This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-263 
entitled 'Federal Courthouses: Recommended Construction Projects 
Should Be Evaluated under New Capital-Planning Process' which was 
released on April 17, 2013. 

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

April 2013: 

Federal Courthouses: 

Recommended Construction Projects Should Be Evaluated under New 
Capital-Planning Process: 

GAO-13-263: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-263, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Rising costs and fiscal challenges have slowed the multibillion-dollar 
courthouse construction program of the judiciary and the General 
Services Administration (GSA). In 2006, the judiciary developed AMP to 
address increasing costs and incorporate best practices and has 
evaluated about 67 percent of its courthouses under the new system. As 
requested, GAO assessed changes introduced with AMP. GAO examined: (1) 
the extent to which the AMP process aligns with leading practices and 
provides information needed for informed decision making and (2) the 
extent to which courthouse projects recommended for funding in fiscal 
years 2014 to 2018 were assessed under the AMP process. GAO compared 
the judiciary’s capital-planning practices with leading practices, 
analyzed courthouse-planning documents, and interviewed officials from 
the judiciary and GSA. GAO visited three courthouses selected because 
they were highly ranked by the judiciary for replacement, although 
observations from these site visits cannot be generalized. 

What GAO Found: 

The Asset Management Planning (AMP) process represents progress by the 
federal judiciary (judiciary) in better aligning its capital-planning 
process with leading capital-planning practices, but its 5-year plan 
for fiscal years 2014 to 2018-—the document the judiciary uses to 
request courthouse construction projects—-lacks transparency and key 
information on how projects qualify for new construction, alternatives 
the judiciary considered, and their cost. For example, the plan lists 
costs for the next phase of the 12 recommended courthouse projects, 
which have several phases, but does not list previous funding or 
ongoing annual costs for the projects. As a result, the plan lists 
about $1 billion in costs for the 12 projects, but the projects would 
actually cost the federal government an estimated $3.2 billion over 
the next 20 years. Congress has appropriated a small share of the 
money needed for the projects, and most will need design changes 
before construction can begin. As a result, there is a risk that 
congressional funding decisions could be made without complete and 
accurate information. However, with this information, decision makers 
could weigh current-year budget decisions within the context of 
projects’ expected future costs, spur discussion and debate about 
actions to address them, and put the judiciary’s requests in context 
with other federal spending. 

Ten of the 12 recommended projects were not evaluated under the AMP 
process. Judiciary officials said that they did not want to delay the 
current projects or force them to undergo a second capital-planning 
process after they had already been approved. Two courthouse projects 
from a previous 5-year plan that were assessed under AMP were removed 
from the list and are now ranked behind more than 100 other courthouse 
construction projects. Furthermore, 10 of the 12 recommended 
construction projects do not qualify for a new courthouse under the 
AMP criterion, which requires that new courthouses need two or more 
additional courtrooms. These conditions call into question the extent 
to which the projects remaining on the 5-year plan represent the 
judiciary’s most urgent projects and whether proceeding with these 
projects represents the most fiscally responsible proposal. While 10 
additional AMP evaluations would involve some additional costs, not 
conducting those evaluations could involve spending $3.2 billion over 
the next 20 years on courthouses that may not be the most urgent 
projects. 

Figure: The U.S. Federal Courthouse in Anniston, Alabama: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

Note: the courthouse currently has 1 senior judge and 1 bankruptcy 
judge and 2 courtrooms. The judiciary recommends building a new 
courthouse even though the AMP process requires that new courthouse 
construction require at least 2 additional courtrooms based on the 
judges located there. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

The judiciary should (1) provide more information to decision makers 
related to how projects qualify for new construction, any alternatives 
the judiciary considered, and their cost and (2) impose a moratorium 
on the projects currently on the judiciary’s 5-year plan until they 
are evaluated under AMP. The judiciary partially agreed with the first 
recommendation and disagreed with the second recommendation. GAO 
believes that a moratorium would allow the judiciary to ensure that it 
makes the best investments in courthouse construction. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-263]. For more 
information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 
goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

AMP Process Partially Aligns with Several Leading Practices but Does 
Not Provide Needed Information to Decision Makers: 

Most Courthouse Projects Were Not Evaluated under AMP Process and Do 
Not Meet AMP Criterion for New Construction: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Judiciary's Courtroom-sharing Policy for New Construction: 

Appendix III: Judiciary's Asset Management Planning Process Urgency 
Evaluation Matrix for New Construction Projects: 

Appendix IV: Judiciary's New Courthouse Projects for Fiscal Years 2012 
to 2016 and Fiscal Years 2014 to 2018: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Federal Judiciary: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Judiciary's Estimated 5-Year Plan Project and Annual Rent 
Costs in 2013 dollars: 

Table 2: Courtroom Counts in Judiciary's 5-year Plan for Courthouses: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Judiciary's Asset Management Planning Process (2008 to 2013): 

Figure 2: Leading Capital-planning Practices, as Outlined in OMB and 
GAO Guidance, and Extent to Which AMP Process Aligns with Them: 

Figure 3: Judiciary 5-year Courthouse Project Plan for Fiscal Years 
2014 to 2018, as of September 12, 2012. 

Figure 4: Funding Status of Judiciary's 5-Year Plan for Courthouse 
Projects, 2013. 

Figure 5: Photographs of the U. S. Federal Courthouse in Anniston, 
Alabama. 

Abbreviations List: 

AMP: Asset Management Planning: 

AOUSC: Administrative Office of the United States Courts: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

LFRP: Long Range Facilities Plan: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 11, 2013: 

The Honorable Bill Shuster: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Lou Barletta: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
Management: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Jeff Denham: 
House of Representatives: 

Since the early 1990's, the federal judiciary (judiciary) and the 
General Services Administration (GSA) have undertaken a multibillion-
dollar federal courthouse construction program. To date this program 
has resulted in the completion of 78 new courthouses or annexes 
[Footnote 1] and 16 projects in various stages of development. 
However, rising costs and other budget priorities have slowed the 
construction program. In addition, we found in 2010 that recent 
federal courthouses had been constructed larger than necessary because 
of poor planning, oversight, and inefficient courtroom use.[Footnote 
2] Specifically, 33 federal courthouses completed from 2000 to 2010 
included 3.56 million square feet of extra space that cost an 
estimated $835 million to construct and $51 million annually to 
operate and maintain. We recommended that GSA should: (1) ensure that 
courthouses are within their authorized size or notify congressional 
committees; and that the judiciary should: (2) retain caseload 
projections to improve the accuracy of its 10-year judge planning and 
(3) establish and use courtroom-sharing policies based on scheduling 
and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed with the recommendations, 
but expressed concerns with GAO's methodology and key findings. GAO 
believes these to be sound, as explained in the report. Our 
recommendations have not yet been implemented. 

In light of this program history and the federal government's current 
fiscal challenges, you asked us to review the judiciary's current 
plans for new courthouse construction. We examined (1) the extent to 
which the judiciary's capital-planning process aligns with leading 
practices and provides information needed for informed decision making 
and (2) the extent to which courthouse projects recommended for 
funding in fiscal years 2014 to 2018 were assessed under the 
judiciary's current capital-planning process. 

To determine the extent to which the judiciary's capital-planning 
process aligns with leading practices and provides the information 
needed for informed decision making, we interviewed judiciary and GSA 
officials about and analyzed documentation on the judiciary's capital-
planning process. We then compared judiciary's capital-planning 
practices with leading capital-planning practices from the Office of 
Management and Budget's (OMB) Capital Programming Guide[Footnote 3] 
and GAO's Executive Guide.[Footnote 4] We reviewed documentation on 
the status of courthouse construction projects and information about 
other federal buildings occupied by the judiciary. We reviewed GSA 
data on costs of construction and tenant improvements at two 
courthouse projects, one completed in 2010 and one completed in 2011. 
We reviewed GSA's and the judiciary's estimated construction costs for 
proposed courthouse projects. We assessed the judiciary and GSA data 
for completeness and determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To determine the extent to which the current courthouse projects 
recommended for funding in fiscal years 2014 to 2018 were assessed 
under the judiciary's current capital-planning process, we reviewed 
the judiciary's documents outlining the projects recommended for 
funding for fiscal years 2008 through 2018. We also examined judiciary 
documents regarding strategic planning, capital-planning, existing 
courthouse evaluations, ratings of existing courthouse deficiencies, 
numbers of existing and projected judgeships, and policies on 
courtroom-sharing by judges. We reviewed congressional authorizations 
and funding appropriations for courthouse projects and GSA information 
on federal buildings, existing and planned federal courthouses, 
courthouse design, and federal historic properties. We interviewed 
judiciary and GSA officials in Washington, D.C., and visited federal 
courthouses in Anniston, Alabama, and Macon and Savannah, Georgia. We 
selected these sites because the courthouses were highly ranked by the 
judiciary for replacement. While our site-visit observations cannot be 
generalized to all federal courthouses, they provide insights into the 
physical conditions at some historic courthouses.[Footnote 5] 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to April 2013 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. Appendix I 
contains additional information on our scope and methodology. 

Background: 

The U.S. district courts are the trial courts of the federal court 
system. There are 94 federal judicial districts--at least one for each 
state, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories--organized 
into 12 regional circuits. Each circuit has a court of appeals whose 
jurisdiction includes appeals from the district and bankruptcy courts 
[Footnote 6] located within the circuit, as well as appeals from 
decisions of federal administrative agencies.[Footnote 7] The 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) within the 
judicial branch carries out a wide range of services for the federal 
judiciary, including capital-planning. The Judicial Conference of the 
United States (Judicial Conference) supervises the Director of the 
AOUSC and is the principal policy-making body for the federal 
judiciary and recommends national policies and legislation on all 
aspects of federal judicial administration. 

Federal courthouses can house a variety of appellate, district, senior 
district, magistrate, or bankruptcy judges as well as other court and 
non-court-related tenants. Prior to 2008, the judiciary did not 
require judges to share courtrooms, except in situations where the 
courthouse was out of space.[Footnote 8] In 2008, the Judicial 
Conference adopted new policies for courtroom-sharing (1) between 
senior district judges and (2) between magistrate judges. In 2011, the 
Judicial Conference adopted a courtroom-sharing policy for bankruptcy 
judges. These policies apply to new courthouse projects and existing 
courthouses when there is a new space need that cannot otherwise be 
accommodated. (See appendix II for more information on judiciary's 
courtroom-sharing policies.) The judiciary has also been studying the 
feasibility of an appropriate sharing policy for district judges in 
courthouses with more than 10 district judges, but has not yet 
finalized a policy and could not tell us when or if it expected to do 
so. Our 2010 report examined judiciary data on courtroom usage and 
found that there are additional opportunities for significant cost 
savings through courtroom-sharing, particularly for district judges. 
[Footnote 9] 

The judiciary's previous capital-planning process, which it used from 
1988 to 2004, assessed a new courthouse project's urgency based on 
four criteria: (1) the year in which the existing courthouse was 
expected to run out of space, (2) the number and nature of security 
deficiencies in the existing courthouse, (3) the number and nature of 
infrastructure and operational deficiencies in the existing 
courthouse, and (4) the current number of judges who do not have a 
permanent courtroom and chambers in the existing courthouse, plus the 
projected number of judges over the 10-year planning period who will 
not have a courtroom and chambers. From fiscal years 2005 to 2006, as 
a cost containment initiative, the judiciary imposed a moratorium on 
new courthouse construction while it reevaluated its capital-planning 
process. 

In 2008, the judiciary began using a new capital-planning process, 
called the Asset Management Planning (AMP) process, to assess, 
identify, and rank its space needs. According to judiciary officials, 
the AMP process addresses concerns about growing costs and 
incorporates best practices related to capital-planning. The AMP 
process includes several steps beginning with the completion of a 
district-wide Long Range Facilities Plan (LFRP). Collectively, the AMP 
process: 

* documents courthouse space conditions and district space needs 
based, in part, on the judiciary's AMP process rules and building 
standards as specified in the U.S. Courts Design Guide;[Footnote 10] 

* identifies space needs on a building-specific and citywide basis; 
and: 

* develops housing strategies that can include construction of a new 
courthouse or annex and renovation projects. 

The AMP process results in an urgency score for construction or 
renovation based primarily on the current and future need for 
courtrooms and chambers and the condition assessment of the existing 
building (see appendix III). The AMP process establishes criteria for 
qualifying for new courthouse construction, such as requiring that an 
existing courthouse have a chamber for each judge and needing two or 
more additional courtrooms. Judiciary officials told us that unlike 
the previous capital-planning process, a new courthouse could no 
longer be justified as part of the AMP process based solely on 
security or operational deficiencies. The judiciary has chosen to 
improve security within existing courthouse rather than replace them 
with new courthouses. After the Judicial Conference identifies 
courthouse projects, GSA conducts feasibility studies to assess 
alternatives for meeting the judiciary's space needs and recommends a 
preferred alternative. The judiciary adopts the GSA recommended 
alternative, which may differ from the alternative recommended in the 
AMP process. For example, a project may not qualify for new courthouse 
construction under the AMP process, but GSA may determine through its 
feasibility study that new construction is the most cost-efficient, 
viable solution. See figure 1 for the judiciary's current process for 
selecting and approving new courthouse construction projects. 

Figure 1: Judiciary's Asset-Management Planning Process (2008 to 2013): 

[Refer to PDF for image: process list] 

Long range facility plan: 
* Evaluates the physical conditions in existing courthouses.
* Recommends housing strategies including (1) construction of a new 
courthouse or annex and (2) renovation projects. Only these projects 
that require two or more courtrooms qualify for a new courthouse. 

Facility and citywide benefit assessments: 
* Evaluates, scores, and ranks physical conditions in courthouses 
based on long range facility plan data.
* If the courthouse has offices in more than one building, a city-wide 
benefit assessment is produced and evaluated. 

Urgency evaluation: 
* Evaluates (1} space needs for judges, (2.) caseload growth, (3) 
results 01 facility benefit assessment, and (4) city-wide benefit 
assessment. 

