Federal Courthouse Construction
Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs Gao ID: GAO-10-1068T September 29, 2010The federal judiciary (judiciary) and the General Services Administration (GSA) are in the midst of a multi-billion dollar courthouse construction initiative, which has faced rising construction costs. For 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000, GAO examined (1) whether they contained extra space and any costs related to it; (2) how their actual size compares with the congressionally authorized size; (3) how their space based on the judiciary's 10-year estimates of judges compares with the actual number of judges; and (4) whether the level of courtroom sharing supported by the judiciary's data could have changed the amount of space needed in these courthouses. This testimony is based on GAO's June 2010 report; for that report, GAO analyzed courthouse planning and use data, visited courthouses, modeled courtroom sharing scenarios, and interviewed judges, GSA officials, and others.
The 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 include 3.56 million square feet of extra space consisting of space that was constructed (1) above the congressionally authorized size, (2) due to overestimating the number of judges the courthouses would have, and (3) without planning for courtroom sharing among judges. Overall, this space represents about 9 average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to construct this extra space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835 million, and the annual cost to rent, operate and maintain it is $51 million. Twenty seven of the 33 courthouses completed since 2000 exceed their congressionally authorized size by a total of 1.7 million square feet. Fifteen exceed their congressionally authorized size by more than 10 percent, and 12 of these 15 also had total project costs that exceeded the estimates provided to congressional committees. However, there is no requirement to notify congressional committees about size overages. A lack of oversight by GSA, including not ensuring its space measurement policies were followed and a lack of focus on building courthouses within the congressionally authorized size, contributed to these size overages. For 23 of 28 courthouses whose space planning occurred at least 10 years ago, the judiciary overestimated the number of judges that would be located in them, causing them to be larger and costlier than necessary. Overall, the judiciary has 119, or approximately 26 percent, fewer judges than the 461 it estimated it would have. This leaves the 23 courthouses with extra courtrooms and chamber suites that, together, total approximately 887,000 square feet of extra space. A variety of factors contributed to the judiciary's overestimates, including inaccurate caseload projections, difficulties in projecting when judges would take senior status, and long-standing difficulties in obtaining new authorizations. However, the degree to which inaccurate caseload projections contributed to inaccurate judge estimates cannot be measured because the judiciary did not retain the historic caseload projections used in planning the courthouses. Using the judiciary's data, GAO designed a model for courtroom sharing, which shows that there is enough unscheduled courtroom time for substantial courtroom sharing. Sharing could have reduced the number of courtrooms needed in courthouses built since 2000 by 126 courtrooms--about 40 percent of the total number--covering about 946,000 square feet of extra space. Judges raised potential challenges to courtroom sharing, such as uncertainty about courtroom availability, but those with courtroom sharing experience overcame those challenges when necessary, and no trials were postponed. The judiciary has adopted policies for future sharing for senior and magistrate judges, but GAO's analysis shows that additional sharing opportunities are available. For example, GAO's courtroom sharing model shows that there is sufficient unscheduled time for 3 district judges to share 2 courtrooms and 3 senior judges to share 1 courtroom. The recommendations in GAO's related report include: GSA should (1) ensure courthouses are within their authorized size or provide notification when designed spaced exceeds authorized space (2) retain caseload projections to improve the accuracy of 10-year judge planning; and (3) establish and use courtroom sharing policies based on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed with most recommendations, but expressed concerns with GAO's methodology and key findings. GAO believes these to be sound, as explained in the report.
