Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing
Energy and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management
(20-JUN-06, GAO-06-613).
The judiciary pays over $900 million in rent annually to GSA for
court-related space, and this amount represents a growing
proportion of the judiciary's budget. The judiciary's rent
payments are deposited into GSA's Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), a
revolving fund used to finance GSA's real property services,
including the construction and repair of federal facilities under
GSA control. In December 2004, the judiciary requested a $483
million dollar permanent, annual rent exemption, which GSA
denied, saying that it undermined the intent of FBF and that GSA
was unlikely to obtain appropriations to replace lost FBF income.
GAO identified (1) recent trends in the judiciary's rent and
space occupied and (2) challenges that the judiciary faces in
managing its rent costs.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-613
ACCNO: A55787
TITLE: Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and
Growing Energy and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and
Management
DATE: 06/20/2006
SUBJECT: Budget obligations
Federal courts
Federal property management
Interagency relations
Rent policies
Rental rates
Federal Buildings Fund
******************************************************************
** 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-06-613
* FEDERAL COURTHOUSES
* Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy and Security Costs
Require Better Tracking and Management
* Results in Brief
* Background
* Increases in Square Footage and Operating and Security Costs
Have Driven Increases in the Judiciary's Rent Bill from
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005
* New Courthouses Have Added Considerable Amounts of
Space in Recent Years
* Square Footage Increases Occurred in All Years,
Circuits, and Courts
* Judiciary's Energy and Security Costs Increased at a
Disproportionately Higher Rate Than Net Square Feet
Added
* Tenant Improvement Costs Have Increased at a
Disproportionately Lower Rate Than Square Footage
* GSA and the Judiciary Do Not Routinely and
Comprehensively Analyze Trends of Major Rent Bill
Components Related to Rent Bill Growth
* Judiciary Faces a Number of Challenges but Could Take
Actions to Better Manage Its Future Rent Payments
* Structural and Architectural Elements of Modern
Courthouses Have Increased Construction Costs beyond
the Commercial Market
* Judiciary's Rent Validation Effort Intends to Monitor
GSA Rent Charges but Does Not Include Incentives for
Efficient Space Management
* Judiciary Lacks Space Allocation Criteria for Appeals
Courts and Senior District Judges
* Additional Challenges Identified by the Judiciary
* Conclusions
* Recommendations
* Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* GSA Comments
* AOUSC Comments
* Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
* Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration
* Appendix III: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts
* GAO Comments
* Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
* Related GAO Products
* Order by Mail or Phone
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
June 2006
FEDERAL COURTHOUSES
Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy and Security Costs Require
Better Tracking and Management
GAO-06-613
FEDERAL COURTHOUSES
Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy and Security Costs
Require Better Tracking and Management
What GAO Found
The federal judiciary's rental obligations to GSA for courthouses have
increased from $780 million to $990 million-or 27 percent from fiscal
years 2000 through 2005, after controlling for inflation-primarily due to
a simultaneous net increase in space from 33.6 million to 39.8 million
rentable square feet, a 19 percent increase nationwide. Much of the net
increase in space was the result of new courthouses that the judiciary has
taken occupancy of since 2000. According to the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), the judiciary's workload has grown and the number
of court staff has doubled since 1985. Shell rent (the building with basic
infrastructure) increased proportionately with net square footage growth,
but operational (utilities and general maintenance) and security costs
grew disproportionately higher than square footage due to external
factors, such as increasing energy costs and security requirements.
Neither GSA nor the judiciary had routinely and comprehensively analyzed
the factors causing rent increases, making it more difficult for the
judiciary to manage increases.
The Approximate Share of Judiciary Rent Increases Attributable to Net
Growth in Square Footage and Other Factors (Fiscal Years 2000 through
2005) Dollars in millions
All rent componentsattributable to net increases in square footage
Operating costs that exceeded net increases in square footage
Security costs that exceeded net increases in square footage
Total: $210 million increase, adjusted for inflation
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
The federal judiciary faces several challenges to managing its rental
obligations, including costly new construction requirements, a lack of
incentives for efficient space use, and a lack of space allocation
criteria for appeals and senior judges. First, building requirements, such
as three separate circulation patterns for judges, prisoners, and the
public and other structural and architectural elements make courthouses
among the most expensive federal facilities to construct, often leading to
higher rent payments. Second, the judiciary has begun a rent validation
effort intended to monitor GSA rent charges, but it does not address the
lack of incentives for efficient space management that we found at the
circuit and district levels. An example of the inefficiencies that may
result is in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the judiciary paid
about $272,000 in 2005 to rent space for an appeals judge in McLean,
Virginia, in addition to paying for space designated for that judge in a
nearby federal courthouse that the judiciary later used for alternative
purposes. Finally, the lack of criteria for assigning courtrooms for
appeals and senior judges can contribute to inefficiencies in the amount
of space provided, which can result in higher
rent payments. United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 6
Increases in Square Footage and Operating and Security Costs Have Driven
Increases in the Judiciary's Rent Bill from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005
10
Judiciary Faces a Number of Challenges but Could Take Actions to Better
Manage Its Future Rent Payments 21
Conclusions 38
Recommendations 39
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 40
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
Appendix II Comments from the General
Services Administration 46
Appendix III Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 48
GAO Comments 81
Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products
Table
: Newly Constructed Federal Courthouses Occupied since Fiscal Year 1998
Figures
Figure 1: Space Distribution within the Federal Judiciary in
Fiscal
Year 2005 9
Figure 2: Change in Judiciary Rent and Rentable Square Footage
(Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005) 11
Figure 3: The Approximate Share of Judiciary Rent Increases
Attributable to Net Growth in Square Footage and Other
Factors (Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005) 12
Figure 4: Percentage Change in Square Footage and Major Rent
Bill
Components, by Judicial Circuit, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2005 17
Figure 5: Sample Courtroom and Associated Support Spaces That
Were Based on Design Guide Criteria 23
Figure 6: The Atrium in the Sandra Day O'Conner U.S.
