- FEDERAL COURTHOUSE DESIGN AND CON- STRUCTION: EXAMINING THE COSTS TO THE TAXPAYER

[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE DESIGN AND CONSTRUC-
TION: EXAMINING THE COSTS TO THE TAX-
PAYER

=======================================================================

(119-22)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
__________

MAY 20, 2025
__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

61-277 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Arkansas, Vice Chairman District of Columbia
Daniel Webster, Florida Jerrold Nadler, New York
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania John Garamendi, California
Brian Babin, Texas Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia
David Rouzer, North Carolina Andre Carson, Indiana
Mike Bost, Illinois Dina Titus, Nevada
Doug LaMalfa, California Jared Huffman, California
Bruce Westerman, Arkansas Julia Brownley, California
Brian J. Mast, Florida Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Pete Stauber, Minnesota Mark DeSaulnier, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Salud O. Carbajal, California
Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Greg Stanton, Arizona
Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey Sharice Davids, Kansas
Troy E. Nehls, Texas Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois
Tracey Mann, Kansas Chris Pappas, New Hampshire
Burgess Owens, Utah Seth Moulton, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri Marilyn Strickland, Washington
Mike Collins, Georgia Patrick Ryan, New York
Mike Ezell, Mississippi Val T. Hoyle, Oregon
Kevin Kiley, California Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,
Vince Fong, California Vice Ranking Member
Tony Wied, Wisconsin Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan
Tom Barrett, Michigan Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina
Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania
Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Robert Garcia, California
Pennsylvania Nellie Pou, New Jersey
Jeff Hurd, Colorado Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan
Jefferson Shreve, Indiana Laura Friedman, California
Addison P. McDowell, North Laura Gillen, New York
Carolina Shomari Figures, Alabama
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida

------

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management

Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
Greg Stanton, Arizona, Ranking Member
Mike Ezell, Mississippi Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Kevin Kiley, California District of Columbia
Tom Barrett, Michigan Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan
Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Shomari Figures, Alabama
Pennsylvania John Garamendi, California
Kimberlyn King-Hinds, Dina Titus, Nevada
Northern Mariana Islands Laura Friedman, California,
Mike Kennedy, Utah Vice Ranking Member
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri, Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)
Vice Chairman
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Laura Friedman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, opening statement.................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7

WITNESSES

David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, oral statement.......................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York, and Chair, Judicial
Conference Committee on Space and Facilities, oral statement... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S.
General Services Administration, oral statement................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 28

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of May 20, 2025, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon.
Greg Stanton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, from
Kristen Swearingen, Vice President, Government Affairs,
Associated Builders and Contractors, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Scott Perry............................................ 4

APPENDIX

Question to David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, from Hon. Dina Titus.... 43
Questions to Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Dina
Titus.......................................................... 44

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

May 16, 2025

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Federal Courthouse
Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer''
_______________________________________________________________________

I. PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will hold a hearing on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, at
10:00 a.m. E.T. in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building
entitled, ``Federal Courthouse Design and Construction:
Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer.'' In 2021, the United
States Courts updated the official Design Guide that dictates
the basic requirements for new courthouses.\1\ This hearing
will evaluate the recent changes to the Design Guide and
examine the impacts that the changes have had on the costs
associated with designing, constructing, and operating Federal
courthouses. Witnesses for this hearing will be from the
General Services Administration (GSA), the Federal Judiciary,
and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States Courts, U.S. Courts Design Guide (revised Mar.
2021) [hereinafter Design Guide], available at https://
www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/us-courts-
design-guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. BACKGROUND

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management has jurisdiction over all of GSA's
real property activity through the Property Act of 1949 (P.L.
81-152), the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (P.L. 86-249), and
the Cooperative Use Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-541).\2\ These three
Acts are codified as title 40 of the United States Code. The
Public Buildings Service (PBS) is responsible for the
construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, and operation of
public buildings of the Federal Government, including the
United States Courts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Cong. (2025),
available at https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/
rules.house.gov/files/documents/houserules119thupdated.pdf.
\3\ Dominick A. Fiorentino and Garrett Hatch, Cong. Rsch. Serv.
(R47722), Overview of the General Services Administration: Acquisition
Services and Real Property Management, (Sept. 27, 2023) [hereinafter
CRS Report], available at https://www.congress.gov/
crs-product/
R47722#::text=The%20Federal%20Property%20and%20Administrative,and
%20disposal%20of%20real%20property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GSA'S CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND LEASING PROGRAM

PBS activities are funded primarily through the Federal
Building Fund (FBF), an intra-governmental fund into which
agencies pay rent for the properties they occupy.\4\ While the
FBF is funded through agency rents paid to GSA, it is not a
true revolving loan fund.\5\ The funds are made available via
annual appropriations bills.\6\ GSA has not had full access to
the FBF since 2011, when appropriators began using the FBF to
offset other unrelated costs in the Financial Services and
General Government appropriations bill.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at 13.
\5\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 592(c)(1).
\6\ Id.
\7\ GSA, Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, Federal
Buildings Fund (2023), available at https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/
GSA_FY_2024_Congressional_Justification_
Final-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each year, GSA submits to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee its Capital Investment and Leasing
Program (CILP) for the subsequent fiscal year.\8\ The CILP
submission includes what are known as prospectuses for each
project, detailing the project scope, need, and estimated
costs.\9\ For fiscal year (FY) 2026, a prospectus is required
for any project in excess of $3.961 million.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CRS Report, supra note 3, at 14.
\9\ Id.
\10\ GSA, Annual Prospectus Thresholds (last updated Jul. 31,
2024), available at https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-and-
construction/annual-prospectus-thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROSPECTUS APPROVAL PROCESS

Pursuant to the prospectus process (40 U.S.C. 3307),
capital projects exceeding the prospectus threshold, including
construction of new courthouses, must be authorized through a
Committee resolution by the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works.\11\ The Committee approves the project by
adopting a Committee Resolution, which will typically include
limitations and guidelines that GSA must follow in proceeding
with the approved project.\12\ Only then may GSA enter into a
contract to build, purchase, or lease space.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307.
\12\ CRS Report, supra note 3, at 14.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the approvals through Committee Resolutions,
the Appropriations Committees appropriate funds each year from
the FBF.\14\ For FY 2016 through FY 2022, GSA received $1.9
billion to construct fifteen new courthouses.\15\ However, in
recent years Congress has significantly reduced the amount of
funding provided for courthouse construction.\16\ Since FY
2022, about $395 million has gone to partially fund three
courthouses: Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and
San Juan, Puerto Rico.\17\ As a result, it is critical that GSA
prioritize existing construction dollars and focus those
dollars only on the highest priority projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id.
\15\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-25-106724, Federal
Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will Result in
Significant Size and Cost Increases at 1 (2024) [hereinafter GAO Report
2024], available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-106724.pdf.
\16\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2026
Congressional Budget Summary at 74 (Apr. 2025) [hereinafter Budget
Summary], available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
document/fy-2026-congressional-budget-summary.pdf.
\17\ Id. at 74-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL JUDICIARY COURTHOUSE PROJECT PRIORITIES LIST

Each fiscal year, as part of the Judiciary's budget
justification, the United States Courts publish a Federal
Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) list.\18\ The CPP
contains two parts: ``Part I consists of the judiciary's
highest courthouse construction funding priorities for the
budget year [and] Part II identifies out-year courthouse
construction priorities.'' \19\ For FY 2026, the Judiciary is
requesting $863 million for new courthouse construction
costs.\20\ The CPP's highest funding priories are: San Juan,
Puerto Rico; Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga, Tennessee;
Bowling Green, Kentucky; and Anchorage, Alaska.\21\ Below is a
breakdown of the outstanding funding requests for those
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judiciary Courthouse
Project Priorities (CPP) for Fiscal Year 2025, as Approved by the
Judiciary Conference of the United States, available at https://
www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fy_2025_section_14_
courthouse_construction.pdf.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Budget Summary, supra note 16, at 73.
\21\ Id. at 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSan Juan, Puerto Rico: $343.4 million for
construction.

+ LIn FY 2022, $22.5 million was funded for site and
design.
+ LIn FY 2024, $3.0 million was funded for site and
design, and $25.3 million was funded for construction.

LHartford, Connecticut: $6.1 million for site and
design, and $151.5 million for construction.
+ LIn FY 2021, $135.5 million was funded for site,
design, and partial construction.
+ LIn FY 2022, $138.0 million was funded for partial
construction.
+ LIn FY 2023, $61.5 million was funded for partial
construction.

LChattanooga, Tennessee: $3.4 million for site and
design, and $77.1 million for construction.
+ LIn FY 2021, $94.5 million was funded for site, design,
and partial construction.
+ LIn FY 2022, $85.5 million was funded for partial
construction.
+ LIn FY 2023, $38.4 million was funded for partial
construction.
+ LIn FY 2024, $20.9 million was funded for partial
construction.

LBowling Green, Kentucky: $26.0 million for site
and design, and $193.5 million for construction.
+ LThis project has not received any prior funding.

LAnchorage, Alaska: $62.1 million for site and
design.

+ LThis project has not received any prior funding.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id. at 74-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES COURTS DESIGN GUIDE

First issued in 1991, the United States Courts Design Guide
establishes, ``the federal judiciary's requirements for the
design, construction, and renovation of court facilities and is
intended for use by judges, architects, engineers, [GSA]
personnel, and court administrators who are involved in federal
court construction projects.'' \23\ The Judiciary made
revisions to the Design Guide in 1993, 1995, 2007, and
2021.\24\ The Judiciary also made minor amendments to the 2007
version of the Design Guide in 2016.\25\ The Design Guide is a
living document that can be amended or formally updated as
needed.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Design Guide, supra note 1, at vii.
\24\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 2.
\25\ Id.
\26\ Design Guide, supra note 1, at xi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes that the Judiciary incorporated into the 2021
Design Guide range widely in scope and impact. For example, the
Design Guide lays out policies related to courtroom sharing and
space planning for senior and future judges.\27\ However, the
Design Guide also sets out policies related to acoustic
requirements and interior finishes.\28\ For a detailed
breakdown of the changes in the 2021 Design Guide, see Appendix
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 25-27.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management has had ongoing oversight of the
Federal courthouse construction program. In 2010, at the
request of the Subcommittee, GAO completed a study entitled,
``Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight,
and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs.'' \29\ In
the report, GAO examined thirty-three courthouses that were
constructed during the ten-year period from 2000 to 2010.\30\
GAO found that 3.56 million square feet of extra space was
built costing the taxpayer more than $800 million because of
the following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-10-417, Federal Courthouse
Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed
To Address Future Costs (June 2010) [hereinafter GAO Report 2010],
available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-417.pdf.
\30\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LThe Judiciary grossly overestimated its ten-year
projection of future judges assigned to courthouses;
LNew courthouses did not incorporate courtroom
sharing; and
LGSA constructed courthouses above the
Congressionally-approved size.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id. at 9.

As a result of these findings, the Committee halted
approving new courthouses until the Judiciary revamped its
process for proposing new courthouses, including revising
judgeship projections and instituting courtroom sharing
policies.\32\ Following this, the Judiciary subsequently
updated its Asset Management Planning (AMP) process that
improved and standardized its method of reviewing the need for
new courthouses yet the AMP process continues to give greater
weight to number of courtrooms/chambers (50 percent of the
weighted AMP system) than building condition (12 percent) or
security (10 percent) in determining the ``Urgency Evaluation''
Rating or UE and need for a new courthouse.\33\ While the
Judiciary has refined its courtroom sharing policies for
magistrate, senior, and bankruptcy judges, sharing policies do
not apply to active district court judges.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Letter from Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairwoman and Mario Diaz-
Balart, Ranking Member, H. Subcommittee on Econ. Dev., Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management to President Barack Obama, (Aug. 2,
2010) (On file with Comm.).
\33\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, Asset Management Planning:
Process Handbook (2023), available at https://www.uscourts.gov/data-
news/reports/handbooks-manuals/asset-management-planning-process-
handbook.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the United States Courts publication of the new
Design Guide in 2021, the Subcommittee requested that GAO
examine the judiciary's rationale for the changes that were
made in the new Design Guide.\35\ The report, ``Federal
Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will Result in
Significant Size and Cost Increases,'' studied the extent to
which these changes could affect the size and cost of
courthouse projects.\36\ To conduct this study, GAO examined
six recently constructed courthouses that used the 2007 Design
Guide, since no courthouses have been constructed using the
2021 Design Guide.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15.
\36\ Id. at 2.
\37\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report found that, had the 2021 Design Guide
requirements been used for the construction of those six
courthouse projects, the size of the courthouses would have
increased by almost six percent and construction costs would
have increased by approximately twelve percent.\38\ GAO largely
attributes these increases in size and cost, to the increase in
judiciary circulation requirements (i.e., the amount of space
required for movement of the public, court staff, and
prisoners).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id. at 29.
\39\ Id. at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. CONCERNS WITH FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

OVER-ESTIMATING THE FUTURE NUMBER OF JUDGES

A primary reason for the overbuilding of recent courthouses
has been the Judiciary's inaccurate ten-year projections for
future judgeships.\40\ Since courthouses are designed to house
judges and their staff, the overall size of a courthouse is
largely determined by the number of judges expected to be
housed in the building and whether judges will share
courtrooms.\41\ However, even as far back as 1993, the GAO
questioned the basis on which the United States Courts
calculated their projections for new judges.\42\ In particular,
at that time, the courts based their calculations on a caseload
projection method.\43\ The problem of over-projecting the
number of judges has not been resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 26.
\41\ Id. at 6-8.
\42\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GGD-93-132, Federal Judiciary
Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revision (Sept. 1993),
available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-93-132.pdf.
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LACK OF COURTROOM SHARING

The lack of courtroom sharing has also been an ongoing
issue. To conduct their report in 2010, GAO created a model for
courtroom sharing that showed significant amounts of
unscheduled time in courtrooms, illustrating sharing of
courtrooms could be significantly higher than practiced.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has consistently questioned the need for every
judge to have a courtroom, particularly in the case of a large
courthouse with 20 or more courtrooms.\45\ However, the United
States Courts have consistently requested a courtroom for every
active judge.\46\ In 2019, the Judicial Conference updated
policies with respect to Senior District Judges, Magistrate
Judges, and Bankruptcy Judges sharing courtroom.\47\ However,
the new courtroom sharing policy was only implemented for
courthouses that are renovated or newly constructed, it does
not impact existing courthouses.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ L.A. Courthouse: GSA's Plan to Spend $400 Million to Create
Vacant Space: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure,
112th Cong. (Aug. 17, 2012), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75572/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg75572.pdf.
\46\ Id.
\47\ Design Guide, supra note 1.
\48\ Id. at 2-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSTRUCTION EXCEEDED AUTHORIZED LIMITS

In the 2010 report, GAO criticized GSA's inability to
ensure courthouse projects stayed within the authorized limits
and noted that GSA consistently built courthouses that exceeded
the scope of Congressional authorizations.\49\ The report found
that the 3.56 million square feet of extra space that was built
resulted in an additional $835 million in costs for the thirty-
three courthouses that were examined.\50\ Furthermore, GAO
estimated the cost to rent, operate, and maintain the extra
space would be almost $51 million annually.\51\ Additionally,
the report found that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 3.
\50\ Id. at 9.
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LTwenty-seven of the thirty-three courthouses
completed since 2000 exceeded their Congressionally-authorized
size by 1.7 million square feet;
LFifteen of the thirty-three courthouses exceeded
their Congressional authorization for square footage by ten
percent; and
LThree courthouses exceeded their authorized
square footage by fifty percent.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIARY CIRCULATION REQUIREMENTS

In the 2024 report, GAO found that judiciary circulation
requirements in the 2021 Design Guide would have led to
increased costs and size if existing courthouses projects had
been designed to those standards.\53\ In the 2007 Design Guide,
the Judiciary used ``circulation factors'' (i.e., percentage of
usable space allotted for circulation) while the 2021 Design
Guide uses ``circulation multipliers.'' \54\ As highlighted by
GSA officials, the use of ``multipliers'' instead of
``factors'' causes the judicial space necessary to
increase.\55\ As a result, the overall size and cost of the
courthouses also increase.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 29.
\54\ Id.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. CONCLUSION

Despite implementing new policies in their 2021 Design
Guide, the United States Courts continue to request the
construction of courthouses that are too large and overbudget.
While the Design Guide includes updates to relevant policies,
including courtroom sharing, the Committee fails to see
substantive enactment of these policies. Continued
Congressional oversight is necessary to ensure that the
prospectus process serves to carefully consider requests made
by the Judiciary.

VI. WITNESSES

LMr. David Marroni, Director, Physical
Infrastructure, United States Government Accountability Office
LThe Honorable Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge
for the United States District Court for the Northern District
of New York, and Chair, Judicial Conference Committee on Space
and Facilities
LMr. Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public
Buildings Service, United States General Services
Administration

VII. APPENDIX 1

Table 1: Changes in the 2021 United States Courts Design Guide That
Could Affect Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Sharing and Future Courtroom Planning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtroom sharing policy.................. Incorporates judiciary
policies adopted from 2009
through 2011 for judges to
share courtrooms in new
courthouses with multiple
magistrate, bankruptcy, or
senior district judges. For
example, a courthouse with
three or more magistrate
judges includes one
courtroom for every two
magistrate judges, plus an
additional courtroom for
criminal duty.

Multiparty courtrooms..................... Allows for one multiparty
courtroom--used for trials
involving multiple parties--
in new courthouses with at
least four district judge
courtrooms. Courts can also
request exceptions to the
2021 Design Guide for
courthouses with fewer than
four courtrooms or to allow
for more than one
multiparty courtroom at a
courthouse. The 2007 Design
Guide allowed multiparty
courtrooms at courthouses
with at least four
courtrooms that serve as
the district headquarters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Standards and Flexibilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circulation multiplier.................... Changes the method for
calculating circulation
within judiciary units in
the courthouse. Courthouses
have three types of
circulation: (1) public
circulation for members of
the public; (2) restricted
circulation for judges and
other judiciary staff; and
(3) secure circulation to
move witnesses, litigants,
prisoners, or other
individuals who are in
custody. The 2007 Design
Guide used ``circulation
factors'' (i.e., percentage
of usable space allotted
for circulation), and the
2021 Design Guide uses
``circulation
multipliers.'' Circulation
multipliers are values that
are applied (i.e.,
multiplied) to the net
square footage of a
judiciary unit to determine
the square footage needed
to move within and between
spaces.

