EPA moving to Lenexa from downtown KCK

[heatherkay]

This gives a pretty good accounting of the ins-and-outs.  I know that they have been working on this lease for a long time. 

http://jimmycsays.com/2011/04/15/unifie ... nterpunch/

Please keep in mind that the Federal government can't just decide what services they want to purchase based on opinions or relationships, the way that a private business can.  The RFPs are often hundreds of pages long and if you don't meet all the requirements of the RFP, your proposal may be summarily eliminated.  The procurement process is lengthy and proscribed and often concludes with a result that nobody is particularly happy about, all in the interest of reducing cost and preventing favoritism at best and corruption at worst.

[KCPowercat]

Wasn't secured parking a requirement that was ignored for the applebees location?

The rank and file aren't consulted for any move like these....but yes the article fails to mention the gsa....as stated, its a biased source.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Agencies do not have the legal authority to negotiate leases, just GSA.  Or so I have been told.  The agencies give the GSA their needs and GSA finds the space.  The big push now seems to be that buildings housing federal agencies be more energy efficient.  Try looking at the GSA website.  Here are a few quotes.

GSA will design all new Federal buildings to deliver energy performance at least 30 percent below industry standards for energy efficiency in non-residential buildings, achieve the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification, and meet Energy Star standards.

GSA leverages the buying power of the federal government to secure, in the most cost-effective, transparent, and sustainable manner possible, the goods, services, and real property that the civilian federal government needs to operate.

GSA is Reducing Energy Consumption in Federal Buildings.—Since FY 2003, GSA has reduced its energy intensity by 14.3 percent in GSA-owned buildings and those leases where GSA is responsible for making utility payments. GSA has reduced its total, annual energy consumption over the period FY 2003 to FY 2009 by nearly 878 billion BTUs, and is well ahead of its energy intensity reduction target of 12 percent by FY 2009. (These figures include "credits" for the purchase of renewable energy from energy suppliers.)

GSA is Practicing Sustainable Design.—As of June 2010, GSA has achieved 48 LEED certifications in 47 buildings and leases. LEED certification provides third-party verification that a building was designed and built to standards that improve energy savings, reduce water consumption, improve indoor air quality, and use more sustainable resources, when compared to existing buildings. Since 2003, GSA has designed all of its new Federal buildings to achieve LEED certification.

Just doing a cursory view of the site and it might appear that the energy efficiency of the building is the overriding factor in the decision making process.

[heatherkay]

Wasn't secured parking a requirement that was ignored for the applebees location?

Without reading the RFP, I can't say if this was a requirement or just something that they were including as one possible amenity that would be weighted in the decision.  If it was a requirement that was ignored, then that would be something that they would include in whatever challenges to the award.

[mean]

Please keep in mind that the Federal government can't just decide what services they want to purchase based on opinions or relationships, the way that a private business can.

To some degree this is true, but there are so many loopholes that it is ridiculous. Ideally, yes, it's all very formal and all the safeguards are in place which flawlessly prevent corruption; in reality, in many cases contract / purchasing officers can, and occasionally even do, decide what they want to purchase or to whom they will award a contract based on opinions and relationships, and all the safeguards do is add paperwork and inconvenience.

[FangKC]

I just recently noticed this building and I thought it looked like such a neat, nameless, faceless corporate building. It looks like it could house the offices of the future Kansas City Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU).

I noticed it has a big for sale sign out front, so I got the impression in was completely vacant. Does anybody know what kind of organiztions/businesses have offices in there and who the building was originally built for?

Is it is true what FangKC says; that this building was developed by a third party for the EPA? If it is then that would make the one in KCK the second purpose built office building left abandoned by the EPA in urban core of greater Kansas City.

I can find no record of this building on emporis.com or tower properties web-site.  Hmmmm.... clandestine operation hiding in plain sight?

The Flashcube building wasn't built for the EPA, or any government entity. I just cited it as an example of a fairly modern, badly-constructed building that isn't that old and probably will have to be demolished.

It is owned by Tower Properties and used to house one of the Commerce Bank-related, or Kemper family-controlled operations.  However, I don't know if the building was constructed for Commerce/Kempers, or something else, and they acquired it later.

However, it wouldn't surprise me that it will be demolished, and the land will be a surface parking lot for years.

[heatherkay]

To some degree this is true, but there are so many loopholes that it is ridiculous. Ideally, yes, it's all very formal and all the safeguards are in place which flawlessly prevent corruption; in reality, in many cases contract / purchasing officers can, and occasionally even do, decide what they want to purchase or to whom they will award a contract based on opinions and relationships, and all the safeguards do is add paperwork and inconvenience.

No argument here.  You can certainly write an RFP so there is only one company that can possibly meet the requirements ("The successful bidder must have already on staff a professional engineer certified in Idaho and the US Virgin Islands who is also a native Quechua speaker.")  Most RFPs also have some sort of weasle words that allow the procurement team to opt in desired bidders or opt out undesired bidders or to break ties or to fix things when NONE of the proposals meets all the requirements.  But the onus is on the proposing firm to, at minimum, meet the mail.  If the RFP calls for a 10-year lease with a 10-year option period, and you propose a firm 20-year lease, you are not responsive.  Secondary features may be negotiable, especially if you explain the really good reason why your proposal is better, but basic terms usually aren't.