GAO-10-1068T, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-1068T
entitled 'Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight,
and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs' which was
released on September 30, 2010.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, Committee on
the Judiciary, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 3:00 p.m. EST:
Wednesday, September 29, 2010:
Federal Courthouse Construction:
Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address
Future Costs:
Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-10-1068T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-1068T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Courts and Compeittion Policy, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal judiciary (judiciary) and the General Services
Administration (GSA) are in the midst of a multi-billion dollar
courthouse construction initiative, which has faced rising
construction costs. For 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000,
GAO examined (1) whether they contained extra space and any costs
related to it; (2) how their actual size compares with the
congressionally authorized size; (3) how their space based on the
judiciary‘s 10-year estimates of judges compares with the actual
number of judges; and (4) whether the level of courtroom sharing
supported by the judiciary‘s data could have changed the amount of
space needed in these courthouses. This testimony is based on GAO‘s
June 2010 report; for that report, GAO analyzed courthouse planning
and use data, visited courthouses, modeled courtroom sharing
scenarios, and interviewed judges, GSA officials, and others.
What GAO Found:
The 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 include 3.56 million
square feet of extra space consisting of space that was constructed
(1) above the congressionally authorized size, (2) due to
overestimating the number of judges the courthouses would have, and
(3) without planning for courtroom sharing among judges. Overall, this
space represents about 9 average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost
to construct this extra space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835
million, and the annual cost to rent, operate and maintain it is $51
million.
Twenty seven of the 33 courthouses completed since 2000 exceed their
congressionally authorized size by a total of 1.7 million square feet.
Fifteen exceed their congressionally authorized size by more than 10
percent, and 12 of these 15 also had total project costs that exceeded
the estimates provided to congressional committees. However, there is
no requirement to notify congressional committees about size overages.
A lack of oversight by GSA, including not ensuring its space
measurement policies were followed and a lack of focus on building
courthouses within the congressionally authorized size, contributed to
these size overages.
For 23 of 28 courthouses whose space planning occurred at least 10
years ago, the judiciary overestimated the number of judges that would
be located in them, causing them to be larger and costlier than
necessary. Overall, the judiciary has 119, or approximately 26
percent, fewer judges than the 461 it estimated it would have. This
leaves the 23 courthouses with extra courtrooms and chamber suites
that, together, total approximately 887,000 square feet of extra
space. A variety of factors contributed to the judiciary‘s
overestimates, including inaccurate caseload projections, difficulties
in projecting when judges would take senior status, and long-standing
difficulties in obtaining new authorizations. However, the degree to
which inaccurate caseload projections contributed to inaccurate judge
estimates cannot be measured because the judiciary did not retain the
historic caseload projections used in planning the courthouses.
Using the judiciary‘s data, GAO designed a model for courtroom
sharing, which shows that there is enough unscheduled courtroom time
for substantial courtroom sharing. Sharing could have reduced the
number of courtrooms needed in courthouses built since 2000 by 126
courtrooms”about 40 percent of the total number”covering about 946,000
square feet of extra space. Judges raised potential challenges to
courtroom sharing, such as uncertainty about courtroom availability,
but those with courtroom sharing experience overcame those challenges
when necessary, and no trials were postponed. The judiciary has
adopted policies for future sharing for senior and magistrate judges,
but GAO‘s analysis shows that additional sharing opportunities are
available. For example, GAO‘s courtroom sharing model shows that there
is sufficient unscheduled time for 3 district judges to share 2
courtrooms and 3 senior judges to share 1 courtroom.
What GAO Recommends:
The recommendations in GAO‘s related report include: GSA should (1)
ensure courthouses are within their authorized size or provide
notification when designed spaced exceeds authorized space (2) retain
caseload projections to improve the accuracy of 10-year judge
planning; and (3) establish and use courtroom sharing policies based
on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed with most
recommendations, but expressed concerns with GAO‘s methodology and key
findings. GAO believes these to be sound, as explained in the report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1068T] or key
components. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202)
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
We are pleased to be here to discuss the results of our report on
Federal Courthouse Construction issued June 21, 2010.[Footnote 1]
Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and
the federal judiciary (judiciary) have undertaken a multi-billion
dollar courthouse construction initiative that has resulted in 66 new
courthouses or annexes, with 29 additional projects in various stages
of development. However, rising costs and other federal budget
priorities threaten to stall the initiative. In 2008, for example, we
found that increases in construction cost estimates for the Los
Angeles, California courthouse had led to an impasse that has yet to
be resolved.[Footnote 2] Also, in fiscal year 2009, the judiciary's
rent payments totaled over $970 million. The judiciary has sought to
reduce the payments through requests for rent exemptions from GSA and
Congress through internal policy changes, such as annually capping
rent growth and validating rental rates.