Jury assembly suites...................... Updates ceiling height
maximums for jury assembly
suites from 10 feet in the
2007 Design Guide to 12
feet and allows ceiling
height to exceed this
maximum, if located on a
floor with increased floor-
to-floor height. Courts may
use jury assembly suites
for other purposes, such as
for training or
conferences. The 2007
Design Guide did not
address using jury assembly
suites for other purposes.

Flexibility to configure space............ As with the 2007 Design
Guide, the 2021 Design
Guide provides courts with
flexibility to configure
space within the space
envelope of a court unit
(i.e., the total usable
square feet within the
courthouse) to meet their
needs. The 2021 Design
Guide also specifies that
the circuit judicial
council must approve ``any
significant departure''
from square footage
standards for space and
ceiling heights, whereas
the 2007 Design Guide
specified that the circuit
judicial council must
approve ``a change'' to
these standards. The 2021
Design Guide does not
define what ``significant''
means in this context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Features
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raised access flooring.................... The 2016 chapter amendments
removed the requirement in
the 2007 Design Guide that
courthouses must use raised
access flooring in most
spaces but specified that
such flooring was required
in the courtroom well
(i.e., the area that
includes the judge's bench,
court personnel
workstations, witness box,
jury box, and counsel
tables in the courtroom).
The 2021 Design Guide
removed the remaining
requirement for raised
accessed flooring in the
courtroom well.

Access for people with disabilities....... Adds a requirement that a
minimum of one courtroom
per court type and per
court floor must be fully
accessible, if all
courtrooms cannot be
designed to be fully
accessible at the start of
court operation. This 2021
Design Guide change is
similar in some ways to
Architectural Barriers Act
Accessibility Standards-
related (ABAAS) guidance,
which provides that while
it is preferable for the
judge's bench and other
private work areas in all
courtrooms to be fully
accessible, in the
alternative, private work
areas in at least one
courtroom of each type
(U.S. Court of Appeals,
U.S. District Court, and
U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
should be fully accessible.
The principal difference
between this 2021 Design
Guide provision and the
ABAAS-related guidance is
that in instances where all
courtrooms cannot be
designed to be fully
accessible, the 2021 Design
Guide provision requires
one such fully accessible
courtroom per court type on
each floor.

Restrooms................................. Provides that if separate
staff toilets are necessary
on a single floor, the
project team will determine
the total number of toilets
based on the International
Plumbing Code. This allows
selected staff, such as the
Clerk of the Court, to have
private restrooms if they
do not add space to the
court unit. The 2007 Design
Guide allowed for up to two
separate staff toilets per
floor and did not provide
for private restrooms for
court executives.

Acoustic requirements..................... Changes the acoustic
performance requirements
for the judiciary's spaces.
For example, the 2021
Design Guide does not
include the privacy
standard of ``inaudible''
between spaces, which was
in the 2007 Design Guide.

Interior finishes......................... Allows for courts to provide
input and have flexibility
in the selection of
finishes within an approved
project budget, as
specified in the 2007
Design Guide, but also
provides for additional
finishes. For example, the
2021 Design Guide expands
the type of finish for the
ceiling of the judges'
chambers suites from
acoustical paneling to also
include tile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballistic-resistant windows, glass, or Provides for ballistic-
materials. resistant material for the
judge's bench in the
courtroom, as specified in
the 2007 Design Guide, and
adds this requirement for
the deputy clerk station
within the courtroom. Also
specifies that ballistic-
resistant material may be
considered for a judge's
private office.

Security and co-tenants................... Adds a new section to the
Design Guide on security
considerations for courts
with multiple tenants, such
as other Federal agencies.

Security screening pavilion............... Includes a new section on
security pavilions--
adjoining exterior
structures for security
screening--which
incorporates a 2013 policy
that the judiciary must
approve the pavilions prior
to their construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1: GAO Analysis of Judiciary Information.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 25-27.

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE DESIGN AND CON-
STRUCTION: EXAMINING THE COSTS TO
THE TAXPAYER

----------

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:59 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that I be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on
the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an
opening statement for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYL-
VANIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVEL-
OPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGE-
MENT

Mr. Perry. Let me just begin with an apology to those who
have traveled far and waited long and dealt with Washington,
DC, for our tardiness here. Sometimes there are things that are
out of our control. It's really not an excuse, but I just want
to acknowledge that your time is valuable, and we appreciate
it.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to
discuss the costs associated with designing, constructing, and
operating Federal courthouses.
In 2021, the United States Courts updated their official
Design Guide for designing and constructing new Federal
courthouses. Following the publication of the new Design Guide,
this subcommittee requested that the Government Accountability
Office examine the changes that were made and the extent to
which these changes would have an impact on the size and cost
of courthouses. We made this request because there has been a
long history of taxpayer dollars wasted on overbuilt Federal
courthouses, and we just don't see that as needing to continue.
In 2010, GAO reviewed 33 courthouses built between 2000 and
2010 and found they were overbuilt by 3.56 million square feet,
costing the taxpayers $835 million, plus $51 million annually
in additional operation and maintenance costs. That's real
money.
Following those findings, this committee agreed, on a
bipartisan basis, to stop authorizing new courthouses until the
courts updated their process for setting their courthouse
priorities. Only after the courts updated their Asset
Management Planning, or the AMP process, and used it to adjust
their priority list for new courthouses did this committee
restart authorizing courthouse projects.
In 2021, the courts issued a revised Design Guide for new
courthouses. Since no courthouses have been constructed using
the 2021 Design Guide, to conduct the 2024 report, GAO looked
at six recently constructed courthouses that had been built
using the previous 2007 Design Guide. GAO found that, if the
new Design Guide had been used for these six courthouses, it
would have increased the size by almost 6 percent and the
construction costs by almost 12 percent.
Just to reiterate, in 2010, GAO found that courthouses were
overbuilt by more than 3 million square feet. The new Design
Guide now will result in 6 percent more space. This is at least
questionable, if not unacceptable.
On top of this, despite the results of its own research
arm--the Federal Judicial Center--indicating that courtrooms
sit dark most days, district court judges have continued to
argue that each of them is entitled to a dedicated courtroom,
even though State and local courts across the country, many of
which handle far more cases, routinely share courtrooms without
issue.
To accommodate this perceived entitlement, the Federal
judiciary often includes vacant or unfilled judgeships when
calculating the number of courtrooms required at a new
courthouse. This results in overbuilt facilities with unused
courtrooms and significantly increased construction and
maintenance costs.
The Chair expects that we will hear that a major driver of
the design change is the safety and security, particularly the
size of circulation spaces. And while the Chair agrees that
security is an important and legitimate consideration, it is
our duty to question these things so that we get the most
value, including with the efficacy that goes with that.
However, the courts' own methodology for prioritizing
courthouse projects assigns security just 10 percent of the
weighted score, while courtroom and chamber needs make up 50
percent. It seems lopsided, but we are not here to judge, at
least prematurely; we want to get the answers.
What is even more concerning is that the expansion of the
circulation pattern is based, in part, on an outdated 2012
review of then-existing courthouses, some of which were the
subject of GAO's 2010 review that found they were overbuilt. It
seems the changes in the Design Guide had little to do with
addressing security issues.
Also, I am surprised by how much of the Design Guide
focuses on things like millwork and floor and wall finishes,
and includes notes like polished cement is ``unacceptable.''
Frankly, it's hard to believe that at a time when Congress and
the President are focused on downsizing the Federal Government
and balancing the budget, the judiciary remains so tone deaf to
the fiscal realities. I mean, I walk on polished--probably
unpolished--concrete around here every single day, and I am
perfectly happy with it.
The United States Courts' courthouse project priorities for
fiscal year 2026 includes a request for $863 million for new
courthouse construction. The United States Courts are asking
Congress and, more importantly, our bosses--the American
taxpayers--to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new
courthouse construction, despite decades of oversight that has
found the Design Guides have enabled the construction of
courthouses that are too large and too costly.
Going forward, Congress must take a hard look at the
construction priorities of the United States Courts, especially
the 2021 Design Guide, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not
being wasted. We need to ensure that proposals for new
courthouses that this committee must authorize make sense,
reduce cost to the taxpayer, and are not overbuilt.
With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
costs associated with designing, constructing, and operating federal
courthouses.
In 2021, the United States Courts updated their official Design
Guide for designing and constructing new federal courthouses. Following
the publication of the new Design Guide, this subcommittee requested
that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine the changes
that were made, and the extent to which these changes would have an
impact on the size and cost of courthouses. We made this request
because there has been a long history of taxpayer dollars wasted on
overbuilt federal courthouses.
In 2010, GAO reviewed 33 courthouses built between 2000 and 2010
and found they were over-built by 3.56 million square feet, costing the
taxpayer $835 million, plus $51 million annually, in additional
operation and maintenance costs. Following those findings, this
committee agreed on a bipartisan basis to stop authorizing new
courthouses until the Courts updated their process for setting their
courthouse priorities.
Only after the Courts updated their Asset Management Planning (AMP)
process and used it to adjust their priority list for new courthouses
did this committee restart authorizing courthouse projects.
In 2021, the Courts issued a revised Design Guide for new
courthouses. Since no courthouses have been constructed using the 2021
Design Guide, to conduct the 2024 report, GAO looked at six recently
constructed courthouses that had been built using the previous 2007
Design Guide. GAO found that, if the new Design Guide had been used for
these six courthouses, it would have increased the size by almost six
percent and the construction costs by almost 12 percent.
Just to reiterate, in 2010, GAO found that courthouses were
overbuilt by more than three million square feet. The new Design Guide
now will result in six percent more space. This is at least
questionable, if not unacceptable.
On top of this, despite the results of its own research arm--the
Federal Judicial Center--indicating that courtrooms sit dark most days,
District Court judges have continued to argue that each of them is
entitled to a dedicated courtroom even though state and local courts
across this country, many of which handle far more cases, routinely
share courtrooms without issue.
To accommodate this perceived entitlement, the Federal Judiciary
often includes vacant or unfilled judgeships when calculating the
number of courtrooms required in a new courthouse. This results in
overbuilt facilities with unused courtrooms and significantly increased
construction and maintenance costs.
I expect that we will hear that a major driver of the design
changes is safety and security, particularly the size of circulation
spaces. I agree that security is an important and legitimate
consideration. However, the Courts' own methodology for prioritizing
courthouse projects assigns security just ten percent of the weighted
score, while courtroom and chamber needs make up 50 percent.
What is even more concerning is that the expansion of the
circulation patterns is based, in part, on an outdated 2012 review of
then-existing courthouses, some of which were the subject of GAO's 2010
review that found they were overbuilt. It seems the changes in the
Design Guide had little to do with addressing security issues.
I am also surprised by how much of the Design Guide focuses on
things like millwork and floor and wall finishes and includes notes
like polished cement is ``unacceptable.''
Frankly, it's hard to believe that, at a time when Congress and the
President are focused on downsizing the federal government and
balancing the budget, the Judiciary remains so tone deaf to fiscal
realities.
The United States Courts' Courthouse Project Priorities for Fiscal
Year 2026 includes a request for $863 million for new courthouse
construction. The United States Courts are asking Congress, and more
importantly our bosses--the American taxpayers--to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars on new courthouse construction despite decades of
oversight that has found that Design Guides have enabled the
construction of courthouses that are too large and too costly.
Going forward, Congress must take a hard look at the construction
priorities of the United States Courts, especially the 2021 Design
Guide, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. We need to
ensure that proposals for new courthouses that this committee must
authorize make sense, reduce costs to the taxpayer, and are not
overbuilt.

Mr. Perry. And just prior to recognizing the ranking
member, I want to enter into the record this letter from the
Associated Builders and Contractors regarding project labor
agreements and the increased cost associated with those.
And without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

Letter of May 20, 2025, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon. Greg
Stanton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, from Kristen Swearingen, Vice
President, Government Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry

May 20, 2025.
The Honorable Scott Perry,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
The Honorable Greg Stanton,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
Dear Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton and Members of the U.S.
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management:
On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national
construction industry trade association with 67 chapters representing
more than 23,000 members, I write to thank you for holding the hearing,
``Federal Courthouse Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to
the Taxpayer.'' This hearing is vital to examining cost premiums
associated with federal construction to ensure efficient use of
taxpayer dollars and that federal procurement policy is consistent with
congressional intent.
ABC members have a strong history of competing on and completing
courthouse construction and improvements procured by the General
Services Administration. Furthermore, ABC members play a significant
role in building America's infrastructure. Specifically, between fiscal
years 2009-2023, ABC members won 54% of federal contracts worth $35
million or more, and built award-winning projects safely, on time and
on budget. ABC is committed to promoting a fair and competitive bidding
process that allows all qualified contractors to compete on a level
playing field based on merit, experience, quality and safety to deliver
the highest-quality projects at the best cost.

Background

In 2022, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14063,
resulting in the corresponding January 2024 Federal Acquisition
Regulatory Council Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal
Construction Projects final rule, which requires project labor
agreements on federal construction projects of $35 million or more.
The Biden administration mandate applies to numerous federal
agencies, including the GSA, and discourages competition from quality
nonunion contractors and their employees, who comprise 89.7% of the
private U.S. construction industry workforce. As a result, this
anticompetitive policy inflates federal construction projects costs by
22%, needlessly wasting billions of taxpayer dollars annually and
preventing taxpayers from getting the best bang for their buck on
federal construction projects.
Specific to courthouse construction, ABC identified $277-$317
million in the below federal courthouse construction solicitations and
presolicitations affected by the Biden PLA mandate, suggesting
taxpayers are paying a $55.4-$63.4 million premium for such work.
Mike Mansfield Federal Building/Courthouse Seismic
Retrofit & Ltd Modernization Design/Build Phase 1 Solicitation--$30-$40
million
Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Services for
the Phases 2-5 Repairs and Alterations Prospectus for the U.S.
Courthouse in Clarksburg, West Virginia--$40-$50 million
Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse Plaza Replacement Design
Build Services--$35-$45 million
New United States Courthouse, Chattanooga--Construction
Manager as Constructor (CMc)--$172-$182 million

Developments

While President Trump issued several executive orders to restore
merit-based hiring and contracting across the federal government,
President Biden's executive order and corresponding PLA final rule
remain in effect.
On May 16, 2025, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia halted the Trump administration's class
deviations from the Biden mandate for the U.S. Department of Defense
and GSA. Now, taxpayers return to paying a premium for federal
construction and workers are prevented from completing jobs in their
communities.
With the U.S. District Court's decision, Congress and the Trump
administration must act to restore merit to federal procurement.
Specifically, Congress must advance H.R. 2126/S. 1064, the Fair and
Open Competition Act, to ensure federal and federally assisted contract
awards occur through a fair and competitive bidding process that allows
all qualified contractors to compete on a level playing field based on
merit, experience, quality and safety to deliver the highest-quality
projects at the best cost.
ABC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the unnecessary
premiums associated with federal courthouse construction. It is
essential that the committee promotes competition in public works
projects for American taxpayers and workers.
Sincerely,
Kristen Swearingen,
Vice President, Government Affairs, Associated Builders and
Contractors.
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Friedman
for 5 minutes for her opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA FRIEDMAN OF CALI-
FORNIA, VICE RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECO-
NOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMER-
GENCY MANAGEMENT

Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chairman Perry. I have to say,
it's refreshing to be in a committee when we have Congress
working in a very bipartisan way and, I think, being in
agreement on a lot of the issues in front of the committee
today.
Over the last 45 years, the Government Accountability
Office, the GAO, has compiled a large body of work on Federal
courthouse construction, much of it at the request of this very
committee. In study after study, GAO found that the judiciary
has requested and received courthouses that are larger than the
size authorized by Congress and more expensive to build and
operate than Congress was aware of.
Wide latitude amongst judiciary and GSA decisionmakers in
choices about location, design, construction, and finishes
often resulted in expensive features in some courthouse
projects for reasons that are obscure. Long-range space
projections by the judiciary were not sufficiently reliable.
The judiciary's 5-year plan did not always reflect its most
urgently needed projects. And the judiciary did not track
courtroom uses.
The judiciary pays rent to GSA for the use of these
courthouses, and a proportion of the judiciary's budget that
goes to rent has increased as its space requirements have
grown. Difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs
were so great that the judiciary requested a $483 million
permanent annual exemption from rent payments to GSA, which
they did not receive.
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, then-chair of the
subcommittee, was so concerned about the bloated Federal
courthouse construction program that she asked then-President
Obama to place a moratorium on new courthouse construction
requests. Along the way, the judiciary did seem to try to meet
the concern of Congress. The Judicial Conference revised its
courtroom allocation planning assumptions. New courtroom
construction projects are to be designed to facilitate
courtroom sharing for senior district judges, magistrate
judges, and bankruptcy judges, but there is still some cause
for concern.
In 2022, this committee asked GAO to look at differences
between the courts' 2007 Design Guide and their updated 2021
Design Guide. GAO found that the changes made to the 2021
Design Guide will increase the size of new courthouses by 12
percent.
As the judiciary increases the size of their spaces, the
building envelope expands: more tile, more wiring, more ceiling
tiles, more paint, longer hallways, increased circulation. You
get the picture. The judiciary wanted three circulation zones:
public, restricted space for judges and staff, and the secure
circulation that's the Marshals Service purview to move
prisoners, which, of course, is appropriate. But when updating
the Design Guide to reflect the changes in circulation, the
judiciary did not fully collaborate with GSA or the Federal
Protective Service to determine necessity or even feasibility.
I appreciate the participation of the witnesses today.
Director Marroni, you and your colleagues are the
workhorses of this committee. Year after year, report after
report, your work is incalculable to the effective and
efficient operations of the United States, and I want to thank
you.
Judge Suddaby, I assume that you and your colleagues are
probably annoyed by coming in front of Congress as we ask these
questions, so I really do appreciate your being here and your
patience with us. I hope we can work together collaboratively.
So, thank you for being here.
And Commissioner Peters, I am particularly pleased to see
you here today, since I am told you declined to participate in
our last hearing on Federal real estate. I look forward to
learning more about your plans to shed 63 percent of your
workforce and 50 percent of your budget, all without impeding
the progress of courthouses under construction and courthouses
that need repairs and maintenance. I am interested to see how
that can happen.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[Ms. Friedman's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Laura Friedman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over the last 45 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
has compiled a large body of work on Federal courthouse construction--
much of it at the request of this Committee.
In study after study, GAO found that the judiciary has requested
and received courthouses that are larger than the size authorized by
Congress and more expensive to build and operate than Congress was
aware of.
Wide latitude among judiciary and GSA decision makers in choices
about location, design, construction and finishes often resulted in
expensive features in some courthouse projects.
Long-range space projections by the judiciary were not sufficiently
reliable.
The judiciary's 5-year plan did not always reflect its most
urgently needed projects.
And the judiciary did not track courtroom usage.
The judiciary pays rent to GSA for the use of these courthouses,
and the proportion of the judiciary's budget that goes to rent has
increased as its space requirements have grown.
Difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs were so great
that the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent annual exemption
from rent payments to GSA--which they did not receive.
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, then-chair of this
Subcommittee, was so concerned about the bloated federal courthouse
construction program that she asked then-President Obama to place a
moratorium on new courthouse construction requests.
Along the way, the judiciary did seem to try to meet the concerns
of Congress. The Judicial Conference revised its courtroom allocation
planning assumptions. New courtroom construction projects are to be
designed to facilitate courtroom-sharing for senior district judges,
magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges.
But there is still some cause for concern.
In 2022, this Committee asked GAO to look at differences between
the courts' 2007 design guide and their updated 2021 design guide.
GAO found that changes made to the 2021 design guide will increase
the size of new courthouses by 12 percent.
As the judiciary increases the size of their spaces, the building
envelope expands--more tile, more wiring, more ceiling tiles, more
paint, longer hallways, increased circulation, etc.
The judiciary wanted three circulation zones: public, restricted
space for judges and staff, and the secure circulation that is the
Marshals Service's purview to move prisoners. But when updating the
design guide to reflect changes in circulation, the judiciary did not
fully collaborate with GSA or the Federal Protective Service to
determine necessity or feasibility.
I appreciate the participation of all our witnesses.
Director Marroni, you and your colleagues are truly the workhorses
of this Committee. Year after year, report after report, your work is
incalculable to the effective and efficient operations of the United
States.
Judge Suddaby, I assume that you and your colleagues are annoyed
when Congress questions your priorities, but that is our job.
And Commissioner Peters, I am particularly pleased to see you here
today since you declined to participate in our last hearing on federal
real estate. I look forward to learning more about your plans to shed
63 percent of your workforce and 50 percent of your budget--all without
impeding the progress of courthouses under construction and courthouses
that need repairs and maintenance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair would
now like to welcome our witnesses and thank them again for
being here today. And thank you for your patience with us.
Briefly, I would like to take just a moment to explain our
lighting system to our witnesses. There are three lights in
front of you. Green means go; yellow means you are running out
of time; and red means to conclude your remarks.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that witnesses' full
statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record
remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
And with that, Mr. Marroni, you are now recognized for 5
minutes for your testimony, sir.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL IN-
FRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OF-
FICE; HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK, AND CHAIR, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COM-
MITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES; AND MICHAEL PETERS,
COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GEN-
ERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL IN-
FRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OF-
FICE

Mr. Marroni. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
Friedman, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the judiciary's revised design standards
for Federal courthouses and the likely impact on courthouse
costs.
The judiciary issued these revised standards as part of a
2021 update to the U.S. Courts Design Guide. That guide sets
standards for designing and constructing Federal courthouses
and is meant to help GSA and other stakeholders build
functional and cost-effective courthouses.
The judiciary updated the Design Guide for several reasons,
including to improve security, provide flexibility for local
courts involved in new courthouse projects, and to contain
costs. Cost containment is certainly an important goal, because
Federal courthouses, like all Federal real property, require a
significant investment of taxpayer resources.
It can cost over $100 million simply to build a new
courthouse, and even more to operate and maintain those
buildings over time. As a result, changes to design standards
are important, particularly now, as Congress and executive
branch agencies are taking steps to reduce the Federal real
property footprint.
Given that, last year we reviewed the changes that
judiciary made in the 2021 Design Guide, and analyzed their
potential impact on the size and cost of future courthouse
projects. We identified 16 substantive changes and estimated
that, together, they would increase the size of future
courthouses by 6 percent and their cost by 12 percent, on
average. This could equate to tens of millions of dollars in
additional construction spending. For example, when we model
what would happen if seven courthouse projects were designed
according to the updated design standards, we found it would
increase the construction costs for those seven projects by an
estimated $143 million.
These higher estimated costs are due, in part, to changes
in the 2021 Design Guide that increased the amount of space
allotted to design pathways like hallways and stairways,
between courtrooms, and other judiciary spaces. For example, we
estimated that the updated standards would provide about 350
additional square feet of circulation space for each district
courtroom in a courthouse. Building in this additional space
not only increases the size of judiciary space, it also
increases the size of the overall courthouse, making it more
expensive to build, operate, and maintain.
The judiciary cited the need for improved security as the
basis for the higher amounts of circulation space, and the
security of Federal courthouses is certainly a key
consideration for their design and construction. However, we
found that judiciary did not fully collaborate with GSA when
deciding to make this and other updates to the Design Guide.
Specifically, while the judiciary solicited input from GSA
on its planned changes to the Design Guide and met with GSA to
discuss concerns with the final draft, it did not consistently
engage in two-way communication. For example, the judiciary did
not fully address GSA's concerns that the revised circulation
standards were based on a 2012 contract study of older
courthouses, some of which GAO had previously found to be
oversized. GSA officials told us it was unclear how the
judiciary determined the final 2021 circulation standards in
relation to that study.
GSA also raised concerns that the proposed changes would
significantly increase the overall size and cost of courthouse
projects, which is consistent with our own analysis. While the
judiciary adjusted some of its proposed circulation changes
based on GSA's feedback, it did not fully address these
concerns.
Given the significant cost implications, we recommended
that the judiciary, in collaboration with GSA, reassess the
need for the revised circulation standards in the 2021 Design
Guide. The judiciary is now working with GSA to identify an
approach for reassessing these standards, and that is a
positive step. If the judiciary determines that the increase in
circulation space isn't needed, then the Federal Government
could avoid tens of millions of dollars in costs. And if the
judiciary decides it is important to keep those increases in
the guide, then it will have a stronger basis to justify the
higher costs. That is important as the Federal Government moves
to rightsize its Federal real property footprint.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I will
be happy to answer any questions.
[Mr. Marroni's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure,
U.S. Government Accountability Office

Courthouse Construction: Changes to Design Standards Will Result in
Larger and More Costly Future Courthouses

Highlights

What GAO Found
The judiciary issued a new U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide)
in 2021 that included many changes in the standards from the prior 2007
version. GAO determined that 16 of the changes could affect the size or
cost of courthouse projects. (See table.) Judiciary officials cited
four overarching reasons for making these changes: to incorporate
existing policies, provide courts with flexibility to design spaces
that meet their needs, contain costs, and meet security needs. To date,
no courthouses funded through fiscal year 2024 have been designed under
the 2021 Design Guide. According to judiciary officials, as of May
2025, the judiciary was planning five courthouse projects with the
intention of using the 2021 Design Guide.

Selected Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide That Could Affect
the Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circulation requirements.................. Increases the circulation
pathways (i.e., the amount
of space required for
movement of the public,
court staff, prisoners, and
others) required for
judiciary spaces--primarily
those associated with
courtrooms and associated
spaces, grand jury suites,
probation and pretrial
services, and other court
units.

Courtroom sharing policy.................. Incorporates judiciary
policies adopted from 2009
through 2011 for judges to
share courtrooms in new
courthouses with two or
more magistrate,
bankruptcy, or senior
district judges.

Ballistic-resistant materials............. Adds a requirement for
ballistic-resistant
material for the deputy
clerk station within the
courtroom.

Raised access flooring.................... Removes the requirement for
raised access flooring in
the courtroom well--the
area that includes the
judge's bench, court
personnel workstations,
witness box, jury box and
counsel tables.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information. GAO-25-108406

GAO found that changes made in the 2021 Design Guide will
significantly increase the size and cost of future courthouse projects.
To reach this conclusion, GAO estimated the potential impacts of these
changes for seven recently completed or future courthouses designed
under the 2007 Design Guide. According to this analysis, changes in the
2021 Design Guide would increase the size of the courthouses by 6
percent and project costs by 12 percent on average. These hypothetical
increases are due, in part, to increases in the amount of circulation
within the judiciary's space. Increases in the judiciary's space result
in larger courthouses overall, which GAO estimates will lead to more
costly courthouses in the future, due to the need for additional
construction materials and building components.
Further, GAO found that the judiciary did not fully collaborate
with the General Services Administration (GSA) or involve the Federal
Protective Service, which has courthouse security responsibilities. As
a result, the judiciary missed an opportunity to address significant
issues, such as those related to the size, cost, and security of
courthouses. Specifically, the judiciary did not fully address GSA's
concerns that the revised circulation requirements were based on a 2012
assessment of older courthouses that GAO had previously found to be
oversized. Engaging with stakeholders and reassessing the need for
increased circulation requirements in the 2021 Design Guide using
relevant information will help the judiciary develop functional and
cost-effective courthouses and could avoid millions of dollars in
future costs.
Why GAO Did This Study
Courthouses play an important role in ensuring the proper
functioning of the federal judicial system. For fiscal years 2016
through 2024, Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction
of 15 federal courthouse projects. According to the judiciary, this
funding addressed long-standing needs for new courthouses.
The Design Guide aims to help GSA and other stakeholders build
courthouses that are both functional and cost-effective. In 2021, the
judiciary made changes to the Design Guide, citing the need to provide
greater security for court personnel and flexibility for local courts
involved in new courthouse projects.
This testimony discusses (1) the changes made in the 2021 Design
Guide, and the judiciary's rationale for making these changes; (2) how
these changes could affect the size and cost of future courthouse
projects; and (3) how the judiciary collaborated with selected
stakeholders in making these changes. It draws primarily from GAO's
October 2024 report on the judiciary's Design Guide.
What GAO Recommends
GAO made three recommendations to the judiciary that remain open.
These include that the judiciary document a process to ensure
collaboration with stakeholders when updating the Design Guide and, in
collaboration with GSA, use relevant information to reassess the need
for increased circulation requirements. In May 2025, the judiciary told
us it is continuing to review its collaboration efforts and work to
identify an approach to reassess its circulation requirements.
__________

Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on federal
courthouse construction. Courthouses play an important role in ensuring
the proper functioning of the federal judicial system and the
administration of justice. The safety and security of federal
courthouses are a key consideration in their design and construction.
The construction of new federal courthouses can cost hundreds of
millions of dollars. From fiscal years 2016 through 2024, Congress
appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction of 15 federal courthouse
projects. According to the judiciary, this funding addressed long-
standing needs for new courthouses, and for repairs and alterations to
existing courthouses.
The judiciary's U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide) establishes
standards for designing and constructing new federal courthouses. The
Design Guide aims to help the General Services Administration (GSA) and
other stakeholders--including architects, engineers, judges, and court
administrators--build courthouses that are both functional and cost-
effective. In 2021, the judiciary made changes to the Design Guide,
citing the need to provide greater security for court personnel and
flexibility for local courts involved in new courthouse projects.
Allowing for such flexibilities could affect the size and cost of
courthouses at a time in which Congress and executive branch agencies
are taking steps to reduce the real property footprint of the executive
branch.\1\ Specifically, the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving
Technologies (USE IT) Act--enacted in January 2025--requires executive
branch agencies to measure their use of buildings and submit an annual
occupancy report.\2\ It also establishes a building utilization rate
target of at least 60 percent.\3\ Further, a February 2025 Executive
Order directed, among other things, that GSA submit to the Office of
Management and Budget a plan for the disposition of government-owned
executive branch real property that agencies deemed no longer
needed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal agencies have long struggled to determine the amount of
space they need to fulfill their missions, which has at times led them
to retain excess and underutilized space. This is one reason that
managing federal real property has remained on our High Risk List since
2003. GAO, High-Risk Series: Heightened Attention Could Yield Billions
More and Improve Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO-25-107743
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2025).
\2\ The USE IT Act was enacted as a part of the Thomas R. Carper
Water Resources Development Act of 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-272, div. B,
tit. III, Sec. 2302, 138 Stat. 2992, 3218 (2025).
\3\ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with
GSA, is required under the USE IT Act to ensure building utilization in
each public building and federally leased space is not less than 60
percent on average over each 1-year period. GSA, in consultation with
OMB, is required under the USE IT Act to take steps to reduce the space
of tenant agencies that fail to meet the 60 percent target. These
requirements apply to Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act)
agencies. The CFO Act established, among other things, chief financial
officers to oversee financial management activities at 23 major
executive departments and agencies. Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838
(Nov. 15, 1990). The list now includes 24 entities, which are often
referred to collectively as CFO Act agencies, and is codified, as
amended, in section 901 of Title 31, United States Code.
\4\ Exec. Order No. 14222, 90 Fed. Reg. 11095, 11096-97 (Feb. 26,
2025). For further information on recent executive branch actions to
dispose of government-owned property and terminate leases, see GAO,
Federal Real Property: Reducing the Government's Holdings Could
Generate Substantial Savings, GAO-25-108159 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This testimony is based on our October 2024 report examining issues
related to the 2021 version of the Design Guide (2021 Design Guide).\5\
Specifically, my remarks will focus on (1) the changes made in the 2021
Design Guide, and the judiciary's rationale for making these changes;
(2) how these changes could affect the size and cost of future
courthouse projects; and (3) how the judiciary collaborated with
selected stakeholders in making changes in the 2021 Design Guide. My
statement will also provide an update on actions the judiciary has
taken to implement the recommendations we made in our report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will
Result in Significant Size and Cost Increases, GAO-25-106724
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To examine these issues for our report, we reviewed documentation
and interviewed GSA and judiciary officials. We also worked with these
officials to estimate the difference in total courthouse size and cost
that would likely result from building selected projects according to
the 2021 Design Guide, compared with the prior version of the guide
from 2007. In addition, we conducted site visits to five of these
courthouses, selected for variation in size and cost. Detailed
information on the objectives, scope, and methodology for this work can
be found in the issued report.
We conducted the work on which this statement is based 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 the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Background

Courthouse Characteristics
Federal courthouses can have different types of courtrooms and
chambers, depending on the type of judges in the facility (e.g.,
circuit, district, magistrate, and bankruptcy). Federal courthouses can
also have other spaces, such as judiciary offices, libraries, public
spaces, security screening areas, and office space for other tenants,
such as the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and GSA's facilities
management personnel. The judiciary's Design Guide includes
requirements for the size of courtrooms, judiciary staff offices, and
other spaces.
Courthouses also have various pathways (e.g., hallways, stairways,
and elevators) that facilitate circulation for different groups in a
manner that ensures safety and security. The length and width of some
of these circulation pathways can vary based on their function and to
meet building codes related to the number of occupants and visitors. As
described in the Design Guide, the three primary types of circulation
are: (1) public circulation for spectators, attorneys, and media
representatives; (2) restricted circulation for judges, courtroom
deputy clerks, court reporters, other judiciary staff, and jurors; and
(3) secure circulation for law enforcement personnel, witnesses,
litigants, prisoners, or other individuals who are in custody.
Role of Federal Agencies
The judiciary and GSA share responsibility for managing the design
and construction of courthouse projects.
The judiciary establishes funding priorities for the
construction of new courthouses based on a long-range planning process
and on the status of funding for previously approved, pending
courthouse construction projects.\6\ Using its AnyCourt space
programming tool, the judiciary identifies for GSA the type and size of
spaces like courtrooms and offices, to ensure that courthouse projects
meet the needs of the courts. The AnyCourt tool also calculates the
amount of circulation within judiciary spaces, such as restricted
hallways for court personnel to get from their offices to the
courtrooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In prior work, we reported on the judiciary's process for
ranking courthouse needs and made recommendations to ensure that the
judiciary's methodology for ranking courthouse projects results in
greater transparency and consistency. The judiciary implemented one of
our three recommendations. GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction:
Judiciary Should Refine Its Methods for Determining Which Projects Are
Most Urgent, GAO-22-104034 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2022).

GSA is typically responsible for requesting the funding
for courthouse construction, acquiring the building site, and
contracting for the design and construction work for courthouse
projects. GSA has used the judiciary's Design Guide, GSA's Facilities
Standards for the Public Buildings Service (now rescinded), and design
guidance from other tenants to ensure that the design and construction
plans of the courthouse meet the space and other needs of federal
agencies.\7\ GSA uses the judiciary's AnyCourt tool, as well as other
tenant agencies' space programs, to then determine the total courthouse
size. Based on this determination, GSA develops projects' cost
estimates using its Cost Benchmark Tool. The tool is intended to enable
GSA to accurately forecast courthouse project costs and develop
realistic budgets based on the information specified in the judiciary's
AnyCourt tool, as well as other tenants' space requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GSA's Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service
(P100) established mandatory design standards and performance criteria
for certain federally owned buildings in GSA's control. GSA, P100
Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service (October 2021).
In February 2025, GSA rescinded the P100 and issued interim guidance,
stating that the informational memorandum should assist in the
preparation of contract documents for architects, engineers, and
general contractors until GSA develops a process to update the P100 in
accordance with the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of
2024. GSA, Rescission of PBS P100 Facilities Standards, and Issuance of
PBS Interim Core Building Standards (Feb. 24, 2025). The memorandum
provides a list of laws, regulations, codes, and guidelines applicable
to projects in GSA facilities under design and construction, including
the Design Guide.