Courthouse,
Phoenix, Arizona 24
Figure 7: Storage Space in the Seattle Courthouse That Was
Planned for Conversion into a District Courtroom 28
Figure 8: Unassigned Chamber Suites Used by Visiting Judges in
the Arizona District 30
Figure 9: Special Proceedings Courtroom in the Sandra Day
O'Conner U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona 32
Figure 10: Senior District Judge Courtroom in the Union Station
Courthouse in Tacoma, Washington 37
Abbreviations
AOUSC Administrative Office of the United States Courts
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FBF Federal Buildings Fund
FPS Federal Protective Service
GSA General Services Administration
ROI return on investment
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.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
June 20, 2006
The Honorable Don Young Chairman The Honorable James Oberstar Ranking
Democratic Member Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure House of
Representatives
The Honorable Bill Shuster Chairman The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ranking Democratic Member Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure House of Representatives
Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the
federal judiciary 1 have undertaken a multibillion dollar courthouse
construction initiative to address what the judiciary has identified as
growing needs. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
(AOUSC), the judiciary's workload has grown substantially and the number
of court staff has doubled since 1985. The judiciary pays over $900
million in rent annually to GSA to occupy space for court-related
purposes, and this amount represents a growing proportion of the
judiciary's budget. The rent payments, which by law approximate commercial
rates, are deposited into GSA's Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). With
slightly over 20 percent of its budget allocated for rent payments, in
December 2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual
exemption from rent payments to GSA so that, according to judiciary
officials, they would not have to reduce personnel to pay the rent. In
denying the judiciary's requested rent exemption, GSA noted that FBF was
1
The federal judiciary is comprised of 94 judicial districts organized
around state boundaries and grouped into 12 regional circuits, each of
which has a United States Court of Appeals. There is also a 13th Circuit,
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has nationwide
jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving
patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the
Court of Federal Claims.
Page 1 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
designed to encourage efficient space utilization by making agencies
accountable for the space they occupy, and that it is unlikely GSA could
obtain direct appropriations to replace lost FBF income.
In June 2005, we testified 2 that federal agencies' rent payments provided
a relatively stable, predictable source of revenue for FBF, but that this
revenue has not been sufficient to finance both growing capital investment
needs and the cost of leased space. We also found that previous rent
exemptions, such as the one requested by the judiciary, hampered GSA's
ability to generate sufficient revenue for needed capital investment. To
address its budget- and space-related concerns, in 2004, the judiciary
placed a 2-year moratorium on new capital courthouse projects, which is
planned to be lifted at the end of fiscal year 2006. The judiciary said
that it is pursuing and implementing cost-containment initiatives through
a number of strategies associated with the moratorium. For example, the
judiciary is reviewing its design standards for new courthouses that could
lead to rent reductions, and it has initiated a new asset management
planning process that it expects to use to select less costly renovations
over building new courthouses on future projects. We have not evaluated
these measures. In addition, no new projects were included in the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget submission to Congress. On the basis
of a request by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, the judiciary has recently initiated a detailed study of
courtroom use. The Federal Judicial Center, the research arm of the
federal judiciary, plans to conduct this study. Federal Judicial Center
officials met with GAO staff on April 18, 2006, to discuss the study.
You asked us to review the judiciary's courthouse rent costs. Accordingly,
we identified (1) recent trends in the judiciary's rent payments and
square footage occupied and (2) challenges that the judiciary faces in
managing its rent costs. To address these objectives, we analyzed
nationwide judiciary rent data generated from GSA's billing system,
reviewed laws and the regulation related to FBF and GSA's rent pricing
process and policies, and reviewed the U.S. Courts Design Guide and other
judiciary rent planning documents. Additionally, we toured federal
courthouses in the following districts: Arizona, Eastern Virginia,
Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Western Washington. We selected
Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode
GAO, Courthouse Construction: Overview of Previous and Ongoing Work,
GAO-05-838T (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005).
Page 2 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Results in Brief
Island, and Western Washington because they were districts that
experienced large overall rent increases from fiscal years 2000 through
2005 and were geographically dispersed. We also visited Maryland and
Eastern Virginia court facilities while we were designing this audit and
included them in the review because they contained a new courthouse, a
renovated courthouse, and a courthouse that was targeted for replacement.
The findings from these courthouse visits cannot be generalized to the
population of federal courthouses nationwide. We interviewed district,
magistrate, and bankruptcy judges; officials from AOUSC, which is the
judiciary's administrative agency; clerks, circuit executives, and other
representatives from U.S. circuit and district courts with authority over
space and facilities; GSA officials in headquarters and the regions; and
other real property management experts. We determined that the rent data
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. We conducted
our work from May 2005 to May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Appendix I contains additional information
on our scope and methodology.
The federal judiciary's rental obligations for federally owned and leased
space have steadily risen from $780 million to $990 million, or 27 percent
from fiscal years 2000 through 2005, after controlling for inflation.
