L.A. Federal Courthouse Project: Current Proposal Addresses Space
Needs, but Some Security and Operational Concerns Would Remain	 
(20-DEC-04, GAO-05-158).					 
                                                                 
Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) 
and the federal judiciary have been carrying out a multibillion  
dollar courthouse construction initiative to address the	 
judiciary's growing space needs. To plan for and make funding	 
decisions on projects, Congress, the Office of Management and	 
Budget, and GSA have relied on a rolling 5-year plan prepared	 
annually by the judiciary that prioritizes new courthouse	 
projects based on an urgency score. The urgency score is based on
the year a courthouse runs out of space, the number of judges	 
without courtrooms, security concerns, and operational		 
inefficiencies. In recent years, the L.A. courthouse had the	 
highest urgency score in the judiciary's 5-year plan. At a cost  
of approximately $400 million, the new courthouse is expected to 
be one of the most expensive projects in the federal government's
courthouse construction program to date. In light of the	 
project's significance, GAO was asked: (1) To what extent does	 
GSA's current L.A. courthouse project proposal address the	 
underlying conditions that led to Los Angeles's high urgency	 
score and (2) what construction and other costs, if any, may be  
required to meet judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles? The 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and GSA provided	 
technical comments on this report.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-158 					        
    ACCNO:   A14617						        
  TITLE:     L.A. Federal Courthouse Project: Current Proposal	      
Addresses Space Needs, but Some Security and Operational Concerns
Would Remain							 
     DATE:   12/20/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Construction costs 				 
	     Cost analysis					 
	     Facility construction				 
	     Federal courts					 
	     Federal property management			 
	     Government facility construction			 
	     Federal facilities 				 
	     Cost estimates					 
	     Los Angeles (CA)					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-158

     

     * Report to the Chairmen, Committee on Environment and Public Works and
       Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. Senate
          * December 2004
     * L.A. FEDERAL COURTHOUSE PROJECT
          * Current Proposal Addresses Space Needs, but Some Security and
            Operational Concerns Would Remain
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
          * Current Proposal Addresses Some Conditions That Led to the High
            Urgency Score, but Certain Operational and Security Concerns
            Would Remain
          * Additional Construction and Operational Costs Beyond the
            Estimated $400 Million for the New Courthouse Are Likely
          * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Briefing Slides
     * Related GAO Products

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairmen, Committee on

Environment and Public Works and Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. Senate

                                 December 2004

L.A. FEDERAL COURTHOUSE PROJECT

Current Proposal Addresses Space Needs, but Some Security and Operational
                             Concerns Would Remain

                                       a

GAO-05-158

L.A. FEDERAL COURTHOUSE PROJECT

Current Proposal Addresses Space Needs, but Some Security and Operational
Concerns Would Remain

What GAO Found

GSA's current proposal to construct a new courthouse in Los Angeles, while
expanding the judiciary's use of the existing Roybal Federal Building,
would address some but not all of the underlying conditions that led to
Los Angeles's high urgency score. For example, it would address the
judiciary's need for additional space and alleviate some security
concerns. There would be space to accommodate the 47 current district and
magistrate judges and the 14 additional judges expected by 2011, with room
to expand, if needed, for additional judges. The new building would also
improve security by providing additional holding cells and separate
prisoner walkways and elevators. However, the operational and security
concerns related to housing a trial court in multiple buildings (split
court) that was a significant factor in Los Angeles's high urgency score
would remain. For example, U.S. Marshals Service officials said that a
split court would require them to duplicate much of their security
equipment and personnel necessary for fulfilling its mission of protecting
the courthouses.

The Current L.A. Courthouse Proposal Addresses Some Conditions Underlying
the Urgency Score

Urgency score criterion Extent to which current proposal addresses the criterion

                       Year courthouse runs out of space

                      Number of judges without courtrooms

Security concerns

                           Operational inefficiencies

Fully addressed

Partially addressed

                                 Not addressed

Source: GAO.

To meet judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the federal government
will likely incur additional construction and operational costs beyond the
estimated $400 million for the new courthouse. Like other courthouse
projects in recent years, GSA officials acknowledge that there is a
potential for the L.A. Courthouse to incur future escalation in
construction costs due to changes during the design and construction
phases, such as increases in raw material and labor costs. Furthermore,
additional construction costs will also be incurred to meet the
judiciary's space needs over the long term. Preliminary estimates by GSA
show that these costs may exceed $100 million. For example, GSA will need
to build four additional magistrate courtrooms in the Roybal building and
renovate the current courthouse to convert courtrooms into office space
for the U.S. Attorneys and other federal agencies. GSA also plans a
long-term expansion project to construct seven more courtrooms to meet
judiciary space needs by 2031. Judiciary officials also acknowledge that a
split court would result in additional operational costs due to duplicate
offices and staff in the Roybal building and the new courthouse.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter                                                                   1 
                        Results in Brief                                    2 
                        Background                                          4 
                        Current Proposal Addresses Some Conditions That    
                        Led to the High                                    
                        Urgency Score, but Certain Operational and         
                        Security Concerns                                  
                        Would Remain                                        8 
                        Additional Construction and Operational Costs      
                        Beyond the                                         
                        Estimated $400 Million for the New Courthouse Are  13 
                        Likely                                             
                        Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                 15 
Appendix                                                                
            Appendix I: Briefing Slides                                    17 

