given the SSA's previous position as an 
executive with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
(WMATA), which owns the Greenbelt site.
    GSA's response to ADD Turner's memorandum did not sufficiently 
address these concerns. Accordingly, Director Christopher Wray 
reiterated the FBI's concerns in a letter to the GSA Administrator on 
October 12, 2023. To address what FBI viewed as concerns with the 
process, and in an effort to move the project forward, the FBI 
requested GSA to re-run the final stage of the site selection decision 
process with a new SSA to ensure, from FBI's perspective, the 
appropriate level of impartiality for a decision of this magnitude. As 
the FBI has emphasized, including in this October 2023 letter 
expressing our views, ``we are not suggesting a lack of integrity by 
the PBS Commissioner. However, for a project of this magnitude and 
significance where the unimpeachability of the selection process is of 
vital importance, the SSA simply should not have previous, direct 
affiliation with one of the parties of this procurement.'' The GSA did 
not agree to the FBI's request, and instead proceeded to publish the 
site selection decision on November 9, 2023. The FBI's process concerns 
remain unaddressed.
    The site selection process was a significant undertaking, and the 
FBI is appreciative of the many men and women of the GSA who led and 
supported this monumental task. Through this process, the FBI has had 
the opportunity to work with many outstanding professionals at GSA--
dedicated public servants who have strived to support the FBI in 
constructing a new headquarters that allows the FBI to do its work for 
the American people. These GSA professionals support the FBI and other 
government agencies tirelessly each day, and the FBI is grateful for 
their dedication on this project and hundreds of others across the 
country. To be clear, the FBI's concerns are specific to the site 
selection process itself, and in particular, the final phase of the 
selection process. For a project of this magnitude and significance, it 
is critically important that each step is above reproach. From FBI's 
perspective, the FBI's recommendation to select a new SSA--a real 
estate expert with no affiliation to any of the three sites and an 
individual independent from these past several months of site selection 
deliberations--would have ensured the appropriate level of independence 
and neutrality.
    While the Congress and the GSA Office of the Inspector General 
conduct their reviews of this process, the FBI will continue to 
coordinate with GSA on the specific program of requirements for both 
the suburban facility and a 750-1,000 seat downtown facility in a pre-
existing federal building, which will allow the FBI to maintain close 
proximity to partners at DOJ and other law enforcement and governmental 
partners downtown.
    While the process review and construction planning activities take 
place, the current J. Edgar Hoover building continues to deteriorate, 
does not meet the needs of today's FBI, and is an inefficient use of 
taxpayer resources. Our goal is to build a consolidated, modern, 
secure, resilient facility that is capable of meeting the increased 
demands of the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement 
organization now and in the future--housing the hardworking men and 
women of the FBI for the next 50 or more years. In all of our efforts 
on this project, we must continue to ensure that fair and transparent 
processes are followed that leverage best practices in real estate, 
procurement, construction, and fiscal stewardship.
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Subcommittee Members, I 
thank you for this opportunity to testify on the new FBI Headquarters 
project. We appreciate your interest and support. I am happy to answer 
any questions you might have.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the witness and each of you for 
your testimony. We will now turn to questions for our 
witnesses. The Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes 
of questioning.
    Mr. Doomes, you just said in your testimony that the 
criteria was not changed. But in July, didn't the SSA or others 
change the weighting of the criteria?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, thank you for that question. In 
July of 2023, the criteria did change, but it was done in 
collaboration----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. But it--so, it changed, right? 
You just said there were no changes, but changing the weighting 
of the criteria is a change in itself. Is that correct?
    Mr. Doomes. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Perry. That is correct, right?
    So, you are the Regional Commissioner. You make these 
decisions across the board for this capital region for a number 
of different projects, and have done that, I would imagine, 
successfully. That is why you are in the job. Is that right?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, yes, I do have----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. You are the Regional 
Commissioner. Did you have any involvement with this site 
selection process at all?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, yes.
    Mr. Perry. OK.
    Mr. Doomes. I was involved with the consultations that were 
mandated by Congress in the December 2023 request by Congress 
to consult with the Maryland and Virginia. So, I was involved--
--
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. And who was the authority prior 
to July, when it changed? Who was the authority in this?
    Mr. Doomes. A career official.
    Mr. Perry. A career official that you know and you deal 
with?
    Mr. Doomes. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Perry. And does that career official report to you on 
these matters?
    Mr. Doomes. No, Congressman.
    Mr. Perry. Who does----
    Mr. Doomes [interrupting]. Well, now she does, yes.
    Mr. Perry. Now she does? Why not before?
    Mr. Doomes. The way the GSA is set up, the Regional 
Commissioner for the national capital region reported directly 
to the Public Buildings Service Commissioner.
    Mr. Perry. Directly to the Public Buildings Service 
Commissioner. All right.
    Well, I am just very curious as to why in July, after all 
this time--remember, this is 15 years going--in July, all of 
the sudden, we need to appoint somebody new at the top of this 
who eventually overruled the site selection committee's 
criteria.
    Mr. Dimos, if Congress had not slipped language into the 
fiscal year 2023 appropriations bill which directed the FBI to 
only consider three sites in Maryland and Virginia, would these 
represent the optimal sites for the FBI, the ones that are now 
required?
    Mr. Dimos. Chairman Perry, going back to 2018, really right 
up through the appropriations language in 2022, it was the 
FBI's position that the optimal solution was to be in a newly 
constructed building closer to downtown Washington, given the 
proximity to DOJ and other partners in the more downtown 
region.
    Mr. Perry. Is that based on mission? I don't want to put 
words in your mouth. What is that based on?
    Mr. Dimos. Sure----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. The optimal location.
    Mr. Dimos. Sure, in terms of the level of interaction that 
we would have with the Department of Justice, with the U.S. 
Attorney's office, with the National Security Council, with 
other law enforcement partners downtown.
    It was also a centrally located area for our workforce and 
for other sites that we have in the national capital region. We 
have a number of sites in the NCR, and being in a centralized 
location was our preferred approach.
    Obviously, when the appropriation was passed in March 2022, 
we heeded that direction and began the process----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Right, and I understand you 
didn't have any choice, but I find it interesting that people 
not related at all to your mission--and quite honestly, while 
there are times where I might disagree with your mission, 
specifically the spying on American citizens and targeting 
American citizens, but I would think the FBI would know best 
what its mission requirements are. And I am wondering about 
undue influence, whether it is from Congress or the GSA.
    Mr. Doomes, the areas where Ms. Albert disagreed with the 
panel seemed to always accrue benefit to Greenbelt. She 
overruled the panel when evaluating transportation access, site 
development flexibility and schedule risk, and sustainability 
and equity, all in favor of Greenbelt. And interesting to me--
and, I think, the public--the acquisition costs for Greenbelt 
went from over $200 million to now $26 million. That's a lot of 
money, right, $175, $174 million. What changed? That's a lot of 
money. What changed in that site?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, thank you for that question. My 
understanding is that WMATA, who owns the site, has offered it 
to GSA at the price cited in the site selection decision, $26.2 
million.
    Mr. Perry. So, what changed from the acquisition cost for 
Greenbelt? It's the same site. I understand WMATA, but it went 
from $200 million to $26 million. Now, you are the Regional 
Commissioner. What changed? Who is subsidizing this lowered 
cost? Somebody has got to pay for something here. And is the 
parking lot literally worth $174 million?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, I will have to get back to you on 
that. My understanding is that the site is valued at $26.2 
million and that WMATA has offered to sell it to GSA at that 
price.
    Mr. Perry. But you would also agree that it is a reduction 
in cost that was over $200 million.
    Mr. Doomes. I will have to get back to you on that, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Perry. Well, my time is now expired for this round, so, 
at this point, I will yield and recognize the gentlelady, the 
ranking member from Nevada, Ms. Titus.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would think you would like the fact that it went from 
$200 million down to $26 million. That sounds like that's right 
up your alley. Excuse me for that aside.
    I want to ask you about the high mission criticality score, 
if you could, Mr. Dimos. The Homeland Security--there is a 2021 
edition of a risk management process study, and it said, and I 
quote, facilities that ``house individuals or specialized 
equipment necessary to identify and analyze threats to homeland 
security'' have to have this high mission criticality score.
    Do you think you can achieve that kind of facility 
protection if you stayed and remodeled the building on 
Pennsylvania Avenue?
    Mr. Dimos. Congresswoman, at this stage, the work that we 
have conducted over the last couple years has been focused on 
the March 2022 congressional appropriation. And so, our focus 
has been on developing a process to select a suburban site from 
one of those three locations.
    In terms of talking about specific security requirements, 
we can follow up separately with the right level of security 
experts to talk through that.
    But my focus with GSA over the last couple of years has 
been specifically on selecting from one of the three suburban 
sites. Then, in addition to that, the 2024 President's budget 
did include support for a smaller facility downtown for 750 to 
1,000 people that we are coordinating with GSA on.
    Ms. Titus. So, in the meantime, while you all have been 
looking at these new sites, you have just let the facility on 
Pennsylvania deteriorate? You are not trying to fix it, not 
trying to improve it, just let it go to hell while you are 
looking for something else?
    Mr. Dimos. Thank you for that question. So, my staff and I 
are responsible, in coordination with GSA, for ensuring the 
building is maintained. And I will say it is a challenging 
situation in terms of the concrete mitigation, the pipe repair, 
the HVAC support. And I have got a heroic team of experts who 
work to maintain the facility to the best of their ability.
    What I would say is, it is a tradeoff of knowing that this 
conversation has been ongoing about a new facility. We want to 
invest in the building to ensure that we are keeping it stable 
and safe, and at the same time, not invest too much funding 
such that it would be imprudent, knowing that there is 
ultimately a vision to leave the facility----
    Ms. Titus [interrupting]. How much money do you----
    Mr. Dimos [continuing]. At some period.
    Ms. Titus [continuing]. Think you have spent on keeping it 
up to date since 2011, when you decided you wanted a new 
building?
    Mr. Dimos. I can't speak for everything since 2011. I would 