In addition, USMS and the Federal Protective Service (FPS) have
security responsibilities at federal courthouses. Generally, USMS
provides security in judiciary spaces within the courthouse and for
federal judges, attorneys, jurors, and other members of the federal
court. FPS is responsible for providing security in nonjudiciary spaces
within the courthouse and along the perimeter of the courthouse.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We reported on courthouse security and made recommendations
that the judiciary, USMS, and FPS collect better information and
improve coordination on courthouse security. The judiciary and both
agencies fully implemented our recommendations. GAO, Federal
Courthouses: Actions Needed to Enhance Capital Security Program and
Improve Collaboration, GAO-17-215 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Courts Design Guide
The judiciary's U.S. Courts Design Guide establishes standards for
GSA and project stakeholders to follow when designing and constructing
new federal courthouses. The judiciary issued its first Design Guide in
1991 and made major revisions in 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2007. The
judiciary also amended selected chapters of the 2007 Design Guide in
2016. In 2021, the judiciary issued its most recent revisions to the
Design Guide.
Congressional resolutions and appropriations act language for
courthouse projects typically stipulate that standards in the Design
Guide should be followed.\9\ No courthouse projects funded through
fiscal year 2024 were designed under the 2021 Design Guide. According
to judiciary officials, as of May 2025, the judiciary is planning five
courthouse projects with the intention of using the 2021 Design
Guide.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Under a statutory requirement, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works must adopt resolutions approving the
purpose before Congress can make an appropriation for the proposed
project. 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307(a). Such committee resolutions have, for
example, stipulated that, ``except as provided in the prospectus,''
courthouse design must not deviate from the Design Guide. If a court
requests space that the Design Guide does not specify, or exceeds the
limits established by the Design Guide for a given space, then this
variation represents an ``exception'' to the Design Guide. The
judiciary must review and approve exceptions before they are
implemented and report them to Congress. In our October 2024 report, we
found that the judiciary had not provided a clear and complete
definition of, or guidance on, the types of variations that constitute
an exception. We recommended the judiciary clearly define, or provide
specific examples of, variations from the Design Guide that constitute
exceptions subject to additional oversight. See GAO-25-106724.
According to judiciary officials, the judiciary has taken steps to
develop a report--and provide information from the report to GSA--that
describes the type of variations from the Design Guide that constitute
exceptions subject to additional oversight. In May 2025, we requested
further information on the report. We will evaluate the extent to which
its contents satisfy our recommendation when judiciary fulfills this
request.
\10\ Judiciary officials stated that two planned courthouses--in
Anchorage, Alaska and Bowling Green, Kentucky--will include all
elements from the 2021 Design Guide. An additional three planned
courthouses--in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Hartford, Connecticut; and San
Juan, Puerto Rico--will include cost-neutral elements (i.e., those that
do not increase or decrease costs) from the 2021 Design Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouses Funded from Fiscal Years 2016-2024
Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction of 15
federal courthouse projects for fiscal years 2016 through 2024. At the
time of our review, GSA had completed construction of nine of these
projects. The other six projects were in varying phases of design or
construction. (See fig. 1.) GSA and stakeholders used the 1997 version
of the Design Guide to design one of the courthouses and the 2007
version of the Design Guide, with the 2016 chapter amendments, to
design 14 courthouses.

Figure 1: Status of Federal Courthouse Projects Funded from Fiscal
Years 2016 2024,

as of August 2024

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Sources: GAO presentation of General Services Administration (GSA) and
judiciary data;
Map Resources (map). GAO-25-108406

Changes in the 2021 Design Guide Aim to Better Meet Court Needs
In our October 2024 report, we discussed that the judiciary made 16
substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide that were likely to
increase or decrease the size and cost of courthouses.\11\ Judiciary
officials cited four overarching reasons for making these changes: to
incorporate existing policies, provide flexibility to meet the space
needs at individual courthouses, contain costs, and meet security
needs. For example, judiciary officials stated that changes such as
increasing the amount of space for the separate circulation of the
public, court staff, and prisoners were necessary to ensure safety. The
16 substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide fall into four broad
categories: (1) space sharing and future courtroom planning, (2) size
standards and flexibilities, (3) design features, and (4) security.
(See table 1 for examples of changes in each of these categories.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We initially identified 28 potentially substantive changes in
the 2021 Design Guide. We took additional steps to determine which
changes were most substantive by requesting input from the judiciary
and GSA on the changes they considered likely to increase or decrease
the size and cost of courthouses. We used the judiciary and GSA's
responses and our professional judgment to identify the final 16
substantive changes that could potentially affect the size and cost of
courthouses, including their views on whether the changes could
increase or decrease courthouse size and cost. We did not analyze the
extent to which these 16 changes would affect size or cost, except for
the change in the circulation requirements, as discussed later.

Table 1: Selected Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide That
Could Affect the Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space sharing and future courtroom planning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtroom sharing policy.................. Incorporates judiciary
policies adopted from 2009
through 2011 for judges to
share courtrooms in new
courthouses with two or
more magistrate,
bankruptcy, or senior
district judges. For
example, a courthouse with
three or more magistrate
judges is allocated one
courtroom for every two
magistrate judges, plus an
additional courtroom for
criminal court duty.

Space planning for senior and future Incorporates the judiciary's
judges. policy adopted in 2011 that
requires new courthouse
projects to include space
for existing judges and to
account for judges eligible
for senior status within a
10-year planning period.
(District judges are
appointed for life but may
take senior status and a
reduced caseload, if
desired, upon meeting
certain age and tenure
requirements.) Courts may
not program space or
include space in the
proposed design for
projected judgeships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size standards and flexibilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circulation requirements.................. Changes the method for
calculating circulation
within judiciary units in
the courthouse. Courthouses
have three types of
circulation: (1) public
circulation for members of
the public; (2) restricted
circulation for judges and
other judiciary staff; and
(3) secure circulation to
move witnesses, litigants,
prisoners, or other
individuals who are in
custody. The 2007 Design
Guide used ``circulation
factors'' (i.e., percentage
of usable space allotted
for circulation), and the
2021 Design Guide uses
``circulation
multipliers.'' Circulation
multipliers are values that
are applied (i.e.,
multiplied) to the net
square footage of a
judiciary unit to determine
the square footage needed
to move within and between
spaces.

Unique program spaces..................... As with the 2007 Design
Guide, the 2021 Design
Guide allows courts to use
unoccupied rooms for
Alternative Dispute
Resolution purposes.
However, the 2021 Design
Guide also allows a court
to construct a separate
suite of Alternative
Dispute Resolution rooms
within its given space
requirements, with circuit
judicial council approval.
Further, the 2021 Design
Guide allows for new
courthouse design elements,
including (1) fitness
centers, provided they do
not increase the total
square footage of the
project; and (2) secure
rooms to store sensitive or
classified information,
provided the room does not
increase the total square
footage of the court unit
where the room is located.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Features
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raised access flooring.................... The 2016 amendments to the
Design Guide removed the
requirement in the 2007
Design Guide that
courthouses must use raised
access flooring in most
spaces but specified that
such flooring was required
in the courtroom well
(i.e., the area that
includes the judge's bench,
court personnel
workstations, witness box,
jury box, and counsel
tables in the courtroom).
The 2021 Design Guide
removed the remaining
requirement for raised
access flooring in the
courtroom well.

Mailroom screening requirements........... Incorporates the latest
standards for mail
screening safety, including
requiring courts to use
ductless mail screening
units instead of units that
need dedicated air-handling
equipment, as required in
the 2007 Design Guide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information. GAO-25-108406

Note: To identify changes, we compared the 2007 and 2021 versions of the
U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide). We also reviewed other
judiciary documentation and interviewed judiciary and General Services
Administration officials.

In our October 2024 report, we noted that some of the 16
substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide could increase the size
and cost of courthouse projects. For example, the 2021 Design Guide
provides courts the option to add unique spaces that the 2007 Design
Guide did not address, such as--under certain conditions--fitness
centers and secure rooms. Fitness centers and secure rooms must not
increase the total square footage of the judiciary's space in the
courthouse project. However, according to GSA officials, the increase
in judiciary's circulation requirements could make judiciary spaces
larger overall and, therefore, judiciary may use the additional space
to build unique spaces now allowed under the 2021 Design Guide, such as
a fitness room. Both the judiciary and GSA projected an increase in
courthouse project costs to account for additional circulation and
unique spaces.
We also discussed changes that could decrease the cost of
courthouse projects with judiciary and GSA officials. For example, the
2021 Design Guide removed the requirement that courts must use raised
access flooring in the courtroom well, which is the area that includes
the judge's bench, court personnel workstations, witness box, jury box,
and counsel tables. According to judiciary and GSA officials, this
change will reduce the cost to construct courthouses because it will
simplify construction of the floors. Both the judiciary and GSA
projected no change in the courthouse size from eliminating the use of
raised access flooring.

Changes in the 2021 Design Guide Will Increase the Size and Cost of
Future Courthouses

In our October 2024 report, we estimated that changes in the 2021
Design Guide would increase the size of future courthouses by 6 percent
and project costs by 12 percent on average. These size and cost
increases are due, in part, to increases in the judiciary's circulation
requirements.
Changes to Circulation Requirements Will Increase the Size of Future
Projects
We modeled seven selected courthouses, which included six
completed, or nearly completed, projects and one future courthouse. As
shown in table 2, we estimated that changes in the 2021 Design Guide
would have increased the judiciary's space needs for the seven projects
by nearly 8 percent, on average, and the overall size of these projects
by about 6 percent, on average.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The judiciary's space needs are those spaces requested by the
judiciary for its use, as compared with other tenants' space. We worked
with the judiciary to use its AnyCourt space programming tool to model
(i.e., estimate) and compare changes in judiciary space (in usable
square feet) that would likely result from building selected projects,
according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the Design Guide. Total
courthouse gross square footages are based on estimates GSA provided
that include the space requirements of the judiciary and other building
tenants, as well as, for example, building public spaces and
maintenance support spaces. For further information, see Appendix II of
GAO-25-106724.

Table 2: Estimated Increases in Judiciary and Total Courthouse Space in Selected Courthouse Projects That Would
Result from Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judiciary space (in Total courthouse space
usable square feet) (in gross square feet)
------------------------ Percentage ------------------------ Percentage
Courthouse location 2007 2021 increase 2007 2021 increase
Design Design Design Design
Guide Guide Guide Guide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anniston, AL............................ 30,105 32,666 8.5% 68,451 72,273 5.6%
Charlotte, NC........................... 142,481 153,313 7.6 288,913 305,080 5.6
Greenville, SC.......................... 110,892 117,277 5.8 222,575 232,105 4.3
Harrisburg, PA.......................... 99,371 107,155 7.8 192,414 204,032 6.0
Huntsville, AL.......................... 61,143 66,549 8.8 125,751 133,819 6.4
San Antonio, TX......................... 140,041 152,324 8.8 273,325 291,657 6.7
Future courthouse....................... 33,731 36,852 9.3 83,946 88,604 5.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 617,764 666,136 7.8% 1,255,375 1,327,570 5.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of judiciary and General Services Administration (GSA) information. GAO-25-108406

Notes: We worked with the judiciary to use its AnyCourt space programming tool to model (i.e., estimate) and
compare changes in judiciary space (in usable square feet) that would likely result from building selected
projects according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the U.S. Courts Design Guide. The courthouse projects
modeled included the following six completed, or nearly completed, projects: (1) U.S. Courthouse in Anniston,
AL; (2) U.S. Courthouse Annex/Renovation of Jonas Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Charlotte, NC; (3)
Campbell U.S. Courthouse in Greenville, SC; (4) Rambo U.S. Courthouse in Harrisburg, PA; (5) U.S. Courthouse
in San Antonio, TX; and (6) U.S. Courthouse in Huntsville, AL. Those six projects were built according to the
2007 Design Guide. The modeled projects also included a future courthouse planned in the eastern U.S. The
future courthouse is being planned according to the 2021 Design Guide. Because Congress has not yet approved
and funded the future courthouse, we are not identifying the city where the project is located.

Total courthouse gross square footages are based on estimates GSA
provided that include the space requirements of the judiciary and other
building tenants, as well as, for example, building public spaces and
maintenance support spaces.
Based on GSA and judiciary officials and our review of GSA and
judiciary documentation, we found that the updated circulation
requirements in the 2021 Design Guide are a significant factor in
increasing the projected size of courthouses. Specifically, the 2021
Design Guide increased the circulation requirements for judiciary
spaces--primarily those associated with courtrooms and associated
spaces, grand jury suites, probation and pretrial services, and other
court units. For example, the circulation requirements for courtrooms
and associated space increased from 17 percent to 25.9 percent of
usable square footage for those spaces. Based on those percentages,
each district courtroom--which is 2,400 square feet under the 2007 and
2021 Design Guides--will require approximately 348 square feet of
additional circulation space under the 2021 Design Guide.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See table 4 of GAO-25-106724 for the judiciary's circulation
space requirements under the 2007 and 2021 Design Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to GSA officials, as the judiciary's space increases, the
overall courthouse size also increases.\14\ This results in an increase
in the overall building gross square footage, which comprises the total
space within the courthouse, including judiciary spaces; other tenant
spaces; and shared lobbies, hallways, and support spaces such as rooms
for telecommunications equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GSA expresses the total size of a federal courthouse in gross
square feet. GSA plans courthouse space to be 67 percent efficient
(i.e., the ratio of all tenants' usable square feet to the building's
gross square feet). Consequently, as any tenant's usable square footage
increases, so does the building gross square footage; as tenant spaces
expand, public hallways and other building common spaces then expand to
service the larger areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes to Circulation Requirements Will Increase the Cost of Future
Projects
As a result of the increases in courthouse size identified through
our modeling, we also estimated that changes in the 2021 Design Guide
would increase estimated construction costs by approximately 12 percent
on average for the same seven modeled projects. We worked with GSA to
use its Cost Benchmark Tool to estimate cost increases that would
likely result from building selected projects according to the 2007 and
2021 versions of the Design Guide.\15\ According to our modeling
estimates, changes in the 2021 Design Guide--mostly those made to the
judiciary's circulation requirements--increased estimated construction
costs by approximately $143 million for the seven selected courthouses
(see table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We requested that GSA use its Cost Benchmark Tool to calculate
the likely budget effects on the construction costs for the same seven
selected projects of the changes in the 2021 Design Guide. GSA cost
models assume that projects will take 3 years to construct, beginning
in fiscal year 2026, and use fiscal year 2019 and 2022 cost values.

Table 3: Increases in Estimated Construction Costs of Selected Courthouse Projects That Would Result from
Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated construction Cost increase
cost (millions) -----------------------
------------------------
Location 2007 2021 Overall
Design Design (millions) Percentage
Guide Guide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anniston, AL.................................................... $67.5 $75.2 $7.7 11.4%
Charlotte, NC................................................... 274.2 310.3 36.1 13.2
Greenville, SC.................................................. 206.5 220.0 13.5 6.5
Harrisburg, PA.................................................. 198.4 215.3 16.9 8.5
Huntsville, AL.................................................. 127.0 148.3 21.3 16.8
San Antonio, TX................................................. 238.2 270.9 32.7 13.7
Future courthouse............................................... 87.9 102.9 15.0 17.1
-----------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... $1,199.6 $1,342.9 $143.3 11.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO summary of General Services Administration (GSA) information. GAO-25-108406

Notes: We worked with GSA to use its Cost Benchmark Tool to model (i.e., estimate) and compare cost increases
that would likely result from building selected projects according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the U.S.
Courts Design Guide The courthouse projects modeled included the following six completed, or nearly completed,
projects: (1) U.S. Courthouse in Anniston, AL; (2) U.S. Courthouse Annex/Renovation of Jonas Federal Building
and U.S. Courthouse in Charlotte, NC; (3) Campbell U.S. Courthouse in Greenville, SC; (4) Rambo U.S.
Courthouse in Harrisburg, PA; (5) U.S. Courthouse in San Antonio, TX; and (6) U.S. Courthouse in Huntsville,
AL. The six projects were built according to the 2007 Design Guide. The modeled projects also included a
future courthouse planned in the eastern U.S. The future courthouse is being planned according to the 2021
Design Guide. Because Congress has not yet approved and funded the future courthouse, we are not identifying
the city where the project is located. Figures have been rounded and do not add precisely.

Estimated costs are for construction and exclude site acquisition, design, and project management and inspection
costs. The modeled construction cost estimates are not comparable to GSA's original prospectuses to Congress
(e.g., fiscal year 2016) or to actual construction costs for completed projects, as the modeled cost values,
durations, and schedules are not the same.