Related GAO Products

Table              Table 1: Urgency Score Criteria                       4 
                               Conceptual Drawing of Proposed L.A.            
Figures                     Courthouse Urgency Score for Spring Street 
           Figure 1: Figure 2: Courthouse                                 6 9
                     Figure 3: Colored, Numbered Lines on the Floor of a  
                               Secure                                     
                           Hallway Leading from Prisoner Holding Cells to 
                       Corresponding Numbered Courtrooms in Los Angeles's 
                              Spring Street Courthouse                     11 

                                 Abbreviations

AOUSC        Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts   
FBF          Federal Buildings Fund                     
GSA          General Services Administration            
L.A.         Los Angeles                                

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

December 20, 2004

The Honorable James M. Inhofe Chairman, Committee on Environment and
Public Works United States Senate

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee on Environment and Public Works United States
Senate

Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA)1 and the
federal judiciary have been carrying out a multibillion dollar courthouse
construction initiative to address the judiciary's growing needs. In 1993,
the judiciary identified 160 court facilities that required either the
construction of a new building or a major annex to an existing building.
To prioritize requests for these new courthouse projects, Congress, the
Office of Management and Budget, and GSA rely on a rolling 5-year plan
prepared annually by the judiciary. The 5-year plan ranks projects using a
methodology that assigns an urgency score to each project based on four
criteria-the year a courthouse runs out of space, the number of judges
without courtrooms, security concerns, and operational inefficiencies.2 In
recent years, the Los Angeles (L.A.) Courthouse has been ranked as the
highest-priority project in the judiciary's 5-year plan based on its high
urgency score.

Currently, the L.A. Courthouse operations are split between two
buildings-the Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Roybal
Federal Building built in 1992. The current proposal is to expand the
judiciary's use of the Roybal building for the magistrate judges while
constructing a new courthouse to house the district judges. At a cost of
approximately $400 million, the new courthouse could be one of the most
expensive projects in the federal government's courthouse construction
program to date. Because of the project's significance, GAO was asked:

1GSA is the federal government's central agency for real property
operations, including federal courthouse construction.

2In September 2004, the Judicial Conference adopted a 2-year moratorium on
42 courthouse construction projects currently listed on the judiciary's
5-year plan.

                                Results in Brief

 1. To what extent does GSA's current L.A. Courthouse project proposal
       address the underlying conditions that led to Los Angeles's high
       urgency score?
 2. What construction and other costs, if any, may be required to meet
       judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles?

To determine whether the current project proposal would address the
courthouse space, security, and operational concerns in Los Angeles, we
inspected the current and planned sites for the U.S. District Court in Los
Angeles. We also interviewed judges and officials from the U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles, and officials from the Administrative Office of the

U.S. Courts (AOUSC), GSA, and U.S. Marshals Service (Marshals Service).3
We reviewed the urgency score criteria developed by the judiciary and
planning studies developed for GSA and the judiciary for the L.A.
Courthouse project. To obtain information on courthouse construction and
other costs, we reviewed relevant laws related to the construction of
courthouses, appropriations laws, project prospectuses, and budgetary
data. We also interviewed officials from GSA and the judiciary. To ensure
the reliability of information presented in this report, we corroborated
much of the documentation on construction cost estimates, planning studies
and prospectuses, and urgency score criteria through testimonial
interviews with GSA and judiciary officials. A list of related GAO reports
on courthouse construction appears at the end of this report. We conducted
our work from June 2004 through September 2004 in Los Angeles, California,
and Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. This report summarizes the information we provided to
your staff during our September 23, 2004, briefing. The briefing slides
are included in appendix I.

GSA's current proposal to construct a new courthouse, while expanding the
judiciary's use of the existing Roybal building, would address some but
not all of the underlying conditions that led to its high urgency score.
On the positive side, it would address the judiciary's need for space and
alleviate some security concerns, both of which contributed to the L.A.
Courthouse's high urgency score. There would be space to accommodate
current judges and room to expand to accommodate most of the judges
projected in the

3The Marshals Service provides security for the federal judiciary,
including physical protection of courthouses and prisoner transport.