During this period, the judiciary had an increase in the amount of space
it occupies, from 33.6 million to 39.8 million rentable square feet, which
is a 19 percent increase nationwide. About two-thirds of the rent increase
is attributable to this net increase in square footage, much of which was
caused by the construction of new courthouses. Among the components of
rent, shell (the building with basic infrastructure) grew proportionately
with the amount of net space added-about 19 percent. However, increases in
operating costs (driven by increases in energy costs) and security costs
grew disproportionately higher than the percentage of net space added,
thus contributing to the overall 27 percent increase in rent. The costs of
tenant improvements (finishes such as carpeting) increased at a slower
rate than the amount of net space added. Square footage and total rent
growth occurred in all years, circuits, and courts. The judiciary's rent
increases have outpaced those of other agencies located in GSA space,
largely because the federal judiciary's square footage is growing faster
than that of other agencies. However, the rate of operating cost growth
was similar to those experienced by other agencies. 3 We found that
neither
3
Interagency comparisons regarding security costs are not possible since
the methods used to secure federal courthouses differ from other agencies.
Page 3 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
the judiciary nor GSA had routinely and comprehensively analyzed the
factors influencing the rent increases. To improve the judiciary's
understanding of its rent costs, we are recommending that the judiciary
coordinate with GSA to analyze its rent trends and factors causing any
changes on an annual basis.
The federal judiciary faces several challenges to managing its rent costs
including costly new construction requirements, a lack of incentives for
efficient space use, and a lack of space allocation criteria for appeals
and senior district judges. First, modern courthouses require structural
and architectural elements that make them among the most costly types of
federal space to construct. Chief among these elements are the three
separate circulation patterns for judges, prisoners, and the public that
the
U.S. Marshals Service (Marshals Service) requires for security. These
construction costs necessitate rental rates under GSA's pricing policy
that are more expensive than the highest-quality office space in some
markets, including Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; and Seattle,
Washington. The judiciary's policy of providing one courtroom per district
judge sets the number of courtrooms needed in new federal courthouses and
adds space requirements, consequently increasing rent payments. Second, a
rent validation effort the judiciary began recently does not address the
lack of incentives for efficient space use at the circuit and district
levels. Because rent is paid centrally by AOUSC, circuits and districts
have few incentives to efficiently manage their space. An example of the
inefficiencies that may result is in the Eastern District of Virginia,
where the judiciary paid about $272,000 in 2005 to rent 4,600 square feet
of office space for an appeals judge in McLean, Virginia, in addition to
paying for 4,300 square feet of chamber space originally designated for
that judge in the nearby Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria,
Virginia. According to AOUSC, the judiciary has pursued alternative uses
for this chamber space.
During site visits, we observed multiple instances of unused or unassigned
courtrooms, chambers, and support spaces. Some of this underutilization is
the result of outdated criteria, which stipulated the existence of support
areas, such as libraries, that in some cases are now rarely used. Lastly,
assigning space to appeals courts and senior district judges poses
challenges due to a lack of criteria, which can lead to variation and
inefficiencies and, thus, higher rent. Although the appeals court is
required by law to hold court in specific locations, the statute does not
indicate how much space it should occupy. For example, the judiciary plans
to increase the space the appeals courts occupy by taking over former
district courthouses in Richmond, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington, for
appeals court use, even though the appeals courts conduct court there once
a month or less. We are recommending that the judiciary establish
incentives for more efficient space use at the circuit and district
levels, establish criteria for the number of appeals court and senior
district judge courtrooms and chambers, and revisit its space allocation
criteria related to technological advancements.
We provided a draft of this report to GSA and AOUSC for review and
comment. GSA agreed generally with the thrust of the report and concurred
with our recommendations, but said that it was more aware of the reasons
for rent increases than our draft portrayed (see appendix II). AOUSC
strongly disagreed with the findings and recommendations in the draft
report. For example, AOUSC said that our objectives did not focus on
important issues, such as increases in the judiciary's workload and the
appropriateness of GSA rent pricing policy. These issues fell outside the
scope of our review. In addition, AOUSC questioned our methodology for
attributing two-thirds of the judiciary's rent increase to net increases
in square footage, however, we continue to believe that our methodology is
sound and a discussion of the reasons is contained at the end of this
letter and in comment 4 of appendix III. In commenting on our draft
report, AOUSC also identified several challenges in addition to the ones
we identified that we subsequently incorporated into the report but did
not evaluate. These included statutorily designated places of holding
court, the benefits to GSA and the Federal Building Fund of retaining old
courthouses with other courts, and inconsistencies in the funding stream
for courthouse construction projects. In addition, we added context from
the judiciary's perspective in other areas and made technical changes in
response to AOUSC's comments. While important, these changes did not
impact our overall findings, conclusions, or recommendations. See appendix
III for AOUSC's letter and our comments.
With regard to our recommendations, AOUSC said that tracking trends is
necessary, but that the specific types of data recommended would not be
particularly useful. AOUSC also said that it is in the process of creating
incentives by establishing an annual budget cap for space rent costs, but
no final decisions on the structure or level of the caps have been made.
AOUSC disagreed that additional space allocation criteria are needed for
appeals courts and senior district judges, but said that it has already
started updating its space allocation criteria related to technology and
plans to consider other changes in the future. We believe additional
criteria for the appeals court and senior district judges are needed
because the appeals courts' portion of the judiciary's square footage and
rent bill is growing, and exclusive courtroom space is provided for senior
district
Background
judges with limited caseloads. AOUSC also noted concerns about obtaining
needed data from GSA to manage its rental obligations; we agree that
cooperation from GSA is important.