The increases in estimated construction costs result from both
increases in the judiciary's space and the additional courthouse space
and building material needed overall (other building costs).\16\ Of the
total estimated increase in construction costs, the portion associated
with increases in the judiciary's space varies across projects but, in
aggregate, contributes to just under half ($66 million of $143
million), while the remainder is associated with the overall increases
in courthouse size. If the judiciary were to revert to the circulation
requirements in the 2007 Design Guide when designing future
courthouses, we estimate the federal government could achieve tens of
millions of dollars in cost avoidance.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Examples of other building costs associated with the
building's size increase include costs for telecommunication closet
wiring; plumbing systems and bathroom fixtures; structural concrete and
steel; and materials for ``hardened'' construction (e.g., heavy glazed
block walls rather than lighter drywall) in the USMS's secure
circulation areas.
\17\ GAO, 2025 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce
Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve an Additional One
Hundred Billion Dollars or More in Future Financial Benefits, GAO-25-
107604 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judiciary Should Collaborate with Stakeholders to Reassess the Need
for Larger and More Costly Courthouses

In our October 2024 report, we found the judiciary did not fully
collaborate with GSA or FPS when updating the 2021 Design Guide and
therefore missed an opportunity to obtain additional information on
significant issues, such as those related to the security, size, and
cost of courthouses. We also reported that the judiciary solicited
input on changes in the 2021 Design Guide but did not fully address
GSA's concerns.
The Judiciary Did Not Engage in Consistent Communication with GSA or
Involve FPS When Updating the Design Guide
The judiciary solicited input from GSA on changes to the Design
Guide and met with GSA to discuss some of its concerns with the final
draft. However, the judiciary did not consistently engage in two-way
communication with GSA throughout the process of updating the Design
Guide. For example, while the judiciary communicated with GSA regarding
comments GSA made on suggested revisions to the Design Guide in
February 2020, the judiciary did not convey to GSA whether or how it
had incorporated those comments. According to judiciary officials, they
did not follow up with GSA on how they had addressed GSA's feedback
because they did not have a process for communicating with stakeholders
to address their comments. In addition, the judiciary did not keep a
record of its final disposition of the comments, because officials did
not sufficiently monitor the transfer of information across the three
project managers who sequentially led efforts to update the Design
Guide.
Further, although the judiciary identified FPS as a key external
stakeholder in 2019 during the process of updating the Design Guide, it
did not solicit input from FPS. According to judiciary documentation
developed after the update to the 2021 Design Guide was complete,
officials did not involve FPS in the process because FPS is responsible
for the external security of courthouses, which does not include the
internal judiciary space to which the standards in the Design Guide
apply. This documentation stated that the judiciary had incorrectly
identified FPS as a stakeholder in 2019. FPS officials told us that the
Design Guide largely does not affect FPS and that they did not have
concerns with the 2007 Design Guide and subsequent changes.
However, the 2021 Design Guide states that the judiciary and
selected other agencies, including GSA and FPS, have federal courthouse
security responsibilities, and that security is essential to the basic
design of courthouses.\18\ Specifically, the Design Guide notes that
FPS is responsible for nonjudiciary spaces within the courthouse. It
also includes requirements related to FPS; for example, FPS is to
install closed-circuit video cameras that provide a clear view of each
exit of the courthouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In an April 2025 letter to congressional oversight and
appropriations committees, the judiciary cited its concerns with
funding in light of threats to the courts, including direct threats
against individual judges. Judicial Conference of the United States,
Letter to Congressional Committees (Apr. 10, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our October 2024 report, we recommended that the judiciary
develop and document a process to better ensure effective collaboration
when updating the Design Guide, including by engaging in two-way
communication with, and soliciting input from, all relevant
stakeholders. In May 2025, judiciary officials told us the judiciary
was conducting a review of collaboration and communication processes it
had previously used to identify areas of improvement. This
recommendation remains open.
The Judiciary Did Not Fully Address GSA's Concerns with Increases in
Circulation Requirements
GSA raised concerns about the judiciary's revised circulation
requirements in the 2021 Design Guide. Specifically:
GSA questioned the judiciary's basis for increasing
courthouse circulation requirements. An architectural firm the
judiciary contracted to assist with revisions to the 2007 Design Guide
recommended an increase in circulation requirements, in part, based on
a 2012 study that examined the judiciary's circulation space needs.\19\
GSA staff raised concerns that the 2012 study relied on a review of
completed courthouse projects that we previously found exceeded the
sizes authorized by Congress.\20\ GSA officials were unclear how the
contracted architectural firm reached its conclusions, as well as how
the judiciary determined the final 2021 circulation requirements in
relation to the 2012 study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Judiciary officials told us that, in making the decision to
increase circulation requirements, they relied on the assessment of the
2012 study by a separate architectural firm that had extensive federal,
state, and local courthouse design experience. The 2012 study was
undertaken for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts via a GSA
contract. Federal courthouses assessed within the study were completed
between 1995 and 2008.
\20\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning,
Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO-
10-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2010).

GSA raised concerns that the proposed changes to the
judiciary's circulation requirements would result in significant
increases in the overall size and cost of courthouse projects.
Specifically, GSA noted that the draft Design Guide's increased
circulation requirements would apply to all areas of courthouses,
including public circulation and shared common spaces whose functions
do not require increased circulation space. GSA officials stated that,
consequently, these circulation changes would increase the overall size
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and cost of courthouses.

In response to GSA's concerns, the judiciary adjusted some of the
circulation requirements to less than what the contractor initially
recommended. The judiciary also clarified that the revised circulation
requirements applied only to judiciary spaces accessible from
restricted or secured corridors. However, the judiciary did not take
steps to fully address GSA's concerns that the increased circulation
requirements would significantly increase the overall size and cost of
future courthouses. Further, the judiciary's preliminary cost estimates
of increasing the judiciary's circulation space under the 2021 Design
Guide did not include all potential costs for future courthouse
projects. Specifically, these estimates did not account for likely
increases to the overall courthouse size, operations, and maintenance
costs over the life of the courthouses, and the judiciary's rent
obligations.\21\ While judiciary officials acknowledged that the
increased circulation requirements would lead to higher costs, they
believed the circulation space and cost increases were necessary to
enhance the safety of judges and the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ We have previously reported that operations and maintenance
costs typically comprise 60 to 80 percent of total life cycle costs.
See GAO, Federal Buildings: More Consideration of Operations and
Maintenance Costs Could Better Inform the Design Excellence Program,
GAO-18-420 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2018.). GSA buildings are
typically built with a 100-year assumed life cycle. Federal agencies,
including the judiciary, that operate in facilities under the control
and custody of GSA pay rent to GSA for the space they occupy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, according to judiciary officials, architectural firms that
worked on past courthouse projects using the 2007 circulation
requirements reported that the circulation requirements for judiciary
space were too restrictive. However, judiciary officials were unable to
provide documentation of any architectural firm's challenges related to
the circulation requirements, or the number of firms and projects
affected. In addition, project stakeholders and courthouse occupants we
spoke with told us that courthouses built according to the 2007 Design
Guide generally met their circulation needs.
In our October 2024 report, we recommended that the judiciary, in
collaboration with GSA, reassess the need for increased circulation
requirements in the 2021 Design Guide, using relevant information. Such
an assessment should consider the space and cost modeling of recently
constructed courthouses discussed in that report, the perspectives of
project stakeholders and building occupants in these courthouses, the
cost implications for future rent obligations paid to GSA, and
operations and maintenance costs of judiciary space and overall
building space in future courthouses.
In May 2025, judiciary officials told us that the judiciary and GSA
had discussed our recommendation and were continuing to work to
identify an approach for reassessing the circulation requirements in
the 2021 Design Guide. This recommendation remains open.
Our modeling shows that the overall increase to judiciary space
caused by new circulation requirements will increase the overall future
courthouse size and cost. We believe that reassessing the need for
increased circulation requirements in the 2021 Design Guide using
relevant information--such as the perspectives of project stakeholders
and building occupants in recently constructed courthouses--will help
ensure that the judiciary and GSA develop functional and cost-effective
courthouses. This reassessment is especially important as GSA continues
to take steps to reduce the federal government's real property
footprint.
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman for your
testimony. The Chair now recognizes Judge Suddaby.
You are recognized for your testimony for 5 minutes, sir.

TESTIMONY OF HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DIS-
TRICT OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIR, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES

Judge Suddaby. Chairman Perry and Representative Friedman
and members of the subcommittee, I am Glenn Suddaby. I am a
U.S. district court judge in the northern district in New York,
and I am the Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on
Space and Facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today.
As this subcommittee considers the topic of Federal
courthouse design and construction, examining the cost to the
taxpayer, I want to assure you that the judiciary is also
thinking about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Federal courthouses play an instrumental role in allowing
the third branch to carry out its constitutional mission. Every
day in these buildings across the country, judges preside over
hearings, trials; litigants appear in courtrooms to present
their cases to juries; and the public is able to observe the
administration of justice.
Courthouses are unique buildings. They serve a vital and
distinct purpose to the communities in which they are located.
Accordingly, the judiciary plays particular importance on its
courthouse construction and facilities programs.
In recent years, the judiciary has used a number of tools
to manage its courthouse construction program in a cost-
efficient and effective manner, including a 3-percent space
reduction program, circuitwide policies to assure no net new
space growth, and a Capital Security Program, as well as
courtroom-sharing policies.
At the outset, it is important to note the judiciary space
is not like much of the executive branch. The Constitution and
statutes passed by Congress requires to have a presence and
hold court in hundreds of communities across this country to
ensure there is equal access to justice for all.
The vast majority of the courthouses are buildings that
have been in place for decades, many of which have deferred
maintenance liabilities. At the same time, the judiciary
acknowledges we are obligated to the efficient use of the space
we have. To that end, in 2013, the judiciary began its space
reduction program by setting out on a 5-year goal to reduce its
nationwide footprint by 3 percent. By 2018, the judiciary
surpassed that goal, reducing over 1.1 million rentable square
feet, which equated to an annual cost avoidance of $36 million
and a cumulative cost avoidance of over $100 million during
that time period.
Since the conclusion of that space reduction effort, the
judiciary has maintained a no net new policy, whereby any space
increase within a circuit must be met with corresponding and
equal space reduction in order to ensure the Federal judiciary
footprint does not grow. Courts today are still finding
innovative ways to do more with less, closing underused
nonresident courthouses and leveraging open office workspace
strategies to gain greater efficiencies.
The Judicial Conference has also developed its Capital
Security Program, which provides funding to address security
deficiencies in existing courthouses. Where physical
renovations are viable, the construction of new courthouses is
not needed or expected in the foreseeable future. The program's
goals include utilizing buildings and Government resources in a
cost-effective manner to address security deficiencies that put
the public and Government staff at risk, also providing lower
cost alternatives to higher cost capital investments. This
cost-effective program has reduced the need for new courthouses
in many locations across the country.
Since 2011, the judiciary has implemented three separate
courthouse-sharing policies. Courtroom sharing is required in
all new construction projects for senior, magistrate, and
bankruptcy court judges. The judiciary also requires sharing
policies to be followed when a court needs to build out
additional space in any existing facility as a result of newly
authorized judgeships.
An important tool in implementing our courthouse
construction program is the U.S. Courts Design Guide. The
Design Guide sets forth the judiciary's unique, essential
requirements for design, construction, and renovation of
facilities.
In March 2017, the Judicial Conference approved undertaking
a comprehensive review and revision of the existing Design
Guide--which was previously updated in 2007--as a result of a
number of new courthouse construction projects being completed.
It was determined that the previous Design Guide was outdated
in terms of industry standards and practices, and did not
reference critical Judicial Conference policies including
courtroom sharing. The updated Design Guide was incorporated by
the Judicial Conference, and these policies and standards were
incorporated.
The judiciary is evaluating addressing each of the
recommendations made by the 2024 GAO report, including
reassessing the need for increased circulation requirements and
collaborating with GSA on mutually acceptable methodologies.
As always, the judiciary looks forward to working together
with the subcommittee and its executive branch service partners
to design and construct courthouses that meet the branch's
unique needs and enable us to carry out our constitutional
mission.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I am
happy to answer any questions.
[Judge Suddaby's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, and Chair,
Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities

Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of the
Subcommittee:
Good morning, I am Glenn Suddaby, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York and chair of the
Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities. I am appearing
today by designation of the Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the
United States and on its behalf. I appreciate your invitation to appear
today to discuss the federal Judiciary's courthouse construction
program and U.S. Courts Design Guide.
As members of the Subcommittee know, federal courthouses play an
instrumental role in allowing the Third Branch to carry out its
constitutional mission. Every day in these buildings across the country
judges preside over hearings and trials; litigants appear in courtrooms
to present their cases to juries; and the public is able to observe the
administration of justice. In so many communities across the country,
these buildings are symbols of the federal government and our
democracy, and, accordingly, these buildings serve as visible reminders
of the government's commitment to upholding justice.
I say this not to overstate the role of the Judiciary in our
government, but to underscore the importance the federal Judiciary
places on its courthouse construction program. Simply put, courthouses
are unique buildings, and they serve a vital and distinct purpose to
the communities in which they are located.
The Judicial Conference last testified before this Subcommittee in
2016 after Congress had graciously appropriated $1 billion in fiscal
year (FY) 2016 for new courthouse construction. Since that time, many
of our fundamental policies and practices have remained consistent. One
example is our Asset Management Planning (AMP) process which was
adopted in 2008. The AMP process is used to identify and prioritize, on
an objective basis, the space and facilities needs of the federal
Judiciary. The AMP process is a ``good government'' measure that was
developed to: (1) achieve cost-containment goals; and (2) provide an
objective and consistently applied methodology for identification of
space needs, prioritization of those needs, and development of
solutions for all Judiciary buildings. By applying this methodology, we
ensure that only the most urgent project recommendations are approved
by the Judicial Conference.
To enhance long-range facilities planning, the AMP process
integrates costs, space needs, and functionality. AMP analysis is more
detailed and robust than was the previous long-range facilities
planning process--a process that was criticized by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and Congress. The AMP process assesses
facilities in a holistic and objective manner. It identifies space
alternatives and strategies, considers the costs and benefits of space
housing strategies, and thereby determines the best strategy to meet
the current and future needs of the court. Under the AMP process, each
district and circuit adopts a long-range facilities plan which entails
an evaluation of each courthouse location for urgency of space needs.
The AMP process evaluates the building condition and its security
needs. An Urgency Evaluation Results List is then developed each year,
placing each courthouse location in rank order. This objective ranking
reflects the urgency of the Judiciary's space needs.
Using this information, courthouse projects are prioritized and
transmitted to Congress in the Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project
Priorities list (CPP). The CPP is the Judiciary's planning instrument
that details its funding priorities for new courthouse construction
projects as approved by the Judicial Conference. The CPP is structured
in two parts. Part I lists the Judiciary's ``current year'' courthouse
construction priorities--projects for which the Judiciary will request
federal funding in its annual budget submission. The priority order of
all projects on Part I is maintained until a project has been fully
funded, at which point the funded project will be removed from Part I.
Part II of the CPP lists out-year courthouse construction priorities.
Each year, the priority of projects on Part II is reviewed and updated
based on the AMP calculated Urgency Evaluation rating for each
location, the addition of new locations, and the elevation of locations
from Part II to Part I of the CPP.
Since FY 2016, Congress has provided approximately $2.12 billion
for courthouse construction projects. This includes $1 billion for 10-
plus projects, the largest one-time appropriation ever made for
courthouse construction. In total, this has resulted in full funding
for 13 different courthouse construction or acquisition projects, and
partial funding for three others. Of those 13 fully funded projects,
nine have been delivered, and the remaining four should be completed in
the next two years. Working together with the General Services
Administration (GSA), the Judiciary has managed all of these projects
successfully, delivering state of the art facilities that meet the
needs of local courts and communities. The Judiciary works together
with GSA and other federal stakeholders to track the status of every
project; identify risks; develop a portfolio management plan;
participate on the National Courthouse Change Management Board (which
reviews and oversees potential changes that could impact scopes,
schedules, and budgets for each project); and execute communication
strategies that support transparent and timely sharing of information
with project stakeholders. The Judiciary is appreciative of the funding
to date and is hopeful Congress will continue to support this program
and provide additional resources to the projects that have received
partial funding as well as those projects identified on the Judiciary's
CPP that have not yet received funding.
In addition to the progress the Judiciary has made in managing the
funding provided for new courthouse construction projects, we have also
made great strides over the past decade in managing our existing space
portfolio. In 2013, the Judiciary set out on a five-year goal to reduce
its nationwide footprint by 3 percent. By 2018, the Judiciary surpassed
its goal, reducing over 1.1 million rentable square feet which equated
to an annual cost avoidance of $36 million and cumulative cost
avoidance of over $100 million during the time of space reduction.
Since the conclusion of that space reduction effort, the Judiciary has
maintained a No Net New policy, whereby any space increase within a
circuit must be met with a corresponding and equal space reduction.
Courts today are still finding innovative ways to do more with less--
closing underused non-resident courthouses and leveraging open office
workspace strategies to gain greater efficiencies.
Additionally, the Judicial Conference endorsed the Capital Security
Program (CSP) in 2010. The CSP provides funding to ameliorate security
deficiencies in existing courthouse buildings where physical
renovations are viable and the construction of a new courthouse is not
needed or expected in the foreseeable future. The CSP's goals include
utilizing existing building assets and government resources in a cost-
effective manner; addressing security deficiencies that put the public
and government staff at risk; and providing a lower cost alternative to
higher cost capital investments or even a new courthouse. Typical
improvements funded through the CSP include constructing secure and/or
restricted corridors; adding or reconfiguring elevators to provide
secure and/or restricted circulation; enclosing prisoner drop-off areas
to create sallyports; creating visual barriers for judges' parking
areas; and reconfiguring security screening areas. This cost-effective
program has reduced the need for new courthouses in many locations
across the country.
The Judicial Conference has also continued to implement three
separate courtroom sharing policies, as requested by this Subcommittee.
Currently, courtroom sharing is required in all new construction
projects for senior, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges. The Judiciary
also requires sharing policies to be followed when a court needs to
build out additional space in an existing facility as a result of a
newly authorized judgeship or because a judge has taken senior status.
Additionally, in response to direction given by both this Subcommittee
and recommendations from GAO, the Judicial Conference eliminated the
inclusion of projected new judgeship space needs from the project
requirements for new construction. These policies balance the
Judiciary's obligation to be good stewards of taxpayers' funds along
with our duty under the Constitution to provide access to justice and
ensure that cases are handled in a fair and expeditious manner.
An important tool in implementing our courthouse construction
program is the U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide). Appropriate
courthouse design must balance the need for secure and restricted
spaces with public access. At the same time, it must address a local
court's present space needs while incorporating opportunities for
future growth. Courthouse designs must accomplish these goals in a
thoughtful, effective, and cost-conscious manner to deliver buildings
that can serve communities for generations. These values are
prioritized in the Judicial Conference's management and oversight of
its courthouse construction program and the development, update, and
application of the Design Guide.
The Design Guide sets forth the Judiciary's unique and essential
requirements for the design, construction, and renovation of federal
court facilities. As noted above, the buildings are occupied daily by
federal judges and judiciary personnel, litigants from both the public
and private sector, federal law enforcement and security personnel, in-
custody defendants and other individuals who are appearing before the
local court, and members of the public. Because of the varied business
of the court, there is a need for a variety of different spaces and
supporting infrastructure in a federal courthouse. To this end, the
Design Guide is intended to be used by judges, court administrators,
architects, engineers, the United States Marshals Service (USMS), and
GSA personnel that are involved in federal court construction projects.
In March 2017, the Judicial Conference approved undertaking a
comprehensive review and revision of the existing Design Guide last
updated in 2007. Recent congressional funding at the time of nine new
courthouse construction projects highlighted the need to examine the
usefulness of the then-current Design Guide to all stakeholders to
glean best practices from the large influx of new courthouse projects.
It was determined that the 2007 Design Guide was outdated in terms of
industry standards and practices and did not reference critical
Judicial Conference policies including courtroom sharing or the
elimination of build-out space for projected judgeships, another policy
requested by this Subcommittee. The review and update would serve to
increase the clarity and ease of use of the Design Guide as well as the
Judicial Conference policies and industry standards and practices that
were missing.
This effort was a comprehensive, multi-year process that sought a
broad range of technical and practical expertise. The Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) established a working group of relevant
stakeholders within the Judiciary, including court personnel and judges
that had recently undertaken a significant new courthouse or alteration
project. The Judiciary also sought feedback from our external service
partners, GSA and USMS. This process was overseen entirely by the
Committee on Space and Facilities, and the Committee's approved
revisions were submitted into a draft 2021 Design Guide. At its March
2021 session, the Judicial Conference considered the recommendations of
the Committee and approved the 2021 Design Guide for publication.
Upon approval of the new Design Guide, the Judiciary informed all
stakeholders of the final product highlighting the significant changes
made to the previous Design Guide including incorporating all Judicial
Conference courtroom sharing policies and increasing design
flexibility. Additionally, the Design Guide was also posted on
USCourts.gov along with several videos informing stakeholders on
changes and how to use the document. Finally, the Judiciary began its
work on a Best Practices Guide, a companion document that demonstrates
the need for, and applicability of, the Design Guide by providing
examples of past projects, lessons learned, and case studies on how the
Design Guide may be implemented. This document was published in 2021.
In addition to this work, after the Judicial Conference approved the
updated Design Guide, the AO conferred with staff at the Office of
Management and Budget to explain significant changes to the updated
Design Guide and respond to staff inquiries.
At the time of its approval, the Judiciary intended for this Design
Guide to be applied to all projects that had not yet received federal
funding. Accordingly, the first new courthouse project where the new
Design Guide would apply is the project in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The
new courthouse projects in Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga,
Tennessee; and Hato Rey, Puerto Rico have all been designed using the
former 2007 Design Guide.
In its report on the development of, and standards put forth by,
the 2021 Design Guide, the GAO makes three recommendations. The
recommendations address: (1) the definition of a Design Guide
exception; (2) the Judiciary's collaboration with other federal
stakeholders; and (3) the new circulation factors incorporated into the
updated Design Guide. The Judiciary appreciates the time and careful
consideration that GAO has given to its review and is currently in the
process of addressing the recommendations.
With regard to the first recommendation on the definition of a
Design Guide exception, GAO reports that GSA officials have difficulty
finding information in the 2021 Design Guide about which changes
constitute exceptions. Previously, the Judiciary had published an
Exceptions Appendix, which listed specific exceptions to the standards
and planning assumptions, that was agreed to by both the Judiciary and
GSA. This document, however, was not updated after its publication and
quickly became outdated when considering updated practices and new
Judicial Conference policies. Moreover, the document actually created
confusion about which requests would qualify as an exception and the
level of approval that was necessary. Accordingly, in 2017, the
Judicial Conference approved eliminating the Exceptions Appendix and
reported that any item not identified in the program of requirements in
the Design Guide, would be an exception and require a certain level of
approval depending on the nature of the exception.
This approach to identifying exceptions, in the Judiciary's view,
has proved workable, and until the GAO report, the Judiciary was
unaware of GSA's critical commentary in this regard. Since the issuance
of GAO's report, the Judiciary has evaluated options for clarifying the
exceptions policy, including whether to add specific examples in the
Design Guide or a new Exceptions Appendix.
It should be noted that detailed information about exceptions and
the necessary approvals needed are included throughout the 2021 Design
Guide. Further, neither the criteria of what constitutes an exception
nor the process for review and approval of exceptions were changed from
the 2007 to the 2021 Design Guide. Regardless, the Judiciary is in the
process of developing a report which identifies all items from the
previous Exceptions Appendix, where the same items are found in the
2021 Design Guide, and what level of approval is required for each
exception. This report will be shared with GSA to ensure a mutual
understanding of Design Guide exceptions. Defining exceptions is
critical because not only must they be approved by the Judicial
Conference, but exceptions must be included in all GSA prospectuses
submitted to Congress for authorization for the project. I can assure
you that the Committee on Space and Facilities and the Judicial
Conference takes their consideration of exceptions very seriously due
to the implications of them for a project.
With respect to GAO's second recommendation regarding improved
collaboration, throughout the Judiciary's review process, the Branch
sought input from all relevant stakeholders, as referenced above,
including GSA. Indeed, during the revision process, the Judiciary
sought broad input from GSA at two separate times in 2018 and again in
2019. In response, GSA provided 560 comments--all of which the
Judiciary reviewed and addressed, including comments about Design Guide
exceptions and circulation factors. In 2020, GSA's Public Buildings
Commissioner, Daniel Mathews, and his staff met with the Chair of the
Space and Facilities Committee, Judge Jeffrey Helmick, and the Chair of
the Space Standards Subcommittee, Judge David Keesler, and AO staff to
discuss GSA's most significant comments related to the draft Design
Guide.
While good faith efforts were made to solicit, consider, and
incorporate comments from GSA, the Judiciary agrees more could have
been done with follow-up communications including improved
documentation on the resolution of all comments. This same improvement
can be made with the Branch's collaboration with our security partners
as well. The Judiciary believes it has already made progress on
addressing this recommendation with regard to our conversations with
GSA on Design Guide exceptions as detailed above. Certainly, we will
endeavor to do so in the future.
Finally, with respect to GAO's third recommendation for the
Judiciary to collaborate with GSA to reassess the need for increased
circulation requirements, the Judiciary has been collaborating with GSA
regarding a mutually acceptable methodology. As the Subcommittee knows,
a courthouse contains three distinct circulation paths: public,
restricted (for judges and court employees), and secure (for in-custody
persons and designated staff). For the safety of the public, judges,
and staff, all three circulation paths must remain separate, and only
intersect in a courtroom. The 2007 Design Guide used different
departmental circulation factors to help designers and GSA estimate the
necessary square footage for a given courthouse project. These
circulation factors increased the net square footage of a room to take
into account space for walls and the hallways and vestibules needed to
get to those spaces. Because the 2007 Design Guide and GSA used
different standards to plan for and measure space, the 2007 Design
Guide did not accurately account for the total circulation area needed.
As a result, the Judiciary reduced square footage in multiple projects
from other court areas to align the design of the courthouse with the
square footage included in the prospectus program. The increased
circulation factors in the 2021 Design Guide attempt to fix this
problem by better aligning with how GSA measures space during the
design phase of construction projects.
While GSA may disagree with the circulation information cited by
Judiciary experts, the Judiciary did consider feedback from all
stakeholders as noted above. Although GAO states that construction
costs will increase as a result of new circulation factors, the
Judiciary ultimately determined that the incurred costs are a necessary
and defensible expense so that federal courthouses are appropriately
sized to ensure the safety of the public, judges and court staff.
That being said, the Judiciary has committed to re-evaluating the
need for the circulation multipliers included in the 2021 Design Guide.
This review will include the potential impacts on safety and function
as well as future construction cost and size. The Judiciary will confer
with GSA and other stakeholders during this review.
Ultimately, the Judiciary looks forward to continuing to work
together with this Subcommittee and its executive branch service
partners to design and construct courthouses that meet the Branch's
unique needs and enable it to carry out its constitutional mission. In
the spirit of good stewardship, we will be working hard to deliver
these projects so that they meet all of the individual courts' needs,
and in an effective, cost-efficient manner befitting the trust that
Congress has placed in us by appropriating these needed funds.
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss our courthouse construction program and the U.S. Courts Design
Guide. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may
have.

Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the judge.
Mr. Peters, you are now recognized for your testimony for 5
minutes.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL PETERS, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRA-
TION

Mr. Peters. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
Friedman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My
name is Michael Peters, and I serve as Commissioner of the
Public Buildings Service at the U.S. General Services
Administration.
I accepted this position for two reasons: first, it enabled
me to fulfill a calling to public service I had not previously
answered; and second, it provides me with an opportunity to
contribute to addressing the unsustainable imbalance between
our Federal revenues and expenditures. I am honored to be
serving in this role, and grateful for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Federal courthouse
program.
Since stepping into this role in January, I have been
focused on realigning PBS with its core mission: delivering
efficient, cost-effective real estate solutions that support
Federal agencies and serve the American taxpayer.
Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian and I share a
fundamental belief with this committee: Taxpayers shouldn't pay
to keep the lights on when nobody is home. That is why we are
committed to identifying and shedding costly, underused space,
while investing in the assets that matter most. To date, we
have sold 19 Federal properties, avoiding $49 million in
deferred maintenance, and initiated the termination of nearly
600 vacant or underused leases, saving $298 million in future
obligations. My strategy centers on focusing limited capital on
core, mission-critical facilities like courthouses, while
leveraging the private sector where appropriate.
PBS partners closely with the Federal judiciary to deliver
courthouse projects that meet evolving security and operational
needs. Since 2016, we have completed 10 major courthouse
projects, with more underway, totaling over $2 billion in
investment. We have also made significant progress under the
courthouse security program.
However, these gains haven't come without challenges. GSA
currently faces over $24 billion in deferred maintenance needs,
$8.3 billion of which is tied to courthouses alone.
Prioritization is essential, and we must continue to ensure
that every courthouse project approved by Congress delivers on
time, on budget, and aligned with judicial needs.
In closing, GSA is dedicated to rightsizing the Federal
real estate portfolio, reducing liabilities, and investing
where it matters most. I am proud of the progress we are
making, and I look forward to working with you to deliver on
this mission.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[Mr. Peters' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, U.S. General Services Administration

Introduction:

Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Michael Peters,
and I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service (``PBS'') at
the U.S. General Services Administration (``GSA''). I appreciate the
Committee's invitation to appear before you today to discuss the
Federal courthouse program.
I am honored to have been appointed as Commissioner of PBS this
January, and I am excited about the opportunity to serve in alignment
with the Trump-Vance Administration to return GSA to its founding
mission of streamlining Federal operations, consolidating resources and
efficiently providing essential services for American taxpayers.
Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian and I agree with Chairman
Perry, taxpayers should not be paying to keep the lights on when nobody
is home. That is why we aim to responsibly steward taxpayer resources
by identifying underutilized and costly infrastructure for the public
we serve.
We are not just shrinking our footprint but creating a smarter,
more agile real estate portfolio. By efficiently delivering our agency
partners the space needed to effectively accomplish their missions, we
are maximizing taxpayer value.
In my time as Commissioner, GSA has sold 19 federal properties,
avoiding $49 million in deferred maintenance costs and initiated the
termination of 595 vacant or underutilized leases, eliminating $298
million in future lease obligations.
Today, I am prepared to discuss PBS's collaboration and partnership
with the Federal Judiciary and our ongoing work to execute projects
that meet the Judiciary's critical mission requirements.

PBS Strategy--A New Approach

In order to accomplish the goals of this Administration, I would
also like to take a moment to discuss my strategy and approach to
managing PBS's real estate portfolio in the best interest of the
taxpayer.
Generally, I believe that more specialized space, such as
courthouses, land ports of entry and certain law enforcement facilities
should be Federally owned, and that is where PBS should use its limited
appropriation funding to address critical deferred maintenance
liabilities.
GSA can no longer afford to effectively maintain all of the
federally owned assets it currently manages, which is why I am laser
focused on investing in our core assets, such as courthouses and other
types of specialized space, and identifying office facilities for
disposition where the government could lease replacement space from the
private sector cost-effectively. In fact, since FY2011, GSA has
requested approximately $19 billion for Repair and Alteration funding
to maintain our current inventory of assets, but Congress has only
appropriated approximately $9.5 billion during that time, representing
a reduction of 50% from the requested level. These funding constraints
have significantly limited GSA's ability to maintain its portfolio and
led to the exponential growth in Repair and Alteration liabilities for
GSA's federally owned portfolio, which now total more than $24.4
billion, with more than $8.3 billion of those liabilities associated
with courthouses. Those figures represent a 536% growth in liabilities.
Downsizing the portfolio, with a focus on assets with substantial
deferred maintenance, will enable GSA to more effectively deploy the
available capital over a smaller footprint.

Courthouse Program

The Federal courthouse construction program is administered jointly
by the Federal Judiciary and GSA. GSA works with the Federal Judiciary
to propose projects for funding and seek approval of those funds from
Congress. While the Judiciary establishes its priorities for courthouse
construction projects and sets forth housing requirements for each
project, GSA works in tandem to ensure that projects meet the needs of
the Judiciary and are consistent with the Federal Judiciary Courthouse
Project Priorities.
Courthouses are proposed in order of priority by the Judiciary and
funding is requested in that priority order, including feasibility
studies. GSA's role is to administer consistent, cost-effective
delivery of the U.S. courthouse program according to the Courts'
national prioritization plan and driven by the Judicial Conference on
Space and Facilities.
GSA also develops the plans for these projects, including the
identification of any U.S. Courts Design Guide exceptions approved by
the Judiciary, and identification of the strategy for the courthouse
facilities being replaced.

Achievements and Opportunities

With regard to delivery of the program, I would like to point out
several key recent achievements as we work to deliver both new
courthouses and repair and alterations projects on schedule and on
budget, within the parameters established by the prospectuses GSA
submits and the resolutions approved by this Committee.
Since Fiscal Year 2016, GSA has delivered ten projects associated
with the new courthouse program, with five additional projects in
construction, and three additional projects in the design phase. Those
eighteen projects, across fifteen cities, total approximately $2.12
billion. GSA is also coordinating with the Judiciary to deliver the
Courthouse Security Program, and since Fiscal Year 2012, there have
been eight projects completed, five in construction, and two more in
design.
Recently, PBS-GSA announced the sale of the Gus J. Solomon U.S.
Courthouse. By including the Solomon courthouse in President Trump's
strategy to optimize the government's real estate portfolio, GSA will
avoid over $76 million in potential capital expenditures to modernize
the vacant 90-year-old building for continued office use.
The potential for adaptive reuse by the private sector is
exceptional.
The results of our efforts are notable, exhibited in our project
delivery outcomes and provide a solid foundation to grow on into the
future.

Challenges

These efforts were not realized without their fair share of
challenges. As mentioned before, GSA's goal is simply to ensure that
any courthouse project funded and approved by Congress is completed in
support of the mission to our federal customer Agencies.
We will continue our efforts to deliver courthouses on time and on
budget with the funding already provided by Congress; however, moving
forward will require working with our judiciary partners and Congress
on how to best ensure a balanced allocation of resources.
As I previously mentioned, current estimates equal approximately
$24 billion in liability for GSA's federally owned portfolio: a
portfolio that also averages over 50 years of age. And while this
number is steadily growing, priorities identified by the Judiciary must
also compete for limited funding across GSA's owned portfolio.
A few examples of repair and alterations projects competing for
limited future funding:

In Pennsylvania at the James A. Byrne Courthouse in
Philadelphia, this core asset requires upgrades to the heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which includes
comprehensive replacement of obsolete air handling units and
degraded ductwork, and the installation of enhanced controls
and related electrical and life-safety upgrades. The current
estimated cost of this investment is $87.4M.

Also in Pennsylvania, the Joseph F. Weis, Jr. U.S. Courthouse
in Pittsburgh, which is another core asset, requires
replacement of the HVAC system, associated electrical systems,
and a section of the roof, as well as a lightning protection
and fall arrest system. The current estimated cost of this
investment is $44.9M.