Judiciary conference review: 
* Selects courthouse projects among qualifying projects for GSA 
feasibility study. 

GSA feasibility analysis: 
* Evaluates options for meeting judiciary space needs at qualifying 
projects.
* Provides a feasibility study to judiciary with recommended option 
for meeting judiciary space needs. 

5-year plan: 
* Judicial Conference evaluates the GSA, feasibility study and decides 
which projects to add to the 5-year plan. 

Source GAO analysis of federal judiciary data. 

[End of figure] 

Part of the judiciary's capital-planning--both the previous and 
current processes--has been to periodically communicate its facility 
decisions for construction projects via a document known as the Five 
Year Courthouse Project Plan (5-year plan). The 5-year plan is a one-
page document that lists proposed projects by fiscal year and the 
estimated costs for various project phases (site acquisition, design, 
or construction) as approved by the Judicial Conference. The judiciary 
uses the plan to communicate its most urgent projects to Congress and 
other decision makers. Previously, we found that judiciary's 5-year 
plans did not reflect the most urgently needed projects and lacked key 
information about the projects selected--such as a justification for 
the project's priority level.[Footnote 11] 

GSA reviews its courthouse studies with the judiciary and forwards 
approved projects for new courthouses to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review. If approved by OMB, GSA then submits requests 
to congressional authorizing committees for new courthouse projects in 
the form of detailed descriptions, or prospectuses,[Footnote 12] for 
authorizing acquisition of a building site, building design, and 
construction. Following congressional authorization and the 
appropriation of funds for the projects, GSA manages the site, design, 
and construction phases. After occupancy, GSA charges federal tenants, 
such as the judiciary, rent for the space they occupy and for their 
respective share of common areas, including mechanical spaces. In 
fiscal year 2012, the judiciary's rent payments to GSA totaled over $1 
billion for approximately 42.4 million square feet of space in 779 
buildings that include 446 federal courthouses. 

Using the AMP process, the judiciary is currently evaluating all of 
the 446 federal courthouses it leases from GSA. As of October 2012, 
the judiciary has conducted AMP evaluations for 298 (about 67 percent) 
of all federal courthouses. Judiciary officials told us that they do 
not expect to finish evaluating all of the courthouses until October 
2015 and would take another 18 to 24 months to complete the LRFPs, 
dependent upon the availability of funding. 

AMP Process Partially Aligns with Several Leading Practices but Does 
Not Provide Needed Information to Decision Makers: 

AMP Process Partially Aligns with Several Leading Practices in Capital 
Planning: 

The AMP process, which the judiciary has applied to about 67 percent 
of its courthouses, represents progress by the judiciary in aligning 
its capital-planning process with leading capital-planning practices, 
but the document the judiciary uses to request courthouse construction 
projects lacks transparency and key information. We have previously 
reported that prudent capital-planning can help agencies maximize 
limited resources and keep capital acquisitions on budget, on 
schedule, and aligned with mission needs and goals.[Footnote 13] 
Figure 2 summarizes leading capital-planning practices and our 
assessment of the extent to which the AMP process aligns with those 
practices. For our analysis of judiciary's planning practices, we 
focused on the judiciary's implementation of the concepts that 
underlie the planning phase of OMB and GAO guidance, including linking 
capital-planning to an agency's strategic goals and objectives and 
developing a long-term capital investment plan.[Footnote 14] 

Figure 2: Leading Capital-Planning Practices, as Outlined in OMB and 
GAO Guidance, and Extent to Which AMP Process Aligns with Them: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Planning practice: Strategic linkage; 
Description: Capital planning provides a long-term plan for the 
capital asset portfolio to meet an agency's goals and objectives. 
Strategic and annual performance plans should identify capital assets 
and define how they will help the agency achieve its goals and 
objectives; 
Extent AMP process aligns with leading practice: Partial alignment--
missing less than a majority of linkage to GAO and OMB capital 
planning leading practice. 

Planning practice: Needs assessment and gap identification; 
Description: A needs assessment and gap identification identifies 
resources needed to fulfill immediate requirements and anticipated 
needs based on results-oriented goals and objectives that flow from an 
organization's mission. It considers the capability of existing 
resources and makes use of an accurate up-to-date inventory of capital 
assets and information such as asset condition and estimated cost; 
Extent AMP process aligns with leading practice: Partial alignment--
missing less than a majority of linkage to GAO and OMB capital 
planning leading practice. 

Planning practice: Alternatives evaluation; 
Description: Agencies should determine how best to bridge performance 
gaps by identifying and evaluating alternatives, including options 
such as human capital. Before choosing to purchase or construct a 
capital asset, leading organizations carefully consider a wide range 
of alternatives; 
Extent AMP process aligns with leading practice: Partial alignment--
missing less than a majority of linkage to GAO and OMB capital 
planning leading practice. 

Planning practice: Review and approval framework with established 
criteria for selecting capital investments; 
Description: Agencies should establish and follow a formal process for 
senior management to review and approve proposed capital assets. The 
cost of a proposed asset, the level of risk involved in acquiring the 
asset, and its importance to achieving the organization's mission 
should be considered when defining criteria for executive review. 
Proposed capital investments should be compared to one another to 
create a portfolio of major assets ranked in priority order; 
Extent AMP process aligns with leading practice: Partial alignment--
missing less than a majority of linkage to GAO and OMB capital 
planning leading practice. 

Planning practice: Long-term capital investment plan; 
Description: The long-term capital plan should be the final and 
principal product resulting from an agency's capital planning process. 
The capital plan, covering 5 years or more, should result from an 
executive review process that has determined the proper mix of 
existing assets and new investments needed to fulfill the 
organization's mission, goals, and objectives, and should reflect 
decision makers' priorities for the future. Leading organizations 
update long-term capital plans annually or biennially. Agencies are 
encouraged to include certain elements in their capital plans, 
including a statement of the agency mission, strategic goals, and 
objectives; a description of the agency's planning process; baseline 
assessments and identification of performance gaps; and a risk 
management plan; 
Extent AMP process aligns with leading practice: Limited alignment--
missing a majority of linkage to GAO and OMB capital planning leading 
practice. 

Source: GAO and OMB. 

[End of figure] 

Several aspects of the AMP process partially align with leading 
capital-planning practices, but none fully align and the 5-year plan 
only aligns to a limited extent--which we discuss further in this 
report. Here are some examples to illustrate partial alignment: 

* Strategic Linkage. The judiciary's strategic plan links to its 
management of capital assets, but the AMP process does not link to the 
strategic plan. For example, the AMP process documents we reviewed did 
not explain how the process helps achieve the goals and objectives in 
the judiciary's current strategic plan,[Footnote 15] which are 
organized around seven issues: providing justice; the effective and 
efficient management of public resources; the judiciary workforce of 
the future; harnessing technology's potential; enhancing access to the 
judicial process; the judiciary's relationships with the other 
branches of government; and enhancing public understanding, trust, and 
confidence. However, after our review, a judiciary official told us 
that the Long Range Facility Plans (LRFP) currently under development 
would include a reference to the strategic plan. 

* Needs Assessment and Gap Identification. The AMP process has 
improved judiciary's needs assessment and gap analysis by establishing 
a comprehensive, nationwide 328-factor study for every courthouse, 
whereas the previous process was not as comprehensive and only 
assessed courthouses when requested by a local judicial 
district.[Footnote 16] The AMP process evaluates the degree to which 
existing facilities support court operations by applying space 
functionality standards, security, and building condition factors. 
However, cost estimates supporting the judiciary's needs are 
incomplete, as discussed later in this report. 

* Alternatives Evaluation. The AMP process establishes a review and 
approval framework criteria for justifying new construction, whereas 
none existed in the previous process. The AMP process evaluates some 
alternatives, such as renovating existing courthouses to meet needs, 
but it is unclear if the judiciary considered other options, such as 
courtroom-sharing in the existing courthouse. Assessing a wide-range 
of alternatives would help the judiciary ensure that it evaluated 
other, less costly, approaches to bridging the performance gap before 
recommending new construction. 

* Review and Approval Framework with Established Criteria for 
Selecting Capital Investments. The AMP process includes a review and 
approval framework with criteria, such as courthouses needing two or 
more courtrooms to qualify for a new courthouse project. However, 
courtroom deficits are not apparent in most projects reported in the 5-
year plan. 

* Long-Term Capital Investment Plan. Judiciary officials with whom we 
spoke agreed that the 5-year plan is not a long-term capital 
investment plan, but it is what the judiciary uses to document its 
request for new courthouse construction to decision makers. The one-
page 5-year plan document does not reflect the depth of the AMP 
process, describe all other projects that the judiciary considered, or 
indicate how the projects chosen will help fulfill the judiciary's 
mission, goals, and objectives. 

Two courthouse projects illustrate how the AMP process has changed the 
way the judiciary evaluates its need for new courthouses. 
Specifically, two projects listed on a previous 5-year plan (covering 
fiscal years 2012 through 2016) were re-evaluated under AMP--San Jose, 
California, and Greenbelt, Maryland. Both had ranked among the top 15 
most urgent projects nationwide under the previous capital-planning 
process, and as such, the judiciary prioritized them for new 
construction in 2010. However, after the judiciary evaluated the San 
Jose and Greenbelt projects under the AMP process, their nationwide 
rankings fell to 117 and 139, respectively. Judiciary officials 
explained that this drop was largely because of the completion of 
additional AMP assessments, coupled with the reduced space needs 
because of courtroom-sharing. Following the change in rankings, GSA 
and the judiciary determined that judiciary's needs could 
alternatively be addressed through repair and alteration projects that 
reconfigure existing space. The judiciary added that its decision 
saved taxpayer money. As a result, at the request of the judiciary, 
the Judicial Conference of the United States removed the two projects 
from the 5-year plan. 

Current 5-Year Plan Lacks Transparency, and $1-Billion Cost Estimate 
Is Not Comprehensive: 

The judiciary's current 5-year plan--the end product of the 
judiciary's capital-planning process--does not align with leading 
practices for a long-term capital investment plan in a number of ways. 
The plan does not provide decision makers with detailed information 
about proposed construction projects or how they were selected. The 
one-page document lists each project by city name, year, and dollar 
estimate for the next phase of the project's development as shown in 
figure 3. The one-page plan also provides the project's urgency score 
from the judiciary's capital-planning process. However, the document 
does not specify whether the scores were developed under the old 
process or the AMP process. Unlike a long-term capital investment 
plan--usually the end product under leading capital-planning 
practices--the 5-year plan lacks complete cost and funding 
information, linkage to the judiciary's strategic plan, and 
information on why projects were selected. Specifically, while 
courthouses provide facilities for the judiciary to accomplish goals 
set out in its strategic plan, such as enhancing access to the 
judicial process, the 5-year plan contains no mention of the strategic 
plan. In addition, the 5-year plan does not include a discussion of 
the AMP process and criteria; a schedule of when the AMP process will 
be completed; and details on the alternatives considered during the 
process, such as whether the judiciary's courtroom-sharing policy was 
applied prior to requesting a new courthouse project. 

Figure 3: Judiciary's 5-year Courthouse Project Plan for Fiscal Years 
2014 to 2018, as of September 12, 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan for FYs 2014-2018 As Approved by the 
Judicial Conference of the United States: 

September 11, 2012: 
Estimated dollars in millions: 

FY 2014: 

1. Mobile, AL[A]; 
Plan: Additional Construction; 
Cost: $54.9 million; 
Score: 59.8. 

2. Nashville, TN; 
Plan: Additional Site, Design, and Construction; 
Cost: $144.0 million; 
Score: 67.3. 

3. Savannah. GA; 
Plan: Additional Construction; 
Cost: $95.5 million; 
Score: 61.3. 

4. Norfolk, VA; 
Plan: Additional Site and Design; 
Cost: $12.0 million; 
Score: 57.4. 

FY 2014 Total cost: $306.4 million. 

FY 2015: 

1. San Antonio, TX; 
Plan: Additional Site, Design, and Construction; 
Cost: $117.4 million; 
Score: 61.3. 

2. Charlotte, NC; 
Plan: Additional Construction; 
Cost: $165.7 million; 
Score: 58.5. 

3. Greenville, SC; 
Plan: Additional Construction; 
Cost: $78.8 million; 
Score: 58.1. 

4. Harrisburg, PA; 
Plan: Additional Construction; 
Cost: $118.6 million; 
Score: 56.8. 

FY 2015 Total cost: $480.5 million. 

FY 2016: 

1. Norfolk, VA;                 
Plan: Additional Construction; 
Cost: $104.7 million; 
Score: 51.4. 

2. Anniston, AL; 
Plan: Additional Design and Construction; 
Cost: $41.0 million; 
Score: 57.1. 

3. Toledo, OH; 
Plan: Additional Construction; 
Cost: $109.3 million; 
Score: 54.4. 

FY 2016 Total cost: $255.0 million. 

FY 2017: 

1. Chattanooga, TN; 
Plan: Site and Design; 
Cost: $21.5 million;    
Score: 37.3 

2. Des Moines, IA; 
Plan: Site and Design; 
Cost: $43.0 million; 
Score: 35.3. 

FY 2017 Total cost: $64.5 million. 

FY 2018: 
None. 

All cost estimates subject to final verification with GSA. 

[A] Congress provided $50.0 out of $104.9 million needed for Mobile, 
AL in December 2009. 

Source: Federal Judiciary. 

Note: The higher the "score," the greater the space need urgency. 

[End of figure] 

The 5-year plan is not transparent and does not provide key funding 
information, such as total estimated project costs. Specifically, it 
lists about $1.1 billion in estimated costs, which are the funds 
needed for that specific 5-year period. However, these costs only 
include part of the project phases. The estimated cost of all project 
phases--site acquisition, building design, and construction--comes to 
$1.6 billion in 2013 dollars.[Footnote 17] In addition, while no 
longer included in the 5-year plan, the judiciary estimated that it 
would need to pay GSA $87 million annually in rent, or $1.6 billion 
over the next 20 years,[Footnote 18] to occupy these courthouses if 
constructed. Table 1 describes our analysis of judiciary's data for 
the estimated cost of all phases and projected rent costs that total 
almost $3.2 billion. However, even though the $3.2-billion estimate 
provides a more complete presentation of the project costs, that 
estimate could change based on GSA's redesign of projects because of 
changes in the judiciary's needs. In addition, the $3.2-billion 
estimate does not include life-cycle costs, such as furniture and GSA 
disposal of existing facilities, which would also have to be included 
for the cost estimate to be comprehensive. GAO[Footnote 19] and OMB 
[Footnote 20] have established that estimates of life-cycle costs 
[Footnote 21] are necessary for accurate capital-planning. 