Page 2 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

court's long-range plan. The new building would also improve security by
providing additional holding cells and separate prisoner walkways and
elevators. However, the operational and security concerns related to a
split court, where court functions are housed in multiple buildings in a
city, would remain. The current split court was a significant factor in
the L.A. Courthouse's high urgency score. For example, judiciary and
Marshals Service officials said that prisoners and evidence would need to
be transported between the Roybal building and the new building and
several court functions would require duplicate staff and offices.

To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the
government will likely incur additional construction and operational costs
beyond the estimated $400 million for the new courthouse. As GSA has
experienced cost growth during the design and construction phases of
courthouse projects in the past (such as increases in raw material and
labor costs), GSA acknowledges that there is a potential for the L.A.
Courthouse to incur future escalation in construction costs due to changes
during these phases. GSA has also indicated that additional construction
funds will be needed to meet the long-term space needs of the judiciary
and other related agencies in Los Angeles. Preliminary estimates by GSA
show that these costs may exceed $100 million. For example, AOUSC and GSA
officials said that four additional magistrate courtrooms will need to be
built in the Roybal building and the Spring Street Courthouse will need to
be renovated to convert courtrooms into office space for the U.S.
Attorneys and other federal agencies. To meet projected judiciary
long-term space needs, GSA said that it could construct one district
courtroom in the new courthouse and six magistrate courtrooms in the
Roybal Building by 2031. Furthermore, GSA and judiciary officials have
told us that there will be additional operational costs associated with
constructing a new courthouse, although the extent of these costs are
unknown at this time. These operational costs could include various moving
expenses, leased parking spaces, and relocation of existing federal
tenants in the Roybal building. Judiciary officials also acknowledge that
a split court would continue to result in additional security and
operational costs due to duplicate offices and staff in the Roybal
building and the new courthouse. AOUSC, GSA, and the Marshals Service,
which is part of the Department of Justice, reviewed a draft of this
report. AOUSC and GSA provided technical comments and the Marshals Service
did not have any comments.

Background

Los Angeles has one of the largest federal court operations in the nation,
processing more than 16,000 cases per year and serving an area with more
than 11 million people. In downtown Los Angeles, the District Court
operations are split between two buildings-the Spring Street Courthouse
and the Roybal Federal Building-that are approximately one-quarter mile
apart. The Spring Street building, considered by the court to be the main
courthouse in Los Angeles, is more than 65 years old and, according to
judiciary and GSA officials, requires major renovations and does not
currently meet the security or space needs of the judiciary. By contrast,
the Roybal building was constructed in the early 1990s and, according to
GSA officials, complied with design and security specifications that were
in place at the time it was built.4 However, inefficiencies occur because
the court's operations are split between these two buildings.

Federal courthouse construction projects are prioritized based on urgency
scores assigned by the judiciary-the higher the score, the more urgent the
project is considered (see table 1).

                        Table 1: Urgency Score Criteria

Criterion                Value     Description                             
Year courthouse runs out 30 points The year in which the building was or   
of space                           is projected to be completely occupied  
                                      by the district court and related       
                                      components (such as the Marshals        
                                      Service), as documented in the          
                                      judiciary's long-range facilities plan  
                                      or as determined by the Circuit         
                                      Judicial Council.                       
                            15 points Measures the number of judicial         
Number of judges without           officers who currently do not have      
courtrooms                         courtrooms or who are projected not to  
                                      have them over the next 10 years.       
Security concerns        30 points Includes whether the trial court is     
                                      split into separate facilities, whether 
                                      there is a secure prisoner drop-off,    
                                      and whether there are separate walkways 
                                      and elevators for prisoners, judges,    
                                      and the public.                         
Operational              25 points Includes physical building              
inefficiences                      conditions-such as inefficiently        
                                      designed courtrooms with visual         
                                      obstructions or operations that are     
                                      split among locations-that cause        
                                      significant disruptions to court        
                                      operations.                             

                    Source: GAO analysis of data from AOUSC.

4AOUSC officials said that, while the Roybal building meets security
standards, it does not comply with current U.S. Courts Design Guide and
accessibility standards.

Page 4 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

The Los Angeles court has the highest urgency score of any project in the
5year plan due to the space, security, and operational inefficiencies
presented by the Spring Street Courthouse. To address these concerns, GSA
and the judiciary prepared a series of feasibility studies looking at
different options for accommodating the court's long-term needs. One
option involved constructing a stand-alone building that would consolidate
all of the court operations into a single building. GSA and the judiciary
also considered constructing a companion building physically connected to
the Roybal building. A third alternative that was studied involved the
partial or complete demolition of an existing federal building to provide
a site for a new courthouse.

According to judiciary and GSA officials, after years of study and debate,
these options were not selected because of cost or space limitations. For
example, AOUSC noted that a consolidated courthouse would cost
approximately $480 million. Currently, GSA is proposing the construction
of a new 41-courtroom building, as shown in figure 1, to house district
court judges and related operations at a location approximately 6/10 of a
mile from the Roybal building. Under this proposal, the judiciary would
expand its use of the Roybal building for magistrate and bankruptcy judges
and related operations. GSA's plan also involves consolidating the U.S.
Attorneys Office in the Spring Street building, along with other federal
agencies and grand jury suites. The briefing slides in appendix I also
contain a map showing the locations of these sites.

