Federal Courthouse Construction
Estimated Costs to House the L.A. District Court Have Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to Proceed Gao ID: GAO-08-889 September 12, 2008Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the federal judiciary (judiciary) have been carrying out a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative. In downtown Los Angeles, California, one of the nation's busiest federal district courts (L.A. Court), the federal judiciary has split its district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges between two buildings--the Spring Street Courthouse and the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. In 2000 the judiciary requested and GSA proposed building a new courthouse in downtown Los Angeles in order to increase security, efficiency, and space. In response, Congress authorized and appropriated about $400 million for the project. GAO was asked to provide information on the construction of the L.A. courthouse. This report answers: (1) What is the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse in Los Angeles? (2) What effects have any delays in the project had on its costs and court operations? (3) What options are available for the future of the project? GAO reviewed project planning and budget documents, visited the key sites in Los Angeles, and interviewed GSA and judiciary officials. In its comments, the judiciary indicated that the report reflects the project's general sequence of events and circumstances, and GSA partially agreed with the report's findings related to the delays.
GSA initially estimated in 2000 that the L.A. Court could take occupancy of a new courthouse in fiscal year 2006, but occupancy has been delayed by 8 years to fiscal year 2014 at the earliest. GSA has spent $16.3 million designing a new courthouse and $16.9 million acquiring and preparing a new site for it in downtown Los Angeles. Since no construction has occurred, about $366.45 million remains appropriated for the construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. Courthouse. Project delays were caused by GSA's decision to design a larger courthouse than what was authorized by Congress, slow decision making by GSA and the judiciary to reduce scope and stay on budget, unforeseen cost escalations, and low contractor interest that caused GSA to cancel the entire 41-courtroom courthouse project. Due to the delays, estimated costs for housing the L.A. Court have nearly tripled to over $1.1 billion, rendering GSA's currently authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable and causing the L.A. Court's problems to persist. Because current cost estimates exceed authorized and appropriated amounts, GSA will need to obtain congressional approval to move forward on any plan. Meanwhile, almost half of the courtrooms in the L.A. Court's Spring Street building do not meet the judiciary's standards for size or security, and the U.S. Marshals have chosen not to use the prisoner passageways that exist in the building because they are too dangerous and inefficient. The L.A. Court also estimates that current courtroom and support space shortages will continue to worsen over time. GAO's analysis showed that four options exist for the L.A. Courthouse project, which require balancing needs for courtroom space, congressional approval, and additional estimated appropriations of up to $733 million. First, GSA has proposed building a 36-courtroom, 45-chamber courthouse to house all district and senior judges and adding 4 more courtrooms in the Roybal building to house all magistrate and bankruptcy judges. The L.A. Court supports this option, but it is the most expensive of the remaining options. Second, GSA has proposed constructing a new 20-courtroom, 20-chamber building and adding 12 more courtrooms to the Roybal building. GSA could begin construction with existing funds, but the L.A. Court opposes this option. Third, GSA has proposed housing the L.A. court in the existing buildings by adding 13 courtrooms to the Roybal building and upgrading security at the Spring Street building. GSA could begin work on the project with existing funds but the L.A. Court also opposes this option. Finally, another option, given the lack of consensus and adequate funding, is to restart the planning process. Under this option, the remaining $366.45 million appropriated for the courthouse could continue to be available for meeting the judiciary's needs in Los Angeles or be used for other purposes through a transfer or rescission. While GAO takes no position on this or the other three options, it is clear the current process is deadlocked.
GAO-08-889, Federal Courthouse Construction: Estimated Costs to House the L.A. District Court Have Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to Proceed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-889
entitled 'Federal Courthouse Construction: Estimated Costs to House the
L.A. District Court Have Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to
Proceed' which was released on September 12, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2008:
Federal Courthouse Construction:
Estimated Costs to House the L.A. District Court Have Tripled and There
Is No Consensus on How to Proceed:
L.A Courthouse:
GAO-08-889:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-889, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and
the federal judiciary (judiciary) have been carrying out a multibillion-
dollar courthouse construction initiative. In downtown Los Angeles,
California, one of the nation‘s busiest federal district courts (L.A.
Court), the federal judiciary has split its district, magistrate, and
bankruptcy judges between two buildings”the Spring Street Courthouse
and the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. In 2000 the
judiciary requested and GSA proposed building a new courthouse in
downtown Los Angeles in order to increase security, efficiency, and
space. In response, Congress authorized and appropriated about $400
million for the project. GAO was asked to provide information on the
construction of the L.A. courthouse. This report answers: (1) What is
the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse in Los
Angeles? (2) What effects have any delays in the project had on its
costs and court operations? (3) What options are available for the
future of the project? GAO reviewed project planning and budget
documents, visited the key sites in Los Angeles, and interviewed GSA
and judiciary officials. In its comments, the judiciary indicated that
the report reflects the project‘s general sequence of events and
circumstances, and GSA partially agreed with the report‘s findings
related to the delays.
What GAO Found:
GSA initially estimated in 2000 that the L.A. Court could take
occupancy of a new courthouse in fiscal year 2006, but occupancy has
been delayed by 8 years to fiscal year 2014 at the earliest. GSA has
spent $16.3 million designing a new courthouse and $16.9 million
acquiring and preparing a new site for it in downtown Los Angeles.
Since no construction has occurred, about $366.45 million remains
appropriated for the construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. Courthouse.
Project delays were caused by GSA‘s decision to design a larger
courthouse than what was authorized by Congress, slow decision making
by GSA and the judiciary to reduce scope and stay on budget, unforeseen
cost escalations, and low contractor interest that caused GSA to cancel
the entire 41-courtroom courthouse project.
Due to the delays, estimated costs for housing the L.A. Court have
nearly tripled to over $1.1 billion, rendering GSA‘s currently
authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable and causing the L.A.
Court‘s problems to persist. Because current cost estimates exceed
authorized and appropriated amounts, GSA will need to obtain
congressional approval to move forward on any plan. Meanwhile, almost
half of the courtrooms in the L.A. Court‘s Spring Street building do
not meet the judiciary‘s standards for size or security, and the U.S.
Marshals have chosen not to use the prisoner passageways that exist in
the building because they are too dangerous and inefficient. The L.A.
Court also estimates that current courtroom and support space shortages
will continue to worsen over time.
GAO‘s analysis showed that four options exist for the L.A. Courthouse
project, which require balancing needs for courtroom space,
congressional approval, and additional estimated appropriations of up
to $733 million. First, GSA has proposed building a 36-courtroom, 45-
chamber courthouse to house all district and senior judges and adding 4
more courtrooms in the Roybal building to house all magistrate and
bankruptcy judges. The L.A. Court supports this option, but it is the
most expensive of the remaining options. Second, GSA has proposed
constructing a new 20-courtroom, 20-chamber building and adding 12 more
courtrooms to the Roybal building. GSA could begin construction with
existing funds, but the L.A. Court opposes this option. Third, GSA has
proposed housing the L.A. court in the existing buildings by adding 13
courtrooms to the Roybal building and upgrading security at the Spring
Street building. GSA could begin work on the project with existing
funds but the L.A. Court also opposes this option. Finally, another
option, given the lack of consensus and adequate funding, is to restart
the planning process. Under this option, the remaining $366.45 million
appropriated for the courthouse could continue to be available for
meeting the judiciary‘s needs in Los Angeles or be used for other
purposes through a transfer or rescission. While GAO takes no position
on this or the other three options, it is clear the current process is
deadlocked.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-889]. For more
information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or
goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Construction of a New Federal L.A. Courthouse Has Experienced Repeated
Delays Due to Changes in Project Scope, Unforeseen Construction Cost
Escalation, and Procurement Issues:
Delays Contributed to L.A. Project Cost Estimates Nearly Tripling and
Current Problems Persisting:
Options for the Future of the Project Require Balancing Court Needs
with Additional Costs and Other Factors:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse Construction Project Briefing:
Appendix II: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts:
GAO Comments:
Appendix III: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: GSA Proposals for a New L.A. Courthouse and Years of Delay
from Original Schedule:
Table 2: Current and Projected Space Deficits in the L.A. Court:
Table 3: List of GSA Proposals for Housing the L.A. Court Since 2000:
Table 4: Three Options for Housing the L.A. Court Currently under
Consideration:
Abbreviations:
GSA: General Services Administration:
judiciary: federal judiciary:
L.A. Court: Federal district court in Los Angeles, California:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
USMS: U.S. Marshals Service:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 12, 2008:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Chair:
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jose E. Serrano:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and
the federal judiciary (judiciary) have been carrying out a multibillion-
dollar courthouse construction initiative to address the judiciary's
growing space needs. In downtown Los Angeles, California, at one of the
nation's busiest federal district courts (L.A. Court),[Footnote 1] the
judiciary's operations are split between two buildings--the Spring
Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Edward R. Roybal Federal
Building and Courthouse built in 1992. In 1996, the judiciary concluded
that the split created operational inefficiencies, that it needed
additional space in downtown Los Angeles, and that the Spring Street
building had obsolete building systems and poor security, conditions
which remain today. Consequently, the judiciary ranked Los Angeles as
its first priority for courthouse construction in fiscal year 2000. GSA
agreed in 2000 that the existing buildings did not meet the court's
expansion and security requirements, and that many of the courtrooms in
the Spring Street building did not meet court design standards.