Table 1: Judiciary's Estimated 5-year Plan Project and Annual Rent 
Costs in 2013 Dollars: 
Proposed courthouse by location: Mobile, AL; 
Estimated project costs: $218.0 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 12.2 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Nashville, TN; 
Estimated project costs: $173.4 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 8.5 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Savannah, GA; 
Estimated project costs: $111.9 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 6.2 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: San Antonio, TX; 
Estimated project costs: $123.8 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 9.6 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Charlotte, NC; 
Estimated project costs: $145.4 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 6.9 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Greenville, SC; 
Estimated project costs: $93.9 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 5.4 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Harrisburg, PA; 
Estimated project costs: $109.0 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 5.0 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Norfolk, VA; 
Estimated project costs: $125.8 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 6.7 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Anniston, AL; 
Estimated project costs: $26.9 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 1.8 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Toledo, OH; 
Estimated project costs: $124.9 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 5.6 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Chattanooga, TN; 
Estimated project costs: $163.6 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 8.0 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Des Moines, IA; 
Estimated project costs: $203.8 million; 
Estimated annual rent costs: 11.1 million. 

Proposed courthouse by location: Total; 
Estimated project costs: $1.620 billion; 
Estimated annual rent costs: $87 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal judiciary data adjusted to current year 
(2013). 

Note: Inflation to current year based upon averages of monthly indexes 
from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. $87.0 
million in annual payments over 20 years discounted at 0.8 percent are 
about $1.6 billion in current (2013) dollars. 

[End of table] 

In addition, the 5-year plan does not provide the amount of funding 
already provided for all of the projects. Since fiscal year 1995, 
Congress has appropriated about $177 million of the estimated $1.6 
billion needed for 10 of these projects' phases, mostly for site 
acquisitions and designs. None of the projects has begun construction, 
and only the Mobile project has received any construction funding (see 
figure 4). 

Figure 4: Funding Status of Judiciary's 5-year Plan for Courthouse 
Projects, 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Courthouse location: Mobile, AL; 
Previously appropriated funds: $61.3 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $153.8 million. 

Courthouse location: Des Moines, IA; 
Previously appropriated funds: $0; 
Estimated funds needed: $201 million. 

Courthouse location: Nashville, TN; 
Previously appropriated funds: $21.8 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $149.3 million. 

Courthouse location: Chattanooga, TN; 
Previously appropriated funds: $0; 
Estimated funds needed: $161.4 million. 

Courthouse location: Toledo, OH; 
Previously appropriated funds: $8.5 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $135 million. 

Courthouse location: San Antonio, TX; 
Previously appropriated funds: $11.6 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $112.5 million. 

Courthouse location: Savannah, GA; 
Previously appropriated funds: $6.5 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $116.7 million. 

Courthouse location: Charlotte, NC; 
Previously appropriated funds: $12 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $110.1 million. 

Courthouse location: Norfolk, VA; 
Previously appropriated funds: $13.5 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $96.9 million. 

Courthouse location: Harrisburg, PA; 
Previously appropriated funds: $26 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $81.6 million. 

Courthouse location: Greenville, SC; 
Previously appropriated funds: $11 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $81.6 million. 

Courthouse location: Anniston, AL; 
Previously appropriated funds: $4.4 million; 
Estimated funds needed: $22.1 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Judiciary and GSA data. 

[End of figure] 

We found that the 5-year plan does not align with the leading practice 
of considering the risks involved in acquiring new courthouses. 
Specifically, the plan does not inform stakeholders that 11 of the 12 
projects require further design before construction can begin. 
According to GSA officials, the agency has not received funding for 
the design of two projects (Chattanooga and Des Moines). Of the 
remaining 10 projects that have design funding, 1 is in the design 
process and 9 are on hold. According to GSA officials, some of the 
projects on hold must be re-designed to accommodate policy and other 
requirements relating to, for example, changes such as courtroom-
sharing and energy management.[Footnote 22] For example, the design of 
the Savannah courthouse project was completed in 1998 and now needs 
extensive re-design to accommodate changes mandated by policy shifts, 
including improved security and a reduction in the number of 
courtrooms needed. GSA officials said that only the design of the 
Nashville project--though oversized by one floor--is likely to remain 
largely intact because it would be more cost-effective to rent the 
additional space to other tenants than to completely re-design the 
project. 

In February 2012, judiciary submitted its 5-year plan to Congress and 
other decision makers. As a result, there is a risk that funding 
decisions could be made without complete and accurate information. 
Congress would benefit from having information based upon a long-term 
capital investment plan for several reasons. Specifically, 
transparency about future priorities could allow decision makers to 
weigh current-year budget decisions within the context of projects' 
expected future costs. In the case of the judiciary, which has 
identified a number of future courthouse projects estimated to cost 
several billion dollars, full transparency regarding these future 
priorities may spur discussion and debate about actions Congress can 
take to address them. Additionally, transparency regarding future 
capital costs would put the judiciary's priorities in context with 
federal spending. There is widespread agreement that the federal 
government faces formidable near- and long-term fiscal challenges. GAO 
has long stated that more transparent information and better 
incentives for budget decisions, involving both existing and proposed 
programs, could facilitate consideration of competing demands and help 
put U.S. finances on a more sustainable footing.[Footnote 23] 

Most Courthouse Projects Were Not Evaluated under AMP Process and Do 
Not Meet AMP Criterion for New Construction: 

Judiciary Has Not Evaluated Most 5-Year Plan Projects under the AMP 
Process: 

The judiciary has not applied the AMP process to 10 of the 12 
construction projects on the current 5-year plan dated September 2012. 
These 10 projects were evaluated under the judiciary's prior capital-
planning process and approved based on their urgency levels as 
determined under that process. Judiciary officials said that they did 
not want to delay the projects or force them to undergo a second 
capital-planning process review because the judiciary had already 
approved the projects. Only 2 projects on the current 5-year plan 
(2014 to 2018) were assessed under the AMP process--Chattanooga, 
Tennessee, and Des Moines, Iowa. Judiciary officials said these 
projects were added to the 5-year plan in September 2010 because they 
had the highest priority rankings of the projects that had undergone 
an AMP review at that time. Judiciary officials explained that these 
projects also had GSA feasibility studies that recommended new 
construction. However, the Chattanooga and Des Moines projects have 
not retained their top rankings as the judiciary has continued to 
apply the AMP process to additional courthouses. Specifically, 
judiciary documents show that more than a dozen other projects not 
included on the 5-year plan now rank above the Chattanooga and Des 
Moines projects, six of which recommend new construction. For example, 
we visited the federal courthouse in Macon, Georgia, which now ranks 
higher than either the Chattanooga or Des Moines projects. The Macon 
courthouse suffers from numerous operational and security issues 
typical of historic courthouses, but it is not included on the 5-year 
plan. As we previously noted, the judiciary also applied the AMP 
process to 2 other projects that were included on an older 5-year plan 
(2012 to 2016)--San Jose and Greenbelt--and subsequently removed them 
after the projects received substantially lower priority rankings, as 
shown in appendix IV. 

The change in the rankings of the 4 projects calls into question the 
extent to which the projects remaining on the 5-year plan represent 
the judiciary's most urgent projects and whether proceeding with these 
projects while hundreds of AMP reviews remain to be done represents 
the most fiscally responsible path. We recognize that conducting AMP 
reviews of the 10 projects on the 5-year plan would involve additional 
costs; however, not conducting AMP reviews on these projects could 
involve spending billions of dollars over the next 20 years on 
courthouses that may not be the most urgent projects. While the AMP 
process only partially aligns with leading practices in capital-
planning, it is a significant improvement over the capital-planning 
process the judiciary used to choose 10 of the 12 projects on the 5-
year plan. Assessing the 10 projects with the AMP process could help 
ensure that projects on the 5-year plan do, in fact, represent the 
judiciary's most urgent projects. 

Most Projects Do Not Qualify for a New Courthouse under the AMP 
Courtroom Criterion: 

Ten of the 12 projects on the 5-year plan do not qualify under the AMP 
criterion for a new courthouse. The judiciary's previous capital-
planning process for new courthouse projects had no minimum additional 
courtroom requirement, but the AMP process stipulates that a new 
courthouse is justified when an existing courthouse has a deficit of 
two or more courtrooms based on the number of judges located there 
after applying courtroom-sharing policies. The judiciary bases its 
estimates for the number of courtrooms that it needs on the number of 
existing judges and the projected number of new judges it will have in 
15 years.[Footnote 24] We found that 5 of the projects on the list 
currently need additional courtrooms, and of those, only the Charlotte 
and Greenville projects would qualify under the AMP criterion because 
both need three additional courtrooms (see table 2). We did not assess 
if the shortage of courtrooms alone is the most appropriate criterion 
for requesting new construction from GSA, but the establishment of a 
clear criterion adds an element of transparency that was lacking in 
the judiciary's previous capital-planning process. 

Table 2: Courtroom Counts in Judiciary's 5-year Plan for Courthouses: 

Number of courtrooms by location: 

Courthouse location[A]: Mobile, AL; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 11; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 9; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: (2). 

Courthouse location[A]: Nashville, TN; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 12; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 11; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: (1). 

Courthouse location: San Antonio, TX; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 10; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 9; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: (1). 

Courthouse location[A]: Anniston, AL; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 2; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 2; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 0. 

Courthouse location[A]: Chattanooga, TN; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 6; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 6; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 0. 

Courthouse location[A]: Norfolk, VA; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 9; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 9; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 0. 

Courthouse location[A]: Savannah, GA; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 4; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 4; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 0. 

Courthouse location[A]: Moines, IA; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 7; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 8; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 1. 

Courthouse location[A]: Harrisburg, PA; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 6; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 7; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 1. 

Courthouse location[A]: Toledo, OH; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 6; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 7; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 1. 

Courthouse location[A]: Charlotte, NC; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 6; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 9; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 3. 

Courthouse location[A]: Greenville, SC[C]; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 5; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 8; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 3. 

Source: GAO Analysis of GSA and federal judiciary data. 

[A] Some cities have more than one existing courthouse. 

[B] Some existing courtrooms may not meet Design Guide standards for 
size. However, according to AMP guidance a disparity between space in 
an existing facility and the Design Guide standards is not 
justification for facility alteration and expansion. 

[C] The new Greenville courthouse is to consolidate the judges from 
courthouses in Anderson and Spartanburg, South Carolina. 

[End of table] 

We visited two courthouses on the current 5-year plan that were 
selected as new construction projects under the prior capital-planning 
process--Savannah and Anniston built in 1899 and 1906, respectively. 
These historic courthouses qualified for new construction under the 
previous process because of space needs and security and operational 
deficiencies because of their age, condition and building 
configuration. According to judiciary and GSA officials, neither 
courthouse meets Design Guide standards for (1) the secure circulation 
of prisoners, the public, and courthouse staff and (2) the adjacency 
of courtrooms and judge's chambers. However, neither of these 
courthouses would qualify for new construction under the AMP criterion 
as both have a sufficient number of existing courtrooms for all the 
judges.[Footnote 25] Specifically, the Savannah and Anniston 
courthouses each have enough courtrooms for all assigned judges to 
have exclusive access to their own courtroom. Savannah currently 
houses one district judge, one senior district judge, one magistrate 
judge, and one bankruptcy judge. Figure 5 shows two courtrooms in the 
Anniston courthouse that currently house one senior district judge and 
one bankruptcy judge. 

Figure 5: Photographs of the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Anniston, 
Alabama: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs] 

Front exterior; 
Courthouse plaque; 
U.S. District Courtroom; 
U.S. Bankruptcy courtroom. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Potential Policy for District Judges to Share Courtrooms Could Further 
Reduce the Need for Future Courtrooms: 

As discussed, the judiciary's courtroom-sharing policies for senior 
district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges allow it to reduce the 
scope of its courthouse projects and contributed to the cancellation 
of other courthouse projects. The judiciary has also been studying a 
courtroom-sharing policy for district judges but has not yet finalized 
a policy and could not provide a date when and if it planned to do so. 
Our 2010 report based on judiciary data on courtroom scheduling and 
use showed that judges of all kinds, including district judges, could 
share courtrooms without delaying any scheduled events and recommended 
that the judiciary expand courtroom-sharing to more fully reflect the 
actual scheduling and use of district courtrooms.[Footnote 26] 
Specifically, judiciary data showed that three district judges could 
share two courtrooms or a district judge and a senior district judge 
could share one courtroom. If district judges shared courtrooms in 
this way, the judiciary would have a sufficient number of courtrooms 
in all of the 12 proposed projects in the 5-year plan, based on the 
AMP criterion. 

In responding to our recommendation, the judiciary stated that our 
2010 report oversimplified the complex task of courtroom-sharing by 
assuming that judicial proceedings were more certain and predicable 
than they are. We addressed the uncertainty of courtroom scheduling by 
(1) accounting for unused scheduled time as if the courtroom were 
actually used and (2) providing additional unscheduled time in 
courtrooms. Since potential courtroom-sharing among district judges 
could reduce the need for additional courtroom space and the AMP 
criterion for qualifying for new courthouse construction, it is 
important for the judiciary to finalize its position and policy on 
courtroom-sharing, as we previously recommended. 

