Bill Overview
Title: SWAMP Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits new construction, major renovation, leasing, or renewing a lease of certain executive agency headquarters in the District of Columbia metropolitan area and establishes a competitive bidding process for the relocation of such headquarters. The General Services Administration (GSA) must (1) establish a process to allow an executive agency to request the GSA to issue a solicitation for the relocation of its headquarters or allow the GSA to issue such a solicitation without a request, if necessary; (2) allow any state to respond to a solicitation with a proposal for the relocation of the agency's headquarters; and (3) in consultation with the executive agency, select a state for the relocation of the agency's headquarters using a competitive bidding procedure based on certain considerations.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: Employees and associated individuals with federal executive agencies in DC
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill targets the relocation of executive agency headquarters from the DC metropolitan area to potentially any state across the United States.
- This relocation process can impact the employees of these agencies who may face transfers or relocations to a new state.
- Local economies in the chosen states could be positively impacted by an influx of federal employees and their families.
- Relocation of agencies may affect contractors and businesses that partner with these government agencies, especially those based in the DC area.
- The tax base may shift as workers and businesses relocate, impacting both DC and the recipient states.
Reasoning
- The primary impact of the SWAMP Act will be on federal employees in DC who may need to relocate if their agency's headquarters moves. It's important to reflect a mix of those who are directly affected (e.g., potential relocatees) and those indirectly affected such as contractors and local businesses.
- Some simulated individuals will not be affected directly because they are not federal employees or contractors, reflecting that the policy targets a specific demographic.
- Given the budget constraints, it's also critical to account for the fact that not all agencies will relocate at once, meaning the impact is staggered and distributed across the years.
- People in receiving states may see positive impacts in wellbeing due to job growth and economic influx, while those in DC may have concerns about job security and economic stability.
Simulated Interviews
federal employee (Washington, DC)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If my agency moves, I might have to relocate my family, which would be stressful and costly.
- There is potential for career growth if I move with the agency to a new location.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
IT contractor for federal agencies (Arlington, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Many of my contracts are local; if agencies move, I could lose significant business.
- The uncertainty is concerning, as I might need to compete for new contracts in other states.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Administrative assistant at a startup (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't really affect my current life or job.
- I can see how it could benefit some local economies across the country.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Real estate developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If an agency relocates to Texas, it could drive property demand and business for my development projects.
- I'm actively exploring partnerships to attract agency relocations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Analyst at a federal agency (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our agency hasn't shown any intent to relocate, so I'm not too concerned.
- If relocation were an issue, I might consider changing jobs instead of moving.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cafeteria manager in a federal building (Washington, DC)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If a large agency relocates, I could lose a significant portion of my customers.
- I'm concerned about the future of my business if this trend continues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
State government official (Richmond, VA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as an opportunity to boost our state's economy and job market.
- We are preparing proposals to attract federal offices to our area.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Graduate student in urban planning (Chicago, IL)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious to see how these relocations might reshape cities.
- This could be a major case study for the future of urban planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Federal employee in IT field (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Since I work remotely, HQ relocations don't concern me much.
- Having HQs in more diverse locations can be an advantage for diversity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Professor of Public Policy (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The relocations present a fascinating policy case with broad economic implications.
- I expect to publish research on this massive relocation strategy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $35000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Availability and quality of infrastructure to support relocated agencies in potential new locations.
- Logistical challenges and costs associated with relocating staff and operations.
- Impact on current employees and their families, including potential disruption in personal and professional lives.
- Political considerations in selecting states as new hosts for federal agencies.
- Current contracts and dealings with DC-based vendors and service providers.