Accordingly, the judiciary requested and GSA proposed building a new
courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.
In July 2000, Congress authorized GSA to begin designing a new
courthouse in Los Angeles and has appropriated approximately $400
million for the project, which matched GSA's estimate at that time for
completing the project. In December 2004, we reported, and GSA
acknowledged, that the government would likely incur additional
construction and operational costs beyond the estimated $400 million
for the new courthouse.[Footnote 2] You asked that we provide an update
of the construction of a new courthouse in Los Angeles. To do that, we
answered the following questions:
1. What is the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse
in Los Angeles?
2. What effects have any delays in the project had on its costs and
court operations?
3. What options are available for the future of the project?
To determine the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse
and the effects of any delays on project costs and court operations, we
reviewed key documents dating from 1996 to present, including a project
time line, project options analysis, planning studies, proposals, and
other budget data. We toured the current L.A. federal court sites,
including the Spring Street Courthouse and the Roybal building to
observe the operational and security conditions of the facilities. In
addition, we toured the federal building on Los Angeles Street and the
planned courthouse site. We also interviewed L.A. district and
magistrate judges and other court officials, the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, GSA, and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to obtain
their perspectives on the L.A. courthouse project and determine the
options available for the future of the project. We conducted our work
in Los Angeles, California, and Washington, D.C., from January 2008
through September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
This report presents the information we provided to your staff during a
May 19, 2008, briefing. The briefing slides are included in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
GSA initially estimated in 2000 that the L.A. Court could take
occupancy of a new courthouse in Los Angeles in fiscal year 2006, but
projected occupancy has been delayed by 8 years to fiscal year 2014 at
the earliest. GSA has spent $16.3 million designing a new courthouse
and $16.9 million acquiring and preparing a new site for it in downtown
Los Angeles. Since no construction has occurred, about $366.45 million
remains available for the construction of a courthouse in Los Angeles.
The reasons for the project delays include GSA's decision to design a
larger courthouse than what was authorized by Congress, slow decision
making by GSA and the judiciary to reduce scope and stay on budget,
unforeseen cost escalations, and low contractor interest in the
project. In 2000, Congress authorized and later funded the design of a
new courthouse in Los Angeles, based on a 41-courtroom, 1,016,300-
square-foot GSA prospectus.[Footnote 3] GSA decided instead to design a
54-courtroom, 1,279,650-square-foot building to meet the judiciary's
long-term needs. The 54-courtroom building proposal was subsequently
rejected by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), according to
GSA, and not included in the President's budget in fiscal year 2005.
GSA then had to return to designing a 41-courtroom building, which,
combined with the unsuccessful effort to obtain approval for a 54-
courtroom building, delayed the construction of the building by 2
years, according to a senior GSA official involved with the project.
This 2-year delay necessitated additional scope and design changes,
such as the removal of the building-high atrium from building plans,
which GSA and judiciary were slow to make. Furthermore, unexpectedly
high construction cost escalations in the L.A. area required additional
scope reductions and related design delays. Lastly, GSA canceled the
project due to low contractor interest in bidding on the project.
The delays have caused the estimated costs for housing the L.A. Court
to nearly triple to over $1.1 billion, rendering GSA's currently
authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable with currently
available funding and causing the L.A. Court's operational and security
problems to persist. Because current cost estimates exceed authorized
and appropriated amounts, GSA will need to obtain congressional
approval to move forward on any plan. Meanwhile, almost half of the
courtrooms in the L.A. Court's Spring Street building do not meet the
judiciary's standards for size or security, and USMS has chosen not to
use the prisoner passageways that exist in the building because they
are too dangerous and inefficient. The L.A. Court also estimates that
current courtroom and support space shortages will continue to worsen
over time.
Since 2000, GSA has developed eight different proposals for housing the
L.A. Court, ranging from constructing a new 54-courtroom building to
making do with the existing buildings, and the three options still
being considered require balancing needs for courtroom space,
congressional approval, and additional estimated appropriations of up
to $733 million. A fourth option is to restart the planning process
between GSA the judiciary. The four options are as follows:
* GSA has proposed building a 36-courtroom, 45-chamber courthouse to
house all district and senior judges and adding 4 more courtrooms in
the Roybal building to house all magistrate and bankruptcy judges. This
proposal is supported by the L.A. Court and would not require GSA to do
significant construction work in an occupied building, but it is the
most expensive of the three options, requiring additional estimated
appropriations of $733 million.
* GSA also has proposed constructing a new 20-courtroom, 20-chamber
building and adding 12 more courtrooms to the Roybal building. If this
proposal is approved, GSA could begin work immediately with the
existing appropriations and the judiciary could eventually vacate the
Spring Street building. However, the district judges from the L.A.
Court unanimously oppose this option because they believe it would
increase the distance over which district judges would be split based
on the location of the proposed building. Based on GSA estimates, this
option would require $301.5 million in additional appropriations.
* GSA has proposed housing the L.A. court in the existing buildings by
adding 13 courtrooms to the Roybal building, retaining 17 courtrooms
and upgrading security at the Spring Street building, and moving some
support functions into the federal building currently located between
the Spring Street and Roybal buildings. If this proposal is approved,
GSA could begin work on the project with existing funds and the project
would maximize the use of the existing federal buildings in downtown
Los Angeles. However, the L.A. Court also opposes this proposal and it
would require GSA to make substantial renovations to two buildings
while they were in use as courthouses. This proposal also would take
the longest to complete of the three proposals. Based on GSA estimates,
this option would cost $282.1 million in additional appropriations, but
these estimates were based on the assumption that work would have
started by now, which has not occurred.
* Since there is neither consensus nor adequate funding, another option
is for GSA and the judiciary to restart the planning process and
develop a new proposal to meet the long-term needs of the L.A. Court.
This option would not solve any of the L.A. Court's immediate space,
operational, or security challenges, but it would help avoid
permanently implementing one of the plans the judiciary does not
support. The remaining $366.5 million appropriated for the project
could remain in place for meeting the judiciary's needs in Los Angeles
once a project is agreed upon, or it could be used for other purposes,
such as addressing GSA's $6.6 billion repair and maintenance backlog by
receiving congressional approval to transfer or rescind funds.
We are not advocating any of these options. Our intent is to identify
current options so that Congress and stakeholders can evaluate them.
Nonetheless, it is clear the current process is deadlocked.