This testimony, based on our report, discusses, for 33 federal
courthouses completed since 2000, (1) whether the courthouses contain
extra space and any costs related to that space, (2) how the actual
sizes of the courthouses compare with the congressionally authorized
sizes, (3) how courthouse space based on the judiciary's 10-year
estimates of the number of judges compares with the actual number of
judges; and (4) whether the level of courtroom sharing supported by
data from the judiciary's 2008 study of district courtroom sharing
could have changed the amount of space needed in these courthouses. To
address these objectives, we analyzed planning, construction, and
budget documents associated with all 33 federal courthouses or major
annexes completed from 2000 through March 2010. In addition, we
selected 7 of the federal courthouses in our scope to analyze more
closely as case studies.[Footnote 3] We conducted the courthouse
construction performance audit on which I am testifying from September
2008 to June 2010 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. More detail on our scope and methodology is available in
the full report.
Background:
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is an organization within
the judicial branch which serves as the central support entity for
federal courts, and is supervised by the Judicial Conference of the
United States. The Judicial Conference serves as the judiciary's
principal policy-making body and recommends national policies and
legislation, including recommending additional judgeships to Congress.
The U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide) specifies the judiciary's
criteria for designing new court facilities and sets the space and
design standards for court-related elements of courthouse
construction. In 1993, the judiciary also developed a space planning
program called AnyCourt to determine the amount of court-related space
the judiciary will request for a new courthouse based on Design Guide
standards and estimated staffing levels. GSA and the judiciary plan
new federal courthouses based on the judiciary's estimated 10-year
judge and space requirements. For courthouses that are selected for
construction, GSA typically submits two detailed project descriptions,
or prospectuses, for congressional authorization: one for site and
design and the other for construction. Prospectuses are submitted to
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for authorization and
Congress appropriates funds for courthouse projects, often at both the
design and construction phases. GSA manages the construction contract
and oversees the work of the construction contractor. After
courthouses are occupied, GSA charges the judiciary and any other
tenants rent for the occupied space and for their respective share of
common areas.
Extra Space in Courthouses Cost an Estimated $835 Million in Constant
2010 Dollars to Construct and $51 Million Annually to Rent, Operate,
and Maintain:
Thirty-two of the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 include
extra square feet of space, totaling 3.56 million square feet--
overall, this space represents about 9 average-sized courthouses. The
estimated cost to construct this extra space, when adjusted to 2010
dollars, is $835 million,[Footnote 4] and the annual cost to rent,
operate, and maintain it is $51 million. The extra space and its
causes are as follows:
* 1.7 million square feet caused by construction in excess of
congressional authorizations;
* 887,000 extra square feet caused by the judiciary overestimating the
number of judges the courthouses would have in 10 years; and:
* 946,000 extra square feet caused by district and magistrate judges
not sharing courtrooms.[Footnote 5]
In addition to higher construction costs, the extra square footage in
these 32 courthouses results in higher annual operations and
maintenance costs, which are largely passed on to the judiciary and
other tenants as rent. Based on our analysis of the judiciary's rent
payments to GSA for these courthouses at fiscal year 2009 rental
rates, the extra courtrooms and other judiciary space increase the
judiciary's annual rent payments by $40 million. In addition, our
analysis estimates that the extra space cost $11 million in fiscal
year 2009 to operate and maintain.[Footnote 6] Typically, operations
and maintenance costs represent from 60 to 85 percent of the costs of
a facility over its lifetime, while design and construction costs
represent about 5 to 10 percent of these costs.[Footnote 7] Therefore,
the ongoing operations and maintenance costs for the extra square
footage are likely to total considerably more in the long run than the
construction costs for this extra square footage.