            Figure 1: Conceptual Drawing of Proposed L.A. Courthouse

                    Source: GSA (reprinted with permission).

GSA estimates that constructing the new courthouse will cost approximately
$400 million. Funding for this project is contingent on multiple
appropriations.5 In fiscal year 2000, the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure authorized site acquisition and design of the proposed
courthouse, and in the following fiscal year Congress appropriated $35
million for this purpose. In fiscal year 2004, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure authorized additional design and
construction of the proposed courthouse in Los Angeles. In that same
fiscal year, Congress appropriated $50 million for the project6 and
appropriated $314 million in fiscal year 2005.7 On November 17, 2004, the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works also authorized the
construction of the new courthouse in Los Angeles.

5GSA requests funding for courthouse projects as part of the President's
annual budget request to Congress. These projects are financed through the
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), a revolving fund used, among other things,
for GSA's courthouse projects. Under the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as
amended, GSA is required to submit to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works detailed project descriptions, called prospectuses, for
authorization by these committees when the proposed construction,
alteration, or acquisition of a building to be used as a public building
exceeds a specified threshold. For example, in fiscal year 2005, GSA
identified the prospectus threshold as $2,360,000. The statute further
provides that these committees should review and approve individual
projects before Congress appropriates funds. In practice, however, some
projects are authorized after appropriations have been made.

6GSA's appropriation for fiscal year 2004 was contained in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, P.L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3 (2004).
Section 168(b) of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2004 included a provision rescinding an amount equal to 0.59 percent of
the budget authority for any discretionary account in the act. According
to a March 4, 2004, Office of Management and Budget report specifying the
amount and account of each rescission in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, there was a rescission of $3,403,000 of budget authority for the FBF
from which an appropriation is made for the construction of courthouses.
The Office of Management and Budget report did not specify the amount of
the rescission for the L.A. Courthouse.

7GSA's appropriation for fiscal year 2005 is contained in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2005, P.L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809 (2005). P.L.
108-447 appropriates from the FBF $314,385,000 for new construction for
the Los Angeles Courthouse. There are two rescissions that may affect the
final amount that is funded for the courthouse. The first is a rescission
of $106,000,000 of the amounts made available from the FBF for new
construction and repairs and alterations. The second rescission is an
across-the-board rescission of budget authority of 0.8 percent for most
agencies, including GSA.

Current Proposal Addresses Some Conditions That Led to the High Urgency
Score, but Certain Operational and Security Concerns Would Remain

The current project proposal would address the judiciary's need for more
space and alleviate some security concerns, but the operational and
security concerns related to a split court that contributed to the L.A.
Courthouse's high urgency score would remain. More specifically, while Los
Angeles's Spring Street Courthouse received a total score of 85 out of a
possible 100 points, making it the most urgent project in the judiciary's
5year plan, 50 of these points were related to the trial court being split
into two buildings, a situation that the new project would not resolve.

The L.A. Courthouse on Spring Street received high scores in all four
criteria that the judiciary considers in assigning an urgency score (see
fig. 2). Because the L.A. Courthouse ran out of space in 1995, the
judiciary assigned the courthouse a score of 19.5 points using its urgency
scoring methodology. In addition, court officials projected that seven
judges would not have their own courtrooms within 10 years, resulting in
10.5 points for number of judges without courtrooms.

Figure 2: Urgency Score for Spring Street Courthouse
Urgency score
35

30 3030

30

25 25

19.5

15

10.5

0

                                       25

                                       20

                                       15

                                       10

                                       5

                                       s

thouse

                  Security concerns perationalinefficiencieses

                                      oom

                                  ber of judg

r couris out of space

                                       tr

                                  ithout courO

a

                                       um

Ye

N

                                       w

Total score possible

Spring Street Courthouse score Source: GAO analysis of data from AOUSC.

The Spring Street building also received the maximum possible scores for
security concerns and operational inefficiencies (30 and 25 points,
respectively) because the trial court is split between two separate
buildings and, according to the judiciary, the Spring Street building
lacks a sufficient number of holding cells for prisoners. According to
judiciary officials, it is also difficult to keep prisoners separate from
judges and the public in the hallways. To address this last problem, the
courthouse has colored, numbered lines designed to guide the U.S. Marshals
as they lead prisoners from the detention cells to the courtrooms (see
fig. 3). However, court officials said that this system is too confusing
and difficult to follow through the narrow halls. Furthermore, many of the
building's courtrooms are less than half the size required under the U.S.
Courts Design Guide8 or have major visual obstructions.