Conclusion

In conclusion, GSA requires both funding and prospectus approval to
deliver high-quality space on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. The need
for funding, a more streamlined prospectus process, as well as expanded
authorities to drive the identification and preparation of assets for
disposition are a few of the tools that would allow GSA to reduce the
size of the Federal inventory, address deferred maintenance and operate
more efficiently in this challenging environment.
I am very proud of the work that we are doing to help return GSA to
its founding mission drafted over 75 years ago--a mission designed to
help customer agencies achieve their missions through cost-effective
real estate investments.
I look forward to partnering with you to address these key
priorities in the 119th Congress and to drive cost efficiency in
Federal real estate. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman and all our
witnesses. Thank you for your testimony. We will now turn to
questions.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Ms. Friedman,
for her questions.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Peters, thank you again for being here today.
The Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, provided GSA with
$3.4 billion for building renovations and improvements; $975
million to support the emerging and sustainable technologies;
$2.15 billion for low-embodied carbon materials in construction
and renovation projects; and $250 million to turn GSA
facilities into high-performance green buildings.
GSA identified 164 projects to be supported with the IRA
funding: 42 Federal courthouses; 69 Federal buildings; and 53
land points of entry. These projects include modernizing
buildings, replacing windows, repairing building facades,
making deep energy retrofits, installing stormwater management
technology, stabilizing garages and foundations, resurfacing
parking lots, and replacing windows and lighting. And to be
clear, a lot of these kinds of upgrades also make buildings run
more efficiently and make them less expensive to operate in the
long run. So, there are a lot of good reasons to do this work.
What is the status of the courthouse modernization projects
that GSA identified as good candidates for IRA funding? And I
will also ask a second question; you can answer them both at
once.
Will GSA move forward with the projects for which funding
has not yet been obligated?
Mr. Peters. Thank you for the question.
So, we have done an assessment, in conjunction with the
work here, and we are continuing to utilize IRA funds, both for
LPOE projects and for courthouse projects.
The requirement we have is that we must comply with the
legislation and the law, but we need to find cost-effective
alternatives. So, if there is a situation--you mentioned low-
embodied carbon--where a low-embodied carbon solution was
prohibitively expensive relative to a more standard solution,
we wouldn't proceed with the IRA funding in that case. But to
date, we have been able to utilize IRA funding and have
actually over $1 billion of funding we look forward to
utilizing moving forward for LPOEs and for courthouses.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much.
So, GSA's approach to reducing waste and construction costs
has included a focus on energy efficiency in both existing
Federal buildings and new construction. This has been the case
for the past 30 years, through both Democratic and Republican
Presidents and leadership. These projects are--like I
mentioned--often undertaken as energy savings performance
contracts, where the Federal funds are leveraged to attract
private investment.
Does GSA currently have any energy savings performance
contracts in Federal courthouses?
And how is GSA's contracting freeze impacting these
projects?
Mr. Peters. So, we do continue to utilize ESPCs. We have
scrutinized and evaluated them on a case-by-case basis. I think
your assessment is accurate that, in many cases in the past, we
have been able to employ technology--you can call it green
technology, you can call it energy-saving technology, whatever
it is--we want to deliver the most value to taxpayers that we
can, so we are not opposed to saving money.
Now, we are opposed, if there is a low-cost alternative--
perhaps natural gas that is the low-cost solution--we don't
want to feel like we are obligated to put a solar panel on a
roof if we have a lower cost solution for securing energy. But
we are not prohibiting any type of energy sources in our
projects going forward.
I can't speak--I would be happy to get back to you on
ESPCs, and courthouses in particular. We are certainly using
ESPCs across the portfolio, though.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you. I will move now to Judge Suddaby.
Thanks again for being here.
The judiciary has cited the need for heightened security at
courthouses as a reason for revisiting the 2007 Design Guide.
Obviously, we want everyone to be safe and secure in
courthouses. Given ongoing security concerns, why did the
judiciary not include the Federal Protective Service in the
process of revising the design guideline?
Judge Suddaby. Thank you for the question.
We participated with our stakeholders, GSA, the Marshals
Service, and FPS. FPS was consulted. FPS took the position that
they weren't really involved in the Design Guide, they were
responsible for the exterior of the courthouses, the courthouse
proper, the properties. And certainly, going forward with any
courthouse construction, we are going to be consulting with FPS
to say, ``Where do you want to put cameras? How do you envision
courthouse hardening projects?'' to make sure that that
building is secure.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you.
Mr. Marroni, in 2013, GAO cited gross overestimates by the
judiciary of projected additional judgeships, a refusal to
share courtrooms, and courthouses constructed by the GSA that
far exceed the congressionally approved square footage as
reasons for the overruns.
So, my question is, how has the implementation of
courtroom-sharing requirements for bankruptcy, magistrate, and
senior district judges impacted the judiciary's courthouse
construction requests?
Mr. Marroni. So, certainly, when you use courtroom sharing,
it reduces the number of courtrooms you need to build in
courthouses. So, that is going to have a positive effect on
reducing the cost of construction. Courtroom sharing is a great
way to maximize the utilization of your space.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the Representative, gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning.
I guess I am going to start with Mr. Marroni here.
Your most recent report said that the changes to the 2021
Design Guide result in significant size and cost of future
courthouses. And it seems to me--like, I think, if nothing
else, we ought to just maybe question this process as the
beginning here. You are working with the Conference Committee
on Space and Facilities which Judge Suddaby, I guess, chairs.
Do you see this as the appropriate methodology for determining
what courthouses should be?
I understand I am not a judge, so I am not in the chambers,
I don't know what the needs are. I suspect you're not, either,
so we would design a building differently. So we want that
input, but is--are we asking the people to provide the input--
are those the very people that are going to say, well, you need
this and you don't need that? With all due respect, I mean, I
would assume that they would advocate for the best for
themselves--we all would--but is that the best for the
taxpayer, and is that the most efficient and best way to do
this, in your estimation, based on what you have seen?
Mr. Marroni. So, I think it is important that judiciary
establishes the requirements. As you say, they know best their
needs. But I think, as part of that, it is important that they
collaborate with GSA, with their partners, to get a sense of
the real-world implications of this.
I also think getting congressional oversight and other
independent means to look at these Design Guide changes like we
have done in this 2024 report is important because, yes, as--
anyone, when you are looking at your needs, you are going to
know what you need, but you are also--maybe you go for a little
more than perhaps an independent observer would think you would
need. So, having an independent source to look at it is
important.
Mr. Perry. So, just to follow that line of reasoning, that
line of thought, who is the arbitrator? Who is the arbiter? Who
is the honest broker--not to say that anybody is dishonest, but
is it Congress? Is it this committee that provides all the
oversight to what the--who else would it be? Who is it? Is it
you?
Mr. Marroni. It is not us. The primary oversight would be
Congress, through the authorization process, as well as through
the appropriations process. Judiciary, as a branch of
Government, is setting its own requirements there----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Okay, so----
Mr. Marroni [continuing]. We certainly can help by
providing reports, but we are not the primary.
Mr. Perry. So, that having been said, in my opening
statement, I mentioned the fact that the courthouse project
assigned security 10 percent of the weighted score, while the
courtroom and chamber needs make up 50 percent. Who determines
that makeup, is it Judge Suddaby's group or--who--is it
Congress? Who determines that?
Because the claim is that this is all for security and
safety, and I think we are all for that, whether you are a
Democrat or Republican, but it clearly indicates that there are
other forces that seem to take precedent over safety and
security. The question is, who determines what that breakout is
supposed to be?
Mr. Marroni. So, I believe judiciary sets their
requirements for the security and the other requirements for
the courthouse.
Mr. Perry. Does that not seem at least a little bit like
the fox guarding the henhouse?
Mr. Marroni. Well, I think it's a starting point to design.
You need the customer to decide what the requirements are, but
you do need some oversight of what's coming out of that.
Mr. Perry. So, let me ask you this. We have got the 2021
Design Guide, but we have also got the 2007 Design Guide. The
committee has been informed that the courthouse in San Juan,
Puerto Rico, would be designed to the 2007 standards, but may
include elements from the 2021 standards. Those are the very
elements that your organization, the GAO, claimed would
increase cost and size.
Why do we have two standards, and which one are we
following, and why are we following--what is happening here?
Mr. Marroni. So, my understanding there--and Judge Suddaby
can correct me--but my understanding is they are using the 2007
Design Guide and then incorporating cost-neutral elements from
the 2021 guide, so, not circulation we are describing, they are
including the cost-neutral elements. But Judge Suddaby may be
able to----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Okay, Judge, what do you say to
that?
Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that the
judiciary is not tone deaf with regard to your concerns.
Now, based on criticism from GAO and this committee, we had
a 5-year plan which was halted. And we went to the asset
management program to rightsize courthouses, and we continue to
do that. And we look for every opportunity to downsize courts.
We are not looking to build bigger, more elaborate courthouses.
We are trying to build secure courthouses that will last the
cycle that GSA sets with 100-year building cycle.
So, these things that--the 2007 Design Guide was in effect
when Puerto Rico was authorized to go forward with their new
construction based on their seismic retrofit concerns and the
building being unsafe, therefore, the 2007 guide would be used.
There have been no courthouses constructed or even designed
under the 2021 Design Guide.
So, cost-neutral things that can occur to improve the
design and circulation patterns of that courthouse in Puerto
Rico, that will be done as long as it is cost-neutral.
Mr. Perry. Okay, thank you. My time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes the Representative from Washington, DC, the
Honorable Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support policies like the Courthouse Affordability and
Space Efficiency Act that ensure cost-effectiveness and space
efficiency, and require courtroom sharing. This subcommittee,
including when I was chair, has worked over the past two
decades to prevent Federal courthouse overbuilding and to save
taxpayer dollars.
The judiciary has a history of providing flawed projections
for future courthouses, which has led to underutilized
courtrooms across the Nation. This is why the Public Buildings
Service must collaborate with the Judicial Conference on space
efficiencies.
Commissioner Peters, how does this administration plan to
collaborate with the judiciary to effectively manage the design
and construction of courthouse projects and implement
courtroom-sharing policies?
Mr. Peters. Thank you for the question, Representative
Norton. That is a great question.
One of the things that I was really surprised by when I
first assumed this role was the lack of data we had not just
about courtroom utilization, but really about utilization of
Federal properties across our entire portfolio. One of the
benefits that I had going for me was that, through the WRDA
legislation which was passed, we were instructed to work with
OMB to begin developing occupancy data across the portfolio.
Actually, yesterday--last night, late last night, that data
just started coming in, and that will really inform our
decisionmaking on a go-forward basis across the Federal
portfolio of which assets to dispose of and where to
consolidate.
With respect to the courts, we're really lacking in that
type of data and don't have a good understanding of occupancy,
going forward. The bills you referenced do call for--to begin
developing utilization data in the courthouses, and I think
that would be important data for all of us. But the courts,
Congress, and us at GSA to identify where there are
opportunities to increase utilization, where we have shortfalls
and might need to consider adding additional space or adding
additional courts.
In terms of the courts' actual utilization of their
facilities, that is really outside of GSA's control. That is a
matter for the courts to assess. I would say it is our
collective duty and Congress', for sure, to determine how to
allocate the very scarce capital we have in an environment
where we have almost $37 trillion in debt. We don't have a lot
of excess funds. We don't even have enough funds to address the
$8\1/2\ billion of deferred maintenance within the portfolio.
So we need to be very judicious in building new courthouses
and making certain that, when we do so, it is because there is
a true need there, and putting a close eye to that.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Marroni, what steps can Congress take to work with the
Public Buildings Service and the judiciary to ensure smart
asset management for courthouses?
Mr. Marroni. I think Congress needs to do things like this,
these kind of hearings, ask tough questions during both the
prospectus process and during appropriations to understand the
basis for requests for funding for courthouse projects and have
that independent look.
Ms. Norton. Justice Suddaby, how can Members of Congress be
assured that the planning of new courthouses is consistent with
the actual needs of the judiciary?
Judge Suddaby. The new courthouse AMP program, where we
evaluate every year the needs for every court across this
country--and it is called an urgency evaluation--to consider
the courts' needs with regard to space, number of judges,
number of courtrooms, number of chambers, as well as security
concerns, all that is weighed and they are ranked. And we act
on the ones that are most urgent at that time.
We have a courthouse priorities list that--all of this came
out of the stop work order by Congress with regard to
courthouses on the 5-year plan, and reassessing how we looked
at planning and constructing new courthouses.
With regard to the overbuilding, again, the judiciary heard
this committee and GAO's concerns, and projected judgeships are
no longer part of the calculation that is done with regard to
determining whether courthouses--the size of courthouses and
how they are built. There is a 10-year window that we look at.
If there are senior judges or judges who are active judges that
are looking at taking senior within that 10-year period, the
courthouse is appropriately built for that future expansion,
but nothing else.
So there are a number of things that the court does,
continuing to look at our portfolio and make sure only the most
urgent courts across the country are going to percolate up to
the top of that list to get consideration, and we do that in
conjunction with GSA to make sure that we are doing things
appropriately. And, of course, they come to Congress with a
prospectus. And all of this is put through the Space and
Facilities Committee and the Judicial Conference for approval
before it comes here to you for your appropriation approvals.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now
turns to Representative Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and apologies for not
being here for your opening remarks, I was on my way across.
But I did have a few questions for you, so if you have
already answered them, please bear with me.
I know we have talked a lot about courtroom sharing, and
what effect that has on overbuilding or building to rightsize
or the appropriate size of a courtroom. Can you give us any--
either of you that have had insight into this, has there been
any look at what percent of the time a courtroom is in use
versus time that it is essentially dormant and not in use and
could help facilitate that courtroom sharing?
Judge Suddaby. I am happy to take the question.
Courtroom sharing has been in place now since 2009 for both
magistrate judges and senior judges, and then bankruptcy court
judges since 2011. Any construction that goes forward includes
those requirements.
Mr. Barrett. Right.
Judge Suddaby. And any buildout in an existing courthouse
includes those elements.
Now, the courtrooms----
Mr. Barrett [interrupting]. We have got a lot of legacy
courtrooms that aren't under that condition, right? Because
they haven't been built or updated since then. And if we look--
and not to interrupt you or cut you off, but if we look
retrospectively, do we do any analysis of what percent of the
time--and this is just an oversimplification of my own, kind
of, understanding of this, is that most cases end up not going
to a full trial, with a jury and everything else.
I am sure the courtrooms are used for other proceedings
along the way, but the--like the stuff you see on ``Law &
Order'' is less likely to happen in real life with dramatic
jury trials and everything else, thereby probably offloading
some of the need for courtrooms that are fairly dormant most of
the time. Is that accurate?
Judge Suddaby. I would say it's not accurate.
Mr. Barrett. Okay.
Judge Suddaby. There is a reason for judges having access
to courtrooms, and that is an important tool to get their
docket or their cases moved. They have to handle emergency
motions, they have to do trials that require Speedy Trial Act
concerns. And active district court judges in this country are
among the most busy judges in this Nation, and they have to
have a courtroom accessible to them.
Now, is that courtroom used every day, 8 o'clock to 5
o'clock in the afternoon? No, not always. It depends on what's
going on. But certainly, that access and the ability to be in
there is what gives them the ability to do their jobs. And the
courtroom-sharing policies that the Judicial Conference
continues to look at and refine consider these things, and we
work on them consistently to make sure that we are sharing
where appropriate, but making sure that judges have courtrooms
to do their work.
Mr. Barrett. And I think, if you look at some of how we do
our work here, I mean, this committee hearing room is used for
the full committee, it is used for each of the subcommittees,
we share this space, and if you were to look at our committee
today, there are fewer Members than the full committee, and you
would say maybe we are overbuilt in this room. But when the
full committee is assembled and we are doing a markup,
obviously, we are rightsized for that situation.
I just want to make sure that what we are doing is the
appropriate use of resources that we have, and the escalation
dramatically of building costs over time has made it such that
we have to be far more mindful about the capital expense of
things, everything from building materials to labor to siting
approval to engineering design. All of that has become far more
expensive over time, and it ends up coming out of, certainly,
the appropriations that come from the Congress.
Another question I had for you, do we own every Federal
courthouse? Does the Federal Government own, or do we rent any
space currently?
Judge Suddaby. There are some leased courthouses.
Mr. Barrett. Okay.
Judge Suddaby. And that is a decision that is made in
conjunction with GSA, that it is more cost-efficient and
effective and timely to build--or have a lease-build done in a
particular area, a lot of times often rural or remote regions
of the country, where constructing a Federal building just does
not make good economic sense. So there are a few leased
buildings. And, of course, we have other leases for different
court units. Probation and pretrial services often are in
leased spaces. Federal defenders' offices are typically in
leased spaces.
Mr. Barrett. Okay, thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Figures.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the
witnesses for being here today, and thank you to your
respective teams for getting you guys prepared here. I don't
know if a law clerk--when I was a law clerk, congressional
testimony preparation wasn't exactly within the job
description, so I want to give a special thanks to you guys.
Judge Suddaby, I want to start with you. Can you just talk
about and highlight the importance--I have been a Federal law
clerk myself, I worked at the Department of Justice--can you
talk about the importance in all of this to making sure that
prioritizing judicial security remains the, sort of, North Star
in all of these design changes and all of the construction
assessments that we are doing, that we don't lose sight of the
ball of making sure that we are asking our judges and our court
personnel and officers and witnesses and all of those who are
participating in courthouse proceedings, that they are in as
safe as possible position that they can possibly be?
Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you. The Design Guide revision
was--a lot of the impetus for that was on that particular
concern: security. And it is a major concern in all
construction.
The three pathways of circulation: secure for in-custody
persons in law enforcement, the Marshals Service transporting
people into our courts; restricted areas for judges and staff;
and obviously, the open public corridors--in many of our older
courthouses, those pathways do not exist. These are from
lessons learned, things like building sally ports for the
appropriate transportation and security of in-custody persons,
secure parking, all of these things are incorporated in the
Design Guide. And, again, we worked cooperatively with GSA to
make sure those issues are addressed.
One of the things that drove the size concerns of GAO--and
we thank them for their analysis--is making sure that those
corridors existed and didn't impinge on the other areas of the
courthouse design. So, certainly, again, it is not our
intention to build bigger or more opulent courthouses. Secure,
efficient courthouses that will stand for decades and allow for
reasonable growth without overbuilding is what we are
attempting to do.
Mr. Figures. And I want to shift focus a little bit to our
more rural areas, satellite offices as they are commonly
referred to. I come from Alabama. Mobile and Montgomery are
both respective, sort of, judicial district seats, Montgomery
being the middle district, Mobile being the southern district.
They both have satellite offices. And those satellite offices
historically--as I am sure you can relate to, Judge--they have
historically been the red-headed stepchild when it comes to
investments in terms of construction, redesign, upgrades,
renovations, that sort of thing.
So, as we go through this process, can you talk to me--Mr.
Peters, I will direct this one to you, but anyone who wants to
take a stab at it--of what we can do to prioritize making sure
that those satellite offices don't fall behind the curve in
this and don't get unnecessarily cut.
Mr. Peters. I appreciate the question. I actually was born
in Alabama many moons ago.
Mr. Figures. Well, here is the question: Roll Tide or War
Eagle?
Mr. Peters. Well, I grew up in Florida.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Figures. There is only one right answer.
Mr. Peters. There is no good answer there, so--but that is
a great question.
I mean, we have a great partnership with the courts and
work with them. I have met with Judge Suddaby on more than one
occasion before this, and they really set the priority in terms
of which projects get prioritization, both for new construction
as well as dealing with deferred maintenance in our facilities.
And you are right, there are a lot of courthouses,
particularly some of these stepchildren, but even here within
the District, that are neglected, right? Of our $24 billion in
deferred maintenance across GSA, over $8 billion of that is
just within the courts. And those are--they are not nice-to-
haves, they are critical needs that need to be addressed, and
we are working with you to deal with that. So----
Mr. Figures [interrupting]. Right. And I don't want to cut
you off, I've got one more----
Mr. Peters [interposing]. Go ahead.
Mr. Figures [continuing]. Question I want to squeeze in.
Throughout the DOGE process, there were numerous Federal
facilities that were listed for sale, Federal property that was
listed for sale, and in some cases, this was shared space
between Federal courthouses and maybe a nonjudicial space. Were
any of you guys consulted in your roles with any of the
proposed cuts?
And the reason I ask this is because there was courthouse
space in one of my areas that was very valuable and vital
parking that, without it--they don't build parking decks
underground in Mobile, Alabama, for hurricanes and sea-level
issues--without it, employees will be in a tough spot.
So, A, I want to work with you guys to hopefully try to
resolve those issues; but B, I just want to know if any of you
guys were consulted in the, sort of, listing of Federal
property as it related to shared space with Federal courts
throughout the DOGE process.
Mr. Peters. If you don't mind, I will answer that first,
and then I will let the judge comment.
The list that we published initially was--there were two
purposes. Primarily, it was to identify core assets which we
view as, basically, untouchable assets. They should be owned by
the Federal Government in perpetuity. There were other assets
that didn't fall under that category that got listed as
noncore. Probably not the best name. That was not meant to
imply that those assets are for sale or that we are trying to
market them, it was meant to imply that we want to evaluate
them and assess their importance to the Federal Government
based on how utilized they are, what level of deferred
maintenance is in them currently, could the existing tenants be
moved into another facility. So, probably poor communication on
our part.
I will say that the policy we have in place now, whether it
relates to a potential lease termination or disposing of a
building, is to first identify it, then contact the agency for
which it would be relevant to get their input on that decision.
If the agency is in agreement--in this case, the courts--that,
hey, this is an asset we could dispose of, then to reach out to
Congress and the relevant Members of the House and the Senate
to make certain that they are aware before we take any action.
But we probably did move a little too quickly in our first
month here, and we have changed our procedures at this point.
Mr. Figures. Thank you. I am well over my time. I
appreciate it, Chair.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Onder.
Dr. Onder. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Peters--and again, I apologize, excuse me if any of my
questions have been asked previously--but what tools does the
GSA have to push back when the judiciary proposes a building
project, a courthouse that appears to be oversized or
misaligned with the actual usage? What tools are at your
disposal, and what's usually the outcome?
Mr. Peters. Yes, so I guess, as I mentioned earlier, I
think we really have been developing a collaborative
relationship with the judiciary--but it's in the context of
what we spoke of earlier, massive Federal debt, tight budget.
We just have limited funds.
Many of these projects are clearly useful, not just within
judiciary, elsewhere. But just because it's useful doesn't mean
we can afford it. And----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Peters [continuing]. So, what we are working to do is
to develop a better process of assessing need, and I think we
would like to work collaboratively with the judiciary and
Congress on--one of the things that was mentioned earlier is
utilization. Because right now, we are gathering that data
outside of the judiciary, but we don't have it collectively. If
they have it, I am unaware of it. Just think about, like, how
often are these courtrooms occupied? And I don't know what the
ultimate standard should be, but let's work together to assess
that so that we can make informed decisions about where do we
spend our limited capital dollars either improving and
upgrading an existing facility or investing in it, in a new
courthouse.
But our tools are really--we are kind of instructed what to
build, and Congress appropriates the funds and says, ``Go build
this courthouse,'' and then we try to do that as cost-
effectively as we can. But we don't ultimately determine the
design standards.
Dr. Onder. Right. So, yes, you touched on something I did
want to ask. Does the GSA verify whether the new courthouses
are actually being fully utilized once they are built?
Mr. Peters. So, I have to admit we do not.
Dr. Onder. Yes.
Mr. Peters. I--that--at least historically, that has not
been our role.
Like I say, I would welcome the opportunity to work
together to determine how utilized they are----
Dr. Onder [interposing]. Sure.
Mr. Peters [continuing]. To determine how necessary they
are.
Dr. Onder. And Judge, do you care to comment?
Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you.
Well, any part of the Design Guide that would deviate, any
construction deviation, would have to be approved by the
Judicial Conference, and then it would have to go through the
process as an exception with GSA. They would then have to
include it in the prospectus that would be sent over here for
congressional approval. So, to say that we are looking at
overbuilding or doing extravagant things, that is not what this
is about. And that's not what we are doing.
As far as courtroom usage, there is a separate Judicial
Conference committee, the CACM Committee, Court Administration
and Case Management, that has been looking and analyzing this
issue for a number of years which led, in conjunction with
feedback from this subcommittee, to courtroom sharing that we
have now.
The determination about the way courtrooms are used by
active district court judges, as I indicated previously, we use
our space differently. And the fact that a courtroom may be
empty for a period of time does not mean that that courtroom is
not being put to use by a judge moving his docket, settling
cases, being ready to handle emergency motions, or anything
else.
So, those types of decisions the Judicial Conference makes
by informed information coming back from the judges across the
country.
Dr. Onder. Okay, very good.
And Mr. Marroni, the GAO found that many courthouses are
underutilized, with more space than needed. Has there been any
measurable improvement since your last audit?
And are there any reforms you would recommend to rein in
courthouse proposals that you might deem oversized?
Mr. Marroni. So, our last look at this was in 2010, so,
quite some time ago. I don't have current data on the
utilization.
I do think the adoption of courtroom sharing has been an
important step. I think that is worth looking further at. And I
do agree with Commissioner Peters. The extent that there can be
data, it sounds like judiciary may have some of that data to
look at--how are these spaces being used, could there be more
courtroom sharing, are there methods to increase utilization--
is worthwhile.
Dr. Onder. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Missouri.
Are there any further questions?
Looking around the room, I apologize. The change in
schedule, unfortunately, oftentimes results in--we have other
things that are layered on top of these hearings, and I would
like to have the luxury of other Members being here to ask more
questions, but we simply don't have them, because I am sure
they are busy doing other things that comport with their
schedule before it was kind of upended this morning.
I do have one, kind of, final question as an overall theme
here regarding utilization--occupancy, if you will, or
utilization maybe is the better term. Who is collecting that
information right now? Is there any ongoing collection?
And I imagine, differently from some other Federal
facility, where we are looking for occupancy, it seems to me
that the court has a very unique circumstance where they might
have a competing interest in the same room, or something like
that, so we would have to identify that as a specific category
to capture. But is anyone doing that? Who should be doing it?
Who is best suited to do it?
Judge Suddaby. It is being done, and it's done by the
Judicial Conference committee that I just mentioned. We refer
to it as CACM. And the recommendations of this subcommittee to
the judiciary led to courtroom sharing in the areas that we
thought were appropriate. And those utilization factors are the
ongoing study.
But as I have indicated, the use is so unique and
different----
Mr. Perry [interposing]. We understand.
Judge Suddaby [continuing]. To any other public----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. And we are not----
Judge Suddaby [continuing]. You know, public space----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. We are not here to challenge
that, but we need to have the data.
In talking to both of you, or all three of you, regarding
Congress' role in oversight, we can't do a good job at that, or
an adequate job, if we don't have the information.
So, there is a study that is ongoing. Is it just a
continual study, or is there going to be some end to it that we
receive a report? How will we know--or can we just tap into
that information at any time and get utilization rates for this
courtroom or that courtroom and this courthouse, this is how
many times somebody was in this one when somebody else needed
to use it--how is that all----
Judge Suddaby [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Meted out at this point?
Judge Suddaby. The CACM Committee, again, is the one would
be responsible for that, and we can certainly ask them if they
have those sort of statistics and numbers.
Mr. Chairman, for example, I just turned senior this past
year as a district court judge. In my entire career, I have
never had a single courtroom that I was assigned to. I have
shared courtrooms with other senior judges and other active
judges, because I am in a Federal office building with
courtrooms that are available throughout the building.
So, we make do with what we have, and do it effectively and
efficiently, I think. But certainly, the way that the
courtrooms are used, I think there is a lack of an appreciation
of how critical it is to have that availability. And certainly,
the judiciary is always looking for ways to maximize the usage,
minimize more space, and give back space when we can. And those
programs that I mentioned, those tools that we have been doing,
are continuing all the time.
So, the answer you are looking for, we will approach the
CACM Committee, see what information they have, and see if we
can provide that information back to this committee, what they
have, sir.
Mr. Perry. Well, the Chair thanks the judge and thanks the
gentleman for that. And understand, regardless of whether the
questions come from myself or other Members here, we are having
this hearing so that we can formulate appropriate public
policy, and so, we are seeking information. It would be, I
think, derelict if we were to make those decisions without
having the correct input. And I don't think you would like the
outcome of that, either.
So, it would be better to have the input----
Judge Suddaby [interposing]. I see.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. So that we can make decisions.
Whether I think that the majority of the consideration
should be on security as opposed to how the courtroom is
structured or whatever, that's one person's opinion. But I
think we all need the information so that we can do the job
that we are tasked to do. That is the purpose for this hearing.
And so, I am asking you that question so that we get the
information, because if we are not going to get the
information, or we are not knowing when we are going to get the
information, then I suspect this body is going to move to say:
you are going to provide this information this way by this time
so we can make a decision. All right? So that is the reason for
the question.
Judge Suddaby. Understood, sir. I didn't take exception to
that.
Mr. Perry. Yes, all right.
Judge Suddaby. We will try and get you the information and
get back.
And if I can make just one last comment with regard to the
cost for space, in our own self-interest in these tough budget
times which the judiciary recognizes, rent is one of our
biggest must-pays. And when it comes to an extra conference
room or some other type of space within a courthouse,
certainly, we want to be able to keep staff. And when it comes
to a decision between space and personnel to do the work, we
are always going to lean towards personnel.
So, it's in our self-interest to examine our space and make
sure that we are rightsized and efficient, and optimize the use
of our space so we can keep not only the lights on, but the----
Mr. Perry [interposing]. Yes, sure.
Judge Suddaby [continuing]. People that we need to do the
job in place.
Mr. Perry. And we understand that you care for your people.
We do, as well, whether we are on different sides of the aisle.
I am sure that Ms. Norton and I both agree that a functioning
judiciary is critical to our society and the things that we
have, the great things that we have in this country. We expect
you to advocate for the things that are important to you. We
have to be, kind of, the referees in this thing to determine
the right thing is being done.
With that, unfortunately, because we have no other Members
to ask questions, this concludes our hearing for the day. I
would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony
and for your time and your patience here today.
This subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Appendix