Federal agencies, including the judiciary, that operate in facilities
under the control and custody of GSA are required to pay rent for the
space they occupy. Rent payments, which by law must approximate commercial
rates, are deposited into FBF, which is a revolving fund that GSA uses to
provide a range of real property services, including maintenance, repairs,
and alterations, to space occupied by federal agencies. GSA, through FBF,
encourages federal agencies to be accountable for the space they use by
requiring them to budget and pay for their own space requirements. A
committee report accompanying the enactment of FBF noted that because each
agency would have to budget for its space needs, doing so would promote
more efficient and economical use of space by government agencies. 4 The
judiciary's rent payments represent roughly 15 percent of all rent
payments made into FBF, making it one of the two largest contributors. 5
Over the last 20 years, we have compiled a large body of work on
courthouse construction and federal real property that focused primarily
on the need to better manage courthouse costs, planning, and courtroom
use. A list of GAO reports related to federal real property and federal
courthouses appears at the end of this report.
On the basis of a rent pricing policy that was fully implemented in fiscal
year 2000, the rent GSA charges is composed principally of shell rent,
operating expenses, tenant improvements, and security costs. These
components account for over 96 percent of the judiciary's rent bill
payments in fiscal year 2005. The shell rent represents the cost of using
the structure, base building systems, concrete floor, and basic wall and
ceiling finishes and is the largest rent component, representing 60
percent of the judiciary's annual rent bill payments in fiscal year 2005.
6 For most government-owned properties, shell rent does not represent the
actual costs, but is based instead on comparable private sector commercial
rents in the local commercial market. GSA updates the shell rent rates
every 5
4
H.R. Rep. No. 92-989, at 3 & 4 (1972).
5
The Department of Justice is the other largest contributor.
6
According to GSA, it uses shell rent proceeds to finance the cost of
acquiring, repairing, altering, and operating buildings under the custody
and control of GSA.
Page 6 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
years on the basis of a commercial market real estate appraisal. GSA
officials said that because the specialized courthouse finishes are paid
for separately as tenant improvements, the remaining shell is comparable
with other high-quality office space. In areas where there is no
commercial real estate market to use in developing an appraisal or where
the appraisal does not provide a fair return on GSA's capital investment,
GSA applies a return on investment (ROI) pricing model. ROI pricing uses a
cost recovery approach based on the cost to design and construct the
building, plus a GSA fee spread over a 25-year period. GSA officials
indicated that the ROI approach is primarily used for border-related
facilities and that less than 1 percent of GSA's non judiciary facilities
are priced using ROI. In government-leased space, GSA passes the actual
lease costs directly to the tenant, plus a GSA management fee. Regardless
of how GSA prices it, the tenant agency is responsible for paying shell
rent for as long as it occupies the facility.
In both owned and leased space, tenant improvements reflect customizing
space for that tenant and can include private offices, special type
spaces, floor covering, doors, and wood finishes. The tenant is
responsible for deciding how to finish the space beyond some basic minimum
standards and thus has control over much of the cost. GSA officials have
said that the judiciary has the highest costs for tenant improvements in
its inventory because of the level of finishes needed in federal
courthouses. Unlike the other rent components, tenant improvement costs
are removed from the rent bill once the tenant has completely paid for
them.
Rental rates for operating costs-which cover cleaning, general
maintenance, heating, air conditioning, and other utilities-are set as
part of the market appraisal for the shell rent in owned space. But unlike
the shell rent, operating costs are adjusted annually for inflation in
between appraisals. In leased spaces and some owned locations, GSA passes
the actual operating costs directly to the tenant, plus a GSA fee to
recoup the expenses incurred.
The Marshals Service provides security services to judges, courts staff,
and the public inside courthouses, and the Federal Protective Service
(FPS) generally protects the exterior of courthouses. Until fiscal year
2005, the judiciary paid security costs to GSA as part of its rent
payment. Starting in fiscal year 2005, however, the judiciary began paying
FPS security costs directly to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
after FPS's transfer to that department. However, since FPS security costs
still exist, and they were an important part of rent for all of the other
years we analyzed, we included these costs as if they were still part of
annual rent bill payments for fiscal year 2005. Rent is also composed of
several other components, including fees for parking, building joint use
(e.g., cafeterias and daycare centers), antennas, and GSA's Public
Buildings Service. These other components comprised about 4 percent of the
judiciary's entire rent bill in fiscal year 2005.
It is GSA's policy that all space assignments in its inventory have an
occupancy agreement between GSA and the tenant agency that explains the
financial terms and conditions of the occupancy, as well as the years of
occupancy. According to GSA, the occupancy agreement provides the tenant
with a preview of total rent charges prior to construction of a facility
and can act as a rent planning mechanism. GSA tenants, including the
judiciary, can appeal a rent charge for a bill if they think that GSA may
have made a mistake or misapplied its rent policy. GSA said that formal
rent appeals are rare. GSA officials said that they do not track informal
appeals because they are resolved locally. For example, the District of
Rhode Island is currently informally challenging its appraised rate for
the Federal Building U.S. Courthouse and the adjacent J.O. Pastore Federal
Building but this has not yet risen to the level of a formal challenge.