GSA cited serious concerns with our methodology. Our methodology
applied GSA's policies and data directly from original documents and
sources, and our cost estimation methodology balanced between higher
and lower cost construction spaces to create a conservative estimate
of the costs associated with the extra space in courthouses. We
believe that our findings are presented in a fair and accurate way and
illustrate how past problems with the courthouse program could affect
future courthouse projects.
Most Courthouses Exceed the Congressionally Authorized Size Due to a
Lack of Oversight by GSA:
Twenty-seven of the 33 federal courthouses constructed since 2000
exceed their congressionally authorized size,[Footnote 8] resulting in
about 1.7 million more square feet than authorized. Fifteen of the 33
courthouses exceed their congressionally authorized size by 10 percent
or more. In all 7 of the case study courthouses, the increases in
building common and other space were proportionally larger than the
increases in tenant space, leading to a lower building efficiency than
GSA's target of 67 percent.[Footnote 9] Efficiency is important
because, for a given amount of tenant space, meeting the efficiency
target helps control a courthouse's gross square footage and therefore
its costs.[Footnote 10] According to GSA officials, controlling the
gross square footage of a courthouse is the best way to control
construction costs.
Twelve of the 15 courthouses that exceeded the congressionally
authorized gross square footage by 10 percent or more also had total
project costs that exceeded the total project cost estimate provided
to congressional authorizing committees. Four of the 15 courthouses
had total project costs that exceeded the estimate provided to the
congressional authorizing committees, at the construction phase, by
about 10 percent or more. GSA's annual appropriations acts include a
provision stating that GSA may increase spending for a project in an
approved prospectus by more than 10 percent if GSA obtains advance
approval from the Committee on Appropriations. While GSA sought
approval from the appropriations committees for the cost increases
incurred for these 4 courthouses, GSA did not explain to these
committees that the courthouses were larger than authorized and
therefore did not attribute any of the cost increase to this
difference. However, there is no statutory requirement for GSA to
notify congressional authorizing or appropriations committees if the
size exceeds the congressionally authorized square footage.
GSA lacked sufficient controls to ensure that the 33 courthouses were
constructed within the congressionally authorized gross square
footage. Initially, GSA had not established a consistent policy for
how to measure gross square footage. GSA established a policy for
measuring gross square footage by 2000, but has not ensured that this
space measurement policy was understood and followed. Moreover, GSA
has not demonstrated it is enforcing this policy because all 6
courthouses completed since 2007 exceed their congressionally
authorized size. According to GSA officials, the agency did not focus
on ensuring that the authorized gross square footage was met in the
design and construction of courthouses until 2007.
According to a GSA official, at times, courthouses were designed to
meet various design goals without an attempt to limit the size of the
building common or other space to the square footage allotted in the
plans provided to congressional authorizing committees - and these
spaces may have become larger to serve a design goal as a result.
Another element of GSA's lack of oversight in this area was that GSA
relied on the architect to validate that the courthouse's design was
within the authorized gross square footage without ensuring that the
architect followed GSA's policies for how to measure certain commonly
included spaces, such as atriums. Although GSA officials emphasized
that open space for atriums would not cost as much as space completely
built out with floors, these officials also agreed that there are
costs associated with constructing and operating atrium space.
Though not a result of a lack of oversight, one additional contributor
to the construction of more tenant space than planned is that the
judiciary's automated space planning tool, AnyCourt, incorporates a
standard square footage requirement for each district courtroom.
However, according to GSA's space measurement policy, the amount of a
courtroom's square footage doubles if the courtroom spans two floors.
Without a mechanism to adjust AnyCourt's calculation of a planned
courthouse's square footage to reflect GSA's space measurement policy
when the design includes two-story courtrooms, GSA may not request
sufficient gross square footage for courthouses with two-story
courtrooms.