say over the last several years, with the support of Congress, 
we were required to reprioritize about $75 million just to 
address core water infrastructure to ensure we didn't have a 
catastrophic breakdown of our water intake and outtake from the 
building.
    We are also having to invest in----
    Ms. Titus [interrupting]. Besides the structural 
improvements to keep the employees safe, what about security 
issues, investment in keeping all that information secure?
    Mr. Dimos. Sure. So, security is a key area of focus for 
the FBI to ensure our space is safe, our people are safe, our 
records and IT are safe. And so, we have made incremental 
security investments to the facility to ensure that, in terms 
of the things we can feasibly do, we are doing them.
    There are, of course, many security features that we cannot 
implement, given the 1974 construction. And so, we do the best 
we can for modest security improvements.
    Ms. Titus. You don't want to make it too nice or too good, 
because then that might hurt your chances of getting a new 
building, right?
    Mr. Dimos. Congresswoman, we want to make sure--we have 
limited resources in order to support the building. And to the 
maximum extent possible, I want those resources to go towards 
combating violent crime, human trafficking, international 
terrorism.
    Ms. Titus. OK, let me ask you this. The 2018 plan included 
a SCIF, a SIOC, 72-hour backup power, mission briefing center, 
blast and ballistic protection, visitor center, parking garage, 
remote truck inspection facility, perimeter security, and 
upgraded IT. Can you talk about, does any of that still exist, 
or been worked on, or what the scope is of the current project? 
Does it include all of that stuff?
    Mr. Dimos. So, those specific requirements that you have 
listed there would be the ones that would be included in our 
construction plan for the suburban campus that we will be 
working with GSA on, going forward.
    Ms. Titus. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Perry. The gentlelady yields. The chairman now 
recognizes the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. 
Graves from Louisiana.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank both of you for being here. I want to thank 
you for your testimony.
    Mr. Doomes, I understand how you may be shocked that folks 
are questioning criteria and criteria being changed, but I do 
want to just give you a little bit of perspective on the things 
that we deal with.
    In this committee, you can imagine billions and billions of 
dollars in, for example, transportation grants have been given 
to the Department of Transportation. And as we have gone 
through and looked at the allocation of dollars, and we have 
looked at the criteria that this Department of Transportation 
has developed, we have watched as 17 percent of the overall 
money has been given to the State of California, while 0.33 
percent of the money has been awarded to the State of Alabama. 
Those States--you can say, well, maybe it is population. Those 
States have an eightfold difference in population, yet that is 
a fifty-one-fold difference in the amount of allocation among 
States.
    So, said another way, I have observed how criteria has been 
manipulated in a way to benefit specific States, areas, or 
projects that I think otherwise do not stand on their own 
merit. So, I want you to understand that backdrop under which 
you are showing up here.
    So, in that regard, it is my understanding that criteria 
was changed, and you have noted the scoring issue that the 
chairman noted. Were you asked--was anyone--did anyone come to 
you and ask you to change that criteria?
    Or are you aware of anyone from above, from White House, 
political appointees or any others, that asked that that 
criteria be changed, or that the weighting of the scoring be 
changed?
    Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Congressman. What 
happened was in December of 2022, Congress directed GSA and the 
FBI to conduct consultations, meaningful consultations, with 
the State of Maryland and Virginia. We held those consultations 
in March of 2023. And then we worked collaboratively with our 
partners over at the FBI to come up with new criteria.
    And the changes we made in the criteria, I think it is 
really important to talk about that.
    One was, we decided to increase the percentage of cost. We 
thought it was really desirable to increase our focus on 
providing the lowest cost option for taxpayers.
    And then we had governmentwide directives related to equity 
that we felt like we needed to reflect.
    And I will point out that mission remains the number-one 
priority in the new set of criteria, but we worked on that 
collaboratively with our partners, with the FBI. And they wrote 
and they let us know----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. OK, OK. And I 
appreciate that dialogue and engagement, and I certainly 
respect that and think it is important.
    But just going back to my question, was there a political 
appointee, White House or anyone, that asked you or asked 
anyone within GSA to actually change the criteria or change the 
weight of the criteria?
    So, putting aside State engagement and all those, was there 
anyone along those lines?
    Mr. Doomes. So, let me clarify. We had both political 
appointees and career officials within GSA----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interposing]. Yes.
    Mr. Doomes [continuing]. Meeting with career officials with 
the FBI to come up with this new criteria.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Yes.
    Mr. Doomes. So, no one outside of the agency, sir.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Right. So, it is--I am going to 
surmise here--so, it is fair to say that there were political 
appointees that weighed in on this and asked that the criteria 
be changed or that the weight of the scoring be changed.
    Mr. Doomes. Yes, there were political appointees that were 
a part of that process, Congressman.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, thank you.
    I am not sure which one of you to ask this question to, but 
I certainly understand the accessibility of the site as being 
really important. You want employees to be able to actually get 
to work. And I understand that the site that you chose ranked 
the highest in terms of transit accessibility, but then you 
also have the requirement, at least in the previous scope, to 
provide thousands of parking spots. And I just want to make 
sure I understand that situation, and I am happy to take an 
answer from either of you.
    Mr. Dimos. Sure. So, for our workforce, we were definitely 
advocating strongly to ensure max level of access to mass 
transportation: Metrorail, regional rail, bus lines, as well as 
accessibility to sites in the region.
    In addition to that, certainly there is going to come a 
time as we work through the program of requirements in more 
detail leading up to the prospectus, where we will be having 
significant discussions about the level of parking that would 
be included on the site, something like that, about the amount 
of parking, those details will be kind of more heavily 
discussed towards the next stage of the process.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. And Director Dimos, thank you. I 
am out of time.
    Mr. Chairman, I just want to say it would be very helpful 
if you all could help us understand the relationship between 
how you scored the transit, parking, and then also if you 
looked at actually making investments in new infrastructure to 
improve the score for either one of those sites.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 
Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you.
    Mr. Doomes, I don't think anyone is arguing that the SSA 
has the legal authority to make a decision that is not 
recommended by a panel--in this case, the panel that made the 
recommendations--but do you know, overall in the history, let's 
say 25 years, how often the SSA has changed, has come up with a 
different final recommendation that is a decision different 
than the recommendation panel?
    Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Congressman. To my 
knowledge, GSA does not keep a comprehensive database of all 
the site selection decisions. But when we asked the staff to 
take a look at it, it has happened a couple of times in the 
last 25 years.
    More specifically with the FBI case, in 2016, when GSA was 
asked to do the first downselect, a panel of career officials 
recommended several sites, and they excluded Springfield. And 
the Deputy PBS Commissioner at the time decided not to accept 
that recommendation, and decided, using their authority, to add 
Springfield as one of the sites to be considered.
    There is a second instance in 2006, in Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania, where the Site Selection Panel recommended three 
sites to the Site Selection Authority, and the PBS Commissioner 
at the time rejected all three sites and chose another site 
that was not even under consideration by the Site Selection 
Panel. So, that was, yes, in 2006----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Were either of 
those subject to a further IG investigation, as this one is?
    Mr. Doomes. I am sorry, Congressman.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Were either of those selections 
subject to an OIG investigation, as this one is?
    Mr. Doomes. Not to my knowledge, Congressman.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, OK. And if you could get 
back to us with any further examples, that would be helpful. It 
doesn't sound like there are a lot. Not just the numerator, but 
maybe the denominator, as well, how many potential decisions 
were made, and then how many were different, that would be 
great.
    Mr. Doomes. Yes, sir, we will----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. And not just in 
the FBI case, any case.
    Mr. Doomes. I am sorry.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Not just in an FBI case, but in 
any case.
    Mr. Doomes. In any case.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes.
    Mr. Doomes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, thanks. It will just help 
us, give us a perspective.
    Mr. Dimos, as noted just now, in the first procurement, the 
proximity of the site to the FBI's Quantico facility was not 
included, and then it was added. Do you have insight, from the 
FBI's perspective, about why that particular criteria was 
changed, and Quantico was added?
    Mr. Dimos. Sure. So, really, as I said earlier, going back 
to 2018, 2018 to 2022, really, the view of the FBI was that 
having that central proximity to partners and to other mission 
assets was very important. We have employees traveling back and 
forth to sites all the time, meeting with other law enforcement 
partners, intelligence community partners. And so, being in 
downtown Washington, it allowed for that central location.
    Hearing Congress loud and clear in March of 2022 that we 
needed to select a site from one of the three suburban 
locations, we tried to reflect on kind of that base kind of 
requirement of how do we be in close proximity to our other 
mission sites. Quantico is the largest mission site that we 
have in the national capital region, other than the Hoover 
Building itself. And so, as we talked to a lot of stakeholders 
within the FBI about what would enable the mission for the long 
haul, being in close proximity to that site and other sites in 
the area was deemed valuable.
    For example, we did a study, a 60-day study looking at the 
amount of meetings and back-and-forth between Quantico and----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Yes----
    Mr. Dimos [continuing]. Sites that were----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Can I stop you 
there? How relevant is that in a post-COVID era, and the 
application of online, especially secured online? Because we do 
VTCs overseas all the time on the military side.
    Mr. Dimos. Yes, in a post-COVID era, like I said, we did a 
60-day assessment----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes.
    Mr. Dimos [continuing]. Between Quantico and other sites, 
1,700 trips in a 60-day period between----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes, right.
    Mr. Dimos [continuing]. The core sites that are 
consolidating.
    In law enforcement work, face-to-face engagement is needed 
and common.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. It is needed and common. Is it--I 
am not questioning it, only I just want to--I am questioning it 