8 The U.S. Courts Design Guide specifies the judiciary's criteria for
designing new court facilities. The guide was first developed in 1991
through a cooperative effort between the judiciary and experts in space
planning, security, acoustics, mechanical-electrical systems, and
automation, and is periodically reviewed and updated.

Page 10 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Figure 3: Colored, Numbered Lines on the Floor of a Secure Hallway Leading
from Prisoner Holding Cells to Corresponding Numbered Courtrooms in Los
Angeles's Spring Street Courthouse

                                  Source: GAO.

The current proposal-constructing a new courthouse and expanding the
judiciary's use of the Roybal building-addresses some of the conditions
that led to the high urgency score. For example, it addresses the
judiciary's space constraints by providing additional courtrooms-sized to
meet the Design Guide standards-to accommodate the 47 current district and
magistrate judges and the 14 additional judges expected by 2011. According
to GSA officials, there is also room to build an additional district judge
courtroom in the new building and additional magistrate judge courtrooms
in the Roybal building to address the judiciary's projected 30-year needs.
In addition, the proposal addresses some of the more serious security and
operational inefficiencies associated with the Spring Street building,
such as providing additional prisoner holding cells, secure prisoner
elevators, and separate, secured hallways for prisoners, judges, and the
public. Marshals Service officials also told us that a split court would
be acceptable from a security standpoint, provided the Marshals Service
security standards are followed.9 In addition, the court would receive the
operational benefits of a new building, and under the current proposal,
avoid the major structural deficiencies of using the 66-year-old Spring
Street building as a courthouse. For example, according to the judiciary
and GSA, the Spring Street building has outdated electrical and plumbing
systems and requires a seismic retrofit to meet GSA's standards. In
contrast, the Roybal Federal Building, which was constructed in the early
1990s, was designed to meet modern operational and security requirements.
For example, it is connected to the Metropolitan Detention Center, which
houses federal prisoners prior to arraignment and trial, via a secure
underground passageway, so that prisoners do not have to be led through
public areas on their way to and from the Roybal building cell block.

The current proposal's major limitation is that it would still result in a
split court, even though consolidating the district court into a single
building was one of the main priorities in the judiciary's most recent
long-range plan for Los Angeles, published in 1996. Operational and
security concerns stemming from a split court led to 50 of the 85 points
in the Spring Street Courthouse's urgency score. For example, the building
received the maximum possible security score (30 points) because the trial
court was split between two buildings-the Roybal building and Spring
Street Courthouse. With the court still split between buildings under the
current

9Marshals Service security standards are detailed in its Requirements and
Specifications for Special Purpose and Support Space Manual.

Page 12 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Additional Construction and Operational Costs Beyond the Estimated $400
Million for the New Courthouse Are Likely

proposal, related operational inefficiencies and security concerns would
remain. According to AOUSC and Marshals Service officials, operational
inefficiencies would include the need to continue to transport judges,
prisoners, and evidence between buildings; confusion among jurors and
attorneys over which facility they should report to; and possible delays,
misrouting, and loss of time-sensitive documents (such as restraining
orders) as they flow between buildings. A split court would also require
duplication of several offices and activities. For example, Marshals
Service officials said that a split court would require them to replicate
much of their security equipment and contract guards to operate the
equipment and protect each building.

We noted during our review that the judiciary refined its urgency scoring
methodology in March 2002 and gave less weight to split court factors. In
the judiciary's current 5-year plan, 26 projects are scored under the
original methodology and 31 are scored under the refined methodology. The
L.A. Courthouse was scored under the original methodology and has not
officially been rescored. As a result, we use the original methodology to
discuss the L.A. Courthouse's urgency score in this report. In September
2004, the Judicial Conference adopted a 2-year moratorium on 42 courthouse
construction projects currently listed on the judiciary's 5-year plan.
During this moratorium period, AOUSC officials said that they plan to
re-evaluate the urgency scoring methodology as part of a larger review of
the design guide standards and the courthouse construction planning
process.

To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the
federal government will likely incur additional construction and
operational costs beyond the estimated $400 million for the new
courthouse. These funds are designated for costs associated with the
proposed courthouse, including the site acquisition and the design and
construction costs. However, GSA recognizes that in recent years other
courthouse construction projects have had cost escalations. Cost
escalations may occur because of planning or design problems, such as
changes in the scope or specific design elements in a project, or they may
be the result of changes outside of the control of the planners, such as
increases in the cost of labor or particular construction materials, such
as steel. GSA has initiated actions intended to mitigate this problem,
including improving the design modeling process and more closely reviewing
project changes during construction. Nevertheless, GSA acknowledges that a
potential still exists for all courthouse projects, including the L.A.
Courthouse, to incur future escalation in construction costs.