Recently, GSA has taken some steps to improve its oversight of the
courthouse construction process by clarifying its space measurement
policies and increasing efforts to monitor the size of courthouse
projects during the planning stages. In May 2009, GSA published a
revised space assignment policy to clarify and emphasize its policies
on counting square footage. In addition, according to GSA officials,
GSA established a collaborative effort in 2008 between its Office of
Design and Construction and its Real Estate Portfolio Management to
establish policy and practices for avoiding inconsistencies. It is not
yet clear whether these steps will establish sufficient oversight to
ensure that courthouses are planned and constructed within the
congressionally authorized square footage.
Estimated Space Needs Exceeded Actual Space Needs, Resulting in
Courthouses That Were Larger than Necessary:
Of the 33 courthouses built since 2000, 28 have reached or passed
their 10-year planning period and 23 of those 28 courthouses have
fewer judges than estimated. For these 28 courthouses, the judiciary
has 119, or approximately 26 percent, fewer judges than the 461 it
estimated it would have, resulting in approximately 887,000 extra
square feet. The extra space includes courtroom and chamber suites as
well as the proportional allocation of additional public, mechanical
spaces, and sometimes secure, inside parking space in new courthouses.
We identified a variety of factors that led the judiciary to
overestimate the number of judges it would have after 10 years, which
include:
* Inaccurate caseload growth projections: In a 1993 report, we
questioned the reliability of the caseload projection process the
judiciary used.[Footnote 11] For this report, we were not able to
determine the degree to which inaccurate caseload projections
contributed to inaccurate judge estimates because the judiciary did
not retain the historic caseload projections used in planning the
courthouses. Judiciary officials at three of the courthouses we
visited indicated that the estimates used in planning for these
courthouses inadvertently overstated the growth in district case
filings and, hence, the need for additional judges.
* Challenges predicting how many judges will be located in a
courthouse in 10 years: It is difficult to predict when a judge will
take a reduced case-load through senior status or leave the bench
entirely. It is also challenging to project how many requested
judgeships will be authorized, how many vacancies will be filled, and
where new judges will be seated.
The judiciary raised concerns that some extra space in courthouses
exist because the judiciary did not receive all the new judge
authorizations it requested. We recognize that some of the extra
courtrooms reflect the historic trend that the judiciary has not
received all the additional authorized judges it has requested.
Low Levels of Use Show That Judges Could Share Courtrooms, Reducing
the Need for Future Courtrooms by More than One-Third:
Our analysis indicates that courtroom sharing could have reduced the
number of courtrooms needed in 27 of the 33 district courthouses built
since 2000 by a total of 126 courtrooms--about 40 percent of the total
number of district and magistrate courtrooms constructed since 2000.
[Footnote 12] In total, not building these courtrooms, as well as,
their associated support, building common, and other spaces, would
have reduced construction by approximately 946,000 square feet. Most
courthouses constructed since 2000 have enough courtrooms for all of
the district and magistrate judges to have their own courtrooms.
According to the judiciary's data, courtrooms are used for case-
related proceedings only a quarter of the available time or less, on
average.[Footnote 13] Using the judiciary's data, we applied generally
accepted modeling techniques to develop a computer model for sharing
courtrooms. The model ensures sufficient courtroom time for all case-
related activities; all time allotted to noncase-related activities,
such as preparation time, ceremonies, and educational purposes; and
all events canceled or postponed within a week of the event. The model
shows the following courtroom sharing possibilities: 3 district judges
could share 2 courtrooms, 3 senior judges could share 1 courtroom, and
2 magistrate judges could share 1 courtroom with time to spare.
