A veritable waterfall of words has been written since April 4 about the federal government’s decision to move the regional Environmental Protection Agency headquarters, and its 610 jobs, from gritty downtown Kansas City, Kan., to the enticing Kansas suburb of Lenexa.
From the information that’s been put out, I can’t gauge whether moving to Lenexa is a good business decision or not. The Kansas City Business Journal says it is, while The Kansas City Star suggests that it is not. More information is needed to make a determination, it seems to me, and maybe it will come out.
In the meantime, though, one key question has gone unanswered: Who made the decision?
We know this much: The agency within which the decision was made was the General Services Administration, which is the federal government’s real estate arm.
But who at the GSA made the decision?
Isn’t it the case that in almost every real estate deal someone makes the decision? A live person, someone in authority, assumes responsibility and says, “We’re accepting this proposal, and we’re rejecting that proposal.”
Shockingly — shockingly, I tell you — no one at the GSA has stood up to take responsibility.
You’ll be happy to know, however, that your intrepid, irrepressible blogger has conducted a thorough investigation and has come up with the answer.
The decision was made by none other than Carnac the Magnificent, the old “mystic from the East,” who has the power to “divine” unseen answers to unknown questions.
Carnac the Magnificent
When Carnac was last heard from, he was making periodic appearances on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. Carson’s longtime sidekick Ed McMahon would set the stage for Carnac by dramatically saying: “I hold in my hand the envelopes. As a child of four can plainly see, these envelopes have been hermetically sealed. They’ve been kept in a #2 mayonnaise jar under Funk and Wagnall’s porch since noon today. No one knows the contents of these envelopes, but you, in your borderline divine and mystical way, will ascertain the answers having never before seen the questions.”
Here’s how I know that Carnac is alive and well and calling the shots on the EPA deal.
First, I talked to GSA spokesman Charlie Cook, whom the GSA threw out to the media hounds to explain and defend the decision to go to Lenexa.
Cook, a cooperative fellow who actually picks up his own phone, said that a “selection panel” consisting of GSA and EPA employees evaluated the competing offers for the EPA regional offices. Those included proposals from the owner of the Lenexa building, on Renner Road, and the owner of the Minnesota Avenue building that the EPA has been housed in since 1999.
From there, I called Jason Klumb, regional administrator for the GSA. Regional administrator — top guy in the Heartland Region. Must have had something to say about the decision, one would surmise.
I reached a secretary in Klumb’s office and asked to speak to Klumb. She asked me to hold and came back a few seconds later, saying Klumb was “in a meeting” and would call me back.
Right, I’m standing by. I was going out to rake the dead spots in the lawn, but now I’m going to wait for Jason’s call…OK, I’ve waited two minutes and he hasn’t called back, so I’m on my way to the garage.
A longtime friend who knows the intricacies of the federal system and specifically knows a lot about the GSA told me that Klumb wouldn’t have made the decision, anyway. The person who probably made the decision, the friend said, was Mary Ruwwe, regional GSA commissioner for public buildings service.
My friend gave me her number, and I called it. Shockingly — shockingly, I tell you — she picked up. (Now, either that’s a great source or Ms. Ruwwe is one accessible public official.)
When I told her I had heard that she might be the person who made the decision on the EPA relocation, she said, “I am not involved in the acquisition process.”
She proceeded to elaborate on the panel that Cook had told me about. It is “a source selection panel,” she said, consisting of “contracting specialists and contracting officers” from the GSA and the EPA regional offices.
The panel members, she said, were charged with analyzing and scoring various factors, both technical and financial and then presenting their findings to…”THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY.”
Yes, THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY — someone within the regional GSA office who was vested with the power to make the decision on the EPA headquarters.
I mustered up the courage to ask what I viewed as the seminal question: Just who is THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY?
“I have to find out what I can give you at this point in time,” Ms. Ruwwe replied.
As I was most keen on learning the identity of THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY, I gave her my home and cell numbers and e-mail address.
A few hours later, I heard back from the GSA…Not from Klumb and not from Ruwwe, however. No, it was my new friend Charlie Cook, who said Klumb and Ruwwe had asked him to return my calls to them.
So, I got tough and mean — very mean– with Charlie, demanding, “Just who is this THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY?”
His initial answer was “a GSA leasing specialist.” After we talked for a few more minutes, he augmented it to “a seasoned GSA leasing specialist.”
But he couldn’t give me the specialist’s name, he said, because that’s very sensitive, closely held information.
I thanked Charlie for his time and patience and told him he had helped me out. He had led me right to the door of THE SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY.
It’s elementary; it’s Carnac.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Very funny Jim, I loved the Great Carnac stuff.
How brutal is it, when even the Federal Govt. wants to move to the suburbs?
Lenexa. Really? Really!? Really??!!
Unbelievable.
I have no problem with JoCo, and I buy all my inventory from Lenexa and have for years, but…
Really?
The Feds are moving to the suburbs. Wow.
I’ve heard of “cloud” computing. This sounds like “cloud” governance. Thanks for the tour and a look inside the fog. Buncha cowards.
Bureaucracies have always been used to fuzz the lines of authority and disguise who actually makes a decision, but this one reeks of political motivation. Yet, how is it that during a Democrat regime in Washington that a major project like this is moved from a Democrat stronghold and relocated to a Republican stronghold?
I think the answer has to lie in the politics of ownership of the buildings and perhaps campaign finance. These thing do not happen willy nilly, nor do people dodge ownership of the decision when the reasons behind the move actually are rationally based.