The Judicial Conference of the United States (Judicial Conference) is the
judiciary's principal policy making body. The Judicial Conference works in
coordination with AOUSC, which is responsible for administering the
federal judiciary's budget as well as performing other programmatic and
administrative functions, such as paying the judiciary's rent bill from
its annual appropriations from Congress. Each circuit has a judicial
council, which is composed of federal judges in that circuit, and the
council has the authority to determine the need for all space
accommodation within its circuit. As such, the district, bankruptcy, and
appeals courts occupy space in courthouses or lease space in other federal
or private office buildings. The district courts are the trial courts of
the federal court system, housing both district and magistrate judges.
They occupy the most space within the federal judiciary. The district
courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases,
including both civil and criminal matters. The federal judiciary has
exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases, which are overseen by
bankruptcy judges. The court of appeals from each circuit hears appeals
from the district courts located within its boundaries, as well as appeals
from decisions of federal administrative agencies. Figure 1 illustrates
the rentable square feet distribution within the federal judiciary.
Figure 1: Space Distribution within the Federal Judiciary in Fiscal Year
2005
4%
Remaining space
(1.6 million square feet)
Courts of Appeals
(4.4 million square feet)
Bankruptcy courts
(6.7 million square feet)
District courts
(27.6 million square feet)
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Note: The remaining space is composed of AOUSC, the Federal Public
Defender's Office, and other specialized federal courts.
The judiciary and GSA are responsible for managing the multibillion-dollar
federal courthouse construction program, which is designed to address the
judiciary's long-term facility needs. AOUSC works with the nation's 94
judicial districts to identify and prioritize needs for new and expanded
courthouses. Since fiscal year 1996, AOUSC has used a 5-year plan to
prioritize new courthouse construction projects, taking into account a
court's need for space, security concerns, growth in judicial
appointments, and operational inefficiencies that may exist. The Design
Guide specifies the judiciary's criteria for designing court facilities
and sets the space and design standards that GSA uses for courthouse
construction and renovation. First published in 1991, the Design Guide has
been revised several times to address economic constraints, functional
requirements, and other issues, and the guide is currently undergoing
another revision. Any significant deviation from the Design Guide's
standards must be approved by the appropriate circuit council-a group of
judges within a circuit-and reported to Congress.
Increases in Square Footage and Operating and Security Costs Have Driven
Increases in the Judiciary's Rent Bill from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005
The federal judiciary's rental obligations for federally owned and leased
space have steadily risen from $780 million to $990 million, or 27 percent
from fiscal years 2000 through 2005, after controlling for inflation.
During this time, the judiciary had a net increase in the amount of space
it occupies nationwide of 6.2 million rentable square feet, from 33.6
million to 39.8 million rentable square feet-a 19 percent increase. The
judiciary's rent increases have outpaced those of other agencies located
in GSA space, largely because the judiciary's square footage is growing
faster than that of other agencies. According to AOUSC, the judiciary's
workload has grown substantially and the number of court staff has doubled
since 1985.
In analyzing the increases in rent, it is useful, for purposes of
comparison, to consider that percentage increases in rent would occur
proportionally with percentage increases in net space added. In other
words, holding all factors constant, a net increase in space of 19 percent
would logically be accompanied by a 19 percent increase in rent. Although
several factors make it difficult to predict rent increases, comparisons
with percentage increases in net space provide a frame of reference to
better understand changes in rent from a prior period. As such, in
analyzing the individual components of the actual rent increases the
judiciary experienced, we found that shell rent, which includes the
building with basic infrastructure, grew proportionately with the
percentage of net space added-19 percent. However, operating and security
costs grew disproportionately more than net space added. Operating costs
grew 45 percent during this period and security costs grew 134 percent. On
the basis of discussions with GSA, the private sector, and our review of
industry data, we concluded that the primary reasons for this growth are,
in the case of operating costs, significant spikes in recent years in
energy costs, and, in the case of security, the increased emphasis on
security needs in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. Figure 2 shows the percentage increase in net rentable square
feet between fiscal years 2000 and 2005 compared with the percentage
increase in rent. Figure 3 shows that about two-thirds of the rent
increase is attributable to the 19 percent increase in net square footage,
and that the other one-third was caused by operating and security costs
that grew disproportionately more than square footage.
Figure 2: Change in Judiciary Rent and Rentable Square Footage (Fiscal
Years 2000 through 2005)
Percentage increase 30
27%
25
20
19%
15
10
5
0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Fiscal year
Total rent costs, adjusted for inflation Rentable square feet
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Figure 3: The Approximate Share of Judiciary Rent Increases Attributable to
Net Growth in Square Footage and Other Factors (Fiscal Years 2000 through
2005)
Dollars in millions
All rent componentsattributable to net increasesin square footage
Operating costs that exceeded net increasesin square footage
Security costs that exceeded net increasesin square footage
Total: $210 million increase, adjusted for inflation
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
In commenting on our draft report, AOUSC disagreed with our methods for
attributing costs to the judiciary's net growth in square footage. We
believe that our methods are sound. Our analysis is based on a calculation
of rent data trends rooted in the basic mathematical logic that a net
increase in square footage will lead to additional rent charges associated
with that space (see comment 4 in app. III).