for the sake of understanding. Is that as relevant, though, 
given the advancement of technologies to actually replace not 
every face-to-face meeting, some face-to-face meetings?
    I want face-to-face meetings all the time, too, but I don't 
get that choice. I am not in your----
    Mr. Dimos [interposing]. Sure.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [continuing]. Position, I get it. 
But we have a very important job, too, and that requires face 
to face as well as having to flex sometimes.
    Mr. Dimos. Technology is certainly a really powerful 
enabler, but from the data research that we did, we are still 
seeing a significant amount of that direct face to face, and it 
is powerful.
    And the FBI, just by the nature of our mission, we are 
heavy users of our space, coming into the office, using our 
secret, top secret connectivity.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Sure, OK. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. D'Esposito.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good 
morning, everyone.
    I am sorry I missed the opening statements, but Mr. Dimos, 
can you just tell me what year you joined the FBI, or started 
working with the FBI?
    Mr. Dimos. Sure, 2006.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Great. And can you just explain to me what 
the number-one mission of the FBI is?
    Mr. Dimos. Countering and stopping acts of terrorism, sir.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK, so, to protect and defend the United 
States of America against terrorists and foreign intelligence 
threats.
    Mr. Dimos. Yes, sir.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. Given that mission to protect and 
defend the United States of America against threats and enforce 
criminal laws to protect its citizens, I would think that it 
would be the main priority to be considered when selecting a 
site for a new headquarters.
    Would you say that during the selection process this was 
considered above all other factors?
    Mr. Dimos. Ensuring the mission of the FBI and how 
facilities can support the mission of the FBI has absolutely 
been at the forefront of our requirement.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. And do you think that the decision, as 
of this past July, to change the site selection criteria by 
lowering the weight of the ``FBI proximity to mission-related 
locations,'' and increasing the weight of ``advancing equity'' 
puts the FBI's readiness and advancing its mission at risk?
    Mr. Dimos. Congressman, we viewed the September 2022 site 
selection plan as optimal. However, we did work closely with 
the GSA, ultimately, leading up to the July 2023 revisions to 
the plan. And while we thought that the September 2022 plan was 
best, we also deferred to GSA's judgment on the final 
percentages in the July publication of the plan.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK, so, what I am going to do real quick is 
I am just going to read, verbatim, the actual mission of the 
FBI. The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United 
States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to 
uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and 
to provide leadership and criminal justice services to Federal, 
State, municipal, and international agencies and partners.
    So, with that mission in our thoughts, I am finding it hard 
to understand why we would lower the weight of the proximity to 
mission-related locations and increase the weight of advancing 
equity. And I understand that you worked with the agencies that 
were involved, there was communication, I understand all that. 
But what I am trying to understand is why we would lower the 
weight of the FBI proximity to mission-related locations, and 
increase the weight of advancing equity when trying to find 
proper locations in order for us to put forth the mission of 
the FBI.
    So, if you could expand on that a little bit, I would 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Dimos. Thank you, Congressman. As I said, of course, 
our number-one priority in this was ensuring that this facility 
could support the mission of the FBI, first and foremost, hard 
stop, sir.
    With that said, we do know there were other factors that 
needed to be evaluated as part of a decision of this magnitude. 
Cost was one of those areas, as well. If you compare the 
September 2022 plan compared to the July 2023 plan, the 
importance of cost did change from 10 percent to 20 percent. 
And so, it----
    Mr. D'Esposito [interrupting]. Well, I think we all agree--
--
    Mr. Dimos [continuing]. Was a balancing act of multiple----
    Mr. D'Esposito [continuing interruption]. Under the Biden 
administration, costs have increased across the board in every 
aspect.
    But what I am asking here is how did equity come to play a 
bigger role in this?
    And how does advancing equity allow us to better the 
mission of the FBI?
    That is where I am not understanding. I understand the cost 
analysis. I understand the conversations that were had. I 
understand that you worked with the inner agencies of the FBI 
to figure out the better locations. What I am trying to 
understand, in the next 30 seconds, if you could explain to me 
how advancing equity helps better live out the mission of the 
FBI.
    Mr. Dimos. So, what I would say to the equity criteria, 
sir, is that there were two Executive orders that were signed 
regarding equity and real estate decisions. And so, the FBI and 
GSA had coordinated to also ensure that the site selection plan 
appropriately complied with----
    Mr. D'Esposito [interrupting]. And when were those 
Executive orders signed?
    Mr. Dimos. The first was signed in 2021, and the second, I 
believe, was in 2022, sir. But I could be wrong.
    Mr. D'Esposito. So, basically, we are following bad 
Executive orders in order to promote politics instead of 
actually living out the mission of the FBI. Not on you. You 
guys are just following the rules.
    But thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. 
Eleanor Holmes Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner Doomes, it is good to have you back on Capitol 
Hill. You were one of my best Hill staffers that I have worked 
with. So, it is good to see you in this new role. Of course, we 
were sad to lose you.
    I want to discuss with you, Mr. Doomes, GSA's site 
selection process for the new FBI headquarters. But first, I 
want to discuss the future use of this site of the FBI's 
current headquarters here on Pennsylvania Avenue in my 
district. The current site is a prime opportunity for mixed-use 
development, which could help activate Pennsylvania Avenue, 
draw visitors off the National Mall and into downtown, as well 
as generate tax revenue for the District of Columbia, here in 
my district.
    What is GSA's plan for the current site after the FBI 
moves?
    And is GSA committed to working with the District of 
Columbia as it plans for the future use of the site?
    Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. I 
just want to be clear. GSA does have a plan for this site. We 
are working through it. And the commitment I am willing to make 
here with you today is to work with your office, as well as 
local District of Columbia officials, about what that future 
use of that site might be.
    As you may be aware, as are other members of the committee, 
GSA currently has a national portfolio plan that we are working 
on, where we are looking at the entire inventory, all 363.3 
million square feet of space that we have across this country, 
and we are looking for opportunities to dispose of sites.
    You may have seen that about a month ago, GSA announced 
that we were disposing of 23 properties across this country 
because we determined that we no longer had a need for it. So, 
we would do that same asset segmentation policy for the J. 
Edgar Hoover site.
    And if we determine that it is surplus to the needs of the 
Government, we would then work on a disposal strategy through 
our Good Neighbor Program with the Office of the Chief 
Architect to work with the local authorities and your office 
about what the future might be for that site, including up to 
disposition.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Doomes.
    The site selection plan for the new FBI headquarters 
established a Site Selection Panel and a Site Selection 
Authority, Mr. Doomes. What were the respective 
responsibilities of the panel and the selection authority?
    Mr. Doomes. I really appreciate that question, 
Congresswoman, because I would like to clarify for the record.
    The Site Selection Panel was assembled to make 
recommendations to the Site Selection Authority, which is 
common for all GSA site selections. This expert panel, made up 
of two career experts, was expected to go through all the 
information that was provided by all of the jurisdictions, 
examine all the issues as outlined in the site selection plan 
which GSA made publicly available, and it was always 
contemplated that the Site Selection Panel would make a 
recommendation to the Site Selection Authority.
    And I think it is important to clarify that the Site 
Selection Authority looked at the 12 subcriteria across the 5 
criteria, and subsequently the Site Selection Authority 
accepted 9 of the 12 recommendations that the Site Selection 
Panel made.
    For the three criteria where the Site Selection Authority 
did not accept the recommendations of the Site Selection Panel, 
the Site Selection Authority in the site selection decision 
carefully went through and explained why they did not accept 
those three recommendations. And this is why we consider this 
one of the most transparent site selection processes that GSA 
has ever been involved in.
    We have not typically released a site selection plan and 
the site selection criteria, or the detailed site selection 
decision, where we went through in a painstaking way in a 40-
page decision explaining why the Site Selection Authority, on 3 
of the 12 recommendations that the Site Selection Panel made, 
did not accept. And the Site Selection Authority very clearly 
outlined that this was a close question.
    As the FBI has acknowledged, all three sites meet their 
mission needs, but it was our job to determine which of those 
three sites best met their needs. And we decided, and GSA made 
the decision that the Greenbelt site was the most transit-
oriented site, it was the lowest cost to the taxpayers, one 
that advanced the Presidential directive on equity and 
sustainability the most, and also offered the most project 
certainty. And we thought those were all the reasons that the 
Greenbelt, Maryland, site was the best site for taxpayers.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Representative 
Ezell.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doomes, I would like to start with you. Thank you for 
being here today, and our witnesses. We appreciate it.
    But how often do political appointees at GSA disagree with 
the recommended decision of GSA career experts?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, that is a great question. It is 
hard to give you a comprehensive answer, but we can cite to at 
least one other instance where the political head of the GSA 
Public Buildings Service overturned a Site Selection Panel 
decision. It was in 2006, with the siting of the Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania, courthouse. The Site Selection Panel made a 
recommendation of three sites, and the Site Selection Authority 
actually chose a fourth site that was not under consideration 
by the Site Selection Panel.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Do we have a detailed record that 
documents instances when a political appointee has been 
designated the role of the Site Selection Authority?
    Mr. Doomes. I don't believe we have a detailed document, 
but GSA has endeavored to look through past decisions and look 
for instances.
    Here, in an earlier case with the FBI in 2016, the Site 
Selection Panel recommended that the Springfield site be 
excluded from any consideration, and the Site Selection 
Authority decided not to accept that recommendation, and that 
GSA should consider the Springfield site.
    Mr. Ezell. I understand that the weights were changed for 
all criteria, and the expert panel still chose Springfield, yet 
a political appointee chose Greenbelt. To me, it seems like 
there was a directive from the White House to ensure Greenbelt 
emerged as the preferred choice. In between the panel's 
recommendation and the final report, was there any directive 
from the White House?
    Mr. Doomes. No, sir.
    Mr. Ezell. Would you be willing to share any documents or 