In its written comments on a draft of this report, the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts indicated that the report reflects the
general sequence of events and circumstances that have led to the
current situation. In its written comments, GSA indicated that it
partially agreed with the report's findings related to the delays in
the L.A. Courthouse project. The letters are contained in appendixes II
and III, respectively.
Background:
The L.A. courthouse operations currently are split between two
buildings--the Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Roybal
Federal Building built in 1992. The Spring Street building currently
consists of 32 courtrooms--11 of which do not meet the judiciary's
minimum design standards for size.[Footnote 4] It also does not meet
the security needs of the judiciary. The Roybal Federal Building, on
the other hand, consists of 34 courtrooms (10 district, 6 magistrate,
and 18 bankruptcy). The space within the L.A. Court's buildings, like
most courthouses, are divided into courtroom space with associated jury
and public spaces, chamber space where the judge and staff office space
is located, cell blocks and other USMS spaces, and other support
spaces, such as administrative offices.
Since 2000, the construction of a new L.A. courthouse has been a top
priority for the judiciary because of the current buildings' space,
security, and operational problems. Since fiscal year 2001, Congress
has made three appropriations totaling about $400 million for a new
L.A. courthouse. In fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $35.25 million
to acquire a site for and design a 41-courtroom building, and in fiscal
year 2004, Congress appropriated $50 million for construction of the
new L.A. Courthouse. In fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $314.4
million for the construction of a new 41-courtroom building in Los
Angeles, which Congress designated to remain available until expended
for construction of the previously authorized L.A. Courthouse.
Construction of a New Federal L.A. Courthouse Has Experienced Repeated
Delays Due to Changes in Project Scope, Unforeseen Construction Cost
Escalation, and Procurement Issues:
Since 2000 when GSA originally proposed building a new courthouse in
downtown Los Angeles, the project has experienced repeated delays in
its schedule. In 2000, GSA projected occupancy of a new L.A. courthouse
by fiscal year 2006. However, after proposing several changes in
project scope and design and repeated delays, GSA projected in 2008 the
completion of a new courthouse by fiscal year 2014--a delay of 8 years
as of now (see table 1). GSA has spent $16.3 million designing a new
courthouse and $16.9 million acquiring and preparing a new site for it
in downtown Los Angeles. Since no construction has occurred, about
$366.45 million remains in GSA's Federal Building Fund[Footnote 5] for
the construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. Courthouse.
Table 1: GSA Proposals for a New L.A. Courthouse and Years of Delay
from Original Schedule:
Year of proposal: 2000;
GSA's scheduled occupancy in new courthouse (fiscal year): 2006;
Years delayed from original schedule: [Empty].
Year of proposal: 2003;
GSA's scheduled occupancy in new courthouse (fiscal year): 2009;
Years delayed from original schedule: 3.
Year of proposal: 2004;
GSA's scheduled occupancy in new courthouse (fiscal year): 2010;
Years delayed from original schedule: 4.
Year of proposal: 2008;
GSA's scheduled occupancy in new courthouse (fiscal year): 2014;
Years delayed from original schedule: 8.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
The delays were initially caused by GSA's decision to design a
courthouse much larger than what was authorized by Congress. In fiscal
year 2001, Congress appropriated[Footnote 6] funds for project design
for a 1,016,300-square-foot courthouse that corresponded with plans for
a 41-courtroom courthouse. In November 2001, however, GSA designed a
1,279,650-square-foot courthouse that contained 54-courtrooms. GSA
officials said that GSA increased the scope of the project to
accommodate the judiciary's stated need. Judiciary officials stated
that the decision was made jointly with GSA and that changes to GSA's
planning criteria contributed to the increased scope. GSA officials
disagreed and stated that GSA's planning criteria did not contribute to
the increase in the scope of the project. A year and a half later,
after it had conducted the environmental assessments and purchased the
site for the new courthouse, GSA informed Congress that it had designed
a 54-courtroom courthouse in a May 2003 proposal. However, OMB did not
include the 54-courtroom building plan in the President's fiscal year
2005 budget, which caused GSA to revise its plans and reduce the number
of courtrooms in the plans for the new L.A. courthouse to 41. According
to GSA, the 54-courtroom courthouse plan was designed to be readily
adaptable to a reduced scope, if a larger scope was not approved.
Nonetheless, a senior GSA official estimated that the initial decision
to design a 54-courtroom courthouse delayed the project 2 years due to
redesign and re-procurement requirements.
This delay caused the project as initially planned to go over budget
due to inflationary cost escalations, and GSA needed to make further
reductions to the courthouse in order to procure it within authorized
and appropriated amounts. However, GSA and L.A. Court officials were
slow to reduce scope, which caused additional delays and led to the
need to make additional reductions. For example, GSA did not simplify
the building-high atrium and associated curtain wall that were
initially envisioned for the new courthouse until January 2006 even
though the judiciary had expressed repeated concerns about the
construction and maintenance costs of the atrium since 2002. In July
2005, GSA advised the judiciary that the project could not be
constructed for the appropriated amounts because of material shortages
and other market factors, and in January 2006, GSA completed a
redesigned plan with a simplified atrium and curtain wall. In addition,
it took 18 months for GSA to formally propose reducing the number of
courtrooms in an attempt to reduce costs. In March 2006, GSA canceled
the procurement of the new courthouse due to insufficient competition
when one of the two construction contractors bidding on the 41
courtroom project withdrew. Yet, it was not until the following year in
May 2007 that the judiciary proposed reducing the number of courtrooms
in a new building to 36, and another 4 months before GSA delivered a
revised 36-courtroom proposal to Congress.
Additionally, an unforeseen, rapid increase in construction costs
contributed to delays in the L.A. courthouse project. According to GSA
officials, construction costs escalated in the L.A. market at more than
twice the inflation factor used by GSA, necessitating scope reductions
and redesigns and causing more delays. GSA officials stated that the
escalations in construction costs, which went as high as 16 percent in
2006, were unprecedented and unpredictable. According to information
provided by GSA, construction costs escalated nationwide and also
affected the construction of a California State courthouse in Long
Beach, California, which is near Los Angeles.
Other issues related to the procurement process for the new courthouse
also contributed to the delays in the L.A. courthouse project by
diminishing contractor interest in the project or diverting contractors
to other projects. For example, GSA solicited bids for the construction
of the neighboring San Diego and L.A. courthouses around the same time.
According to GSA officials, in hindsight, this may have limited the
number of potential bidders for the construction of the L.A. courthouse
as contractors with limited regional capacity chose to bid on the
smaller San Diego project instead of the L.A. project. Furthermore, the
L.A. courthouse project was competing with other public works
construction in the Los Angeles area. GSA officials estimated that $50
billion worth of public construction projects in the L.A. market, which
includes increased spending to renovate local schools, further limited
the number of potential bidders for the L.A. courthouse project. GSA
officials also stated that they chose a procurement approach designed
to provide contractors with flexibility in meeting budgeted
construction costs, but this approach may in actuality have lowered
contractor interest by making the contractor responsible for more of
the risk of cost overruns.[Footnote 7]
Delays Contributed to L.A. Project Cost Estimates Nearly Tripling and
Current Problems Persisting:
Over 8 years of delay in GSA's estimated occupancy of the new L.A.
courthouse, estimates have nearly tripled, rendering GSA's currently
authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable. In May 2004, GSA
estimated the 41-courtroom courthouse project would cost about $400
million, but current estimates for building a new federal courthouse of
similar scope now exceed $1.1 billion. At this rate, each day of
additional delay costs about $54,000, assuming current escalation
rates, according to GSA. Consequently, every 44 days of additional
delay cost as much as one 2,400-square-foot district courtroom.
[Footnote 8]
GSA is currently at a standstill because current cost estimates for a
41-courtroom courthouse exceed authorized and appropriated amounts and
the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request did not include any
funds for the L.A. courthouse project. Consequently, GSA will need to
obtain congressional approval to move forward on any plan.