[aknowledgeableperson]

There is a difference between a Request for Bid and a Request for Proposal.  A bid is firm, with no further modifications from either side, and usually for commodities but could be extended to services and leases.  Request for Proposals can be treated as a starting point for negotiations.  We used RFP's quite often when securing services.  The initial RFP would establish the scope of what we were wishing to secure.  A firm could then sublit a proposal in reply.  If that proposal was the best response in our evaluation (done under guidelines established before RFP's were sent out), we would then negotiate final terms (usually including final cost) of the agreement. 

[bobbyhawks]

Sorry if this is a repost:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/19 ... 72522.html

[heatherkay]

Yes, there are usually negotiations after submission of proposals.  Some RFPs don't even require cost information, with costs negotiated with the firm that submitted the highest ranked proposal.  But proposals can be deemed non-responsive and rejected outright if they don't include information or describe procedures/services/etc. that have been identified as mandatory in the RFP.

[KCPowercat]

NY Times article sheads possibly the most likely reason for the move....

"...the new location will be closer for some employees, such as Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks, who lives in Lawrence"

no doubt old karl had some say in this....not to mention wtf the epa admin commutes daily from LAWRENCE?  Lol.

[FangKC]

I find it ridiculous that the EPA administrator commutes from Lawrence. This is an agency committed to protecting the environment, and this guy wastes fuel unnecessarily to get to his job.  How about setting an example?

[Highlander]

I find it ridiculous that the EPA administrator commutes from Lawrence. This is an agency committed to protecting the environment, and this guy wastes fuel unnecessarily to get to his job.   How about setting an example?

Are they really there to set examples?  It's just a job.  Sierra Club administrator, yea, I'd expect a lifestyle that was commensurate with the position but an EPA position doesn't and shouldn't require a lifestyle of example. 

[KCPowercat]

I don't see it as a requirement but seriously its laughable. Like the fda buying illegal prescriptions from mexico....the postmaster general using fedex....

[FangKC]

Well, as an administrator of a regional office, and the agency created to protect our environment, it would seem to me that he should set an example. If our government leaders and employees don't set examples of reducing consumption of fossil fuels, and polluting the air, I can't imagine who should.

[Highlander]

Well, as an administrator of a regional office, and the agency created to protect our environment, it would seem to me that he should set an example. If our government leaders and employees don't set examples of reducing consumption of fossil fuels, and polluting the air, I can't imagine who should.

Government is not there to set an example.  They carry out policy but they are not necassarily idealogues themselves.   

[heatherkay]

I feel like I'm coming off as an apologist, and I want to make it clear that I am really disheartened about the move.  But I really like Karl Brooks and I want to come to his defense.  He's really not a fat-cat, throw-his-weight-around kind of guy.

First, the problems with getting a lease on the current building and the threats to move to the burbs pre-date Brooks's tenure.  And if he lives on the north side of Lawrence or Old West Lawrence, downtown KCK is not a whole lot farther than Lenexa.  Second, a regional administrator is a political appointment and changes with every administration.  He's here for a few years, then he's replaced by the new president or at the whim of the old president.  Brooks was a professor in Lawrence, and he's likely to be a professor there again when he inevitably gets booted.  It would be nice if he sold his house in Lawrence and moved his family to Kansas City, then sold his house in KC and moved back to Lawrence in a few years, but I wouldn't expect that he would.  Given EPA's liberal work-at-home policies, it's possible he's not driving in every day anyway.

[FangKC]

If leaders don't set examples, then what is the point of leadership?  

Why do you think Michelle Obama put an organic garden on the White House grounds?

Why do you think Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House?

Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt put a victory garden on the White House grounds during WWII to encourage Americans to start their own, so that more food would be available to send to troops. Roosevelt said it was necessary to win the war.  The Department of Agriculture surveys showed that 42 percent of the fresh vegetables consumed in 1943 came from victory gardens.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index ... z1K0iUhkYD

These are/were attempts to set examples and encourage people to follow.

Why should anyone conserve when the a regional head of the EPA doesn't even attempt to do so by his personal actions?

[KCMax]

Hey, maybe he takes the JO/KCATA? 

[Highlander]

If leaders don't set examples, then what is the point of leadership?  

Why should anyone conserve when the a regional head of the EPA doesn't even attempt to do so by his personal actions?

First of all, travelling from Lawrence to KC for a job is hardly extravagant and is probably a much shorter commute from many other places in the KC area.  I commute further than that distance in Houston and it is considered a short commute.  I am absolutely unapologetic about the distance I travel to work.  

I am not an idealogue and I really do not think government organizations should take idealogical stances on divisive issues like commuting/housing.   It's not their place to tell me, you, or anyone else what is the best housing or commuting situation for them.   The market provides plenty of incentive.  Right now the market of the shitty housing near my office, the incredibly expensive housing in downtown Houston (inboard of my office) requires me to commute.  For the government to suggest I do otherwise is cynical without providing any decent alternative and the notion that I should be encouraged to further conserve by a low level manager for the EPA who is in no way, shape or form one of "our leaders" is incredibly silly.  While Obama is wasting taxpayer money on electric car (actually coal powered car) rebates that benefit nobody but Detroit car manufacturers, he should be investing in public transportation and other infrastructure items that would actually do some good.