In addition to construction costs for the new courthouse, GSA has
indicated that additional funds will be needed for construction related to
the long-term space needs of the judiciary and other related agencies in
Los Angeles. Preliminary estimates from GSA show that these additional
costs may exceed $100 million. Specifically:

     o To accommodate the anticipated need for additional magistrate judge
       courtrooms, GSA told us that it will need to build four additional
       magistrate courtrooms in the Roybal building to increase the total
       number of magistrate courtrooms from 16 to 20. GSA has estimated the
       cost of this renovation to be approximately $10 million.
     o Once the District Court moves out of the Spring Street Courthouse and
       into the new courthouse, GSA said that it will need to renovate the
       Spring Street building to convert courtrooms into office space for
       U.S. Attorneys and other federal agencies. The costs for this project
       are not currently known, but a 1997 GSA study estimated the cost to be
       approximately $77 million in 2003 dollars. However, according to GSA,
       the Spring Street building will require major renovations, whether the
       judiciary or other federal agencies use it.
     o GSA estimates the costs associated with future expansion in the Roybal
       building and the new courthouse needed to meet expected judiciary
       space needs by 2031 to be $21 million. According to GSA, this
       expansion, if necessary, would involve constructing six additional
       magistrate courtrooms and judges' chambers in the Roybal building and
       one district courtroom and judge's chambers in the proposed new
       courthouse.

GSA and judiciary officials have also told us that there will likely be
additional operational costs associated with constructing a new
courthouse, although the extent of these costs is currently unknown. These
officials indicated that there will be moving expenses for the judiciary
to relocate to the new courthouse as well as to place all the magistrate
judges in the Roybal building. According to GSA officials, the judiciary
may also need to lease offsite parking spaces to accommodate court needs,
although the total number of parking spaces needed, if any, is unknown at
this time. In addition, in order to accommodate additional magistrate
courtrooms in the Roybal building, GSA officials indicated that there may
be a need to relocate some of the existing federal tenants to leased space
or to another federal building in downtown Los Angeles.

Judiciary officials in Los Angeles also expressed concerns about
additional operational costs that would be incurred as the result of a
split court. According to the judiciary, some of the office space and/or
staff that would be duplicated in both the new courthouse and the Roybal
building include the clerk's office, pretrial services, jury assembly,
Marshals Service, and the

U.S. Attorneys Office. The additional costs associated with duplicating
these offices are unknown at this time because a larger staff and more
equipment would be necessary in a consolidated courthouse due to its
larger size. However, judiciary officials also acknowledge that a split
court would result in higher costs due to operational inefficiencies,
including additional travel time between buildings for movement of staff,
evidence, and prisoners.

We provided AOUSC, GSA, and the Department of Justice with draft copies

Agency Comments and

of this report for their review and comment. AOUSC and GSA provided

technical clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate. The
Marshals Service, which is part of the Department of Justice, said that it
did not have any comments on the draft.

We are providing copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, AOUSC, GSA, and the Marshals Service. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you
or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me on
(202) 512-2834, or at [email protected], or David Sausville, Assistant
Director, on (202) 512-5403, or [email protected]. Other contributors to
this report were Keith Cunningham, Jessica Lucas-Judy, Susan Michal-Smith,
Alwynne Wilbur, and Dorothy Yee.

Mark L. Goldstein Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues Appendix I

Briefing Slides

                    Proposed Los Angeles Courthouse Project

 Briefing for the Committee on Environment and Public Works and Subcommittee on
                 Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. Senate

                               September 23, 2004

Introduction

     o Los Angeles has one of the largest federal court operations in the
       nation, processing approximately 16,000 cases per year and serving an
       area with more than 11 million people.
     o The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles is ranked as the highest
       priority project in the judiciary's 5-year construction plan1 based on
       its high urgency score-a measure of a court's space, security, judges
       impacted, and operational deficiencies.
     o The Los Angeles courthouse project could be one of the most expensive
       projects in the federal government's multibillion dollar courthouse
       construction program.

1The judiciary uses its 5-year plan to prioritize requests for new
courthouse projects to Congress and to GSA, the federal government's
central agency for real property operations.

Introduction (continued)

     o Many of the Los Angeles court's deficiencies are based on the growth
       of the court, the inefficiencies caused by operating a split court,2
       and the fact that the Spring Street building is 66 years old-it
       requires major renovations and does not meet today's security needs.
     o According to the judiciary's plan, one of the court's main priorities
       in Los Angeles was to consolidate district court operations (i.e.,
       district judges, magistrate judges, and the district court clerk's
       office) into one building.

2 Split court refers to a court that has functions housed in multiple buildings
                                   in a city.

Objectives

Because of the project's significance, GAO was asked:

 1. To what extent does the current Los Angeles courthouse project
       proposal address the underlying conditions that led to Los Angeles's
       high urgency score?
 2. What construction and other costs, if any, may be required to meet
       judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles?