I think there’s no way that this happens without the explicit approval of the Obama regime. This has not been a hands off regime when it comes to matters like this. The choice of Chrysler dealers to close, it has been alleged, was made on political grounds. Where stimulus money went was subject to the same criteria, but this was determined out of the blue by a panel? I don’t think so.
The real question here isn’t who made the decision, the fact that it has been covered up tells us that those with much to lose politically are involved. The real question is why the Obama regime betrayed Kansas City, KS.
Oh my gosh! You really think Obama gives a rats carcass who got a deal in Kansas City? If it doesn’t involve a vacation spot, he doesn’t know or care about it.
As someone who knows the process well, I assure you that the decision was made well below Ruwwe’s level and that person would have done their homework to make the right decision. But they are also prohibited from releasing the losing landlord’s offer without their permission, which the government will never get from the landlord.
The reason GSA won’t say who the SSA is, is because that person is prohibited from talking and they shouldn’t be badgered personally when they are not allowed to defend themselves. It’s a rotten gig.
I think that’s to much of a reach, John, but I do think “the politics of ownership of the buildings” might come into play — in a lesser way than what you’re proposing, however.
A couple of years ago, about the time the original, 10-year EPA lease was coming to an end (it was extended), new owners — a group from New York — came along. The source that I referred to says relations between the new owners and the GSA have not been good. I have no corroboration for that and don’t put a lot of stock in single-source assertions, but, anyway, it’s a theory. A relationship fracture seems more plausible to me than the theory that somebody in the Obama adminstration said, “Let’s give KCK a kick in the ass.”
Oh, I don’t think anyone said, “Let’s give KCK a kick in the ass.” On the contrary, I think whoever made this decision said “We’re about to kick KCK in the ass, and I’d just as soon not be held responsible, thank you.” I think kicking KCK in the ass is the unintended consequence of helping one political friend over another.
Bureaucracies do not in and of themselves initiate decisions that might prove embarrassing to their bosses. Bureaucrats do not risk their careers suggesting ideas that might backfire.
No, everything that I know about dealing with bureaucracies tells me that someone in the upper echelons of the Obama regime made this decision, and it may have been, as you suggest, a fractured relationship, but we both know that bureaucratic committees only cover up decisions, they do not make them.
You guys are all so paranoid. I hate the politics of Obama myself but all this boils down to is that the incumbent landlord got greedy, believing that the politics would keep GSA from taking a lower-priced, politically unpopular offer. But GSA did the right thing, blowing everyone’s mind.
I’m certainly open to that interpretation, and I don’t much care either way it goes, but what intrigues me are the open issues here.
Do we know that the deal in Lenexa is a better offer? That doesn’t seem to be an established fact. It’s certainly inconvenient since the lab is staying right where it’s at. And finally, every decision government makes is an intrinsically political decision.
As for being paranoid, don’t confuse curiosity with critique, or condemnation. Not every interesting question has to have a Watergate type of answer, but it would be nice to know the answer just the same. If you don’t care, go back to sleep.
We know that GSA has stated publically that they accepted the lowest priced offer. We know that the incumbent landlord will not allow GSA to release their offer to the public, claiming that they offered a lower price but remaining unwilling to prove it.
We also know that federal procurement guidelines leave these types of decisions to GSA contracting officers who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by accepting other than the lowest offer.
We know that there is very little interaction between the 2 EPA locations and that those whose jobs are at the lab will be staying there.
And I’m pretty sure that there’s a GSA contracting officer out there who feels besmirched by all of the false speculation and who is just dying to see all the facts come to light.
Thanks for the insight into the GSA, Cephas. (Readers, be sure to see both of Cephas’ comments; they are not back to back.)
I think it’s possible that the GSA got a better offer from Lenexa, and it’s too bad that all the facts and figures are not on the table…Withholding the identity of the Source Selection Authority makes sense for the reasons you cited, but it’s sure easy to poke fun at.
I heard EPA had to be in a LEEDS certified building and the current owners of the KCK building couldn’t afford it. If that’s true, I don’t know why GSA wouldn’t just come out and say it. The bigger issue is state and federal agencies deserting downtowns.
PS: I think EPA moved to KCK in 1980 after Carter lost the election. Before that, they were housed in downtown KC MO at 11th and Oak. Carter’s [Eagleton’s] plans to move IRS to Union Station also got tossed in the Reagan win and it took 25 years to resuscitate it.
One of the EPA’s focus areas for programming and grants is environmental justice, which they define as follows:
“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.”
From an environmental justice standpoint how does the EPA rationalize the decision to relocate a large employment base out of an urban area, supporting urban sprawl and moving away from an area with a diverse workforce?
Last summer we placed one of our minority students at the EPA for a summer internship. She rode three different ATA buses to get to the office in KCK from her home on the eastside. But at least she could get there. If the EPA moves to Lenexa, there is no way we can get one of our students to the new office for an internship. So much for environmental justice.
Kate,
The Jo has 3 stops within 1 block of the new location. It will likely be easier for your students to get there than to KCK.
This whole notion of urban sprawl is completely misguided. Both buildings exist already. Someone will occupy both. Why shouldn’t the government occupy the less expensive alternative? Their presence doesn’t increase sprawl. The Lenexa building doesn’t go away because EPA stays downtown.
Note to readers: Kate is the founder and director of a nonprofit organization called Green Works in Kansas City, which instructs and engages urban youths in sustainable environmental stewardship and the green economy.
Mike: What you heard — that a mandate came down directing that the EPA had to be in a LEEDS certified building — would explain a lot. It’s clear there’s something at work here over and above the numbers.
How refreshing to participate in an intelligent discussion online. Kudos to Fitz for providing this wonderful environment.
Methinks that Cephas is mighty well informed and I’d like to thank him also for his insights in this discussion. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.