GSA Flagged for Apparent Redling and Procurement Violations (10/21/08)

GSA Flagged for Apparent Redlining and Procurement Violations

October 21, 2008

Washington, D.C. -- Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), chair of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, today released her letter to General Services Administration (GSA) Acting Administrator James Williams addressing what appear to be redlining and procurement violations in seeking space for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and asked for a reply within 10 days.

GSA appears to be steering federal agencies away from Prince George's County and other areas targeted for federal agencies, giving agency-preferred sites credit for amenities such as hair salons and fitness facilities that have nothing to do with government work. In addition, GSA, which acquires land for construction and rental space for federal agencies, must find space near public transportation but appears to have stretched the recommended distance from one-half mile to three miles. Since Norton became chair of the subcommittee, GSA has been under a mandate to be more prudent than in past years in spending taxpayer money for federal space. In her letter Norton said "I have spent my entire service in Congress on this subcommittee, but I have never seen a solicitation that raised, much less received the sanction of Congress for most of the factors identified for the HHS prospectus."

A copy of the Congresswoman's letter is below:

James Williams

Acting Administrator

General Services Administration

18th and F St. NW

Washington, D.C 20405

BY FAX AND MAIL

Dear Acting Administrator Williams:

Attached please find correspondence from the developer of Town Center at Camp Springs, Maryland. The letter raises very serious matters about procurement integrity regarding a lease procurement being conducted by the General Services Administration (GSA) for 935,401 rentable square feet of space for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in suburban Maryland.

Following years of complaints that GSA's actions had created the impression that some locations and some areas are "redlined," by GSA and federal agencies, despite the location of these areas close to public transportation and amenities, my first hearing as chair of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management was held to examine the GSA's role in decisions by GSA and agencies to locate in high cost areas. I held the site hearing at the beautiful Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the NOMA area to determine why so many agencies were approved for locations in the crowded center of downtown Washington rather than in the rapidly developing near downtown areas, such as NOMA.

The hearing revealed that agency preferences rather than prudent financial decisions guided many of GSA's decisions. To remedy this "redline" imbalance, beginning in 2007, the Committee included in each GSA resolution a provision which states that "the Administrator shall require that the delineated area of the procurement is identical to the delineated area included in the prospectus..." However, it now appears that GSA, through a series of amendments to the solicitation, is violating the clear intent of the provision and is once again allowing agencies to determine and set location preferences, without regard to cost to the taxpayer and other relevant factors. I have spent my entire service in Congress on this subcommittee, but I have never seen a solicitation that raised, much less received the sanction of Congress for most of the factors identified for the HHS prospectus. Some of these stand out as particularly astonishing, for example, amendments giving extra credit for amenities such as places of worship, hardware stores, and hair salons, among several others. Additional award factors also include even the hours of such after-work establishments and the proximity of a wide variety of amenities, among them fitness facilities and gift shops. Yet, the GSA all but ignored one of the most important required factors by expanding the minimum of one-half mile (2500 ft) from Metro to three miles, in spite of strong federal policy and recent legislation indicating the necessity of close proximity to public transportation. The combination of these and other amendments give a remarkable appearance of a solicitation skewed by amendments designed to make it virtually impossible for respondents except those in a particular location to be considered.

The Committee resolution allowed no exceptions to its terms without "an explanatory statement to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives prior to exercising any lease authority provided in this resolution." No such statement has been received. In light of the appearance of actions that circumvent the resolution by seeking to accomplish the procurement not approved by Congress, please respond within 10 days to these claims.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Holmes Norton