Specifically, all options currently under consideration would require
approval of a new prospectus and an estimated appropriation of from
$282.1 million to $733.6 million if cost estimates are still viable.
Because of the delays in the courthouse project, the operational,
space, and security issues that made the new courthouse a top priority
have persisted and in some cases worsened.
* The L.A. Court's operational problems continue. Housing district and
magistrate judges in both the Spring Street and the Roybal buildings
causes operational inefficiencies, according to judiciary officials.
For example, judges, prisoners, juries, and evidence must be
transported between buildings, and many judicial offices need to be
duplicated. In addition, a high-level L.A. Court official said that the
judiciary has stopped investing in the parts of the Spring Street
Courthouse for which it is responsible because it expects the judiciary
to move into a new building.
* The L.A. Court's space needs persist. L.A. Court officials said that
the court does not have chamber or courtroom space for four pending
district judgeships and that it currently faces growing deficits in a
number of support areas (see table 2).
Table 2: Current and Projected Space Deficits in the L.A. Court:
Court office: Court, chamber, and support space;
Current deficit (in square feet): 133,838;
Projected 2011 deficit (in square feet): 197,613.
Court office: Probation;
Current deficit (in square feet): 3,292;
Projected 2011 deficit (in square feet): 6,426.
Court office: District clerk's office;
Current deficit (in square feet): 6,165;
Projected 2011 deficit (in square feet): 25,696.
Court office: Jury Assembly;
Current deficit (in square feet): 9,635;
Projected 2011 deficit (in square feet): 9,650.
Source: L.A. federal district court.
[End of table]
* Severe security problems at Spring Street remain. According to USMS
officials, the Roybal building has strong security, but security at the
Spring Street building is poor and cannot be improved due to the age
and design of the building. The Spring Street building lacks a secure
parking area and secure prisoner corridors for 20 of its 32 courtrooms.
In addition, USMS officials said that they do not use the prisoner
corridors that do exist because they are unsafe and do not have holding
cells just outside the courtrooms in accordance with judiciary security
standards. In addition, USMS officials said that the security situation
is worsening in Los Angeles because logs showed a five-fold increase in
suspicious activities[Footnote 9] in L.A. federal courthouses from 2004
to 2007.
Options for the Future of the Project Require Balancing Court Needs
with Additional Costs and Other Factors:
Since 2000, GSA has developed eight different proposals for housing the
L.A. court. Three of them are still under consideration (see table 3);
proposals still under consideration are bolded in the table and
identified as options in the rest of the report. Each of the options
under consideration would require balancing court needs with costs,
obtaining a new authorization and appropriation, and considering other
benefits and challenges.
Table 3: List of GSA Proposals for Housing the L.A. Court Since 2000:
1:
Description: Build a 24-courtroom companion building to the Roybal
building;
Year GSA developed the proposal: 2000;
Currently under consideration: No.
2:
Description:
Build a 41-courtroom building;
Year GSA developed the proposal: 2000;
Currently under consideration: No.
3:
Description:
Build a 51-courtroom building;
Year GSA developed the proposal: 2000;
Currently under consideration: No.
4:
Description: Build a 54-courtroom building;
Year GSA developed the proposal: 2003;
Currently under consideration: No.
5: [Bolded]
Description:
Build a 36-courtroom building;
Year GSA developed the proposal: 2007;
Currently under consideration: Yes.
6:
Description: Build a 17-courtroom building;
Year GSA developed the proposal: 2008;
Currently under consideration: No.
7: [Bolded]
Description: Build a 20-courtroom building;
Year GSA developed the proposal: 2008;
Currently under consideration: Yes.
8: [Bolded]
Description: Use existing buildings to house the L.A. Court;
Year GSA developed the proposal: 2008;
Currently under consideration: Yes.
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Each of these remaining options expands the use of Roybal as a federal
courthouse to varying degrees and only one option would continue to use
the Spring Street building as a courthouse (see table 4).
Table 4: Three Options for Housing the L.A. Court Currently under
Consideration:
Description: Option 1: Construct a new 36-courtroom, 45-chamber
building to house district judges; add 4 more courtrooms to Roybal to
house the magistrate and bankruptcy judges; and the L.A. Court vacates
the Spring Street building;
Total courtrooms: 74;
Estimated completion date: 2014;
Estimated new appropriations needed: $733.6 million.
Description: Option 2: Construct a new 20-courtroom, 20-chamber
courthouse to house about half of the district judges; add 12 more
courtrooms to the Roybal building; and the L.A. Court vacates the
Spring Street building;
Total courtrooms: 66;
Estimated completion date: 2014;
Estimated new appropriations needed: $301.5 million.
Description: Option 3: Add 13 more courtrooms in the Roybal building,
retain 17 courtrooms and upgrade security in the Spring Street
building, and house the remaining court functions in the federal
building on L.A. Street (located in between the Spring Street and the
Roybal buildings);
Total courtrooms: 64; (some below design standards for size);
Estimated completion date: 2016;
Estimated new appropriations needed: $282.1 million.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
Each of these options would require congressional approval beyond what
GSA has already received. In September 2007, GSA drafted the 36-
courtroom building proposal, but the President did not include any
funds for the project in his fiscal year 2009 budget request to
Congress. Then, in March 2008, GSA developed the 20-courtroom building
proposal, but it has not been authorized and no funds have been
appropriated to for it.
Option 1: Build a 36-Courtroom, 45-Chamber Building and Add 4
Courtrooms to Roybal:
GSA estimated that this proposed project would cost $1.1 billion
[Footnote 10]--$733.6 million more than Congress has already
appropriated--and be completed by 2014 if construction starts in 2009.
This project would provide the L.A. Court with 74 courtrooms in total,
including 36 district courtrooms, 20 magistrate courtrooms, and 18
bankruptcy courtrooms, all of which would meet or exceed the
judiciary's current design standards for size and security. The main
advantage of this project is that it would allow a division of
operational and support activities between the new courthouse and the
Roybal building according to the function and responsibilities of the
judges, which court officials and judges said would be more efficient
than the current split. All the district and senior judges would be
housed in the new courthouse, while the magistrate and bankruptcy
judges would be in the Roybal building. In addition, because this plan
includes a large new building, its implementation would not disrupt
court operations by substantially renovating space the court
simultaneously is using. The court favors this plan, in part, because
it would fulfill its need for a larger building through courtroom
sharing among senior judges who would occupy the extra chambers in the
new building. The challenges of building a 36-courtroom courthouse are
the high costs and the possibility that GSA would face the same
problems attracting contractors as it did when it attempted to contract
for the construction of a 41-courtroom building.
Option 2: Build a 20-Courtroom, 20-Chamber Building and Add 12
Courtrooms to Roybal:
GSA estimated that this proposed project would cost $701.1 million
[Footnote 11]--$301.5 million more than Congress has already
appropriated--and be completed by 2014 if construction starts in 2009.
This project would provide the L.A. Court with 66 courtrooms in total,
including 36 district courtrooms, 20 magistrate courtrooms, and 10
bankruptcy courtrooms. With congressional approval, GSA could use
existing funds to begin planning and constructing the new building. In
addition, the planned 20-courtroom building may be expandable at some
future time. This plan would also maximize the use of Roybal as a
courthouse. The challenges of building the 20-courtroom courthouse are
that district judges would continue to be split between two buildings
and it is unclear what support operations would move to the new
building. In addition, the success of this plan relies on GSA's
obtaining an authorization and appropriation to add 12 courtrooms in
Roybal. Without that appropriation, the L.A. Court would likely have to
remain in the Spring Street building--meaning it would be split between
three buildings, not just two, as is currently the case. Another
challenge related to the 20-courtroom building plan is that GSA would
need to build the new courtrooms in Roybal while the building is
occupied by the L.A. Court. GSA officials said that this type of
renovation is possible if the most disruptive work is done at night and
on weekends. However, judiciary officials said that court officials
often need to work at nights and on weekends. In addition, the L.A.
district judges unanimously opposed it because it would split district
judges over a further distance. The proposed location of the 20-
courtroom building is about a third of a mile further from Roybal and
the Spring Street Courthouse is. The L.A. Court also opposes this plan
because it believes that GSA has underestimated the costs, overstated
the end capacity, and would have trouble attracting bidders for the
project.