----------

Question to David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastruc-
ture, U.S. Government Accountability Office, from Hon.
Dina Titus

Question 1. The judiciary created an Asset Management Planning
(AMP) process to prioritize construction projects. In 2022, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the judiciary's asset
management process for ranking courthouses was not entirely transparent
or objective. For example, GAO reported that the methodology the
judiciary used to score courthouses would prioritize larger courthouses
over smaller ones.
Since that report was published, what steps has the judiciary taken
to improve its Asset Management Planning process? In your view, are
those steps sufficient?
Answer: In our 2022 report, we recommended approaches for the
judiciary's Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) to refine
its scoring process to improve the objectivity and transparency of the
results.\1\ AOUSC has taken some actions to implement these approaches,
but one of our three recommendations remains open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Judiciary Should Refine
Its Methods for Determining Which Projects Are Most Urgent, GAO-22-
104034 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation 1 (Closed): In 2022, we found that the
judiciary did not always update assessment scores, when appropriate, to
reflect major changes in courthouses' operating status. For example, a
hurricane destroyed one courthouse in 2018, and another had a mold
problem. We found that the judiciary did not update these courthouses'
assessment scores, an update that would have had an important effect on
the urgency ratings--a later part of the AMP process. By updating
courthouse assessment scores to reflect major changes in operating
status, the judiciary can provide more accurate and reliable
information to decision-makers. We recommended that AOUSC update
assessment scores, as appropriate, to reflect major changes in a
courthouse's operating status.

In February 2025, AOUSC provided us with documentation
demonstrating that it had taken steps to help ensure that urgency
ratings accurately reflect major changes in courthouses' operating
status. Specifically, when a courthouse's operating status changes to
uninhabitable or permanently closed, AOUSC immediately enters the
change in operating status and its associated supporting documentation
into the AMP database. The changes in the database populate the Urgency
Evaluation Results List, preventing AOUSC from including non-
operational courthouses in urgency ratings. Additionally, AOUSC
completes a summary document--with the courthouses that AOUSC has added
and removed from the Urgency Evaluation Results List, along with an
accompanying explanation--and publishes it annually. AOUSC distributes
the Urgency Evaluation Results List and summary to judiciary decision-
makers for their consideration in approving and funding construction
projects. By taking these steps, the AOUSC is better positioned to help
ensure that decision-makers have access to more accurate and reliable
information on courthouses that experience major changes in operation
status, which meets the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation 2 (Open): In our 2022 report, we noted
that the AMP evaluation process has three main parts: a courthouse
assessment, a citywide assessment, and an urgency evaluation rating for
its courthouse needs. We found that elements of the AMP scoring
methodology could amplify or diminish the scores of certain courthouses
and cities in ways that were not always transparent. As a result, the
scoring methodology was not clearly aligned to the AMP evaluation goal
of conducting an objective and consistent evaluation. For example, our
analysis indicated that some of the courthouses with the most
significant needs nationwide had their citywide scores, and part of
their urgency ratings, diluted because their city had other courthouses
that were in better condition. We recommended that AOUSC evaluate the
AMP's scoring methodology's three-part process, to ensure its effects
align to the AMP's goals and are made transparent to judiciary
decision-makers, and make revisions where needed.

As of January 2024, AOUSC officials stated that they had begun
an analysis of the AMP's scoring methodology's three-part process to
ensure its effects align to the AMP's goals and are transparent to
judiciary decision-makers. Officials further stated they would describe
this analysis in a memo AOUSC was developing. Once received, we will
review the documentation and determine if it addresses the
recommendation.

Recommendation 3 (Closed): In our 2022 report, we found
that the scoring methodology sets a cap or limit that is the maximum
number or score a city can get for each of four rating components.
Setting caps is an important decision because a city's need can appear
more or less urgent depending on where the judiciary sets the cap for
the rating calculation. However, judiciary officials acknowledged that
they did not have formal or documented criteria for determining where
to set caps. Further, officials said they set a cap by observing the
highest calculated needs and placed a cap where natural breaks in the
data began to occur.

Without a consistent, transparent process for placing caps,
there was no guarantee that the judiciary could consistently and
objectively rank the order of cities' needs. This could lead the
judiciary to inadvertently recommend courthouses for construction
projects that are not actually those with the most urgent needs.
Therefore, we recommended that the AOUSC better document for judiciary
decision-makers the criteria the judiciary applies for the placement of
caps.

In August 2022, we confirmed several actions taken by AOUSC to
document the criteria for setting caps. AOUSC established an Asset
Management Planning Process Handbook that described the rating
methodology for the urgency evaluation and made clear the purpose of
setting caps each year. Specifically, the handbook described that AOUSC
would use natural breaks in the data for cap criterion and address
outlier values as to not skew the overall urgency rankings. To that
end, the handbook made clear that locations with values at or above the
cap for each criterion would receive ``full credit'' for the maximum
allowable value for that criterion. In addition, all other locations
would receive credit in relation to the cap value and a percentage of
the urgency evaluation's model weight for that criterion. Within the
handbook, AOUSC documented and communicated the criteria to the
judiciary's decision-makers. The AOUSC's actions make the AMP's process
for setting caps more consistent and transparent, which meets the
intent of our recommendation.

Questions to Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon.
Dina Titus

Question 1. According to Assistant Commissioner for Facilities
Management Andrew Heller, the Public Buildings Service intends to
eliminate 3,557 positions through a nonvoluntary Reduction in Force
(RIF). That is 63 percent of the Public Buildings Service's total
workforce.
Question 1.a. How will staff reductions at the Public Buildings
Service impact GSA's operation of court facilities?
Question 1.b. How have staff reductions impacted GSA's ability to
deliver courthouses currently under construction?
Answer to 1.a. & 1.b.: GSA is adapting to workforce changes by
continuing to identify and address operational challenges, including
with our court facilities. GSA is strategically reallocating resources,
where appropriate, to meet our customer agencies' evolving needs and
maintain safe, fully functional spaces for our tenants.
Through a comprehensive analysis of our construction and repair and
alteration projects, GSA is diligently working to ensure these projects
have the necessary project management coverage and oversight. GSA
employees are focused on supporting our customer agencies and providing
the best value for the American taxpayer.

Question 2. Through its Fine Arts Program, GSA maintains one of the
oldest and largest public arts collections in the United States. The
civic artworks in the collection date back to the 1850s and are
displayed in federal buildings and courthouses across the United
States. In Las Vegas, the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse features
``Eldorado,'' a stunning landscape of the desert by Brent Thomson
commissioned by GSA in 2000, among other works that illustrate Southern
Nevada's unique beauty. Last month, I led other members of the
Congressional Arts Caucus in a letter to the GSA expressing concerns
about reports that over half of the GSA Fine Arts Program staff had
been terminated. The letter demands answers on how GSA will maintain
those invaluable works.
Question 2.a. As GSA works to shrink the size of the federal real
estate portfolio and dispose of public buildings, what is happening to
this art?
Answer: As buildings are considered for disposal, the GSA Center
for Fine Arts will assess the artwork to determine the most appropriate
course of action. Some pieces may remain in place with protective
covenants, while others may be removed and relocated to other federal
buildings or loaned to museums or nonprofit institutions. In some
cases--such as when artwork is considered part of the real property and
conveyed with the building--GSA may choose to reallocate the artwork.

Question 2.b. How are you working with your colleagues at GSA to
ensure that it is taken care of and accounted for?
Answer: The GSA Center for Fine Arts continues carrying out its
responsibility to care for over 26,000 artworks in the Fine Arts
Collection. The Fine Arts staff use a database and application called
The Museum System, known as TMS, as the primary tool to manage GSA's
art collection. The history of each object, its current location and
condition, and any needed actions such as protection during
construction or conservation, are tracked in TMS. TMS is a commercially
available collections management software and is used by museums
internationally.
TMS also allows non-art program GSA staff in the field to view past
inspection forms and to generate new inspection forms. For the next
biennial inspection in 2026, the Fine Arts staff will rely on and
coordinate with non-art program GSA staff in the field to confirm
artwork location, take photos, note artwork condition, and flag
critical issues for Fine Arts staff to address.
In addition to artworks installed in GSA-owned facilities, the GSA
Center for Fine Arts routinely updates the inventory and renews or
initiates loan agreements with institutions. The TMS database is
critical to managing the loan program, which accounts for almost 24,000
artworks in the collection.

[all]