Scope and Methodology

     o Inspected the current and planned sites for the U.S.
       District Court-Central District of California, Los
       Angeles.
          * Interviewed judges and officials from the U.S. District
            Court-Central District of California, Los Angeles; and
            officials from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
            (AOUSC), General Services Administration (GSA), and
          * U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
     o Reviewed key documents, including urgency score
       criteria, planning studies, prospectuses and other
       budget data.
     o Conducted our work in Los Angeles, CA; and
       Washington, D.C.; from June through September, 2004,
       in accordance with generally accepted government
       auditing standards.

Results in Brief

     o GSA's current proposal to construct a new building, while continuing
       to use the existing Roybal Building, would address the judiciary's
       need for space and alleviate some security concerns. However, the
       operational and security concerns related to a split court that
       resulted in a high urgency score would remain.
     o To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the
       government will likely incur significant construction and operational
       costs beyond the estimated $400 million for the new courthouse.
       Preliminary estimates show that these additional costs may exceed $100
       million.

Background: New Los Angeles Courthouse Proposal

o  GSA is proposing:

     o Constructing a new 41-courtroom building for district court judges and
       related operations,
     o Retaining the use of the Roybal Federal Building for magistrate and
       bankruptcy judges and related operations, and
     o Consolidating the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Spring St. building,3
       along with other federal agencies and grand jury suites.

3The U.S. Attorneys Office is related to the judiciary because it is
integral to the operations of the U.S. District Court, but is part of the
U.S. Department of Justice.

Background: New Los Angeles Courthouse Proposal

o  GSA estimates the new building will cost about $400 million.4

     o $35 million was authorized in 2000 and then appropriated in fiscal
       year 2001 for site acquisition and design.
     o $50 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and authorized by the
       House authorizing committee, but GSA said that it has not been
       authorized by the Senate.
     o $314 million was proposed in the President's budget, included in the
       fiscal year 2005 House & Senate appropriations bills,5 and authorized
       by the House authorizing committee.

4This amount includes construction, site acquisition, design, and
management inspection. 5H.R. 5025 and S. 2806, 108th Congress.

Project Urgency: Findings

o  The current project proposal would address the judiciary's need for
space and alleviate some security concerns, but the operational and
security concerns related to a split court that contributed to the Los
Angeles Court's high urgency score, would remain.

                           Urgency Score Methodology

Criterion           Value     Description                                  
                                 The year in which the building was or is     
                                 projected to be completely occupied by the   
Year courthouse     30 points district court and related components, as    
runs out of space             documented in the judiciary's long-range     
                                 facilities plan or as determined by the      
                                 Circuit Judicial Council.                    
                                 Measures the number of judicial officers who 
Number of judges    15 points currently do not have courtrooms or who are  
without courtrooms            projected not to have them over the next 10  
                                 years.                                       
                                 Includes whether the trial court is split    
                                 into separate facilities, whether there is a 
Security concerns   30 points secure prisoner drop-off, and whether there  
                                 are separate walkways and elevators for      
                                 prisoners, judges, and the public.           
                                 Includes physical building conditions-such   
Operational                   as inefficiently designed courtrooms with    
inefficiencies      25 points visual obstructions or operations that are   
                                 split among locations-that cause significant 
                                 disruptions to court operations.             

Urgency score

                                       35

                                       30

                                       25

                                       20

                                       15

                                       10

                                       5

                                       0

          30 19.5             15 10.5           30 30             25 25       

The Spring St. Courthouse has a total score of 85 out of 100, which is the
highest score of any of the projects in the judiciary's 5-year plan.

Y ear courthouse out of space Number of judges w ithout courtrooms
Security concerns Operational inef f iciencies Total Points Possible

Los Angeles Score

                    Source: GAO analysis of data from AOUSC.

Project Urgency: Benefits of Current Proposal

     o The current proposal addresses the judiciary's space constraints by
       providing enough courtrooms for current judges and those expected by
       2011, with room to expand to accommodate six additional magistrate
       judge courtrooms and one additional district judge courtroom.
     o USMS6 officials said that a split court, although not ideal, would be
       acceptable from a security standpoint if its design manuals are
       followed. For example, the new building would provide more secure
       judge and prisoner circulation patterns and increase the number of
       holding cells.
     o The court would also receive the operational benefits of a new
       building, avoiding major structural deficiencies (e.g., seismic
       vulnerability and old electrical systems).

 6USMS provides security for the federal judiciary, including courthouses, and
                              prisoner transport.

Project Urgency: Limitations of Current Proposal

     o Under the current proposal, the court would remain split between two
       buildings, even though consolidating the district court into one
       building was one of the main priorities identified in the judiciary's
       plan for Los Angeles.
          * According to the judiciary and the USMS, a split court causes
            major operational inefficiencies.
               o Judges, prisoners, and evidence would need to be
                 transported between buildings, and
               o Many offices and activities would likely be duplicated.