correspondence that may have come from the White House, GSA, 
and the executive branch, if there is any documents?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, I am committed to working with you 
to produce any correspondence, if it exists. I am not sure that 
it does, but I will work with the Office of General Counsel to 
get you that information.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    Mr. Dimos, given the FBI's preference to stay in downtown 
DC, do you believe the FBI would ever truly accept a decision 
to move the headquarters out of downtown DC?
    Mr. Dimos. Congressman, thank you for the question. What we 
said throughout the process from when Congress passed the law 
in March of 2022 until today is, as long as a fair and 
transparent process is followed, we will follow the law. And 
the law said that the FBI shall go to one of those three 
suburban sites, and that has not changed, sir.
    Mr. Ezell. How do you respond to the allegations that 
Director Carnahan said the FBI's concerns with the process had 
no merit?
    And do you feel this process was fair and transparent?
    Mr. Dimos. Thank you, sir. So, this is an area of 
disagreement between the FBI and the GSA. We have identified 
process concerns, as you even alluded to, in the fact that it 
is exceedingly rare that a Site Selection Panel's 
recommendation is not accepted by the Site Selection Authority. 
Even within our own FBI procurement shop, we canvassed our lead 
contracting officers, and it was exceedingly rare that such a 
situation had occurred.
    Combining that with the number of instances where there was 
a disagreement between the panel and the Site Selection 
Authority, we were concerned to see so consistently the 
disagreement by the SSA led to an increase to the Greenbelt 
site and a decrease to the Springfield site. And again, just 
exacerbated by the fact that the SSA was ultimately a senior 
executive by the owner of the Greenbelt site.
    Those things, taken in aggregate, just created areas of 
process concern for us, sir.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much. Thank you both for being 
here today.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Kansas, Representative Davids.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to 
the chairman and the ranking member, Ms. Titus, for holding 
this hearing today. And then, of course, thank you to our 
witnesses for taking the time to testify.
    I represent the Third Congressional District in Kansas, 
which is part of the Greater Kansas City metro area and home to 
a pretty significant Federal real asset footprint. And like a 
lot of places in the country with this kind of Federal nexus, 
we do depend on the GSA to serve as a good steward of taxpayer 
resources and to serve as a fair landlord in our communities. 
And those expectations, of course, are no different for the 
assessment of a location selection and construction for the new 
FBI headquarters.
    So, I do want to focus on the expressed needs that are at 
the center of this hearing. And some of this is a followup to 
some of the questioning we have heard from Ranking Member Titus 
and others.
    Mr. Dimos, I would like to hear. Since the GSA and FBI 
began working on this project in 2011, can you tell me how many 
FBI employees have been moved from the national capital region, 
or NCR, to other FBI sites around the country?
    Mr. Dimos. Sure. So, over the last several years, to your 
question, Congresswoman, the FBI has gone through a 
reassessment of the geographic location of our workforce. One 
particularly significant site for us has been our expanded 
presence in Huntsville, Alabama. We have actually been in 
Huntsville for 50 years through the Hazardous Devices School. 
But over the last decade in particular, a renewed investment 
for Huntsville, for technology positions, a training academy. 
At this point, we now have nearly 2,000 individuals in 
Huntsville today.
    We have also increased our presence in Pocatello, Idaho, 
and increased our presence and functions in Clarksburg, West 
Virginia. Of course, we operate 56 separate field offices 
across the country. Over the past several years, we have also 
looked at opportunities of taking headquarters positions and 
pushing them back out to the field offices to ensure that we 
are supporting our field operatives where the cases are being 
run.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Yes. Can you talk a little bit about 
how the calculation was made of the FBI employees in the new 
building over the course--I mean, it has been quite a few 
years. Can you talk a little bit about how that calculation 
plays into the site selection decision?
    Mr. Dimos. I just want to make sure I understand your 
question, Congresswoman. Can you just restate it for me, 
please?
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Yes. So, I am curious how, when 
looking at the various sites and the site selection process, 
how are you thinking about the calculation with the employees 
that are going to be at the new headquarters with the movement 
of employees to places like Huntsville or Idaho?
    Mr. Dimos. Sure. So, we have done an assessment of what are 
those functions that we think can operate effectively outside 
of the national capital region, also, in particular, thinking 
about where we may have partners in other parts of the country 
where it may be valuable to be collocated with those partners. 
Not all partners are in the NCR. And also looking at where we, 
quite frankly, have available real estate. We had available 
real estate in Clarksburg, West Virginia, to be able to 
transition employees.
    And so, kind of the net of that is, we still have a large, 
multithousand presence here in the national capital region for 
those functions that we believe are important to be in close 
proximity to intelligence community partners, law enforcement 
partners here in the NCR, as well as having access to the tech 
talent of the vendor community. We rely on industry to support 
us in some of our high-tech mission space, and this is a region 
of the country that has a lot of tech industry.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. And then, because I have--
it will be 30 seconds, hopefully, for you to answer, Mr. 
Doomes. I am curious if you could just--to follow on Mr. 
D'Esposito's line of questioning, the ability for folks to get 
to the building using transit and the parking situation, is 
that part of the equity consideration when deciding where that 
falls in terms of the priority levels?
    Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
    Actually, one of the criteria dealt expressly with 
transportation access and transit access. The Greenbelt site is 
0.1 miles away from the Metro station, as opposed to 
Springfield, 0.5.
    There were also some other subcriteria that dealt with the 
commercial airports and their proximity to that, but that is 
separate and apart from the criteria that deals with equity----
    Ms. Davids of Kansas [interposing]. Oh, OK.
    Mr. Doomes [continuing]. And sustainable development.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. OK, thanks. I just wanted to--I just 
was curious and didn't know.
    Thank you so much, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Representative Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Chairman Perry. I appreciate you and 
the ranking member for holding the hearing, and the chairman 
for allowing me to waive on to this subcommittee. I appreciate 
the witnesses for being here.
    There is certainly great interest in the GSA site selection 
process for the new FBI headquarters. My interest is more on 
how we are going to determine the name of the new FBI 
headquarters. In 1972, following J. Edgar Hoover's death, and 
before much was known about some of the illegal activities he 
engaged in, Congress passed a bill to name the existing 
building as the J. Edgar Hoover Building.
    J. Edgar Hoover did not uphold the laws of this Nation, the 
U.S. Constitution, or the standard of justice in many 
instances. It is absolutely inappropriate that our Nation's 
leading Federal law enforcement agency building still be named 
in his honor. Director Hoover was notorious for his regular 
abuses against and prejudice towards civil rights leaders, 
LGBTQ people, and African Americans at large.
    From his creation of the Counterintelligence Program, or 
COINTELPRO, which was a secret program aimed to ``expose, 
disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize'' the 
activities of Black nationalists, hate-type organizations, to 
his FBI ``sex deviance'' program--he had a little thing about 
gays. He didn't look in the mirror very often, but he had a 
thing about gays. That nationalist hate-type organizations to 
his FBI that used--he used them to attack and out LGBTQ 
employees in the Federal Government. Director Hoover symbolized 
the dangers of the weaponization of the Federal Government. He 
weaponized the Federal Government like never before, and held 
much incriminating data about Presidents, which some suggest is 
why he kept his position for so long.
    Relocation of the FBI building presents an excellent 
opportunity to release the FBI and its headquarters building 
from Director Hoover's tarnished reputation and instead pursue 
a building name that will appropriately honor the 
administration of justice.
    We are privileged in Congress to have dinners that are 
sponsored by David Rubenstein at the Library of Congress, and 
the last one I attended--I think the last one held--was a lady 
who wrote a biography of J. Edgar Hoover. She worked on it for 
15 years, 800 pages. She had very little good to say about him 
because of his misdeeds.
    Mr.--is it Doomes? Thank you sir. The GSA Administrator, as 
I understand it, has the authority to name buildings, but 
typically looks to Congress for direction. I introduced H.R. 
1175 this year, and I have introduced a similar bill for many 
years, which would redesignate the J. Edgar Hoover Federal 
Building as the Federal Bureau of Investigation building. Given 
that the 1972 law expressly renamed the building constructed in 
downtown, would the old name convey to the newly reconstructed 
FBI building, or will it only receive a name when Congress 
designates a name and the GSA adopts it?
    Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Congressman. The 
expectation is that, if the building comes down, GSA would 
defer to Congress a new building and how it is named.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. That would be appropriate, and I 
appreciate the clarity.
    It is important that the old name not carry over. The FBI 
needs to be respected as an agency that does carry out its 
duties of being fair and just in administering justice. And 
what happened in Martin Luther King and his phone being tapped, 
and the messages that were sent to him by the FBI suggesting he 
should commit suicide because they had more information on him 
which Mrs. King wouldn't want to know about, et cetera; what 
they did in Chicago when they killed Black Panthers, they set 
up with insiders and killed Black Panthers in Chicago; and it 
looks like something happened with Malcolm X. His convicted 
murderers have been released because they didn't do it. Who 
knows what else he did?
    Commissioner, I have one other question. It is my 
understanding that in October of 2022 the GSA requested 
authorization to lease space for an FBI field office in 
Nashville. It is also my understanding the committee has not 
considered that request. Can you explain the request for space 
and the current status of the procurement?
    Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I 
want to be careful here, because that procurement is ongoing. 
But it has been advertised. The contracting officer has three 
offers on the table, but GSA will not proceed until this 
committee provides a resolution in support of that prospectus, 
at which point we would be able to make an award and move 
forward on that project in Tennessee.
    But I welcome the opportunity to let Mr. Dimos fill in.
    Mr. Dimos. Thank you, Mr. Doomes.
    Thank you for the question, sir. This is a very important 
project for us. Congress approved the consolidation of our 
Knoxville and Memphis field offices into a consolidated 
Nashville field office in 2019, and so, the actual ability to 
award the construction project in Nashville is critically 
important for our employees who are already expecting that kind 
of transition to Nashville. And so, this has been a 5-year-plus 
endeavor.
    And so, we would definitely appreciate your support, the 
committee's support. And if there are any questions that the 