New Courthouses Have Added Considerable Amounts of Space in Recent Years
The construction of new courthouses accounts for much of the new space
added by the judiciary in recent years. New courthouses represent about
8.8 million rentable square feet of new space that the judiciary has taken
occupancy of since fiscal year 1998, which represents a larger timeframe
than our rent trends data. 7 According to judiciary officials, much of the
judiciary's growth and accompanying space-related needs have been the
result of elevating workloads, such as increases experienced in civil case
filings. For example, AOUSC said that appeals filings have increased 66
percent, civil filings (district) have increased 29 percent, criminal
filings
7
We use different time periods to show that the courthouse construction
period extended beyond our trend analysis and to avoid methodological
problems involving partial year occupancy.
Page 12 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
(district) have increased 44 percent, bankruptcy filings have increased
118 percent, persons under supervision have increased 40 percent, total
judges have increased 25 percent, and total court support staff has
increased 45 percent from 1990 to 2005. Accordingly, judiciary officials
stated that the additional space the courts have added, often through
construction of new courthouses, was essential in accommodating the
creation of new judgeships. Furthermore, judiciary officials have said
this growth has also resulted in the need for ancillary space for court
support staff.
Table 1 lists the names and associated rentable square feet of the
courthouses that the judiciary has taken occupancy of since 1998. New
courthouses do not account for all of the judiciary's new space. The
judiciary has added other space and, in some cases, does not return old
courthouses to GSA for disposal. In our site visits to districts with
newly constructed courthouses, we found that the judiciary tended to
retain the old district courthouse, although usually for other purposes.
For example, in Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, the bankruptcy court took
over the old district courthouses after the district court moved into the
new courthouse. In Seattle, Washington, and Richmond, Virginia, the
appeals courts plan to take over the old district court after the district
court moves to the new courthouse. Among the courthouses we visited, only
in Omaha, Nebraska, did the federal judiciary permanently vacate the old
location of the federal court when it moved to the newly constructed
Hruska Courthouse. In that instance, the judiciary more than doubled its
overall square footage when it moved out of a multiple-agency federal
building into the new courthouse.
Page 14 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Table 1: Newly Constructed Federal Courthouses Occupied since Fiscal Year
1998
Construction completed Rentable square
Federal courthouse City and state (fiscal feet
year)
Quentin N. Burdick United Fargo, North Dakota 1998 84,313
States Courthouse
U.S. Courthouse and Ft. Myers, Florida 1998 102,201
Federal Building
Howard H. Baker Jr. U.S. Knoxville, Tennessee 1998 200,563
Courthouse
Robert C. Byrd and U.S. Charleston, West 1998 209,808
Courthouse Virginia
Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Tampa, Florida 1998 307,671
Courthouse
Charles Evans Whittaker Kansas City, Missouri 1998 470,718
Courthouse
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Boston, Massachusetts 1998 506,602
Courthouse
Robert C. Byrd Federal Beckley, West Virginia 1999 61,145
Building and Courthouse
William J. Nealon U.S. Scranton, Pennsylvania 1999 65,917
Courthouse Annex
Covington U.S. Courthouse Covington, Kentucky 1999 83,435
U.S. Courthouse Annex Tallahassee, Florida 1999 86,463
Jim Shaw Courthouse Lafayette, Louisiana 1999 110,199
Brownsville Federal Brownsville, Texas 1999 111,222
Building U.S. Courthouse
Pete Domenici Courthouse Albuquerque, New Mexico 1999 227,801
Robert T. Matsui U.S. Sacramento, California 1999 348,134
Courthouse
Ronald Reagan Federal Santa Ana, California 1999 403,049
Building and Courthouse
Roman L. Hruska U.S. Omaha, Nebraska 2000 197,724
Courthouse
Lloyd D. George Federal Las Vegas, Nevada 2000 213,708
Building and U.S.
Courthouse
Evo A. DeConcini Tucson, Arizona 2000 232,245
Courthouse
Alfonse M. D'amato U.S. Central Islip, New York 2000 409,652
Courthouse
Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. St. Louis, Missouri 2000 611,487
Courthouse
James H. Quillen U.S. Greenville, Tennessee 2001 108,164
Federal Courthouse
Corpus Christi Corpus Christi, Texas 2001 129,952
Courthouse
Frank M. Johnson Junior Montgomery, Alabama 2001 231,460
Courthouse
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Phoenix, Arizona 2001 396,472
Courthouse
Nathaniel R. Jones
Federal Building and Youngstown, Ohio 2002 21,234
U.S.
Courthouse
C.B. King U.S. Albany, Georgia 2002 42,072
Courthouse
London Courthouse Annex London, Kentucky 2002 63,990
Hammond Courthouse Hammond, Indiana 2002 152,873
Carl B. Stokes U.S. Cleveland, Ohio 2002 357,278
Courthouse
Matthew J. Perry Jr. Columbia, South Carolina 2003 148,189
U.S. Courthouse
Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Denver, Colorado 2003 215,037
Courthouse
United States Jacksonville, Florida 2003 308,247
Courthouse
Construction completed Rentable square
Federal courthouse City and state (fiscal year) feet
Federal Building and Wheeling, West 2004 28,936
U.S. Courthouse Annex Virginia
Erie New Construction Erie, Pennsylvania 2004 30,914
Annex
Laredo Federal Laredo, Texas 2004 91,351
Building U.S.
Courthouse
Dan M. Russell Federal Gulfport, Mississippi 2004 134,974
Building and U.S.