Option 3: Add 13 courtrooms to Roybal and Upgrade Spring Street
Building Security:
GSA estimated that this project would cost $648.4 million--$282.1
million more than Congress has already appropriated. In 2008, GSA
estimated that it could complete the project by 2016, but to do so, it
would have had to start work in January, which it did not do. For
example, GSA's time line for this project assumed that procurement of
the design contract would be completed by April 2008; that work has not
yet begun. This proposal would provide the L.A. Court with 64
courtrooms in total, which would be composed of 29 district courtrooms,
17 magistrate courtrooms, and 18 bankruptcy courtrooms. GSA's proposal
indicated that some of the courtrooms would not meet the judiciary's
design standards for size. The advantages of this plan are that it
would maximize the use of GSA's current stock of owned buildings in
downtown Los Angeles, and that, with congressional approval, GSA could
use existing funds to begin working on the project. Another advantage
would be that GSA could sell the site it initially purchased for the
new courthouse in order to help offset the costs of the project. The
plan also would attempt to address the security concerns that currently
exist in the Spring Street building. However, many of the same
challenges for the 20-courtroom courthouse also exist for this plan,
including the need to renovate occupied space and a lack of clarity
about where different support operations would be located. In addition,
the court's operations would be split further among the Spring Street
building, the Roybal building, and the federal building located between
those two buildings. Also, the estimate only covers security upgrades
for the Spring Street building, not a complete renovation. This project
also has the longest time until completion of the three projects,
putting it at greater risk for additional cost escalations. Finally,
the L.A. Court considers this the worst of the three options.
Option 4: Restart Planning Process and Possibly Use Remaining Funds for
Other Purposes:
Because there is neither consensus nor adequate funding to complete any
of the plans currently under consideration, another option is for GSA
and the judiciary to restart the planning process and develop a new
proposal to meet the long-term needs of the L.A. Court that all
stakeholders can support. Since GSA has developed numerous proposals on
housing the L.A. Court, it is difficult to know which one it believes
is the best solution, and the district judges assigned to the L.A.
Court unanimously opposed GSA's most recent proposal to build a 20-
courtroom building. Restarting the planning process would help avoid
implementing one of the plans that the judiciary does not support. The
remaining $366.5 million appropriated for the project could remain in
place for meeting the judiciary's needs in Los Angeles once a project
is agreed upon, or the funds could be used for other purposes, such as
addressing GSA's $6.6 billion repair and maintenance backlog by
receiving congressional approval to transfer[Footnote 12] or rescind
the funds.[Footnote 13] This option would not address any of the L.A.
Court's long-standing space deficits, operational problems with a split
court, or security and other problems related to the Spring Street
building, and some of the problems would likely worsen until a long-
term solution could be found.
We are not advocating this or any of the other three options. Our
intent is to identify current options so that Congress and stakeholders
can evaluate them. Nonetheless, it is clear the current process is
deadlocked.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and GSA with
draft copies of this report for their review and comment. In written
comments, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicated that
the report reflects the general sequence of events and circumstances
that have led to the current situation. The letter also provided
technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate. The letter and
our comments are contained in appendix II.
In written comments, GSA indicated that it partially agreed with the
report's findings related to the delays in the L.A. Courthouse project
and provided additional technical comments that we incorporated, as
appropriate. In the technical comments, GSA indicated that the
judiciary has been reluctant to consider any reduction in the scope of
the project as requested by GSA. Our report indicates that GSA and the
judiciary were slow to reduce scope to stay on budget. GSA's written
comments are contained in appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to the GSA Administrator and the
Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. We also will
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse Construction Project Briefing (slide
presentation):
1Los Angeles Courthouse Construction Project Briefing:
A Briefing for Congressional Requesters:
May 19, 2008:
The L.A. courthouse has been top-priority project for more than a
decade:
The federal judiciary (judiciary) ranked the L.A. courthouse as its
first priority for courthouse construction in fiscal year 2000.
In its 2000 proposal to design a new courthouse in Los Angeles, GSA
noted that the current buildings could not meet the L.A. Court‘s
expansion requirements and some courtrooms did not meet court
standards.
A 1996 judiciary facility plan concluded that one of the federal
courthouses in Los Angeles had poor security and obsolete building
systems”problems that remain.
Key Questions:
1. What is the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse
in Los Angeles?
2. What effects have any delays in the project had on project costs and
court operations?
3. What are the options for the future of the project?
Scope and Methodology:
* Reviewed key documents dating from 1996 to present, including project
time line, project options analysis, planning studies, proposals, and
other budget data.
* Toured L.A. federal court sites, including the Spring Street
Courthouse, the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, the
federal building on Los Angeles Street, and the planned courthouse
site.
* Interviewed L.A. district and magistrate judges and other court
officials, the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts, the General
Services Administration (GSA), and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
* We conducted our work in Los Angeles, California, and Washington,
D.C., from January 2008 to May 2008 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Results in brief:
* The L.A. courthouse project has been delayed by an increase in scope,
slow decision making, and unforeseen cost escalation. Despite
congressional authorization for a 41-courtroom building, GSA designed a
54-courtroom building based on the federal judiciary‘s updated long-
range request.
* The delays have caused project costs to nearly triple to over $1
billion, exacerbated the L.A. Court‘s operational and security
problems, and forced GSA to stop procurement for a project on which it
has already spent $33.2 million.
* All options currently being considered require balancing court needs,
additional funding, and congressional approval.
Background:
U.S. district courthouses in Los Angeles ” 300 North Spring Street:
Opened in 1938:
Currently 32 courtrooms (11 do not meet minimum design standards for
size”the federal judiciary considers 3 of them as hearing rooms, not
courtrooms).
Current major tenants: U.S. District Court, U.S. Attorneys, USMS, GSA.
Figure: Photograph of courthouse building.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
U.S. district courthouses in Los Angeles ” Roybal Federal Building:
Opened in 1992:
Currently 34 courtrooms:
Current major tenants: U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts, Satellite
Library, USMS, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
Figure: Photograph of courthouse building.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Congress has appropriated $400 million for the new L.A. courthouse:
FY 2001: $35.25 million for site acquisition and design of a 41-
courtroom courthouse:
FY 2004: $50 million for construction:
FY 2005: $314.4 million for construction of 41-courtroom courthouse.
Figure: Illustration of courthouse building.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GSA. Reprinted with permission.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Location of current and planned court buildings:
Figure: area map:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration depicting the following buildings:
A. Roybal Federal Building;
B. Spring Street Courthouse;
C. Proposed courthouse site;
D. Federal building;
E. Veterans Hospital;
F. Metropolitan Detention Center.
Also noted are distances between sites:
Roybal Federal Building to Spring Street Courthouse: .24 miles;
Spring Street Courthouse to Proposed courthouse site: .60 miles.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA and Los Angeles Court maps.
[End of figure]
Background: GSA has spent $33.2 million on the new L.A. courthouse:
$399.65 million appropriated;
$33.20 million spent;
- $16.3 million to develop building designs;
- $2.5 million to purchase site;
- $14.4 million to demolish building on new site;
$366.45 million remaining.
[End of background]
Objective 1: Status of the L.A. courthouse project:
Status: L.A. Courthouse construction project has experienced repeated
delays:
Table:
Year of proposal: 2000;
GSA‘s scheduled occupancy in new courthouse (fiscal year): 2006;
Years delayed from original schedule: [Empty].