During our interviews and convening of an expert panel on courtroom
sharing, some judges remained skeptical of sharing and raised
potential challenges to courtroom sharing, but other judges with
sharing experience said they have overcome those challenges when
necessary without postponing trials. The primary concern judges cited
was the possibility that all courtrooms could be in use by other
judges and a courtroom might not be available. To address this
concern, we programmed our model to provide more courtroom time than
necessary to conduct court business. Additionally, most judges with
experience in sharing courtrooms agreed that court staff must work
harder to coordinate with judges and all involved parties to ensure
everyone is in the correct courtroom at the correct time. Judges who
share courtrooms in one district also said that courtroom sharing
coordination is easier when there is a great deal of collegiality
among judges. Another concern about sharing courtrooms was how the
court would manage when judges have long trials. However, when the
number of total trials is averaged across the total number of judges,
each judge has approximately 15 trials per year, with the median trial
lasting 1 or 2 days.[Footnote 14] Therefore, it is highly unlikely
that all judges in a courthouse will simultaneously have long trials.
Another concern stated was that sharing courtrooms between district
and magistrate judges was difficult due to differences in
responsibilities and courtroom size. To address this concern, our
model separated district and magistrate judges for sharing purposes.
In 2008 and 2009, the Judicial Conference adopted sharing policies for
future courthouses under which senior district and magistrate judges
will share courtrooms at a rate of two judges per courtroom plus one
additional duty courtroom for courthouses with more than two
magistrate judges. Additionally, the conference recognized the greater
efficiencies available in courthouses with many courtrooms and
recommended that in courthouses with more than 10 district judges,
district judges also share. Our model's application of the judiciary's
data shows that more sharing opportunities are available.
The judiciary stated that at the time the 33 courthouses we reviewed
were planned, the judiciary's policy was for judges not to share
courtrooms and that it would be more appropriate for us to apply that
policy. Our congressional requesters specifically asked that we
consider how a courtroom sharing policy could have changed the amount
of space needed in these courthouses. The judiciary also raised
concerns with the assumptions and methodology used in developing the
courtroom sharing model. We carefully documented the data and
parameters throughout our report so that our model could be replicated
by anyone with access to the judiciary's data and familiarity with
discrete event simulation. Our model provides one option for
developing a sharing policy based on actual time during which
courtrooms are scheduled and used.
Conclusions and Prior Recommendations:
It is important for the federal judiciary to have adequate,
appropriate, modern facilities to carry out judicial functions.
However, the current process for planning and constructing new
courthouses has resulted in the 33 federal courthouses built since
2000 being overbuilt by more than 3.5 million square feet. This extra
space not only cost about $835 million in constant 2010 dollars to
construct, but has additional annual costs of about $51 million in
operations and maintenance and rent that will continue to strain GSA's
and the judiciary's resources for years to come. This extra space
exists because the courthouses, as built, are larger than those
congressionally authorized; contain space for more judges than are in
the courthouses at least 10 years after the space was planned, and,
for the most part, were not planned with a view toward judges sharing
courtrooms.
Thus, in our report we recommended that the Administrator of GSA take
the following three actions:
* Establish sufficient internal control activities to ensure that
regional GSA officials understand and follow GSA's space measurement
policies throughout the planning and construction of courthouses.
These control activities should allow for accurate comparisons of the
size of a planned courthouse with the congressionally authorized gross
square footage throughout the design and construction process.
* To avoid requesting insufficient space for courtrooms based on the
AnyCourt model's identification of courtroom space needs, establish a
process, in cooperation with the Director of the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, by which the planning for the space needed per
courtroom takes into account GSA's space measurement policy related to
two-story courtrooms when relevant.
* Report to congressional authorizing committees when the design of a
courthouse exceeds the authorized size by more than 10 percent,
including the reasons for the increase in size.
We also recommend that the Director of the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United
States take the following three actions:
* Retain caseload projections for at least 10 years for use in
analyzing their accuracy and incorporate additional factors into the
judiciary's 10-year judge estimates, such as past trends in obtaining
judgeships.
* Expand nationwide courtroom sharing policies to more fully reflect
the actual scheduling and use of district courtrooms.
* Distribute information to judges on positive practices judges have
used to overcome challenges to courtroom sharing.
