Amazon HQ2 RFP

Status
Not open for further replies.
shmessy said:
Your examples of Raytheon and L3 are bad analogies here. Neither are 1/20th as diverse in their businesses as Amazon which is involved in the Defense/Space/Medical/Commerce/Computer/Entertainment/Farming/Programming/.....etc...etc businesses. Amazon synergizes much more than a Raytheon or L3. Coordination of policy and different fields is more important to Amazon. Is it the #1 reason to move to DC? Not at all. But could it be reason #7 that tips a close race? Sure.

I wasn't basing it on lobbying politicians (the lunch with a Senator thing is a nice side option, but probably #58 down the list of priorities for the H2Q move).

Far higher priority is the access to the medical/tech/biotech/space agencies. As I clearly wrote in my post: "More likely, they will be able to limo over to NIH, the FDA, Goddard Space , National Institute of Standards and Technology, the FCC, the US Patent and Trademark Office, Dept of Commerce, etc. a lot quicker also." By the way, there is a lot of tech talent at those agencies.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, you seem to have this backward. Defense contractors actually need to convince federal employees to give them money and often collaborate with them on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis. No fluff about influencing policy, I'm talking about a primary source of revenue for their primary business model. In my company (not a defense prime) something like 90% of our revenue is from federal contracts and we don't have anything more than satellite offices in the DC area. We fly to DC a lot though.

In contrast, none of those agencies you list are, to my knowledge at least, funding sources for Amazon. Amazon doesn't have thousands of employees interacting with, collaborating with, and trying to get money from federal agencies. How many Amazonians a day are even on the phone with DC, let alone on a plane going there? This is a non-issue.

And finally, if "proximity to federal employees" is priority #7 in this decision, then it will not factor in at all. That isn't how businesses make decisions (sadly I've had 6-sigma training and I know more MBAs than I would like). It is inconceivable that DC would be in a dead heat with another city (e.g. Philly) on priorities #1-6 and finally the #7 tie breaker kicks in.
 
shmessy said:
I think you misunderstood Bergeron37's point. The 50,000 engineers will not be lobbying Congress. Bezos and the executives would
Click to expand...

You really think Bezos and his executives are going to be doing day to day lobbying of Congress or government agencies? On the few occasions they do, they can just hop on a corporate jet to DC and get an immediate audience.

The HQ in DC = government access argument is completely overblown. Bezos has access to and influence over the government whenever the hell he wants, whether or not HQ2 is "down the street."

The cons of locating within a jurisdiction with no Congressional representation are MUCH greater than the theoretical pros of being close to Capitol Hill. Sure, he could pick VA or MD, but I really don't think Amazon wants a suburban campus.
 
lexicon506 said:
You really think Bezos and his executives are going to be doing day to day lobbying of Congress or government agencies? On the few occasions they do, they can just hop on a corporate jet to DC and get an immediate audience.

The HQ in DC = government access argument is completely overblown. Bezos has access to and influence over the government whenever the hell he wants, whether or not HQ2 is "down the street."

The cons of locating within a jurisdiction with no Congressional representation are MUCH greater than the theoretical pros of being close to Capitol Hill. Sure, he could pick VA or MD, but I really don't think Amazon wants a suburban campus.
Click to expand...

I personally am thinking DC more because its a large East Coast city that checks most of the boxes Amazon is looking for although I'm not sure I've seen a lot of coverage of the actual site they're proposing since no posters have been actively championing them unlike Port Covington which I know more about that I'd ever care to at this point. ;) But for public transit, tech talent, major airports, etc its got them all, the only drawback I suspect is the city would have to offer up incentives all by itself. No state help as, well...its not in a state.
 
fattony said:
Respectfully, you seem to have this backward. Defense contractors actually need to convince federal employees to give them money and often collaborate with them on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis. No fluff about influencing policy, I'm talking about a primary source of revenue for their primary business model. In my company (not a defense prime) something like 90% of our revenue is from federal contracts and we don't have anything more than satellite offices in the DC area. We fly to DC a lot though.

In contrast, none of those agencies you list are, to my knowledge at least, funding sources for Amazon. Amazon doesn't have thousands of employees interacting with, collaborating with, and trying to get money from federal agencies. How many Amazonians a day are even on the phone with DC, let alone on a plane going there? This is a non-issue.

And finally, if "proximity to federal employees" is priority #7 in this decision, then it will not factor in at all. That isn't how businesses make decisions (sadly I've had 6-sigma training and I know more MBAs than I would like). It is inconceivable that DC would be in a dead heat with another city (e.g. Philly) on priorities #1-6 and finally the #7 tie breaker kicks in.
Click to expand...