committee has regarding the Tennessee consolidation effort, we 
would be happy to schedule a follow-on discussion at a time 
that is best for you, sir.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I do 
have to say I felt there was great discrimination in the 
decision to take the headquarters--to consolidate in Nashville. 
It was obviously prejudiced in favor of hot chicken over 
barbecue.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I am going to go 
to a second round here.
    Mr. Doomes, as you probably and likely know, this committee 
had requested Ms. Albert be present for her testimony. And 
fortunately or unfortunately, you are here--well, I wouldn't 
say instead, but you are the one that is on the hot seat to 
speak on behalf of whatever might have happened. So, I've got 
some questions for you in that regard, and they are not 
personal.
    But the July 2023 update included changes to the Site 
Selection Authority, shifting it from the Public Buildings 
Service Regional Commissioner to the Public Buildings Service 
Commissioner. This change occurred 2 years after the 
appointment of Ms. Albert, meaning the GSA affirmatively chose 
to remove an impartial PBS Regional Commissioner and replace 
them with Ms. Albert, an individual they knew had worked for 
WMATA, the landowner of one of the three potential sites, and 
the one that was chosen.
    Now, I say replace Ms. Albert with an individual that they 
knew worked for WMATA [sic], or replace the Regional 
Commissioner, the impartial Regional Commissioner.
    [Slide]
    Mr. Perry. I think that the Regional Commissioner was 
impartial because on the previous report--I know you don't have 
it in front of you, but I am showing it to you [indicating 
report]--the name of that person is redacted, right? They don't 
want any trouble for doing what the right thing is, making the 
site selection based on the criteria.
    It seems to me that Ms. Albert was brought in to fix the 
situation, to get the result that was wanted. That is why, 
after 2 years, she was brought into this whole process and 
airdropped right into the middle of it, and then 2\1/2\ months 
later, the announcement was made. The criteria was changed to 
get the site selection that they wanted, and the decision was 
made.
    Who decided to make the change regarding Ms. Albert, 
knowing that she had a potential conflict of interest? Who made 
that decision?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, thank you for that question. GSA 
made that decision, so, I believe it may have been the Site 
Selection Authority herself that made that decision, but I will 
have to get back to you.
    Mr. Perry. So, you are saying the person--wait, the person 
whose name was redacted here [indicating report] made the 
decision to replace themselves with Ms. Albert? Is that what 
you are saying?
    Mr. Doomes. The Site Selection Authority is the top real 
estate official within GSA. We knew when we were making this 
decision it was going to be a lot of scrutiny. Someone was 
going to be unhappy, either Maryland or----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. The top real estate official, and 
you knew at the time that Ms. Albert hasn't had a real estate 
license, never sat for the exam, doesn't possess a real estate 
license, but you took the top real estate official out and put 
Ms. Albert in. And you are saying the Site Selection Authority 
at GSA did that? That is what you are saying?
    Mr. Doomes. I will need to clarify as to----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I hope you do. I am wondering, 
was there any outside input into that decision from anyone in 
the Maryland elected delegation, or the Virginia delegation, or 
OMB? Was there anybody from either one of those three 
entities--delegations, elected delegation to Maryland, 
Virginia, or the Office of Management and Budget--that weighed 
in on that decision to replace that person with Ms. Albert, 
knowing there was a conflict of interest?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, what I will say is the head of GSA 
heard from members of the Maryland and Virginia delegation 
throughout the year about what their concerns were.
    Mr. Perry. What was the tenor of those conversations?
    Mr. Doomes. I think both delegations wanted their site to 
be chosen.
    Mr. Perry. Were you involved? Were you involved in those 
conversations?
    Mr. Doomes. No, sir.
    Mr. Perry. Do you know of any of those conversations 
directly with Ms. Albert?
    Mr. Doomes. Certainly, and I am not aware that the Site 
Selection Authority heard herself directly. I was referring to 
the Administrator, who I know heard from both delegations.
    Mr. Perry. So, the Administrator, but not--you can't 
confirm whether Ms. Albert heard from the delegation or not.
    Mr. Doomes. Sir, I am unable to provide an answer to that 
question.
    Mr. Perry. Did the Administrator, having heard from the 
delegations and possibly OMB, the Administrator--did the 
Administrator make this change to Ms. Albert?
    Mr. Doomes. So, I want to be careful here to make sure I 
understand your question, sir. Could you----
    Mr. Perry. I want to know who made the decision and what 
their involvement was with elected officials in Maryland and 
Virginia, or potentially the OMB.
    Mr. Doomes. I will have to get back to you on that one, 
sir.
    Mr. Perry. All right. Are you aware that the general 
manager from WMATA, the transit agency that services the DC 
metro area, has just announced the closure of 10 sites, 67 bus 
routes, 2,000 employees losing their jobs due to lack of 
funding?
    Do you know if one of the potential closures of those 10 
sites is the Greenbelt site?
    Mr. Doomes. No, sir.
    Mr. Perry. Would that affect the decision, if it were to 
close?
    Mr. Doomes. I would have to consult with staff on that and 
get back to you.
    Mr. Perry. Before I recognize the ranking member, I have 
just got to tell you. I used to have this old truck that sat in 
my tractor shed, and rodents would get into it because they are 
just sitting out in the tractor shed. I didn't use it very 
much, but I would get in it, and I could smell that they were 
in there. I could smell the rat, because they've got a certain 
smell about them when they are inhabiting the place.
    The American people smell a rat here. They smell a rat, Mr. 
Doomes. Unfortunately, you are here to answer for GSA. I am not 
sure you are the right person. We've got to get to the bottom 
of what happened here, because this does not fulfill the FBI's 
mission.
    There is crazy business with us subsidizing WMATA, who 
apparently now appears to be subsidizing the FBI at the same 
time they are getting ready to lay off 2,000 employees because 
they can't pay their bills. They don't have any money to be 
subsidizing anybody. What we should be focused on here is the 
mission of the FBI and what best enhances that. And none of 
these sites, not one of these sites--and this is not on you, 
this is on Congress--but not one of these sites, according to 
the expert here, Mr. Dimos, services the mission of the FBI.
    With that, I yield to the ranking member, the gentlelady 
from Nevada.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    I would just ask you, Mr. Doomes, the GSA's objective is to 
build the fastest and the cheapest, or to rent the fastest and 
the cheapest. Aren't there a couple of facilities that exist 
now on the Springfield site that would have to be taken down, 
like a warehouse or something, before they could even start 
preparing that site for construction? Wouldn't that make it 
longer, take longer and cost more?
    Mr. Doomes. Yes, Congresswoman. Actually, that was 
contemplated in the site selection decision. Currently on the 
Springfield site, there is a rather large warehouse, 1 million 
square feet, in which we hold a personal property that is 
excess to the Government needs. There is also a classified 
tenant on the property, as well. And both of those facilities 
would have to be moved, and there are costs associated with 
moving both of those tenants. And that was one of the things 
that was under consideration.
    In fact, that's one of the things the Site Selection 
Authority considered: project certainty. And project certainty 
involves how soon, how quickly, and how costly it would be to 
move the existing tenants on the Springfield site.
    Ms. Titus. Have you all decided where you would move those, 
or have you got to figure that out next?
    Mr. Doomes. That would be the next part of the process, to 
figure out exactly where those tenants would move. I believe 
there is a site for the classified tenant, and they are going 
through that process. But for the unclassified tenant, we are 
putting together those plans now.
    Ms. Titus. And it's not associated with the FBI in any way, 
it's just something else GSA has?
    Mr. Doomes. No, it is unrelated to the FBI.
    Ms. Titus. OK, thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Dimos, in the Department of Justice OIG 
report issued in October, it is mentioned that the FBI had 
concerns in 2017 about the Greenbelt site due to the presence 
of wetlands and limited constructible space. Does the FBI 
maintain these concerns, especially now that it has been 
announced that the Greenbelt site has been selected?
    And will the Greenbelt site fully accommodate the 
consolidation of the FBI headquarters and potential future 
expansion?
    Mr. Dimos. Thank you for the question, Chairman. All three 
sites were deemed viable to be able to support the FBI----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I know that they were deemed 
viable. You are representing the FBI. You are not representing 
the other people on the panel. Congress that forced them--
trying to force these three sites down the FBI's throat. What 
does the FBI say?
    Mr. Dimos. Because of the site size and the challenges of 
the wetlands, it does create construction challenges that we 
would have to work through, through the program of requirements 
process. It is not unachievable, but it is a construction 
challenge.
    Mr. Perry. Do you think it increases the cost?
    I know you are not a constructor, right? You probably don't 
build things.
    Mr. Dimos. We would have to rely on developers to help us 
with those cost estimates, sir.
    Mr. Perry. Well, I suspect it would increase the cost.
    Mr. Doomes, did the GSA seek an opinion from the Office of 
Government Ethics and/or the Department of Justice regarding 
Ms. Albert's appointment as a Site Selection Authority, given 
her previous employment at Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority?
    Mr. Doomes. Thank you for that question, Congressman. GSA 
did seek the opinion of the Office of General Counsel of GSA to 
address this issue of Ms.--the Site Selection Authority's 
previous employment.
    Just to give you a timeline, in July of 2021, the Site 
Selection Authority was appointed as the PBS Commissioner. 
Shortly thereafter, she was granted a limited authorization to 
work on all matters related to WMATA and, in particular, the 
FBI headquarters. So, this was contemplated nearly 9 months 
before Congress downselected to the three sites that were under 
consideration.
    Mr. Perry. When did the GSA seek the opinion from the 
Office of Government Ethics or the Department of Justice based 
on what you just told me, when did they seek that?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, I don't believe they sought the 
opinion of the Office of Government Ethics. This was an 
internal opinion offered by the Office of General Counsel for 
GSA, rendered in July of 2021.
    Mr. Perry. July of 2021 they rendered that decision, that 
opinion? Do you have a copy of that for this panel?
    Mr. Doomes. Yes, I have a copy, and I am more than willing 
to share it with the committee.
    Mr. Perry. I hope so. All right. Mr. Doomes, when does GSA 
plan to submit a prospectus to the committee for the new FBI 
headquarters building?
    Mr. Doomes. Congressman, GSA intends to follow the law. In 
the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bill, we were directed to 
share information consistent with the prospectus within 180 
days of selecting a site.
    Mr. Perry. Within 180 days. So, that 180-day clock started 
in September, when it was announced. Is that correct?
    Mr. Doomes. Correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Perry. All right. I thank the witnesses.
    Are there any further questions from any members of the 
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would 
like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony. The 
committee now stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