Project Urgency: Impact of Split Court

o  The split court factors accounted for 50 of the 85 points
the Los Angeles Court received under the judiciary's
urgency scoring methodology. (The split court
accounted for all 30 points for security concerns and 20
of the 25 for operational considerations.)

Note: During our review, officials from AOUSC informed us that the
judiciary refined its methodology for scoring urgency in March 2002. Under
the refined methodology, the impact of a split court on a project's
urgency score is noticeably reduced. The current 5-year plan has 26
projects scored under the original methodology and 31 projects scored
using the refined one. The Los Angeles location was scored under the
original methodology. Further analysis by GAO would be needed to assess
the soundness of this approach and its impact on priorities in the 5-year
plan.

Other Costs: Findings

o  To meet long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the
government will likely incur additional construction and operational costs
beyond the estimated $400 million for the new courthouse. The extent of
these costs is unknown, but preliminary estimates show that they may
exceed $100 million.

Other Costs: Current Expenditures

     o On the basis of funding already appropriated or requested, $400
       million is designated for the site acquisition, design, and
       construction costs related to the proposed courthouse.
     o On all courthouse construction projects, including Los Angeles, there
       is a potential for future escalation in costs due to design and
       planning changes during the construction process.

o  According to GSA, cost escalations and scope changes for courthouse
projects have been a nationwide concern in recent years, although GSA has
initiated actions intended to address this problem.

                         Additional Construction Costs

Description                         Preliminary cost estimates             
Renovation of Roybal building       $10 million.                           
to accommodate 4 additional         
magistrate judge courtrooms.        
Renovation of Spring St.            Costs unknown at this time. (A         
Courthouse into office space        1997 GSA study estimated costs of      
for U.S. Attorneys and others.      $77 million in 2003 dollars.)          
Future expansion in Roybal          $21 million.                           
and new courthouse to meet          
judiciary needs by 2031.            

Source: GSA.

                          Additional Operational Costs

Description                       Estimated costs                          
Moving expenses for the           40 courtrooms at $10,000 per             
judiciary.                        courtroom, and $3.00 -$3.50 per          
                                     square foot for office space.            
Leased parking to accommodate     $180 per space per month. (Total number  
judiciary needs at new building.  needed, if any, is unknown at this       
                                     time.)                                   
Relocation of existing federal    Costs unknown at this time.              
tenants in the Roybal building.   
Redundant court offices and       Costs unknown at this time.              
staff in the new courthouse and   
the Roybal building.              

Source: GSA.

Split Court Would Result in Costs Due to Operational Inefficiencies

     o According to the judiciary, with the exception of the probation
       office, five other court and related offices would require staff
       and/or offices in both the new courthouse and Roybal.
          * These five offices include:
              1. Clerk's Office4. U.S. Attorneys Office
              2. Pretrial Services 5. Jury Assembly
              3. USMS
     o The total costs associated with duplicating these offices
       are unknown at this time.

Concluding Observations

o  Although the current proposal addresses the judiciary's space needs,
the security and operational concerns that led to Los Angeles's high
urgency score will remain and GSA is likely to need significant additional
funding to fully address judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles.

Related GAO Products

General Services Administration: Factors Affecting the Construction and
Operating Costs of Federal Buildings. GAO-03-609T. Washington, D.C.: April
4, 2003.

High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property. GAO-03-122 . Washington, D.C.:
January 1, 2003.

Courthouse Construction: Information on Courtroom Sharing. GAO-02- 341 .
Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.

Courthouse Construction: Sufficient Data and Analysis Would Help Resolve
the Courtroom-Sharing Issue. GAO-01-70 . Washington, D.C.: December 14,
2000.

Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance Facility
Planning and Decisionmaking. GAO/GGD-97-39. Washington, D.C.: May 19,
1997.

Courthouse Construction: Information on the Use of District Courtrooms at
Selected Locations. GAO/GGD-97-59R . Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1997.

Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More Informed
Decisionmaking. GAO/GGD-97-27 . Washington, D.C.: December 31, 1996.

Federal Courthouse Construction: More Disciplined Approach Would Reduce
Costs and Provide for Better Decisionmaking. GAO/T-GGD-96-19 . Washington,
D.C.: November 8, 1995.

General Services Administration: Better Data and Oversight Needed to
Improve Construction Management. GAO/GGD-94-145 . Washington, D.C.: June
27, 1994.

Federal Judiciary Space: Progress is Being Made to Improve the Long-Range
Planning Process. GAO/T-GGD-94-146 . Washington, D.C.: May 4, 1994.

Federal Judiciary Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revision.
GAO/GGD-93-132. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 1993.

New L.A. Federal Courthouse: Evidence is Insufficient to Suggest that
Congress Reconsider Its Approval. GAO/GGD-88-43BR. Washington, D.C.: March
23, 1988.

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***