You just made my point.

I was adamantly saying it was NOT all about lobbying, etc (which they can do with the same Raytheon/L3 type of small office of $1,000 suits on K Street).

It is about COLLABORATION with the tech talent that is in the DC area which has a slightly different character from tech talent in a non-government capital city. Much of the tech talent in DC metro is also part of US and International agencies/governments - - they have a slightly different view/power source. There is also a very vibrant private sector tech industry, but the US and Foreign agencies in the area give DC metro an additional curve ball to complement the fastball.

This does not mean DC is guaranteed at all. Just means that it has a different flavor in the competition that cannot be ignored.

Does someone who works IT at the World Bank, IMF, NASA's HQ or the Federal Trade Commission have a "No Compete Clause" upon leaving for the private sector? What about think-tank collaborations with The Brookings Institute, Hoover Institute, Cato, Heritage, Peterson, etc.?

Boston has a better/larger overall private tech/biotech industry, but DC has a different characteristic that may be a contending point.
 
Last edited:
JumboBuc said:
Amazon employment is growing like crazy

screenshot_2304-768x432.png

[source]

With growth like that tenure has to be short, just because a very large portion of employees must have been hired very recently.
Click to expand...

This is because Amazon is hiring more logistics employees. For example they now do many deliveries, a few years ago they just used UPS/FEDEX/USPS. They have their own planes now too.
 
shmessy said:
You just made my point.

I was adamantly saying it was NOT all about lobbying, etc (which they can do with the same Raytheon/L3 type of small office of $1,000 suits on K Street).

It is about COLLABORATION with the tech talent that is in the DC area which has a slightly different character from tech talent in a non-government capital city. Much of the tech talent in DC metro is also part of US and International agencies/governments - - they have a slightly different view/power source. There is also a very vibrant private sector tech industry, but the US and Foreign agencies in the area give DC metro an additional curve ball to complement the fastball.

This does not mean DC is guaranteed at all. Just means that it has a different flavor in the competition that cannot be ignored.

Does someone who works IT at the World Bank, IMF, NASA's HQ or the Federal Trade Commission have a "No Compete Clause" upon leaving for the private sector? What about think-tank collaborations with The Brookings Institute, Hoover Institute, Cato, Heritage, Peterson, etc.?

Boston has a better/larger overall private tech/biotech industry, but DC has a different characteristic that may be a contending point.
Click to expand...

Yes, the tech industry is different inside the beltway. But that may not be attractive to Amazon and may be a negative. Outside some three letter agencies in intel, the innovative tech talent, especially on the civil side, of government agencies is lacking. The consulting firms and IT vendors selling to the government poach them and the agency is not doing anything exciting.

Those companies hire the federal tech employees so they get access to inside knowledge and can better compete for government contracts. And those jobs can be cushy, because the contracts are cushy. Also, what makes a govt tech employee's resume attractive is their experience and connections inside the agency. They do not have experience developing some cutting edge technology. Most agency's are sadly years behind the standard for technology let alone the bleeding edge. They move too slow, afraid of risks, and contracting process is not setup for IT innovation.
 
I agree with Boston85. I will add that the tech talent at certain three letter agencies cannot readily transfer their skills and knowledge to the private sector without being soon locked up for a great number of years. Doesn't mean they can't move from Fort Meade to the private sector, only that the opportunities may be quite limited.

Additionally, the U.S. government, as a general rule, does not employ people who are not citizens. Further, the cost and tribulation of securing a high level security clearance can be a turn-off and an impediment to any quick change of jobs.
 
stellarfun said:
I agree with Boston85. I will add that the tech talent at certain three letter agencies cannot readily transfer their skills and knowledge to the private sector without being soon locked up for a great number of years. Doesn't mean they can't move from Fort Meade to the private sector, only that the opportunities may be quite limited.

Additionally, the U.S. government, as a general rule, does not employ people who are not citizens. Further, the cost and tribulation of securing a high level security clearance can be a turn-off and an impediment to any quick change of jobs.
Click to expand...

Huh. Good discussion and I hadn't thought of all this. Basically what I had as a big draw for DC (metro, taking into account the 3 sites) which was govt tech experience with the workforce might not be as strong of a selling point given the restrictions stated here.
 
stellarfun said:
I agree with Boston85. I will add that the tech talent at certain three letter agencies cannot readily transfer their skills and knowledge to the private sector without being soon locked up for a great number of years. Doesn't mean they can't move from Fort Meade to the private sector, only that the opportunities may be quite limited.
Click to expand...