Year of proposal: 2003;
GSA‘s scheduled occupancy in new courthouse (fiscal year): 2009;
Years delayed from original schedule: 3.
Year of proposal: 2004;
GSA‘s scheduled occupancy in new courthouse (fiscal year): 2010;
Years delayed from original schedule: 4.
Year of proposal: 2008;
GSA‘s scheduled occupancy in new courthouse (fiscal year): 2014;
Years delayed from original schedule: 8.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
Status: GSA designed a larger building than Congress approved:
* In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $35 million for design of
a 41-courtroom building based on an approved proposal for a
consolidated courthouse.
* Despite authorization for a 41-courtroom building, GSA designed a 54-
courtroom building in November 2001.
- GSA officials said they increased the scope of the project in
response to the judiciary‘s stated need.
- Judiciary officials said that the decision to change the scope was
made jointly by GSA and the judiciary and that changes to GSA‘s
planning criteria contributed to the greater need. GSA officials
disagreed and said that GSA‘s planning criteria did not contribute to
the increase in scope.
Status: Design of a building larger than what was approved delayed the
project 2 years:
* During design, GSA conducted the environmental assessment and
purchased the site for the new courthouse.
* On May 2, 2003, GSA prepared a draft proposal for the congressional
authorizing committees to increase the project to 54 courtrooms.
* Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not include the 54-
courtroom building plan in President‘s fiscal year 2005 budget, causing
GSA to reduce design to 41 courtrooms.
* A senior GSA official estimated that the initial decision to design a
54-courtroom courthouse delayed the project 2 years due to redesign and
reprocurement requirements.
Status: GSA and L.A. Court were slow to reduce scope:
* Atrium change:
- Initial building design included a large, building-high atrium and
associated glass curtain wall.
- The judiciary expressed repeated concerns about the atrium.
- In July 2005, GSA advised the judiciary that the project could not be
constructed for appropriated amounts because of material shortages and
other market factors.
- Redesign with simplified atrium and curtain was completed in January
2006.
* Reduction in the numbers of courtrooms:
- In March 2006, GSA canceled the procurement when one of the two
construction contractors bidding on the 41-courtroom project withdrew.
- In May 2007, the judiciary proposed reducing the number of courtrooms
in the proposed building to 36.
- In September 2007, GSA submitted a revised proposal to OMB to reduce
costs by removing one floor in the planned courthouse, thereby reducing
the number of courtrooms by 5 (to 36 courtrooms).
Status: Rapid cost escalation exacerbated delays:
* According to GSA, construction cost escalation in the L.A. market was
more than double the inflation factor used for budgeting purposes
–necessitating scope reductions and redesigns that caused more delays.
* GSA stated that the escalation in construction costs, which went as
high as 16 percent in 2006, was unprecedented and unpredictable.
* Information provided by GSA indicates that the cost escalation was
nationwide and also affected a state courthouse construction project in
the L.A. area.
Status: Other factors reduced contractor interest:
* GSA bid the construction of the San Diego and L.A. courthouses around
the same time. In hindsight, according to GSA, this may have limited
the number of bidders.
* GSA chose a procurement approach designed to provide contractors with
flexibility in meeting budgeted construction costs, but the approach
may have lowered contractor interest by placing more of the risk for
cost overruns on the contractor.
* GSA estimated that $50 billion worth of public construction projects
in the L.A. market, such as increased spending on local schools,
further limited the number of bidders for the L.A. courthouse project.
[End of Objective 1]
Objective 2: Effects of any delays on project costs and court
operations:
Effects of delays: Project costs have nearly tripled:
* In May 2004, GSA estimated that the construction project would cost
about $400 million. Current estimates are over $1.1 billion.
* GSA estimates it may be able to build a much smaller courthouse with
the remaining $366.45 million in appropriated funds.
* Based on current escalation rates, each day of delay costs $54,000,
according to GSA. Every 44 days of additional delay incur costs equal
to the cost of one district courtroom.
Effects of delays: GSA cannot currently move forward on any plan:
* Cost estimates for a 41-courtroom building now greatly exceed
authorized and appropriated amounts.
* All options now under consideration would require approval of a new
prospectus and the authorization and an estimated appropriation of from
$282.1 million to $733.6 million.
* The President‘s fiscal year 2009 budget request did not include any
funds for the L.A. courthouse project.
Effects of delays: Operational problems continue:
* Housing district and magistrate judges in both Spring Street and
Roybal buildings causes operational inefficiencies.
- Judges, prisoners, juries, and evidence must be transported between
buildings.
- As a result, many offices and activities need to be duplicated.
* A high-level L.A. Court official said that the judiciary has stopped
investing in the parts of the Spring Street Courthouse for which it is
responsible because it expects the judiciary to move into a new
building.
Effects of delays: Court space needs are not addressed:
* The L.A. Court indicated that it does not have chamber or courtroom
space for four pending district judgeships.
* The L.A. Court indicated that it also lacks sufficient support space.
Table:
Court office: Court, chamber, and support space;
Current deficit: 133,838 square feet;
Projected 2011 deficit: 197,613 square feet.
Court office: Probation;
Current deficit: 3,292 square feet;
Projected 2011 deficit: 8,144 square feet.
Court office: District clerk;
Current deficit: 6,165 square feet;
Projected 2011 deficit: 25,696 square feet.
Court office: Jury assembly;
Current deficit: 9,635 square feet;
Projected 2011 deficit: 9,650 square feet.
Source: L.A. Court.
[End of table]
Effects of delays: Severe security problems at Spring Street remain:
* Secure prisoner corridors do not exist for 20 of Spring Street‘s 32
courtrooms. In addition, USMS officials said that they do not use the
existing corridors because they are unsafe and do not have holding
cells outside the courtrooms.
* USMS officials believe that security at the Spring Street Courthouse
is poor and cannot be improved due to the age and design of the
building, but that Roybal has strong security.
Effects of delays: Severe security problems at Spring Street are
worsening:
* USMS officials said that the situation is worsening.
- USMS is no longer making security upgrades at Spring Street because
of its uncertain future.
- Marshals‘ security logs showed a five-fold increase in suspicious
activities in L.A. federal courthouses from 2004 to 2007.
Note: In commenting on this report, a USMS official said that USMS has
started reinvesting in the Spring Street Courthouse.
[End of Objective 2]
Objective 3: Current options for the future of the project:
Options: GSA has developed 8 different proposals for housing the L.A.
Court:
1. 24-courtroom companion building (2000).
2. 41-courtroom building (2000).
3. 51-courtroom building (2000).
4. 54-courtroom building (2003).
5. 36-courtroom building (2007).
6. 17-courtroom building (2008).
7. 20-courtroom building (2008).
8. Use existing buildings (2008).
Only options 5, 7, and 8 are still under consideration.
Options: GSA and the judiciary are considering three options for Los
Angeles:
1. Build a 36-courtroom building to house district judges; add 4 more
courtrooms to Roybal to house the magistrate and bankruptcy judges;
vacate Spring Street.
2. Build a 20-courtroom building[A] to house about half of the district
judges; add 12 more courtrooms to Roybal; vacate Spring Street.
3. Use existing buildings; add 13 more courtrooms in Roybal; keep 17
courtrooms and upgrade security in Spring Street; house remaining
functions in federal building on L.A. Street.
[A] GSA has chosen to pursue the 20-courtroom building over the 17-
courtroom building.
Options: There is no consensus among stakeholders on how to proceed:
* All options require congressional approval.
* In September 2007, GSA drafted a proposal to build a 36-courtroom
building, but the President did not include any funds for the project
in his fiscal year 2009 budget request.
* In March 2008, GSA proposed building a 20-courtroom building and
expanding Court use of Roybal, but the district judges unanimously
opposed this proposal because it could further split court operations.