Questions to Elliot D. Doomes, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, 
      U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Rick Larsen

    Question 1. One aspect of the previous procurement that was 
particularly frustrating was GSA's refusal to acknowledge that there 
would be a substantial delta between the value of the exchange and the 
cost to construct the new facility.
    Question 1.a. How much do you think it will cost to build a new 
headquarters building?
    Answer. GSA's fiscal year (FY) 2024 and FY 2025 budget requests 
include appropriations language supporting the capital investment of 
$3.5 billion through the creation of a Federal Capital Revolving Fund 
(FCRF). This funding would be used to support the construction of the 
FBI's new suburban headquarters campus in Greenbelt, Maryland. The FCRF 
funding would be paired with $845 million in GSA prior year 
appropriations to support the acquisition, design, and construction of 
the FBI's new suburban headquarters campus.
    The $3.5 billion is an estimate based on the previous program. 
Updated cost estimates are needed, as the program has evolved and as 
construction costs have increased since the previous program was 
established. This estimate is for GSA's portion of the project; it does 
not include the costs of FBI's information technology infrastructure or 
furniture, fixtures, and equipment.

    Question 1.b. How much do the FBI and GSA have in their accounts?
    Answer. GSA was appropriated a total of $850 million across several 
fiscal years, of which approximately $845 million is currently 
available.
    With respect to any available balances that the FBI might have, GSA 
respectfully refers you to them.