Conclusion: 

With the development and implementation of the AMP process, the 
judiciary's capital-planning efforts partially align with several 
leading practices. The AMP process has the potential to provide a 
wealth of information on the judiciary's existing facilities and 
assess and rank the need for new construction based on measurable 
criteria. However, the 5-year plan submitted for approval of several 
billion-dollars worth of projects--a one-page list of projects with 
limited and incomplete information--does not support the judiciary's 
request for courthouse construction projects. For example, the AMP 
process introduces a criterion for when new construction is warranted--
when two or more courtrooms are needed--but the 5-year plan does not 
show how this criterion applies to the recommended projects. 
Furthermore, the 5-year plan has underestimated total costs of these 
projects by about $2 billion because it does not include all project 
phases and because the judiciary no longer includes its rent costs on 
the 5-year plan. Additionally, construction has not begun on any of 
the 12 courthouse projects on the 5-year plan and most need to be 
redesigned to meet current standards. Given the fiscal environment, 
the judiciary and the Congress would benefit from more detailed 
information about courthouse projects and their estimated costs than 
judiciary currently provides. Such information would enable judiciary 
and Congress to better evaluate the full range of real property 
priorities over the next few years and, should fiscal constraints so 
dictate, identify which should take precedence over the others. In 
short, greater transparency would allow for more informed decision 
making among competing priorities. 

Current fiscal challenges also require that the federal government 
focus on essential projects. While the judiciary has made significant 
strides in improving its capital-planning process, most of the 12 
projects listed on the 5-year plan are products of its former process. 
It is possible that some of the 12 projects do not reflect the most 
urgent capital investment needs of the judiciary under its current 
criteria. Two projects on a previous 5-year plan that were assessed 
under the AMP process were removed from the list and now rank well 
down on the judiciary's list of priorities, but the judiciary has not 
applied the AMP process to 10 courthouses on the current 5-year plan 
dated September 2012. Furthermore, 10 of the 12 projects on the 
current 5-year plan do not require a sufficient number of courtrooms 
to qualify for new construction under the AMP courtroom criterion. In 
addition, there is no evidence that the judiciary considered how it 
could meet the need for courtrooms without new construction if 
district judges shared courtrooms. Although there would be some 
incremental costs involved with an additional 10 AMP reviews, those 
costs appear justified given the billions involved in moving forward 
with the construction of those 10 courthouses. Similar to the 2-year 
moratorium the judiciary placed on courthouse construction while it 
developed the AMP process, it is not too late to apply the AMP process 
to the 5-year plan projects and possibly save taxpayers from funding 
construction of projects that might not represent the judiciary's 
highest priorities under current criteria. It is critical that the 
judiciary accurately determine its most urgent projects because of the 
taxpayer cost and the years of work involved in designing and 
constructing new courthouses. 

Recommendations: 

To further improve the judiciary's capital-planning process, enhance 
transparency of that process, and allow for more informed decision 
making related to the federal judiciary's real property priorities, we 
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 two actions: 

1. Better align the AMP process with leading practices for capital-
planning. This should include linking the AMP process to the 
judiciary's strategic plan and developing and sharing with decision 
makers a long-term capital investment plan. In the meantime, future 5-
year plans should provide comprehensive information on new courthouse 
projects, including: 

a) a summary of why each project qualifies for new construction and is 
more urgent than other projects, including information about how the 
AMP process and other judiciary criteria for new courthouse 
construction were applied to the project; 

b) complete cost estimates of each project; and: 

c) the alternatives to a new project that were considered, including 
courtroom-sharing, and why alternatives were deemed insufficient. 

2. Impose a moratorium on projects on the current 5-year plan until 
AMP evaluations are completed for them and then request feasibility 
studies for courthouse projects with the highest urgency scores that 
qualify for new construction under the AMP process. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided copies of a draft of this report to GSA and AOUSC for 
review and comment. GSA and AOUSC provided technical comments that we 
incorporated as appropriate. Additionally, AOUSC provided written 
comments in which it agreed with our recommendation to link the AMP 
process to the judiciary's strategic plan. However, AOUSC raised a 
number of concerns that the subpoints related to our first 
recommendation on improving capital planning would duplicate other 
judiciary or GSA documents. Furthermore, AOUSC disagreed with our 
recommendation to place a moratorium on the projects in the 5-year 
plan until it could perform AMP evaluations of those projects because 
it would take years and not change the result. We continue to believe 
that our recommendation is sound because the projects included on the 
5-year plan were evaluated under the judiciary's previous capital 
planning process and evidence suggested they no longer represent the 
judiciary's highest priorities. Specifically, two projects on a 
previous 5-year plan that were assessed under the AMP process were 
removed from the list and now rank well down the judiciary's list of 
priorities. In addition, 10 of the 12 projects on the current 5-year 
plan do not qualify for new construction under the AMP process. In 
response to AOUSC's comments, we made some technical clarifications 
where noted, none of which materially affected our findings, 
conclusions, or recommendations. AOUSC's complete comments are 
contained in appendix V, along with our response to specific issues 
raised. 

In commenting on a draft of our report, AOUSC said it would take steps 
to address our first recommendation to link the AMP process to the 
judiciary's strategic plan, but cited concerns about our presentation 
of information, accuracy of data, and the subpoints of the first 
recommendation. Specifically, AOUSC disputed our characterization of 
the judiciary's role in the capital-planning process for new 
courthouses and the information provided to Congress to justify new 
courthouses. According to AOUSC, Congress receives extensive, detailed 
information on new courthouse projects from GSA, and our 
recommendation for the judiciary to provide more comprehensive 
information on courthouse projects in 5-year plans would duplicate the 
GSA's work. AOUSC also disputed our presentation of the AMP process, 
stating that GAO did not consider all documents when making our 
conclusions. AOUSC disagreed with our recommendation for a moratorium 
on all projects currently on the 5-year plan because completing AMP 
evaluations for those projects would unnecessarily delay the projects 
and exacerbate existing security and structural issues with the 
existing courthouses. In AOUSC's view, AMP evaluations for these 
courthouses would take years and not alter the justification for new 
construction projects. AOUSC further disputed the data we used to 
support our conclusions about the projects on the 5-year plan and our 
explanation of the data's source. AOUSC also questioned our 
characterization of the judiciary's actions in response to 
recommendations in a prior GAO report. 

We believe our findings, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations 
are well supported. GAO adheres to generally accepted government 
auditing standards, which ensure the accuracy and relevance of the 
facts within this report. These standards include a layered approach 
to fact validation that includes supervisory review of all work 
papers, independent verification of the facts within the report, and 
the judiciary's review of the facts prior to our release of the draft 
report for agency comment. To the extent that the judiciary is 
questioning any facts, the judiciary had multiple opportunities 
provide supporting documentation to substantiate its view. We believe 
that our description of the roles and responsibilities of the 
judiciary and the GSA in the capital-planning process for new 
courthouses is correct and appropriate. In reaching our conclusions 
about the information provided to Congress, we relied on documents we 
received from the judiciary and GSA. We continue to believe that by 
implementing our recommendation about providing additional information 
to Congress, the judiciary would improve the completeness and 
transparency of the information that Congress needs to justify and 
authorize funding of new courthouse projects. We will review AOUSC's 
steps, once finalized, to address our recommendation that the AMP 
process be linked to the judiciary's strategic plan. We continue to 
believe that any steps that AOUSC takes should be aligned with leading 
practices, including presentation of total project cost estimates and 
alternatives considered, such as greater courtroom sharing in existing 
courthouses. 

With regard to our recommended moratorium on projects on the current 5-
year plan, we note that the AMP process represents progress by the 
judiciary in better aligning its capital-planning process with leading 
practices. Consequently, we believe that it would be worthwhile to use 
this improved process to ensure that all courthouse construction 
proposals remain the judiciary's top priorities and qualify for new 
construction under the AMP process. The San Jose and Greenbelt 
projects were approved as among the highest priorities for new 
construction under the old process but, after being evaluated under 
the AMP process, now rank far lower on the judiciary's list of 
priorities--117TH and 139TH, respectively. We also noted that 
regardless of whether a project is on the 5-year plan, GSA is 
responsible for ensuring that courthouses are adequately maintained. 
We relied on data provided by the judiciary and the GSA to support our 
analysis of whether the projects on the 5-year plan would qualify 
under the AMP process, and stand by our conclusions. We used the most 
current and complete data provided by the judiciary to evaluate the 
cost of these projects. We will review information provided by the 
judiciary and determine whether to close the recommendation from our 
2010 report at the appropriate time. In response to AOUSC's comments, 
we clarified the report and added detail to our methodology in 
appendix I as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the appropriate congressional committees, Director of the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Administrator of GSA and 
other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at 
no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions on this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Contact information and key 
contributors to the report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

This report addresses the following objectives: 

* To what extent does the judiciary's capital-planning process align 
with leading practices and provide the information needed for informed 
decision making? 

* To what extent were the courthouse projects recommended for funding 
in fiscal years 2014 to 2018 assessed under the judiciary's current 
capital-planning process? 

To evaluate the judiciary's capital-planning process, we collected 
information on leading capital-planning practices from the Office of 
Management and Budget's (OMB) Capital Programming Guide[Footnote 27] 
and GAO's Executive Guide[Footnote 28] and compared this information 
with the AMP process contained in the judiciary's Long Range Facility 
Plans, Facility Benefit Assessments, Citywide Benefit Assessments, 
Urgency Evaluations, 5-year plans and Strategic Plan. We did not 
review the appropriateness of criteria used by judiciary in its AMP 
process. We reviewed documentation on the status of courthouse 
construction projects and information about other federal buildings 
occupied by the judiciary. We reviewed GSA data on actual costs of 
construction and tenant improvements at two courthouse projects (Las 
Cruces, NM and Ft. Pierce, FL) one completed in 2010 and one completed 
in 2011; and GSA and judiciary estimated costs of construction for the 
courthouse projects on the most recent 5-year plan, covering fiscal 
years 2014 to 2018. To determine if life-cycle cost estimates were 
provided in the 5-year plan, we assessed the judiciary data against 
GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.[Footnote 29] To determine 
the current dollar value of the judiciary's estimate of courthouse 
projects' rents, we calculated the present value of the estimated 
project cost based upon averages of monthly indexes from U.S. 
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and rent based upon 
20 year OMB published discount rate for analyses.[Footnote 30] In 
addition, we interviewed judiciary officials on the AMP process and 
its alignment with leading capital-planning practices. To analyze 
judiciary's capital-planning process, we reviewed our previous reports 
on capital-planning across the federal government,[Footnote 31] 
including the efforts by the judiciary[Footnote 32] and the Department 
of Veterans Affairs[Footnote 33] to communicate its urgent housing 
needs to Congress. 

To assess recent courthouse projects recommended for funding under the 
judiciary's current capital-planning process, we reviewed the 
judiciary's documents detailing the projects recommended for funding 
for fiscal years 2009 through 2018, called 5-year plans, and other 
documents on: congressional authorizations and funding appropriations 
for courthouse projects; judiciary information on courts and 
courthouses; and GSA information on federal buildings, existing and 
planned federal courthouses, courthouse design, and federal historic 
property. We interviewed judiciary and GSA officials in Washington, 
D.C., and federal courthouses we selected in Anniston, AL; Macon, GA; 
and Savannah, GA. To observe existing courthouses, we selected 
Anniston and Savannah because they were evaluated under judiciary's 
old capital-planning process and are on the most recent 5-year plan, 
covering fiscal years 2014 to 2018. We selected Macon because it was 
highly ranked under the judiciary's new capital-planning process and 
is in close proximity to Anniston and Savannah. While our observations 
cannot be generalized to all federal courthouses, they provide keen 
insights into physical conditions at old historic courthouses. We 
reviewed documentation provided by the judiciary on strategic 
planning, capital-planning, existing courthouse evaluations, the 
rating and ranking of existing courthouse deficiencies, existing and 
future judgeships, and courtroom-sharing by judges. To determine the 
extent that courthouse projects on the 5-year plan reflect future 
judges needed and courtroom-sharing, we compared the judiciary's 
planned occupancy information to the judiciary's own guidance, our 
previous work on judiciary's courtroom-sharing,[Footnote 34] and a 
recently proposed bill from the 112TH Congress that would have 
required GSA to design courthouses with more courtroom-sharing. 
[Footnote 35] We determined the number of courtrooms in the existing 
courthouses and compared them to the number of courtrooms needed in 
the new courthouses using the judiciary's courtroom-sharing policy. We 
also applied judiciary's courtroom-sharing policy for new courthouses 
to existing courthouses. We reviewed documentation provided by GSA on 
the status of courthouse construction; the status of courthouse 
projects on the two most recent 5-year plans; and federal buildings 
and courthouses occupied by the judiciary. We reviewed the judiciary's 
and GSA's data for completeness and determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to April 2013 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Judiciary's Courtroom-Sharing Policy for New Construction: 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 1; 
Courtrooms allocated: 1; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 1; 
Courtrooms allocated: 1; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 1; 
Courtrooms allocated: 1. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 2; 
Courtrooms allocated: 1; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 2; 
Courtrooms allocated: 2; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 2; 
Courtrooms allocated: 2. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 3; 
Courtrooms allocated: 2; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 3; 
Courtrooms allocated: 2; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 3; 
Courtrooms allocated: 2. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 4; 
Courtrooms allocated: 2; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 4; 
Courtrooms allocated: 3; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 4; 
Courtrooms allocated: 3. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 5; 
Courtrooms allocated: 3; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 5; 
Courtrooms allocated: 3; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 5; 
Courtrooms allocated: 3. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 6; 
Courtrooms allocated: 3; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 6; 
Courtrooms allocated: 4; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 6; 
Courtrooms allocated: 4. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 7; 
Courtrooms allocated: 4; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 7; 
Courtrooms allocated: 4; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 7; 
Courtrooms allocated: 4. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 8; 
Courtrooms allocated: 4; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 8; 
Courtrooms allocated: 5; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 8; 
Courtrooms allocated: 5. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 9; 
Courtrooms allocated: 5; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 9; 
Courtrooms allocated: 5; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]: 
Bankruptcy Judges: 9; 
Courtrooms allocated: 5. 