Options: Options for housing L.A. Court currently under consideration:
Table:
Option: Build 36-courtroom building, add 4 courtrooms in Roybal;
Total courtrooms: 74;
Estimated completion date: 2014;
Estimated new appropriations needed: $733.6 million.
Option: Build 20-courtroom building, add 12 courtrooms in Roybal;
Total courtrooms: 66;
Estimated completion date: 2014;
Estimated new appropriations needed: $301.5 million.
Option: Add 13 courtrooms in Roybal, upgrade security at Spring Street;
Total courtrooms: 64 (some below design standards for size);
Estimated completion date: 2016;
Estimated new appropriations needed: $282.1 million.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
Option 1: Build a new 36-courtroom building and continue using Roybal:
* GSA estimate: $1.1 billion ($733.6 million more needed)”estimate
includes $161 million to renovate and add 4 courtrooms in Roybal.
* Courtrooms: 74 (36 district, 20 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy);
* Estimated delivery date:2014 if construction starts in 2009;
* Advantages: Would consolidate each different type of judge (district,
magistrate, and bankruptcy) in one of two locations; new construction
would not require renovation of occupied space; would fulfill court‘s
need for 41-courtroom building through courtroom sharing by senior
judges; favored by Court;
* Challenges: High cost; possible difficulty attracting contractors.
Option 2: Build 20-courtroom building and add 12 courtrooms in Roybal:
* GSA estimate: $701.1 million ($301.5 million more needed);
* Courtrooms: 66 (36 district, 20 magistrate, 10 bankruptcy);
* Estimated delivery date: 2014 if construction starts in 2009;
* Advantages: Existing funds available for constructing new building;
design could incorporate future expansion; would maximize use of Roybal
as courthouse; Court would leave Spring Street;
* Challenges: District court split over a greater distance; unclear
what support operations would move to new building; additional
appropriation of $320 million needed for Roybal; would require
renovating Roybal while occupied by Court; Court opposes this plan and
believes cost estimates are low, GSA would have difficulty attracting
bidders, and capacity is overstated.
Option 3: Add 13 courtrooms in Roybal and upgrade Spring Street
security:
* GSA estimate: $648.4 million ($282.1 million more needed);
* Courtrooms: 64 (29 district, 17 magistrate, 18 bankruptcy);
* Estimated delivery date: 2016 (based on several work items starting
by now that are not yet underway);
* Advantages: Could start work using existing funds; the site purchased
for the planned courthouse could be sold to offset costs; would
maximize use of current stock; would address some safety concerns in
Spring Street Courthouse;
* Challenges: All of the challenges associated with option 2; would
further split Court with some operations in Federal Building; would
require that the L.A. Court occupy spaces below its design standards;
estimate includes security but not a full renovation of Spring Street;
longest lead time increases risk associated with cost escalation; Court
considers this the worst option.
Additional Option: Restart planning and possibly reapply remaining
funds:
* Another option is for GSA and the judiciary to restart the planning
process and develop a new proposal for housing the L.A. Court that all
stakeholders can support. The $366.5 million appropriated for the
courthouse could remain available for meeting the judiciary‘s needs in
Los Angeles or be used for other purposes through a transfer or
rescission.
* Advantages: Would avoid permanently implementing one of the plans
that the judiciary opposes and could allow the appropriated funds to be
used for other purposes, lessening the financial pressure to do
something right now;
* Challenges: Space deficits and problems with a split court and Spring
Street would remain.
Concluding observations:
* Delays from exceeding the congressional authorization and slow
decision making, paired with unexpectedly high cost escalation rates,
rendered the currently authorized prospectus for a new 41-courtroom
building unachievable with currently appropriated funds.
* Stakeholders do not agree on how to proceed.
* GSA has developed numerous proposals on the L.A. courthouse and
currently supports the 20-courtroom courthouse. The federal judges in
Los Angeles unanimously opposed GSA‘s most recent proposal to build a
20-courtroom building.
[End of Appendix I]
Appendix II: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Administrative Office Of The United States Courts:
"A Tradition Of Service To The Federal Judiciary"
James C. Duff, Director:
Washington, D.C. 20544:
August 25, 2008:
Mr. Mark Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled L.A. Federal
Courthouse Project: Estimated Costs Have Tripled Due to Delays and
There Is No Consensus on How to Proceed (GAO-08-889). We appreciate
GAO's efforts to bring some clarity to a very complex series of events.
Overall, the draft report reflects the general sequence of events and
circumstances that have led to the current situation. This letter
includes suggested clarifications to provide an even more accurate
report to the requesting Congressional Committees.
The Judiciary has been informed for several years by the General
Services Administration (GSA) that increasing escalation costs would
affect the construction of a courthouse of the size originally
authorized by Congress. Although the Judiciary is not responsible for
designing courthouses, it exercised due diligence from the onset of the
budget problems by working collaboratively with the GSA on cost saving
measures as well as suggesting that GSA modify the project design to
provide enhanced flexibility and courtroom sharing opportunities.
Option 1 is the result of the Judiciary using its own funding to
develop a cost-saving, simplified floor plan for a 36-courtroom, 45-
chambers building, which GSA subsequently endorsed. This solution
includes utilization of the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and
Courthouse (Roybal building) to the maximum extent practical and is the
most cost-effective solution for the long-term housing needs of the
district court in downtown Los Angeles.
History and Planning Criteria:
* When the project was first initiated in 1997, GSA requested that the
court project its space requirements for 10 years from design. The
Judiciary provided the court's 10-year needs (through 2007) for 51
courtrooms and 54 chambers for district, senior, and magistrate judges.
When GSA prepared to seek authorization for additional design and
construction in 2001, it recognized that the delays that had been
experienced would likely result in a building that would be fully
occupied and possibly outgrown by the time it was constructed and
occupied. As a result, GSA requested that the court update its space
requirements to 2011 and subsequently, GSA submitted a construction
prospectus for 54 courtrooms and 60 chambers.
* The rationale for GSA moving forward with a 41-courtroom, 40-chambers
project was never made clear to the Judiciary. It would be helpful if
the report explained more clearly why GSA requested a 41-courtroom
facility and why the original scope was changed in GSA's 2001 design.
[See comment 1]
List of GSA Proposals for Housing the Los Angeles Court:
* On page 13, the draft report states that proposals 5, 7 and 8 are
under consideration. The Judiciary is only considering proposal 5 (also
referred to as Option 1) but would also consider proposal 1, if GSA
were willing to consider constructing a companion building that was
properly sized on the site of the existing 300 N. Los Angeles Federal
Building and physically connected to the Roybal building.
Options for Housing the Los Angeles Court:
* Option 1: The draft report states at page 15 that the main advantage
of this project is that all courts (district, magistrate, and
bankruptcy) would be housed in a single building. This is not correct
as the Roybal building would continue to be utilized by magistrate
judges and bankruptcy judges, and the district judges would be in the
new courthouse. Option 1 would allow a division of operational and
support activities between the new courthouse and the Roybal building
according to the function and responsibilities of the judges. [See
comment 2]
We suggest that GAO's final report will also reflect the Judiciary's
concerns about the following non-viable options.