GSA and the judiciary agreed with most of the recommendations, but
expressed concerns with GAO's methodology and key findings. GSA
concurred with our recommendation to notify the appropriate
Congressional committees when the square footage increase exceeds the
maximum identified in the prospectus by 10 percent or more. GSA did
not concur with our recommendation to establish internal controls to
ensure that regional GSA officials understand and follow GSA's space
measurement policies throughout the planning and construction of
courthouses; stating that their current controls and oversight are
sufficient. The judiciary concurred with our recommendation to expand
sharing policies based on a thorough and considered analysis of the
data but raised concerns related to the applicability of our model as
guidance for its system. The judiciary did not comment directly on its
plans to retain caseload projection but stated that it will continue
to look for ways to improve its planning methodologies. Finally the
judiciary did not provide comment on its intent to distribute
information on the positive practices judges have used to overcome
challenges to courtroom sharing.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. We are pleased to answer
any questions you might have.
Contact Information:
For further information on this testimony, please contact Mark L.
Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making
key contributions to this testimony include Keith Cunningham,
Assistant Director; Susan Michal-Smith; and Jade Winfree.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight,
and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-417] (Washington, D.C.: June 21,
2010).
[2] GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Estimated Costs to House the
L.A. District Court Have Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to
Proceed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-889]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2008).
[3] The seven case study courthouses include the Bryant U.S.
Courthouse Annex in Washington, D.C.; the Coyle U.S. Courthouse in
Fresno, California; the D'Amato U.S. Courthouse in Central Islip, New
York; the DeConcini U.S. Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona; the Eagleton
U.S. Courthouse in St. Louis, Missouri; the Ferguson U.S. Courthouse
in Miami, Florida; and the Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse in Cape
Girardeau, Missouri.
[4] The estimated construction cost of the extra space was $640
million in nominal (unadjusted) dollars. We adjusted for inflation, to
constant 2010 dollars, using a price index for construction costs from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Global Insight.
[5] Note: these numbers do not add to 3.56 million due to rounding.
[6] We did not attempt to calculate the rent attributable to the extra
square footage due to exceeding congressionally authorized gross
square footage because some of this extra square footage is for
tenants other than the judiciary or occurs in building common or other
space, the costs of which are not directly passed on to the judiciary
in rent. We therefore calculated the annual operations and maintenance
costs for all extra space due to exceeding congressionally authorized
gross square footage and for the extra building common and other space
due to overestimating the number of judges and judges not sharing
courtrooms.
[7] The remaining lifetime costs include land acquisition, planning,
renewal/revitalizations, and disposal.
[8] For all 33 courthouses in our scope, we used the congressionally
authorized gross square footage for the construction of the
courthouse. We compared the authorized gross square footage, including
inside parking, with the actual gross square footage, including inside
parking.
[9] In a building with 67 percent efficiency, 67 percent of the total
gross square footage, excluding parking, consists of tenant space and
the remainder consists of building common and other space.
[10] GSA defines the gross square footage of a building as the total
constructed area of a building, which includes tenant spaces and
building common and other spaces, such as lobbies and mechanical
rooms--as well as indoor parking.
[11] GAO, Federal Judiciary Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs
Revision, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-93-132]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 1993).
[12] Our analysis indicates that sharing would not reduce the number
of courtrooms in six courthouses for the following reasons: four
already had sharing between judges; one has only one district and one
magistrate judge; and one courthouse has only bankruptcy judges and is
out of our scope for district and magistrate sharing opportunities.
[13] Federal Judicial Center, The Use of Courtrooms in U.S. District
Courts: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court
Administration & Case Management (Washington, D.C., July 18, 2008).
[14] There are different definitions of what constitutes a trial. The
median trial length reported here reflects Table C-8 from the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 2008 Annual Report
of the Director: Judicial Business of the United States Courts.
(Washington, D.C., U.S Government Printing Office, 2009.
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