Senior District Judges[A]: 
Senior District Judges: 10; 
Courtrooms allocated: 5; 
Magistrate Judges[B]: 
Magistrate Judges: 10; 
Courtrooms allocated: 6; 
Bankruptcy Judges[C]:
Bankruptcy Judges: 10; 
Courtrooms allocated: 6. 

Source: federal judiciary. 

Note: Each active District Judge is allocated one dedicated courtroom 
(not shown in chart). 

[A] According to judiciary documents, Senior District Judge courtrooms 
must comply with the conference report to the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) guidance 
on the allocation of courtrooms for senior judges, which states "With 
any funds in the Act that are used for new United States courthouse 
construction, the conferees advise GSA to consider projects for which 
the design provides courtroom space for senior judges for up to 10 
years from eligibility for senior status, not to exceed one courtroom 
for every two senior judges." 

[B] In courthouses with one or two Magistrate Judges, one courtroom 
will be provided for each judge. In courthouses with three or more 
Magistrate Judges, one courtroom will be provided for every two 
magistrate judges, rounding down when there is an odd number of 
judges. In addition, one courtroom will be provided for magistrate 
judge criminal duty proceedings. 

[C] In court facilities with one or two Bankruptcy Judges, one 
courtroom will be provided for each Bankruptcy Judge. In court 
facilities with three or more bankruptcy judges, one courtroom will be 
provided for every two bankruptcy judges, rounding down when there is 
an odd number of judges. In addition, one courtroom will be provided 
for emergency matters, such as Chapter 11 first-day hearings. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Judiciary's Asset-Management Planning Process Urgency-
Evaluation Matrix for New Construction Projects: 

Criteria (weight): Courtrooms needed by judge type (20%); 
Categories (weight): Current additional courtrooms needed (15%); 
Description: Courtrooms needed today. Data separated by judge type and 
weights assigned (district judges 100%, senior district judges 75%, 
magistrate judges 50% or bankruptcy judges 50%). Courtroom-sharing per 
Judicial Conference policy. 

Criteria (weight): Courtrooms needed by judge type (20%); 
Categories (weight): Future additional courtrooms needed (5%); 
Description: Courtrooms needed within 15 years. Data separated by judge 
type and weights assigned (district judges 100%, senior district judges 
75%, magistrate judges 50% or bankruptcy judges 50%). Courtroom-sharing 
per Judicial Conference policy. 

Criteria (weight): Chambers needed by judge type (30%); 
Categories (weight): Current additional chambers needed (22.5%); 
Description: Chambers needed today. Data separated by judge type and 
weights assigned (district judges 100%, senior district judges 75%, 
magistrate judges 50% or bankruptcy judges 50%). Courtroom-sharing per 
Judicial Conference policy. 

Criteria (weight): Chambers needed by judge type (30%); 
Categories (weight): Future additional chambers needed (7.5%); 
Description: Chambers needed within 15 years. Data separated by judge 
type and weights assigned (district judges 100%, senior district judges 
75%, magistrate judges 50% or bankruptcy judges 50%). Courtroom-sharing 
per Judicial Conference policy. 

Criteria (weight): Facility benefit assessment (40%); 
Categories (weight): Citywide benefit assessment result (40%); 
Description: In cities where courtrooms and chambers are located in 
multiple facilities, a citywide benefit assessment is produced. This 
incorporates the individual Facility Benefit Assessment for each 
facility; the type, a mix of facility ownership; and fragmentation of 
the court operations on a citywide basis. In cities with a single 
courthouse, the Facility Benefit Assessment is the same as the citywide 
assessment and covers 328 items in four main categories: building 
conditions (30%); space functionality (30%); security (25%); and space 
standards (15%). 

Criteria (weight): Caseload growth (10%); 
Categories (weight): Civil filings historic (3%); 
Description: Average annual change in the number of civil filings 
(1997-2011). 

Criteria (weight): Caseload growth (10%); 
Categories (weight): Civil filings projected (1%); 
Description: Projected average annual change in the number of civil 
filings (2012-2026). 

Criteria (weight): Caseload growth (10%); 
Categories (weight): Criminal defendants historic (4.5%); 
Description: Average annual change in the number of number of criminal 
defendants (1997-2011). 

Criteria (weight): Caseload growth (10%); 
Categories (weight): Criminal defendants projected (1.5%); 
Description: Projected average annual change in the number of criminal 
defendants (2012-2026). 

Source: federal judiciary. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Judiciary's New Courthouse Projects for Fiscal Years 2012 
to 2016 and Fiscal Years 2014 to 2018: 

Location: Los Angeles, CA; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 85; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Not included. 

Location: Mobile, AL; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 59.8; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Nashville, TN; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 67.3; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Savannah, GA; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 61.3; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: San Jose, CA; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: 13.2; 
Citywide assessment[B]: 84.7; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: 84.7; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 54.5; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Not included. 

Location: San Antonio, TX; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 61.3; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Charlotte, NC; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 58.5; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Greenville, SC; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 58.1; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Harrisburg, PA; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 56.8; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Norfolk, VA; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 57.4; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Anniston, AL; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: 43.1; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: 44.8[E]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 57.1; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Toledo, OH; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: [Empty]; 
Citywide assessment[B]: [Empty];
Facility benefit assessment[B]: [Empty]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 54.4; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Greenbelt, MD; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: 7.6; 
Citywide assessment[B]: 90.4; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: 90.4; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: 53.8; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Not included. 

Location: Chattanooga, TN; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: 37.3; 
Citywide assessment[B]: 62.5; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: See note[E]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Location: Des Moines, IA; 
New Asset Management Planning process: 
Urgency evaluation[A]: 35.3; 
Citywide assessment[B]: 53.4; 
Facility benefit assessment[B]: See note[E]; 
Old Capital-planning process: 
Old score[C]: [Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2012 - 2016 5-year plan[D]: Included; 
Fiscal year 2014 - 2018 5-year plan[D]: Included. 

Source: federal judiciary: 

[A] The higher the urgency evaluation rating, the worse the existing 
facility (or facilities within a city): 

[B] The higher the resulting facility benefit assessment (or citywide 
assessment) rating, the better the existing facility (or facilities 
within a city). A rating of 100 represents an ideal courthouse, 80-100 
is a good courthouse, and below 60 is a poor courthouse. In cities 
where courtrooms and chambers are located in multiple facilities, a 
citywide benefit assessment is produced. This incorporates the 
individual FBA for the individual facility; the type, a mix of facility 
ownership; and fragmentation of the court operations on a citywide 
basis. In cities with a single courthouse, the FBA is the same for the 
citywide assessment. The FBA covers four main categories of building 
conditions (30%); space functionality (30%); security (25%); and space 
standards (15%). 

[C] The higher the "score," the greater the space need urgency. 

[D] Included; not Included. 

[E] More than one building assessed. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Federal Judiciary: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at 
the end of this appendix. Page numbers in draft report may differ from 
those in this report. 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Honorable Thomas F. Hogan, Director: 
Washington, D.C. 20544: 

March 29, 2013: 

Mr. Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldstein: 

The Federal Judiciary acknowledges receipt of the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, FEDERAL 
COURTHOUSES: Proposed Construction Projects Should Be Evaluated Under 
New Capital Planning Process (GAO-13-263). In the draft report, the 
GAO recommends that the Judiciary take two actions: 

1. Better align the Asset Management Planning (AMP) Process with leading
practices for capital planning. This should include linking the AMP 
Process to the Judiciary's strategic plan and developing and sharing 
with decision makers a long-term capital investment plan. In the 
meantime, future Five-Year Plans should provide comprehensive 
information on new courthouse projects, including: 

a. a summary of why each project qualifies for new construction and is 
more urgent than other projects, including information about how the 
AMP Process and other Judiciary criteria for new courthouse 
construction were applied to the project; 

b. complete cost estimates of each project; and, 

c. the alternatives to a new project that were considered, including 
courtroom sharing, and why alternatives were deemed insufficient; and, 

2. Impose a moratorium on projects on the current Five-Year Courthouse
Construction Plan until AMP evaluations are completed for them, and 
then request feasibility studies for courthouse projects with the 
highest urgency scores that qualify for new construction under the AMP 
process. 

The Roles of the Judiciary and the GSA: 

It is troubling that throughout the course of this engagement, the GAO 
has failed to understand the purpose of the Judiciary's Five-Year 
Courthouse Construction Plan (Five-Year Plan), confusing it with what 
is known among facilities planning professionals as a long-term 
capital investment plan. [See comment 1] In multiple instances, the 
GAO report erroneously states that the Judiciary uses the Five-Year 
Plan as a means to "document" and "transmit" courthouse construction 
project requests to the Congress, implying that we are utilizing the 
Five-Year Plan as a long-term capital investment plan, and that as a 
result, the process lacks transparency and omits key information. The 
GAO report appears to offer the astonishing suggestion that the only 
information Congress receives prior to making a courthouse funding 
decision is the one-page Five-Year Plan. Obviously, Congress would 
never make such an important decision in such a cavalier fashion. 
Indeed, the $188.29 million already provided by Congress for projects 
on the current Five-Year Plan was thoroughly justified by extensive, 
detailed submissions to the pertinent Congressional committees and 
subcommittees by the appropriate Executive Branch agency, the General 
Services Administration (GSA). [See comment 2] 

As the GAO knows, the Judiciary does not have independent real 
property authority. It is the role and responsibility of the GSA to 
request and seek authorization and funding from Congress. In so doing, 
the GSA develops a comprehensive package for use by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) and the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government; the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure; the House Appropriations Committee, 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government; and the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on 
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, to 
help ensure they make informed decisions. Project-related analysis and 
materials that the GSA provides to decision-makers on behalf of and in 
coordination with the Judiciary include: 1) a detailed project 
feasibility study that assesses existing facility conditions and 
present and future space needs, identifies the range of alternatives 
to meet those needs, evaluates the costs of each alternative, and 
recommends a housing solution; 2) a Program Development Study (PDS) 
which updates and refines the feasibility study, and includes a more 
detailed development of alternatives and costs; 3) a Prospectus for 
site acquisition, design, and construction that contains the full 
project budget, authorization requested, prior authority and funding, 
project schedule, project scope, and project justification; and, 4) a 
Congressional Justification document for a given year's appropriation 
request, which includes full disclosure of prior-year appropriations and
additional funding required. 

In sum, the GAO's recommendation appears to be that the Judiciary 
expend scant resources duplicating analyses already provided to the 
OMB and Congress by the GSA. If the report intends something more--if 
it is suggesting that there is specific information related to new 
courthouse construction not being provided to Congress by GSA—-then
the report has failed to identify what that information is. The 
Judiciary, of course, stands ready to provide any information Congress 
desires, but it should not he required to replicate data already 
assembled and submitted by the GSA, or suffer criticism for declining 
to do so. [See comment 3] 

The AMP Process Aligns With the Judiciary's Strategic Plan: 

The draft report also recommends that the AMP Process be linked to the 
Judiciary's strategic plan. The GAO team included this issue in its 
"Statement of Facts," to which we responded in writing with supporting 
documentation on February 4, 2013, and again by email on February 7, 
2013; however, the information provided in our response has not been 
included in the draft report. To reiterate, the Strategic Plan for the
Federal Judiciary is organized around seven strategic issues, two of 
which are directly supported by and linked to long-range facilities 
planning and the Judiciary's capital planning process: 

* Issue 1: Providing Justice: 
Strategy 1.3: Secure resources that are sufficient to enable the 
Judiciary to accomplish its mission in a manner consistent with 
Judiciary core values. 

* Issue 2: The Effective and Efficient Management of Public Resources: 
Strategy 2.1: Allocate and manage resources more efficiently and 
effectively. 

The themes of cost containment and efficient utilization of existing 
facilities are woven throughout the long-range facilities plan. The 
GAO was provided with excerpts from the Long-Range Facilities Plan 
(LRFP) for the Middle District of Florida that clearly illustrate how 
the AMP Process supports and links to the Judiciary's strategic plan. 
During the course of the engagement, it became apparent through 
conversations with the GAO team that these references were not 
explicit enough to meet its linkage "test". In response, we have made 
changes to the LRFP template so that all plans currently under 
development, and all plans to be completed in the future, will contain 
a discussion that clearly links the AMP Process to the Judiciary's 
strategic plan. [See comment 4] 

A Further Moratorium on Congressionally Approved Courthouse Projects 
Would Be Unfair To The Communities Affected, Would Waste Taxpayer 
Funds, And Would Increase Risk To Courthouse Staff And The Public: 

Of greatest concern in the draft report is the GAO's second 
recommendation stating that the Judiciary should impose a moratorium 
on projects on the current Five-Year Plan until AMP evaluations are 
completed for each of them, and then request feasibility studies for 
courthouse projects with the highest urgency scores that qualify for 
new construction under the AMP Process. 

