While not disagreeing with Azalian's astute answer, I would illumimnate it (pun only slightly intended) by stating the agreement between astronomers is a great deal more churning and heated that Azalian suggests. Problem is accurate measurement on the scales observed. In fact, Edwin Hubble badly misjudged his initial measuremen tof the "Constant" based simply on inadequate data from the Observatories of his time (he died in 1953). The hope is advancing our reach will verify the values of the Constant....
As to your question; an understanding of the Big Bang event suggests that it did not, as many believe, resemble something shot from the end of a rifle nor did it include any kind of an explosion as we classically understand startling creation events. It did, however (apparently) proceed from somewhere near Planck Time (since we can only interpolate back beyond that measurement) by means of an expansion beyond our imagination known as inflation, where the existing proto-universe expanded or inflated at several times the speed of light from the estimated size of the palm of your hand to the size of at least our Galaxy, before any slowing began... So, the "original" site of the Big Bang really didn't exist as a specific, and the rate of the Hubble Constant today is quite a bit slower than C (the speed of light... By the way, another way of describing the Hubble Constant is that it is approximately equal to 0.007% per million years -- meaning that every million years, all the distances in the universe stretch by 0.007%...