Courthouse
New Federal Seattle, Washington 2004 386,281
Courthouse
William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett 2005 267,738
Prettyman Washington, DC
U.S. Courthouse
U.S. Courthouse Fresno, CA 2006 274,278
Emanuel Cellar U.S. Brooklyn, NY 2006 396,410
Courthouse Annex
Square Footage Increases Occurred in All Years, Circuits, and Courts
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
The judiciary is evaluating its future courthouse construction effort.
Before it imposed its 2005 moratorium postponing new courthouse
construction projects for 2 years, the judiciary indicated that it had 35
additional courthouse construction projects planned for fiscal years 2005
through 2009, estimated to cost billions of dollars. According to AOUSC,
these projects will be subject to the judiciary's new asset management
planning process that will consider renovation and other ways to limit new
construction. As of May 2006, no final decisions had been made.
Each circuit increased its square footage from fiscal years 2000 through
2005. However, the 8th and 9th Circuits added proportionally more square
footage than the others, growing by 36 percent and 27 percent,
respectively. Within the 8th Circuit, Missouri and Nebraska have nearly
doubled their square footage from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. Fiscal
year 2001 was the first full year of occupancy for the Eastern District of
Missouri in the newly constructed Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse in
St. Louis, which is the single largest federal courthouse in the nation
based on square footage. Fiscal year 2001 was also the first year of
occupancy for the District of Nebraska in the Roman L. Hruska U.S.
Courthouse in Omaha, which the chief district judge said was necessary
because a number of space and security deficiencies existed in its
previous facility. In the 9th Circuit, the District of Arizona has
experienced a 128 percent increase in its space during this time period,
thus leading to rent bill increases in excess of $15 million from fiscal
years 2000 through 2005. During this time, the district opened two new
district courthouses-the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix
and the Evo A. DeConcini Courthouse in Tucson-and converted its old
district courthouses in Phoenix and Tucson into bankruptcy courthouses. 8
The chief district judge indicated that these new courthouses were
necessary due to the new judgeships and increasing caseloads in Arizona.
Figure 4 shows that square footage and total rent increased in all
circuits. However, the amount of increase in shell rent compared to square
footage varied by circuit. GSA officials said much of this variation is
the result of differing real estate trends nationwide, but we did not
evaluate the variations.
In addition to taking occupancy of new and existing courthouses, the
judiciary vacated some leased space.
Page 16 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Figure 4: Percentage Change in Square Footage and Major Rent Bill
Components, by Judicial Circuit, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005
Sources: GAO analysis of GSA dataand MapArt.
Note: The Federal and District of Columbia circuits were included in the
aggregate statistics but are not listed in the map.
Judiciary's Energy and Security Costs Increased at a Disproportionately
Higher Rate Than Net Square Feet Added
The district, bankruptcy, and appeals courts have increased their square
footage and rent obligations to GSA from fiscal years 2000 through 2005.
The appeals court's space and rent have grown at a faster rate than the
district and bankruptcy courts. We found indications from our site visits
that this trend may continue. In Richmond, Virginia, and Seattle,
Washington, the appeals courts are planning to greatly expand their space
by taking over older courthouses for their exclusive use (this example is
discussed in more detail later in this report).
From fiscal years 2000 through 2005, the portion of the judiciary's rent
attributable to operating costs have increased 45 percent, primarily due
to rising energy costs, thereby outpacing growth in square footage. This
rate was consistent with space that other federal agencies occupy in GSA's
inventory. In 2005, operating costs comprised about 22 percent of the
judiciary's rent bill and represented a growing proportion of the rent
bill in recent years. Industry officials acknowledged that the office
building sector has experienced similar increases in operating costs, and
we found that the wholesale costs of natural gas and heating oil have
risen during this period. Operating cost growth occurred in all U.S.
Circuits and, according to GSA officials, can be attributed to significant
cost increases for utilities, such as heating fuels. For example, the 1st
Circuit Court's operating costs have increased 86 percent since fiscal
year 2000. GSA officials said that this increase in operating costs in the
1st Circuit can be attributed primarily to the Moakley Courthouse in
Boston, Massachusetts, where the appraised operating costs increased at
that courthouse by more than $2 million in fiscal year 2004 because of
energy cost increases throughout the region.
Since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City and the September 11, 2001, attacks, federal agencies have
understandably devoted significant resources and attention to the physical
security of their real property assets. In part to account for this
change, the security cost component of the judiciary's rent bill payments
increased 134 percent from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. This increase
greatly outpaced the 19 percent growth in square footage. The security
component represents about 6 percent of the entire rent bill in fiscal
year 2005 and increased considerably in all U.S. Circuits from fiscal
years 2000 through 2005. A basic security charge is assessed for all GSA
properties
Tenant Improvement Costs Have Increased at a Disproportionately Lower Rate
Than Square Footage
where FPS 9 provides security services. Many new courthouse construction
projects have additional security enhancements that have led to increased
rent bills nationwide. 1 0 According to AOUSC, FPS has placed additional
contract guards in all federal buildings since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. Security costs for private sector buildings have also
increased during this period. The judiciary no longer pays its FPS
security costs to GSA as part of its charges. Beginning in fiscal year
2005, the judiciary started paying FPS security costs directly to DHS
instead of including them in its rent payments to GSA. However, since the
security costs still exist, and they were an important part of rent for
all of the other years we analyzed, we included these costs as if they
were still part of annual rent bill payments for fiscal year 2005.