In effect, this recommendation would mean that courts on the current 
plan that were analyzed under the planning process that preceded the 
AMP Process, and which Congress has supported by providing $188.29 
million in funding for site acquisition, design, and/or construction, 
would need to wait approximately two years to determine if the project 
would again qualify for placement on the plan. Furthermore, based on 
current timelines, it would be approximately four more years beyond 
that to complete a GSA feasibility study (if funding for the study 
were available) for any new projects resulting from the updated 
Urgency Evaluation, and to secure the approval of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States for placement on the revamped Five-
Year Plan. The result could in effect be a six-year moratorium on all 
courthouse and annex/addition construction projects on the current 
plan that qualify to remain on the revamped plan, and even longer than 
that for any new projects because of the time it takes to secure 
funding for design, site acquisition, and construction. Ten of the 12 
projects have been on the Five-Year Plan since 1999 or earlier. [See 
comment 5] 

The Five-Year Plan document that the Judiciary sends to the GSA for 
consideration in its Capital Plan has essentially remained unchanged. 
Congress and the GSA have lauded Judiciary's efforts to prioritize its 
courthouse priorities with its Five-Year Plan. Over the course of 
time, Congress has appropriated $188.29 million for 10 of the 12 
projects on the plan. Creating more data, completing more research, 
taking more time and spending more money for studies, will not alter 
the Judiciary's need for these projects. Alternatives have been 
considered, scopes have been adjusted for all projects in response to 
courthouse sharing policies and in eight cases sites have been 
acquired. What has not changed is the declining condition of the 
courthouses, the aging building systems, the massive roof leaks, the 
large cost to house court components in leased space, the backlog of 
maintenance and repair projects, and the lack of secured circulation 
for prisoners, which puts the judges, their staff, and perhaps most 
egregious of all--the public and jurors--in harm's way. [See comment 6] 

We know from tragic experience that the security concerns are real, 
not hypothetical; the GAO team itself saw first-hand the sub-standard 
courthouse conditions in districts awaiting new facilities. Budget 
constraints have already resulted in unfortunate, but understandable 
delays and we acknowledge this may continue. But it is unfair, and 
dangerous, to expect these communities to endure further delays caused 
by needless additional analysis and data collection. [See comment 7] 

In response to the GAO's report, Chief Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the 
Southern District of Georgia has written a letter (see Enclosure 1) 
voicing, her court's concerns about the conclusions of the GAO's 
report and the impact that it might have on the Savannah courthouse, 
which was evaluated under the previous long-range facilities
planning process and is listed on the Five-Year Courthouse 
Construction Plan. The courthouse has serious structural, security, 
and space issues, as described in Judge Wood's letter. Moreover, she 
has provided pictures which substantiate the disrepair and unsafe 
condition of the courthouse. [See comment 8] 

The GAO's Recommendations Are Based on a Lack of Understanding and 
Incorrect/Incomplete Information: 

The rationale GAO used to justify their recommendations also include 
data and/or incomplete information. The report incorrectly states that 
10 out of 12 recommended courthouse construction projects do not 
qualify for a new courthouse under the AMP criterion which requires 
that courthouses need two or more additional courtrooms to qualify for 
a new courthouse. This conclusion was drawn from the draft report's 
Table 2. Courtroom Counts, Judiciary's 5-Year Plan Courthouse. The 
table is incorrect. Corrections are needed on 9 of the 12 projects 
listed (see Enclosure 2). The report further states that these 
conditions call into question the extent to which the projects 
remaining on the Five-Year Plan represent the Judiciary's most urgent 
projects and whether proceeding with these projects represents the 
most fiscally responsible path. There are two parts of this 
justification that need to be corrected, again as we did when the 
Judiciary provided comments on the "Statement of Facts." [See comment 
9] 

The AMP Business Rule requiring a space need of two or more courtrooms 
in order to be recommended for a new courthouse pertains to the 
strategy recommendations contained in a given district's long-range 
facilities plan. The next step in the process before a new project is 
added to the Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan is completion of a GSA 
Feasibility Study. If the approved GSA Feasibility Study recommends 
new construction as the most viable and cost effective space needs 
solution, that recommendation prevails, and a recommendation may be 
made to add the project to the Five-Year Plan. [See comment 10] 

That is the case with the current Five-Year Plan projects that have a 
shortfall of one courtroom as opposed to two — the GSA project 
feasibility study concludes that replacement of the existing 
courthouse or construction of an annex/addition is the most cost-
effective way to address space needs, operational needs, building 
condition needs, and security issues. Again, this point has been made 
previously, most recently in writing in our February 4, 2013, response 
to the "Statement of Facts." [See comment 11] 

The report also makes erroneous assertions and contains outdated 
information. One example is on page 11, where the report indicates 
that the Judiciary removed two projects from the Five-Year Plan 
because their rankings dropped. This is simply not accurate. The two 
referenced projects—-San Jose, California, and Greenbelt Maryland--
were removed from the Five-Year Plan because the space needs of the 
two courts had changed, and in the case of Greenbelt, additional 
relief was realized when space in the existing courthouse became 
available after another tenant moved out of the building. As a result, 
the needs of both courts could be alternatively addressed by 
reconfiguring existing space rather than new construction. [See 
comment 12] 

On page 2 of the report, the GAO states that to determine the extent 
to which the Judiciary's capital planning process aligns with leading 
practices and provides the information needed for informed decision-
making, documentation was analyzed and compared with leading capital 
planning practices from the OMB Capital Programming Guide and the 
GAO's Executive Guide. It is further stated that the GAO team studied 
the Judiciary-estimated construction costs for proposed courthouse 
projects. 

As previously pointed out in this letter, our February 4, 2013, 
response to the "Statement of Facts," and during the interview 
process, the Judiciary does not develop construction cost estimates. 
All estimates pertaining to Five-Year Plan projects are developed and 
provided to the Judiciary by the GSA. To eliminate any question about 
the source of the estimates, future Five-Year Plans will indicate that 
all cost estimates are provided by the GSA. 

Furthermore, the was a primary product of the AMP Process that the GAO 
team chose not to review and/or consider despite this oversight being 
brought to the team's attention at the January 29, 2013, exit 
briefing--the AMP Process's long-range facilities plan--and the prior 
process's long-range plan. We believe that had these documents been 
reviewed, the GAO would have found the documentation and analysis the 
page 2 statement says is missing from the process. [See comment 13] 

The Judiciary also takes exception to the GAO team's conclusions in 
Figure 2: Leading Capitol Planning Practices, as Outlined in OMB 
Guidance, and Extent to Which AMP Process Aligns with Them. 
Specifically: 

1. Needs Assessment and Gap identification: To rate this as "Partial
Alignment--missing less than a majority of linkage to the GAO and OMB 
capital planning leading practice"--is a gross error and perhaps due 
to the fact that the GAO team did not include the review of an AMP 
long-range facilities plan as part of its assessment. As already 
mentioned, long-range facilities plans are the foundation of the AMP 
Process and are where each district's space needs are assessed and 
gaps identified. In addition, the report's only negative 
remark/explanation for a partial alignment rating was that the cost 
estimates supporting the Judiciary's needs are incomplete. Again, and 
it cannot be over-emphasized, the Judiciary does not generate cost 
estimates; this is the GSA's role, and in that role complete cost 
estimates are provided to the OMB and the Congressional appropriations 
and authorizing committees in the GSA Program Development Study and 
the GSA Prospectus document. [See comment 14] 

2. Alternatives Evaluation: Again, had the GAO team considered the 
cornerstone of the AMP Process--a long-range facilities plan--it would 
not be "unclear if the Judiciary considered other options, such as 
courtroom sharing in the existing courthouse." In fact, if one had 
been read in combination with the AMP Business Rules, it would have 
been clear that these two documents function collectively to evaluate 
a full-range of options for addressing space needs including courtroom 
sharing, and building renovation and alteration. Furthermore, the GAO 
team would have seen that the options are evaluated successively with 
the emphasis being placed on the least costly option. In addition, the 
GSA feasibility studies all provide another, more detailed layer of 
alternatives evaluation, including cost. [See comment 15] 

3. Review and Approval Framework with Established Criteria for 
Selecting Capital Investment: The report states that the AMP Process 
includes a review and approval framework with criteria (which it 
does), thus warranting a rating of "Fully Aligned," but then the 
narrative goes on to say that "courtroom deficits are not apparent in 
most projects reported in the 5-year plan." Is the GAO assessing the 
AMP Process as the title of Figure 2 states? It is evident that the 
GAO is confusing the AMP Process with the Five-Year Plan in its 
assessment and therefore this factor warrants a higher rating. [See 
comment 16] 

The estimated project costs and estimated annual rent costs in Table 1 
on page 15 of the draft report are not only incorrect, they have 
further inflated from what was contained in the "Statement of Facts" 
without explanation. [See comment 17] Corrected amounts were 
previously provided by the Judiciary to the GAO in our February 2013 
response to the "Statement of Facts" document. The amounts we provided 
for project costs are consistent with the current Five-Year Plan and 
what was provided to us by the GSA at the time the plan was originally 
published; however, when a project is delayed, these costs change due 
to inflation and potentially, further project refinement. On March 14, 
2013, the Judiciary received updated cost estimates in preparation for 
development of the draft Five-Year Courthouse Construction Plan for 
FY's 2015-2019. To ensure consistency, it is suggested that the GAO 
date its figures and tables in the report and use only the project 
cost estimates provided by the GSA. The title of the table should also 
be corrected to state that the project cost estimates are developed by 
the GSA and the rent estimates are developed by the Judiciary. [See 
comment 18] 

The Judiciary Has Implemented Changes To Address Recommendations From 
the 2010 GAO Report: 

In the letter to Congressman Bill Schuster, Congressman Lou Barletta,
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Congressman Jeff Denham (see 
page 2 of the draft report) there is it statement that the GAO's 
recommendations were that the Judiciary should: 1) retain caseload 
projections to improve accuracy of its 10-year judge planning, and 2) 
establish and use courtroom sharing policies based on scheduling and 
use data. [See comment 19] 

In fact, the Judiciary has been exceptionally responsive to past GAO 
recommendations when their efficacy is clear and when the 
recommendations are not contradictory to the mission of the Judicial 
Branch and the proper carriage of justice. Courtroom sharing policies 
are in effect nationwide for senior district judges, magistrate 
judges, and most recently bankruptcy judges. These policies have been 
in place for several years; senior district judges since 2008, 
magistrate judges since 2008, and bankruptcy judges since 2011. In 
addition, the Judiciary has removed projected judgeship space needs 
(courtrooms and chambers) form the project requirements that the GSA 
refers to when programming and designing a new courthouse. The GAO 
report correctly refers to current courtroom sharing policies and 
their implementation on page 4 of the draft report; yet a statement to 
the contrary was made in the letter transmitting this report to the 
chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the chair 
and ranking member of the Subcommittee, and Representative Denham. 

The report also incorrectly states that the Judiciary has not 
implemented a prior GAO recommendation to retain caseload projections 
to improve accuracy of its 10-year judge planning. 

The Judiciary completes caseload and forecasting on an annual basis. 
All forecasts completed since 2004 are available in an Administrative 
Office forecasting database. In response to the GAO's concerns in 
2010, we modified the forecasting process to include additional 
analysis of caseload forecasts. These analysis included: 

1. Calculating the absolute percent error (APE), percent error (PE), 
and one-year mean absolute percent error (MAPE) for each forecast 
versus the actual value for all caseload forecasts completed since 
2004; 

2. Analyzing the MAPEs to determine trends, such as identifying 
districts and/or caseload series that are the most difficult to 
forecast (i.e., the ones with large MAPEs) and identifying trends by 
location, region, or court size and, 

3. Completing scenario testing to include population trends as a 
factor influencing forecasts for bankruptcy and weighted bankruptcy 
filings. 

Also modified in response to the GAO recommendations was the inclusion 
of additional analyses of the district judge, senior district judge, 
magistrate judge positions, and bankruptcy judgeship projections. 
These analyses include calculating the absolute percent error (APE) 
and percent error (PE) for each forecast versus the actual value for 
all caseload forecasts completed since June 2004. 

As a result of these analyses, the forecasts are increasing in 
accuracy. We intend to continue calculating and analyzing the absolute 
percent error (APE), percent error (PE), and one0year mean absolute 
percent error (MAPE) as part of the annual forecasting task to monitor 
and further improve forecast accuracy. 

To this end, the Judiciary asserts that the report should be amended 
and the record corrected to reflect that the Judiciary has complied 
with the GAO's recommendations as set forth above. 

Conclusion: 

The Judiciary takes its stewardship responsibilities seriously. We 
take pride in the fact that, since 2008, the Asset Management Planning 
Process has ensured that courthouse needs are identified, analyzed, 
and prioritized objectively, However, we are also confident that the 
12 projects on the current Five-Year Plan, for which $188.29 million 
has already been appropriated by Congress, are fully justified and 
badly needed. Although the planning for these projects preceded the 
development of the AMP Process, they are all evaluated through a 
prior, stringent process, then further analyzed by the GSA, and
ultimately approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States as 
the Judiciary's highest and most pressing priorities. The people of 
these communities need and deserve these new facilities. We ask that 
the GAO carefully consider the judiciary's comments, as well as 
comments we understand coming from the GSA, and modify the report to 
recognize the importance of avoiding any further unnecessary delays in 
proceeding with the Five-Year Plan projects. [See comment 20] 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Thomas F. Hogan: 
Director: 

Enclosures: 

Enclosure 1: 

United States District Court: 
Southern District 0f Georgia: 
Lisa Godbey Wood, Chief Judge:  
Frank M. Scarlett Federal Building
801 Gloucester Street, Room 207:
Brunswick, Georgia 31520: 
        
March 15, 2013: 

Mr. Mark Goldstein: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC. 20548: 

Greetings: 

I have been asked to review a the draft report titled :Federal 
Courthouses: Proposed Construction Projects Should Be Evaluated Under 
New Capital Planning Process." I have shared this draft report with 
Judges Moore and Edenfield in the Savannah Courthouse. Their 
observations are included in this response. 

First let me thank the GAO for reviewing these projects. The report 
highlights the serious need to address space issues and properly 
allocate precious federal resources. 

As you are aware, the Savannah Courthouse Project has been on the 5 
year plan for 21 years. Everyone who visits the current structure 
recognizes the safety, security and space challenges that necessitates 
the long needed addition to this Historic and cherished building which 
many consider an architectural focus point of an architecturally 
focused city. 