    Question 1.c. How are you going to close the gap? Are there any 
funds remaining from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
    Answer. None of the funds provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law are available to fund the FBI's new suburban headquarters campus in 
Greenbelt, Maryland. Rather, those funds were specifically appropriated 
to modernize land ports of entry along the northern and southern 
borders.

    Question 2. How much have GSA and the FBI spent on maintenance and 
emergency repairs to the Hoover Building since the FBI concluded in 
2011 that a new headquarters building was needed?
    Answer. Since 2011, GSA has spent $8.2 million in maintenance and 
emergency repair expenses at the J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) building. 
According to information shared by the FBI with GSA, from FY 2016 
through FY 2023, the FBI has spent approximately $157 million in 
maintenance and repairs for JEH.

    Question 3. In 2011 GSA and the FBI each developed plans for the 
construction of a new FBI HQ. GSA recommended traditional federal 
construction, which would require access to the full cost of 
construction upfront \1\ and the FBI proposed a lease/lease-back 
arrangement in which the Federal Government would ground lease land to 
a private developer who would build the facility and lease it back to 
the Federal Government.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ GSA, Report No. BDC-13001, Report of Building Project Survey 
Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Consolidation Washington, 
DC, Metropolitan Region (Oct. 17, 2011).
    \2\ FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Consolidation 
Project Report (Aug. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 3.a. Which strategy was selected and why?
    Answer. Neither strategy was selected at the time. Both full 
appropriations and lease/lease-back arrangements were evaluated and 
would likely have required approximately the same amount of upfront 
funding, due to the budgetary treatment for capital leases, in 
accordance with OMB Circular No. A-11, Appendix B.

    Question 3.b. Which financing strategy would you recommend today?
    Answer. GSA's budget requests for FY 2024 and FY 2025 propose the 
establishment of a new FCRF, which would allow for the funding of the 
FBI suburban headquarters campus in Greenbelt, Maryland. GSA is willing 
to work with Congress to consider any viable funding mechanisms that 
are able to meet this critical need.