That is not really true. I can sort of see why you might think that, but the only thing that follows someone is the requirement that every classified thing they know remains classified. Skills aren't classified.

stellarfun said:
Additionally, the U.S. government, as a general rule, does not employ people who are not citizens. Further, the cost and tribulation of securing a high level security clearance can be a turn-off and an impediment to any quick change of jobs.
Click to expand...

This is somewhat more of a hindrance, but not a huge one. Maintaining clearance from one job to another is easy and reviving a lapsed clearance is somewhat quicker than getting one for the first time (I think).
 
fattony said:
That is not really true. I can sort of see why you might think that, but the only thing that follows someone is the requirement that every classified thing they know remains classified. Skills aren't classified.



This is somewhat more of a hindrance, but not a huge one. Maintaining clearance from one job to another is easy and reviving a lapsed clearance is somewhat quicker than getting one for the first time (I think).
Click to expand...

Fattony +1. Regarding No Such Agency, I myself worked there as a civilian (not IT, but as a linguist/analyst) in the late 1980's - early 1990's and have many friends and colleagues still there. Many left (particularly during the r.i.f.'s of the 1990's) and went into the private sector. It is correct, however, that many stay until they retire, but if an Amazon was recruiting (and paying at a rate that would more than make up for the TSP match and the FERS pension), there would be plenty of opportunity to recruit.

That being said, recruitment from the US agencies would not be paramount to Amazon. I would think the local ECOSYSTEM - synergy/seminars, etc. (same attraction reason for Cambridge) Simply being in the pool around these people would be something that Amazon would like. And it isn't the intel agencies I was focused on - - it was NIH/FDA/IMF/World Bank/FCC, etc.

Let's face it, techies like to live around techies and eat techie food, play techie games, go to techie parties, etc.
 
odurandina said:
Amazon buys Cambridge cybersecurity firm Sqrrl

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...-firm-sqrrl/WaiXXcHm1jrvPGD1gbhnLP/story.html
Click to expand...

Perfect timing!

I rest my case regarding the wall between a US agency (and the most secret one, at that) and the private sector as not being unbreakable:

".....Sqrrl, founded by former employees of the National Security Agency, makes software that helps security analysts root out threats. The company announced the deal on its website......"
 
fattony said:
That is not really true. I can sort of see why you might think that, but the only thing that follows someone is the requirement that every classified thing they know remains classified. Skills aren't classified.

This is somewhat more of a hindrance, but not a huge one. Maintaining clearance from one job to another is easy and reviving a lapsed clearance is somewhat quicker than getting one for the first time (I think).
Click to expand...

With respect to point #1, are you buying skills, or buying knowledge? If you're buying coding skills, then the transfer is easy. If you're buying a technology knowledge base, not so fast. Uber was buying Lewandowski's knowledge basis (and the secrets he allegedly stole) not his coding skills, or his ability to create simple algorithms.

With respect to a lapsed security clearance; generally to revive the clearance, they only go back to a certain point, ... not to where you went to elementary school. I have a friend who went between the government and private sector. His top secret clearance lapsed in the private sector. It was restored a few years later after a truncated field investigation when he began reviewing reports of certain three letter agencies, even though he was no longer in the government. He was retired and wanted to go on a tour of Russia; he had never been. The government said, 'f you go', you lose the clearance'. He went.

In maintaining a clearance, the review occurs about every five years or so, and the period reviewed is the previous five years. This still includes the FBI or contracted investigators knocking on doors and asking questions. If the clearance was being upgraded, they might go back further. For the private sector, hiring a government employee who is able to maintain his/her clearance is a boon.
 
Well THIS is interesting!

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/19/technology/amazon-hq2-boston/index.html

Boston is top pick to win Amazon's HQ2 on Irish gambling site

by Kaya Yurieff @kyurieff
January 19, 2018: 10:01 AM ET

"Paddy Power, which for the most part takes wagers on sports, is giving Boston 3-to-1 odds of winning the new facility. Other favorites are Austin and Atlanta, which both have odds of 7-to-2.........

......The chances for Montgomery County, Maryland (8-to-1) also shot up after it made the short list. Previously, the county was a distant contender, with odds of 250-to-1. Toronto (20-to-1) is the only city outside of the U.S. on the list...."
 
stellarfun said:
Boston went from #3 to $6.
Click to expand...

That's a very weird list for several reasons. Shroder's of London certainly seems to have an irrational hatred for the EU since there is only 1 EU city listed (Paris) yet no Berlin, Frankfurt, Milan, Barcelona, Stockholm etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top