The main concern of the GAO team appears to be that on the day they 
visited in Savannah, there were only four Judges located in the 
Courthouse. The counted Judges and Courtrooms and, based on that 
count, recommended a complete change in process. I write to make dual 
points. First, a snapshot count is not necessarily accurate. Second, 
it is most assuredly incomplete. An active district judge in Savannah, 
Judge Moore, will most likely take senior status in the foreseeable 
future, Furthermore as I write, and additional Bankruptcy Judge is 
undergoing background checks and, once completed, that Judge will join 
the others in the Savannah Courthouse as well. The point is, more 
Judges are most assuredly on the way. Second and moreover, the layout 
of the building and the security concerns of escorting judges in and 
around hostile parties present true security hazards. Indeed, the GAO 
team had to vacate the public hallway during the transfer of a 
prisoner from the public elevators to Judge Moore's courtroom. No one 
believes such dangerous conditions can hold. [See comment 21] 

We strongly believe that it is inappropriate to now subject the 
Savannah courthouse annex project to undergo an Asset Management Plan. 
Quite simply, we are out of space, we are already in the re-design 
phase, and we have replacement judges coming on board. Over $6 million 
has been spent on design services, with the on-going Feasibility Study 
for redesign already in process. Our country is simply not in a 
position to waste that money. [See comment 22] 

In this regard please consider the following additional background 
facts not contained in the GAO report: 

1. Building Condition: In 1989, the initial need to evaluate the 
courthouse was undertaken as a Long Range Facility Plan, prior to the 
Asset Management Plan process (AMP). It was obvious from the outset 
that the Savannah Courthouse had not been maintained over the years. 
Even today, GSA outlines in a recent memo that the courthouse has had 
several years of neglect in maintenance requirements in anticipation 
of a new courthouse annex and a renovation of the present facility. 
The same memo states that there is an "eminent danger" that exterior 
design elements such as corbels and balconies may fall off the 
building. Structural cracks are visible in several parts of the 
building. This is all part of a repair and alteration future 
prospectus of over $4 million, and will include many more additional 
scope items once uncovered by the current contractor's investigations. 
The GAO was shown the effects of the deferred maintenance and 
structural repairs needed while touring the Savannah Courthouse. We 
were disappointed these observations were not mentioned within the 
report. Attached please find a few photos to illustrate these issues. 
[See comment 23] 

2. Design Guide Standards and Building Codes: This building was built 
in 1899. Over the years, building standards have changed to 
accommodate the business of the court. The UPS. Court Design Guide 
establishes building requirements for courtrooms and office space. In 
most cases we are materially deficient in this area, including the 
need for two additional fire egress stairways within multiple dead-
ended public corridors. Three of the existing four courtrooms do not 
meet usable square footage or ceiling height requirements. Courtrooms 
should have space for witness rooms and holding areas for prisoners, 
which all Savannah Courtrooms currently lack. There is a need to 
segregate witness and prisoners for many reasons and there is no space 
to accommodate this need. Office space remains as designed over a 
century ago, without the same code compliance and standards which 
should be applied for the maximum efficiency of running court 
business. Again, these observations were made during the GAO tour of 
the building but were not mentioned within the report. [See comment 24] 

3. Security: The need for better marshal, judicial, juror and public 
access and movement within the building is critical. There is no 
secure sally port and no restricted elevator. The public, jurors, 
judges and prisoners all share the same hallways. There are no 
courtroom holding cells adjacent to the three district courtrooms, The 
U.S. Marshal Service recognizes this danger and has characterized it 
as "a disaster waiting to happen." This situation was explained to the 
members of the GAO tour, but the report also failed to mention this 
observation. [See comment 25] 

4. Space Requirements: The Court has exhausted all the usable square 
feet within the existing courthouse. The basement and attic, which are 
not suitable for anything other than storage and mechanical space, are 
charged at premium rental rates and are currently housing some of the 
court staff. This attic space is not ADA compliant. GSA has been 
tasked with accommodating not just the ten year space requirements of 
the court, but those for thirty years, as well. Only a new courthouse 
annex will address this need. 

5. Money previously spent: Congress has authorized and appropriated 
$10.5 million for site and design for a new courthouse annex. To get a 
building redesigned and completed within a city cited by The United 
Nations as a "World Heritage Site" is very costly and requires many 
approvals including two historical review committees. The selected 
site is the only viable alternative for an annex, with Congress 
authorizing the demolition of the current federal buildings upon the 
site. These two buildings, toured by the GAO, were noted by them to be 
inefficient and badly constructed in 1983. Nearly all federal offices 
that leased the two federal buildings have been moved, including a 
congressman who years ago left for better commercial leased space. In 
fact, one of the buildings was so ill conceived that nothing remains 
in it. 

The Robert A.M. Stem designed courthouse annex has undergone serious 
scrutiny and has met all the approvals, both locally and with the GSA 
Public Buildings Service. Currently, the GSA and the courts are 
reviewing these plans and modifying them to meet new standards 
including courtroom sharing along with reduced space requirements, 
which have been revised, twice. 

In conclusion, the Asset Management Planning process (AMP) was not in 
place, nor was courtroom sharing, when this project was approved by 
Congress for funding. The AMP process defines both current and future 
housing assumptions for the court, district wide. The AMP process 
identifies housing options, not new construction, for district 
locations that have either grown past the current usable square 
footage of the present facility, or have approved judgeships and new 
staffing formulas. Since the funding for the Savannah courthouse 
annex, there have been newly appointed judgeships for replacement 
judges in Savannah, Brunswick and Augusta. However, due to existing 
constraints of the present Savannah courthouse, only Brunswick and 
Augusta could accommodate these replacement judgeships, leaving 
Savannah without a replacement judge's chambers and courtroom. Again, 
courtroom sharing for senior judges, post the 1999 design of the 
annex, will provide a senior courtroom. [See comment 26] 

As a court, we have done, and will continue to do, our part as good 
stewards of our space. Ultimately this decision needs to be based on 
carrying out of our mission to the public and keeping a safe 
environment so that all parties can interact in the proper fashion. 
Judges, jurors and the public need to be separated from the dangers of 
prisoner movement. This is impossible under the current conditions. 

After over one hundred years, this court is in need of a new, secure, 
modem facility, and the courthouse annex is our only hope. Anything 
done to change the rules for evaluating this need will, at this point, 
be wasteful, dangerous, and unfair. Thank you for considering our 
plight. 

With kindest regards, I am, 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 
Lisa Godbey Wood, Chief Judge: 
United States District Court: 

cc: 
Honorable William T. Moore, Jr. 
Honorable B. Avant Edenfield: 
John J. Myers: 

Note: Photos included in Enclosure 1 to the AOUSC’s letter. 

Figure: Savannah Courthouse - 125 Bull Street, Savannah Ga. 31401: 
[See comment 27] 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Crack In Load-Bearing Crossbeam; 
Fallen Corbel, Corbel Cracked And Fell To Ground; 
Scaffolding And Safety Fencing In Place Since September Of 2011 To 
Avoid Injury From Falling Corbels; 
Cracked Step (Tripping Hazard) Adjacent To Load-Bearing Wall. 

Photo Taken Of Southeast Corner. 

[End of figure] 

Figure: Savannah Courthouse, 125 Bull Street, Savannah, Ga, 31401' 
Interior: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Major floor crack which runs perpendicular to the support wall of the 
Bell Tower. The Bell Tower also has cracks; 
Third floor bathroom, southside of building. Photo shows intrusive 
water damage; 
Fourth floor in Computer Department. Photo shows stress crack in 
plaster around door frame. 

[End of figure] 

Enclosure 2: 

Note: Revised table included in enclosure 2 to AOUSC’s letter. 

Table 2: Courtroom Counts in Judiciary's 5-year Plan for Courthouses: 
[See comment 28] 

Number of courtrooms by location: 

Corrected numbers shown in brackets []: 

Courthouse location[A]: Mobile, AL; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 11 [9]; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 9 [7]; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: (2). 

Courthouse location[A]: Nashville, TN; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 12 [9]; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 11 [7]; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: (1)[(2)]. 

Courthouse location: San Antonio, TX; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 10 [8]; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 9 [7]; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: (1). 

Courthouse location[A]: Anniston, AL; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 2; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 2; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 0. 

Courthouse location[A]: Chattanooga, TN; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 6 [4]; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 6 [8]; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 0 [4]. 

Courthouse location[A]: Norfolk, VA; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 9; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 9 [7] ; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 0 [(2)]. 

Courthouse location[A]: Savannah, GA; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 4; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 4; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 0. 

Courthouse location[A]: Moines, IA; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 7 [5]; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 8 [9]; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 1 [3]. 

Courthouse location[A]: Harrisburg, PA; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 6; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 7; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 1. 

Courthouse location[A]: Toledo, OH; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 6 [5]; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 7 [4]; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 1. 

Courthouse location[A]: Charlotte, NC; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 6; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 9 [10]; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 3 [4]. 

Courthouse location[A]: Greenville, SC[C]; 
In existing courthouses[B]: 5 [3]; 
Needed after judiciary's courtroom sharing policies applied: 8 [6]; 
Additional number needed after judiciary courtroom sharing policies 
applied: 3. 

Source: GAO Analysis of GSA and federal judiciary data: 

[A] Some locations have more than one existing courthouse. 

[B] Some existing courtrooms may not meet Design Guide standards for 
size. However, according to AMP guidance a disparity between space in 
an existing facility and the Design Guide standards is not 
justification for facility alteration and expansion. 

[C] The new Greenville courthouse is to consolidate the judges from 
courthouses in Anderson and Spartanburg, South Carolina. 

[End of table] 

The following are GAO's comments on the Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts (AOUSC) letter dated March 29, 2013. 

GAO Comments: 

1. AOUSC stated that we failed to understand the purpose of the 5-year 
plan, indicating that it is not a long-term capital investment plan. 
The draft report that we provided to AOUSC for comment indicates that 
the 5-year plan is not a long-term capital investment plan. However, 
the 5-year plan represents the only document that communicates the 
judiciary's recommendations related to new courthouse projects to 
Congress and other stakeholders. Since it is important for 
stakeholders to understand the context for new courthouse projects, we 
continue to believe that the judiciary should improve the completeness 
and transparency of the information the judiciary uses to justify 
these projects. 

2. AOUSC stated that funding for the projects totaled $188.29 million, 
but did not provide any supporting information for this amount. We 
used General Services Administration (GSA) data to determine the 
amount of funding appropriated for the projects on the 5-year plan, 
which we state to be $177 million in our report. 

3. AOUSC stated that GSA already provides sufficient information to 
Congress on the judiciary's behalf for courthouse projects. While GSA 
provides information to congressional committees when seeking 
authorization for new courthouse projects, by that time, the judiciary 
has already recommended the projects for new construction. The 5-year 
plan represents the only document that communicates the judiciary's 
recommendations for new construction, and it is incomplete and lacks 
transparency. For example, the 5-year plan underestimates the total 
costs of these projects by about $2 billion because it does not 
include all project phases and because the judiciary no longer 
includes its rent costs on the 5-year plan. 

4. AOUSC was critical of our conclusion that the AMP process does not 
link to the judiciary's strategic plan. According to AOUSC, the 
template for future Long-Range Facilities Plans will clearly 
illustrate how the AMP process supports and links to the judiciary's 
strategic plan. We continue to welcome improvements to the judiciary's 
approach to strategic planning for courthouse construction. We will 
assess these changes when they are implemented, as part of our 
recommendation follow-up process. 

5. AOUSC noted that, with respect to our recommendation, imposing a 
moratorium and reviewing the projects on the 5-year plan under the AMP 
process would create a delay of up to 6 years and that 10 of the 12 
projects have been on the 5-year plan since 1999 or earlier. AOUSC 
states in its response that the previous capital-planning process was 
"stringent," and as a result should be respected for its policy and 
budgetary implications. We have previously found deficiencies in the 
judiciary's previous capital planning process, including that the 
judiciary tends to overstate the number of judges that will be located 
in a courthouse after 10 years. Our draft report noted that the AMP 
process represents progress by the judiciary in better aligning its 
capital-planning process with leading practices. When the judiciary 
applied the AMP process to two projects on a previous 5-year plan--San 
Jose, California, and Greenbelt, Maryland--neither project ranked 
among the judiciary's revised priorities for new construction, indeed, 
they ranked 117TH and 139TH, respectively. In addition, only two 
projects in the current 5-year plan qualify for new construction under 
the judiciary's AMP process. Shifting courthouse priorities 
demonstrate a process that is not yet finalized. Given the federal 
government's current budgetary condition, the judiciary should assure 
the Congress through its planning process that the courthouses 
prioritized for construction funding truly represent its most urgent 
needs. Otherwise, the government stands to potentially spend billions 
of dollars on courthouse construction that does not meet the 
judiciary's most urgent needs. Assessing all courthouses under the AMP 
process, given the problems of the previous process, would help assure 
the judiciary and the Congress that the highest priority courthouses 
are selected and that the government is effectively spending 
construction funds. 

6. AOUSC stated that the declining conditions in existing courthouses 
on the 5-year plan place judges, staff, and the public in harm's way. 
Our work over a number of years has shown that many federal buildings 
face deteriorated conditions, a reason that federal property was 
included on GAO's High Risk List. The courts are not alone in this 
regard. Our draft report noted that GSA is responsible for ensuring 
that courthouses are adequately maintained. As a result, GSA addresses 
building maintenance issues regardless of the status of the courthouse 
construction program. In addition, we note that the criteria the 
judiciary uses to select new courthouse construction projects are its 
own. The AMP process established that space shortages, not facility 
condition, are the only criteria for requesting new courthouse 
construction. 

7. AOUSC noted the security concerns at existing courthouses we 
visited that we did not independently evaluate. For additional 
context, we added to the report references to the judiciary's approach 
to improve security within existing courthouses rather than replace 
them with new courthouses. The judiciary's AMP process criteria are 
consistent with this approach, as facility security deficiencies under 
the AMP process are no longer a justification for new courthouse 
construction. 

8. AOUSC attached a letter from Chief Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the 
Southern District of Georgia, which we have printed in this report on 
pages 47 to 54. We address Judge Wood's comments separately (see 
comments 21-27). 

9. AOUSC stated table 2 included incorrect information and provided 
revisions to the table. We stand by the information provided in our 
report, which was provided by the GSA and the judiciary and was 
reviewed consistent with our internal controls under generally 
accepted government auditing standards. The AOUSC's most recent 
numbers relate only to one courthouse in each city, but our numbers 
represent all the judiciary's courtrooms in each city for which we 
used judiciary and GSA data. We revised our final report to clarify 
that the number of courtrooms in table 2 were for cities, some of 
which have more than one existing courthouse. For example, in 
Chattanooga, Tennessee, the AOUSC revised our number of courtrooms 
from six to four possibly because there are only four courtrooms in 
the Joel W. Solomon Federal Building and United States Courthouse from 
which the judiciary is seeking to relocate district and magistrate 
judge's chambers and courtrooms. However, there are six courtrooms in 
Chattanooga because the bankruptcy judges' chambers and courtrooms are 
located in a leased former post office/customs house. 