    Question 3.c. A P3, Federal appropriations, or a combination?
    Answer. GSA's budget requests for FY 2024 and FY 2025 propose the 
establishment of a new FCRF, which would allow for the funding of the 
FBI suburban headquarters campus in Greenbelt, Maryland. GSA is willing 
to work with Congress to consider any viable funding mechanisms that 
are able to meet this critical need.

    Question 4. How much money does GSA have for this project?
    Answer. To date, GSA has received a total of $850 million across 
several fiscal years, of which approximately $845 million remains 
available.

    Question 5. How much money does the FBI have?
    Answer. GSA respectfully refers you to the FBI regarding their 
available funding for this project.

    Question 6. Is there enough available to buy a site, initiate a 
design, and start construction?
    Answer. Division E, Title V, Section 530 of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103) required GSA to submit a report 
on the FBI headquarters project within 180 days of site selection, 
which was delivered to the Committees on March 28, 2024. Upon adoption 
of approval resolutions by the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, GSA intends to move 
forward expeditiously with site acquisition, design, design-related 
consulting services, management / oversight, and preliminary 
construction support activities, using GSA's existing balances of 
approximately $845 million.

    Question 7. How far can you get in the development and procurement 
process?
    Answer. Please refer to the previous response.

    Question 8. According to the DOJ IG's recently released Review of 
the FBI's Planning for a Future FBI Facility \3\ GSA cancelled the 
original FBI HQ procurement in July of 2017 due to insufficient 
funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/24-004.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can you explain the structure of that procurement, the concept of 
the exchange, why it was not successful, and if you think the current 
procurement should also include an exchange for property?
    Answer. The 2017 Request For Proposals sought an exchange partner 
to develop, design, construct, deliver, and operate a consolidated 
headquarters facility for the FBI. As consideration for its 
performance, the exchange partner would have received Federal 
construction funding and, upon completion and acceptance of the new FBI 
headquarters facility, fee simple title to the J. Edgar Hoover 
Building, including the full city block around the building. In 2017, 
GSA canceled the exchange project primarily due to a lack of funding.

Questions to Nicholas Dimos, Assistant Director, Finance and Facilities 
    Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, from Hon. Rick Larsen

    Question 1. The 2018 plan included a SCIF, a SIOC, 72-hour back-up 
power, a mission briefing center, blast and ballistic protection, a 
visitors' center, parking garages, a remote truck inspection facility, 
perimeter security, and upgraded IT.
    Question 1.a. What is the scope of the current project?
    Answer. The current plan for a new FBI headquarters (HQ) consists 
of two elements: a suburban campus for at least 7,500 personnel and a 
facility in Washington, D.C. for approximately 750-1,000 personnel, as 
outlined in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 President's Budget. The FBI will 
work with the General Services Administration (GSA) to develop 
requirements for the suburban and Washington, D.C. locations. These 
efforts will determine the features for each location.

    Question 1.b. How does it differ--in terms of size, scope, and 
cost--from the previous procurement?
    Answer. Prior to 2017, the original headquarters consolidation plan 
included one suburban location in the national capital region (NCR) for 
approximately 10,606 personnel. As part of this plan, the developer 
chosen for the new location would have taken ownership of the J. Edgar 
Hoover (JEH) Building site. This plan would have allowed the FBI to 
consolidate personnel from 14 locations (i.e., the JEH Building plus 13 
leased locations). At the time, GSA estimated this plan would have cost 
$3.57 billion. While the FBI and GSA each received some appropriations 
for the new FBI headquarters in FYs 2016 and 2017, GSA cancelled the 
procurement for this project in July 2017 due to a lack of full 
funding.
    In 2018, the FBI and GSA presented a revised plan to demolish the 
JEH Building and construct a new building on the same site for 
approximately 8,300 personnel. The 2018 plan included approximately 
2,300 fewer personnel as a result of the FBI's planned strategic 
realignment of personnel to locations outside the NCR, including 
Huntsville, AL; Clarksburg, WV; and Pocatello, ID. In the 2018 plan, 
the FBI and GSA estimated the demolish and rebuild option would have 
cost $3.33 billion at that time.
    The current plan includes two locations--one suburban and one in 
Washington, D.C.--estimated to accommodate a combined total of no less 
than 8,500 personnel. The suburban location will be new construction. 
The Washington, D.C. location is planned to be an existing federally 
owned facility. This two-location plan reflects the importance of the 
FBI maintaining close proximity to partners in Washington, D.C.
    Since 2017, the FBI has reduced the number of leases in the NCR. At 
this time, approximately 10 leases (including the JEH Building) are 
planned to be consolidated into the new headquarters locations. The 
total number of leases the FBI will be able to consolidate will be 
impacted by the size of the new facilities, which will be determined by 
the total funding available for the project and construction prices 
when the project is eventually funded. Unlike the 2017 plan, the 
current plan does not include an exchange of the JEH Building site to 
the developer. In the FY 2024 President's Budget, the Administration 
indicated the FBI would use $503 million in previously appropriated 
funding for the downtown location and GSA would use $645 million in 
previously appropriated funding plus $3.5 billion requested in the FY 
2024 President's Budget from the Federal Capital Revolving Fund to 
acquire and build the suburban location. Additional funding may be 
required to furnish and outfit these locations.
    The cost of this project requires additional evaluation after the 
detailed requirements are completed. Also, the cost can be expected to 
continue escalating with time.

    Question 2. Full consolidation of all HQ employees into one 
building was a priority for the FBI during the previous procurement.
    Question 2.a. Is full consolidation still a priority for the FBI?
    Answer. The FBI's priority has been, and continues to be, a safe, 
modern HQ that meets the needs of the FBI and represents a good deal 
for taxpayers. A new suburban FBI HQ would allow the FBI to consolidate 
space, collocate currently dispersed personnel, and eliminate the need 
for multiple leased locations in the NCR, thereby saving tens of 
millions of dollars in annual lease payments.
    The plan for a new FBI HQ never included a full consolidation of 
all FBI leases in the NCR. The FBI has always planned to maintain some 
leased locations in the NCR due to mission requirements that are not 
suitable for a headquarters facility.
    While the FBI still endeavors to consolidate as much as possible 
into its new HQ facilities, the total number of leases the FBI will be 
able to consolidate will be impacted by the size of the new facilities, 
which will be determined by the total funding available for the project 
and construction prices when the project is eventually funded.

    Question 2.b. Does the current FBI headquarters building house all 
employees which are assigned to it?
    Answer. No, the JEH Building does not house all personnel who are 
assigned to FBI HQ in the NCR.

    Question 2.c. If not, how many leased spaces in the National 
Capital Region (NCR) house FBI employees who don't fit into the Hoover 
building? What is the annual cost of the leased spaces?
    Answer. The FBI currently has approximately 10 leases in the NCR, 
including JEH, slated to consolidate into new headquarters locations. 
The FBI spends approximately $86 million each year for these leases. 
After consolidation, the FBI will still maintain some leases in the NCR 
due to mission requirements.

    Question 2.d. Since GSA and the FBI began working on this project 
in 2011 how many FBI employees have been moved from the National 
Capital Region (NCR) to other FBI sites around the country?
    Answer. Following a strategic review of job functions, the FBI has 
approximately 2,000 HQ personnel at its facilities in Huntsville, AL as 
of January 2024. Most of these functions were relocated from the NCR.

    Question 2.e. How many FBI employees were included in the 
calculation for the new building in 2011 and how many employees are you 
including in the current calculation for the new headquarters?
    Answer. Prior to 2017, the original headquarters consolidation plan 
included one location in the NCR for approximately 10,606 personnel. 
The current plan for the new HQ includes at least 7,500 personnel at 
the suburban location and 750-1,000 personnel at the location in 
Washington, D.C. The combined total for the two locations is no less 
than 8,500 personnel.

                                    [all]