* Option 2: This option for a 20-courtroom courthouse is reported as
having expansion capability on the current site. The Judiciary
understands the cost estimate is based on a four courtroom-per-floor
layout which leaves insufficient room for expansion. Required security
setbacks would also limit expansion. A two courtroom-per-floor layout
would have a different initial build-out cost and difficult expansion
challenges. [See comment 3]
* Option 3: The bankruptcy court was never part of the district court
project, yet this option assumes a certain number of bankruptcy
courtrooms will be available for district court use without a thorough
and comprehensive assessment of the bankruptcy court's district-wide
and future needs. If the assumption of available bankruptcy courtrooms
is not accurate, there will be far fewer courtrooms available for the
district court's use. Given the sub-prime market lending issues
affecting the housing market, bankruptcy filings are already
increasing. Also, space must be found for bankruptcy judges who will be
dislocated from another divisional office, whose lease expires because
that building is planned to be demolished. These factors will certainly
have an impact on the number of courtrooms that can be built or altered
for the district court's use as proposed in Option 3. [See comment 4]
* Options 2 & 3: The Judiciary's reservations regarding undertaking
major construction activity in an occupied building are significantly
greater than the report indicates. GSA is required to update code
requirements and security criteria in major renovation projects which
will greatly impact building systems such as elevators, heating,
ventilation, air conditioning, sprinklers, other life safety systems,
building egress, structure, and building security. These issues, as
well as the need for swing space and complicated phasing, based on our
experience with similar projects, have not been fully accounted for in
the project budget or schedule. [See comment 5]
* Options 3 & 4: Option 3 suggests that GSA could sell the site it
initially purchased for the new courthouse and Option 4 suggests that
the remaining $366.5 million appropriated for the project could be
transferred to use for other purposes or be rescinded. Given that
millions of dollars have already been expended to acquire this site and
design a building that takes into account the site's unique footprint,
the Judiciary does not believe that selling the site is in the best
interest of the public.
Moreover, the Committee report accompanying the House-reported 2009
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill includes
language in the GSA section stating that funding previously provided
for the L.A. project and proceeds from any sale of the land cannot be
used for any purpose other than addressing the housing needs of the Los
Angeles Division of the Central District of California. The Judiciary
supports the inclusion of this language in the final Conference report
on this bill. Additionally, transferring or rescinding the balance
would make it more difficult to obtain funding for the L.A. project in
the future because the total cost of the project would have to be
funded rather than the amount needed in addition to the $366.5 million
currently available.
Cost Estimates:
* The draft report states that costs have nearly tripled from the
original GSA estimate of $400 million to $1.1 billion. The $1.1 billion
figure overstates the costs, however, because it includes the cost to
overhaul the building systems and infrastructure in the Roybal
building. This cost was never part of the original $400 million
project. [See comment 6]
Existing Courtrooms:
The background section of the report should reflect the following
information.
* The correct number of existing courtrooms in the Spring Street
Courthouse is 32, three of which are undersized and functionally
unusable for court proceedings. Only half of the remaining courtrooms
meet the Judiciary's standards for size, and none of the courtrooms
meet the U.S. Marshals Service criteria for security.
* The draft report groups all 34 existing courtrooms in the Roybal
building into one category. The 18 bankruptcy courtrooms, however, lack
prisoner circulation, holding cells, adequate jury facilities and
therefore cannot be easily or cost-effectively converted for district
judge or magistrate judge use. [See comment 7]
For almost a decade, the need for a new courthouse in Los Angeles has
been a high facilities priority for the Judiciary. There are serious
operational, infrastructure, and security concerns with the current
facilities, which all stakeholders agree must be addressed. The draft
report suggests there is an option to start over. Delays will only
increase costs further while the housing needs become more urgent. We
hope the GAO report will provide sufficient information to enable
Congress to take timely action in supporting the option for a 36-
courtroom, 45-chambers building that the Judiciary views as the most
cost-effective solution for the long-term housing needs of the district
court in Los Angeles.
We appreciate the cooperative efforts of the GAO team in working with
the Judiciary on this complex assignment.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James C. Duff:
Director:
cc:
Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler:
Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon:
Honorable Stephen M. McNamee:
Honorable Margaret M. Morrow:
The following are GAO's comments on the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts' letter dated August 25, 2008.
GAO Comments:
1. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicated that
additional details on the reasoning behind the decision to propose a 41-
courtroom courthouse would be helpful. GSA officials said that the
decision to propose a 41-courtroom courthouse was based on 80 percent
of the federal judiciary's stated need at the time--80 percent of 51
courtrooms is approximately 41--and that the judiciary could fit within
that space by sharing courtrooms. We added this information to the body
of the report.
2. We clarified the report in response to this comment.
3. We did not do a detailed assessment of the possible 20-courtroom
courthouse plan and, consequently, did not assess whether it provides
space for future expansion. However, there may be design concepts that
would leave sufficient room for expansion on the 3.7-acre site, which
originally supported the 54-courtroom courthouse plan developed by GSA.
4. Our report does not make any statements related to the number of
bankruptcy courtrooms required by the federal judiciary in Los Angeles,
but does list the number of those courtrooms that GSA projects for each
of the current options thus shows that the 20-courtroom courthouse
option would provide 8 fewer bankruptcy courtrooms in Los Angeles than
the other options currently being considered.
5. Assessing the validity of GSA's project budget and schedule were
outside the scope of this report. The U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management requested this information
from the GSA Inspector General.
6. We have clarified the report to reflect that the estimated costs to
house the L.A. Court have tripled.
7. We clarified the report to reflect that Roybal currently houses 10
district, 6 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy courtrooms.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the General Services Administration:
U.S. General Services Administration:
GSA Administrator:
1800 F Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20405-0002:
[hyperlink, http://www.gsa.gov]
August 19, 2008:
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro:
Acting Comptroller General of the United States:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Dodaro:
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft report, "Los Angeles
(L.A.) Federal Courthouse Project: Estimated Costs Have Tripled Due to
Delays and There Is No Consensus on How to Proceed" (GAO-08-889). The
Government Accountability Office identified delays contributed to the
LA Courthouse project and options for future consideration for
completing the project.
We partially agree with the findings relative to the delays. Technical
comments that update and clarify statements in the draft report are
enclosed and incorporated herein by reference. We will work with the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Congress to
implement the most viable option for completing the LA Courthouse
project.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Staff inquiries may be
directed to Mr. Kevin Messner, Associate Administrator, Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 501-0563.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David L. Bibb:
Acting Administrator:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834, or goldsteinm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, David Sausville, Assistant
Director; Keith Cunningham; Bess Eisenstadt; Susan Michal-Smith;
Jennifer Kim; and Susan Sachs made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] California is divided into four judicial districts and the L.A.
Courthouse is located in the Central District.
[2] GAO, L.A. Federal Courthouse Project: Current Proposal Addresses
Space Needs, but Some Security and Operational Concerns Would Remain,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-158] (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 20, 2004).
[3] GSA officials said that the decision to propose a 41-courtroom
courthouse was based on 80 percent of the federal judiciary's stated
need at the time and that the judiciary could fit within that space by
sharing courtrooms.
[4] The judiciary considers three of the courtrooms in the Spring
Street building to be hearing rooms and not courtrooms.
[5] The Federal Building Fund is a revolving fund used, among other
things, for GSA's courthouse construction projects.
[6] Before Congress makes an appropriation, GSA submits to the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works detailed project descriptions, called
prospectuses, for authorization by these committees when the proposed
construction, alteration, or acquisition of a building to be used as a
public building exceeds a specified threshold. On July 26, 2000, the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works approved a prospectus for the
L.A. Courthouse project. (See 40 USC S3307).
[7] In commenting on a draft of this report, GSA indicated that this
assessment was based on information acquired from the current southern
California construction market and was specifically related to very
large, long-term federal projects.
[8] This estimate does not include all of the support space associated
with courtroom operations.
[9] Suspicious activities are acts that may affect the security in and
around the federal courthouses, including photographing a courthouse,
surveillance in or around a courthouse, graffiti, loitering, disruptive
behavior, abandoned property, and suspicious deliveries.
[10] This estimate does not include the site and design work that has
already occurred on the project.
[11] This estimate does not include the site and design work that has
already occurred on the project.
[12] According to GSA's appropriation acts, funds in the Federal
Buildings Fund may be transferred between activities to the extent
necessary to meet program requirements if the proposed transfers are
approved in advance per the committees on appropriations.
[13] The appropriation was designated to remain available for the new
L.A. courthouse project until expended for construction.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