10. OUSC stated that the criteria of needing two or more courtrooms in 
order to recommend constructing a new courthouse pertains to the 
housing strategy recommendations contained in a district's Long Range 
Facilities Plan, and that the next step is the completion of a GSA 
feasibility study. However, AOUSC is describing the new AMP process. 
The fact remains that most projects on the current 5-year plan were 
selected based on their evaluation under the judiciary's previous 
capital-planning process, which did not include the courtroom shortage 
criteria. As a result, those courthouses slated for new construction 
under the old process and those selected under the new process are not 
comparable and do not represent the judiciary's highest priorities. 

11. AOUSC noted that when projects on the 5-year plan have a shortfall 
of one courtroom as opposed to two, the GSA feasibility study 
concluded that new courthouse construction was recommended. Our draft 
report observed that although a project may not qualify for new 
courthouse construction under the AMP process, GSA may determine 
through a feasibility study that new construction is the most cost-
efficient, viable solution despite the fact the courthouse in question 
did not rise to the top in the selection process. 

12. According to AOUSC, two projects were removed from the 5-year plan 
because their space needs had changed and not because their rankings 
dropped. Our draft report correctly stated that reduced space needs 
contributed to the removal of these projects from the 5-year plan. 

13. AOUSC questioned if we reviewed any of the Long Range Facility 
Plans produced as part of the AMP process and the previous capital 
planning process. We reviewed these judiciary documents and have 
revised the description of our methodology discussed in appendix I to 
include the names of the documents related to the judiciary's capital-
planning process that we reviewed while developing this report. 
Specifically, we added the Long Range Facility Plans, Facility Benefit 
Assessments, Citywide Benefit Assessments, Urgency Evaluations, and 
the 5-year plan. 

14. AOUSC stated that our assessment that the AMP process partially 
aligns with the leading capital practice related to "needs assessment 
and gap identification" was a gross error. According to AOUSC, it is 
not the judiciary's role to generate cost estimates, and they believe 
that our partially aligns assessment is too low. While GSA is 
responsible for estimating the costs of courthouse projects, we 
continue to believe that the judiciary's capital-planning process 
partially--not fully--aligns with this leading practice. GAO and 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance has established that 
estimates of life-cycle costs are necessary for accurate capital 
planning. The judiciary's 5-year plan lists GSA estimated costs, but 
they are incomplete. Specifically, the cost estimates do not include 
all project phases--site acquisition, building design, and 
construction. In addition, the judiciary no longer includes the 
estimated cost of rent in its 5-year plan even though they have 
estimated costs for all project phases and rent. We believe this 
omission denies stakeholders and congressional decision makers 
complete information on judiciary construction-program costs. In 
addition, our draft report notes that these estimates are not life-
cycle costs, which would also have to be included for the cost 
estimate to be comprehensive. 

15. AOUSC disagreed with our assessment that the AMP process partially 
aligns with the leading capital practices related to "alternatives 
evaluation" because the judiciary does evaluate options with an 
emphasis on the least costly option. AOUSC also indicated that we did 
not consider Long Range Facility Plans in making this determination. 
We did consider Long Range Facility Plans, and continue to believe 
that the judiciary's capital-planning process partially aligns with 
this leading practice. GAO and OMB guidance established that leading 
organizations carefully consider a wide range of alternatives. Our 
draft report noted that the AMP process evaluates some alternatives, 
such as renovating existing courthouses to meet needs, but the 
judiciary provided no evidence that it considered other viable 
options, such as courtroom sharing in existing courthouses, even 
though courtroom sharing is required in new courthouses. 

16. AOUSC disagreed with our assessment that the AMP process partially 
aligns with the leading capital practices related to establishing a 
"review and approval framework with established criteria for selecting 
capital investments" because our draft report indicated that the 
judiciary has established such a framework. We continue to believe 
that the judiciary's capital-planning process partially aligns with 
this leading practice because while we were able to discern that there 
are review and approval criteria in the AMP process, we found no 
evidence that the judiciary's current 5-year plan applies those 
criteria. Specifically, the judiciary established the criterion that 
courthouses need to have a shortage of two or more courtrooms to 
qualify for a new courthouse construction project. However, 10 of the 
12 projects recommended for new construction on the 5-year plan do not 
qualify under this criterion. 

17. AOUSC stated that we used incorrect and inflated estimates for 
project costs. We sought to provide total project cost estimates for 
each project on the 5-year plan. Our draft report uses estimates that 
the judiciary provided for total project costs and rent, which we 
adjusted for inflation to the current fiscal year. In response to our 
statement of facts, AOUSC provided a revised table (reprinted on p. 51 
of this report). However, the data in the table that AOUSC provided 
were incomplete and they did not include supporting documentation. 
Consequently, we continue to use the most current, complete estimates 
of the total project costs and rent available. 

18. AOUSC stated that the estimates of total project costs were 
provided to them by GSA. We added GSA to the source of table 1. 

19. AOUSC stated that the judiciary has implemented changes to address 
recommendations from our 2010 report (GAO-10-417). GAO has a process 
for following up and closing previous recommendations. We have not yet 
assessed the extent to which the judiciary's actions have fulfilled 
the recommendations from our 2010 report. We will, however, consider 
this and all other information from the judiciary when we determine 
whether to close the recommendations from our 2010 report. We plan to 
examine this recommendation in the summer of 2013. 

20. According to AOUSC, the projects on the 5-year plan are fully 
justified under its previous "stringent" process that preceded the AMP 
process. However, as we have previously noted, the former process had 
shortcomings and in our opinion does not represent a process that the 
Congress should rely upon for making capital budget decisions. The new 
AMP process will, when complete, likely provide Congress with greater 
assurance that the judiciary's construction priorities represent the 
highest priority needs. We addressed the difference in funding for the 
projects on the current 5-year plan in comment 2. 

21. Judge Wood stated that the number of judges in Savannah may 
change. For each project, we used data provided by AOUSC. However, in 
our 2010 report (GAO-10-417), we found that the judiciary often 
overestimated the number of future judges it would have in planning 
for new courthouses. 

22. According to Judge Wood, it is inappropriate to subject the 
Savannah courthouse to the AMP process when over $6 million has 
already been spent on design services. We found, and the AOUSC agreed, 
in comments to our draft report, that the Savannah courthouse has four 
courtrooms and four judges. Consequently, it does not qualify for new 
construction under the AMP criterion. In addition, according to GSA, 
the original courthouse design from 1998, to which Judge Wood refers, 
is old and outdated. As a result, if the project moves forward, the 
government would need to spend additional money to redesign a new 
courthouse for Savannah. 

23. Judge Wood noted the poor condition of the existing Savannah 
courthouse and the need for a repair and alterations project to 
address deferred maintenance issues. We toured this courthouse and 
noted many of the same deficiencies. Our draft report noted that 
regardless of whether a project is on the 5-year plan, GSA is 
responsible for ensuring that courthouses are adequately maintained. 
In addition, as the current plan for the Savannah project is to 
continue to use the existing courthouse and build an annex, deferred 
maintenance in the existing courthouse would still need to be 
addressed if the plan moved forward. 

24. Judge Wood noted that the existing Savannah Courthouse was built 
in 1899 and has several deficiencies to Design Guide standards. Our 
draft report noted that some existing courtrooms may not meet Design 
Guide standards for size. However, as we also note, according to AMP 
guidance, a disparity between space in an existing facility and the 
Design Guide standards is not justification for facility alteration 
and expansion. 

25. Judge Wood noted several security concerns in the existing 
Savannah Courthouse. See comment 7. 

26. Judge Wood noted that the Savannah Courthouse project preceded the 
AMP process and the courthouse needs an additional courtroom and 
judge's chamber. We address the judiciary's previous capital planning 
process and judge and courtroom counts in Savannah in comments 20 and 
21, respectively. 

27. Judge Wood attached photos documenting some of the building 
condition problems at the Savannah Courthouse, and those are reprinted 
on pages 49 and 50. See comment 23. 

28. AOUSC provided changes to the courtroom numbers in table 2 from 
our draft report. As we explained in comment 9, we changed the table 
to make clear that the courtroom count refers to the number of 
courtrooms citywide, not just in one courthouse. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham, Assistant 
Director; George Depaoli; Colin Fallon; Geoffrey Hamilton; James 
Leonard; Faye Morrison; and Sara Ann Moessbauer made key contributions 
to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] An annex is an addition to an existing building. For the purpose 
of this report, projects that include construction of an annex are 
considered new courthouse projects. 

[2] GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, 
and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO 10-417 
(Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2010). 

[3] Office of Management and Budget, Supplement to Circular No. A-11: 
Capital Programming Guide (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

[4] GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-
Making, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-99-32] 
(Washington, D.C.: December 1998). 

[5] GSA data shows 142 of the courthouses rented to judiciary are 
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, 
the nation's listing of historic properties. Typically, these 
historical properties are at least 50 years old. The National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915), as 
amended, requires agencies to manage historic properties under their 
control and jurisdiction in a manner that considers the effects of 
their actions on historic preservation. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. §§ 
470(f), 470(h)(2). 

[6] Each district also includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of 
the district, except for three U.S. territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, 
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) where bankruptcy cases are 
heard by the district court. 

[7] There are also two trial courts (the U. S. Court of International 
Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims) and one court of appeals 
(the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) with nationwide 
jurisdiction over certain types of cases. 

[8] Appellate judges, however, have always shared courtrooms because 
they sit in panels of three or more. 

[9] GAO 10-417. We recommended that the judiciary establish and use 
courtroom-sharing policies based on scheduling and use data. 

[10] Judicial Conference of the United States, U.S. Courts Design 
Guide 2007 (Washington, D.C.: 2007). The U.S. Courts 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. 

[11] GAO, Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote 
More Informed Decisionmaking, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-27] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 31, 
1996). In this report, we recommended that the judiciary take several 
steps to make the 5-year plan a more useful tool for helping Congress 
to better understand project priorities and individual project needs. 
The judiciary concurred with our recommendations. 

[12] Before Congress makes an appropriation for a proposed project, 
GSA submits detailed project descriptions called prospectuses to the 
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 dollar threshold. For purposes of this report, we refer to 
these committees as "authorizing committees" when discussing the 
submission of the prospectuses and providing additional information 
relating to prospectuses to these committees. Furthermore, for 
purposes of this report, we refer to approval of these projects by 
these committees as "congressional authorization." See 40 U.S.C. § 
3307. 

[13] GAO, Budget Issues: Agency Implementation of Capital Planning 
Principles Is Mixed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-138] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 16, 
2004) and GAO, Federal Capital: Three Entities' Implementation of 
Capital Planning Principles Is Mixed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-274] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 
2007). 

[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-99-32] and OMB, 
Capital Programming Guide. 

[15] The Judicial Conference of the United States: Strategic Plan for 
the Federal Judiciary (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2010). 

[16] We did not review the appropriateness of criterion used by 
judiciary in its AMP process. 

[17] Inflated to current year based upon averages of monthly indexes 
from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

[18] GSA charges judiciary rent based upon the 20-year return on 
investment of the cost of courthouse construction. GAO analysis of 
rent is based on OMB published discount rate. OMB, 2013 Discount Rates 
for OMB Circular No. A-94, Memorandum M-13-04 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 
24, 2013). 

[19] GAO, Cost Estimating And Assessment Guide: Best Practices for 
Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 
2009); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-138] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-274]. 

[20] OMB, Capital Programming Guide. 

[21] OMB's Capital Programming Guide defines the cost of a capital 
asset is its full life-cycle cost, including all direct and indirect 
initial costs for planning, procurement, operations, maintenance, and 
disposal. 

[22] See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13423, Strengthening Federal 
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 
3919 (Jan. 26, 2007) (Executive Order 13423 was codified into law by 
section 746 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-
8, 123 Stat. 524, 693)); Exec. Order No. 13514, Federal Leadership In 
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52117 
(Oct. 8, 2009); and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492). 

[23] GAO, U.S. Financial Condition and Fiscal Future Briefing, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-490CG], University of 
Akron: January 29, 2008; 21st Century Transformation Challenges and 
Opportunities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-260CG] 
(New Orleans, LA: October 30, 2007); Federal Oversight: The Need for 
Good Governance, Transparency, and Accountability, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-788CG] (National Conference 
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Executive Council 
on Integrity and Efficiency: April 16, 2007); Enhancing Performance, 
Accountability, and Foresight, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1118CG] (Shanghai, China: September 
13, 2006); 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the 
Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-325SP] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2005). 

[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-417]. We 
previously found that the judiciary has overestimated the number of 
judges it would have after 10 years. However, the judiciary's estimate 
of the number of future judges for the current 5-year plan projects 
does not affect the number of courtrooms needed for those projects. 

[25] According to GSA officials, regardless of whether a project is on 
the 5-year plan, GSA is responsible for ensuring that courthouses are 
adequately maintained. 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-417]. 

[27] Office of Management and Budget, Supplement to Circular No. A-11: 
Capital Programming Guide (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

[28] GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-
Making, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-99-32] 
(Washington, D.C.: December 1998). 

[29] GAO, Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for 
Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

[30] Office of Management and Budget, 2013 Discount Rates for OMB 
Circular No. A-94, Memorandum M-13-04 (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 24, 
2013). 

[31] GAO, Budget Issues: Agency Implementation of Capital Planning 
Principles Is Mixed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-138] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 16, 
2004) and GAO, Federal Capital: Three Entities' Implementation of 
Capital Planning Principles Is Mixed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-274] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 
2007). 

[32] GAO, Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote 
More Informed Decisionmaking, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-27] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 31, 
1996). 

[33] GAO, VA Real Property: Realignment Progressing, but Greater 
Transparency about Future Priorities Is Needed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-197] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 
2011). 

[34] 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). 

[35] See, Public Buildings Reform Act of 2012, H.R. 6430, § 202, 112TH 
Cong. (2012). 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, 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 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548. 

[End of document]