The tenant improvement component of the rent bill has increased 12 percent
nationwide since fiscal year 2000, growing at a disproportionately lower
rate than the net amount of square footage added. Tenant improvements grew
at a slower rate than other rent components because the majority of
federal courthouses are not newly constructed or renovated, and, unlike
other components, every year some tenant improvements are removed from the
rent bill when fully amortized. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th Circuits, while
other rent cost components grew, the tenant improvement component
decreased since 2000 because some buildings reached the end of their
tenant improvement cycle. For example, the judiciary's tenant improvement
payments for the Connecticut Financial Center, which houses part of the
2nd Circuit's Federal Bankruptcy Court, expired in fiscal year 2005, and
the tenant improvement rental cost went from $44,500 in fiscal year 2003
to zero in fiscal year 2005. In addition, the Martin Luther King Jr.
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey, which houses
the 3rd Circuit's district court in that city, paid off much of its tenant
improvement costs from fiscal years 2002 through 2005, thereby reducing
its tenant improvement charges for that facility by more than $1.5 million
since fiscal year 2001.
9
In March 2003, FPS, which provides security for federal facilities, was
transferred from GSA to Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the
Department of Homeland Security.
10
GSA charges for building specific capital security items through the rent
bill, which are for security items that are typically part of the building
core and shell that can include vehicular barriers, guard booths,
blast-resistant windows, and progressive collapse countermeasures.
GSA and the Judiciary Do Not Routinely and Comprehensively Analyze Trends of
Major Rent Bill Components Related to Rent Bill Growth
The judiciary said that it believes fully amortized tenant improvement
charges are not removed from its rent bill but, instead, are shifted to
shell rent under the heading of "residual value of tenant improvements."
GSA's pricing policy allows appraisers to consider the remaining value of
amortized tenant improvements when appraising a property, but GSA
officials said that this does not affect the appraised shell rental rate
in most instances. Although we did not evaluate specific appraisals, our
analysis of the rent data did not show a disproportionate increase in
shell rent that would have been expected if GSA was generally shifting
fully amortized tenant improvement costs to shell rent on the judiciary's
rent bill. Shell rent per square foot stayed constant over the five-year
period we analyzed, after adjusting for inflation.
Although tenant improvements increased 12 percent overall, some circuits
experienced steep increases in tenant improvement costs because of the new
courthouses that were constructed in recent years and the types of
finishes the judiciary had chosen. For example, the District of Rhode
Island experienced a 927 percent increase in its tenant improvement costs,
which GSA attributed to the cost of finishes for major renovations of the
district's two primary courthouses-the Federal Building U.S. Courthouse
and the adjacent J.O. Pastore Federal Building. District Court officials
told us that practically every part of the building had tenant improvement
needs. GSA officials said that both of these major renovation projects,
chosen in lieu of new construction, led to increases in the overall
quality of the space the district occupies and, consequently, very large
increases in tenant improvement charges. The judiciary noted that this
facility was renovated within Design Guide standards and within the tenant
improvement allowance limits established by GSA.
GSA and judiciary officials do not routinely and comprehensively analyze
the trends in rent in a way that provides understanding and discussion of
the factors influencing rent changes. GSA has provided the judiciary with
what it views as options for reducing its rent obligations, including
renegotiating leases in locations where commercial market rents have
declined and closing underused courthouses, but the judiciary stated that
this assistance has not been very useful in reducing long-term rent costs.
In addition, GSA has not fully analyzed the underlying factors
contributing to increases in the judiciary's rent. Similarly, judiciary
officials said resource and data limitations have inhibited the
judiciary's ability to create these trend data. For example, judiciary
officials said they receive rent information at the building level, making
it difficult to compile the information into nationwide trends. However,
without this type of analysis, it is difficult for the judiciary to know
how to best address larger-than-expected increases in rent or to gain a
national understanding of the effect that local space management decisions
have on rent. Our analysis of GSA data shows that space increases,
operating cost charges, and security increases have driven the rent bill
increases since 2000, while tenant improvement fees rose more slowly. This
information could help the judiciary better understand the reasons behind
its rent increases, make more informed space allocation decisions in the
future, and identify errors in GSA's billing. Furthermore, the lack of
full understanding of the reasons for increases in the judiciary rent, in
our view, contributed to growing hostility between the judiciary and GSA.
For example, the judiciary has criticized courthouse rent as being a
"profit center" for GSA without fully understanding the reasons for rent
increases. Conversely, GSA's lack of a full understanding of the reasons
for the rent increases left it unable to justify them to the judiciary and
other stakeholders, such as Congress.
Structural and architectural elements, such as the need to build three
separate circulation patterns for judges, prisoners, and the public, make
courthouses among the most expensive federal facilities to construct in
GSA's inventory. The judiciary's centralized rent payment system does not
provide incentives for efficient space use at the circuit and district
levels. The lack of criteria in the Design Guide for assigning courtroom
and chamber space for appeals and senior district judges creates variation
in the amount of space provided that also affects the amount of rent the
judiciary pays. The judiciary noted a number of other challenges
including, among other, the changing nature of its work and inadequate
communication with GSA.
Judiciary Faces a Number of Challenges but Could Take Actions to Better Manage
Its Future Rent Payments
Structural and Architectural Elements of Modern Courthouses Have Increased
Construction Costs beyond the Commercial Market
To help ensure consistency, the Design Guide was first published in 1991,
and it established the design criteria for modern courthouses by providing
space guidelines for a federal courthouse. The guide lays out a framework
for a complex construction project due to three different circulation
patterns for judicial officers, federal prisoners, and the public. The
Marshals Service requires separate circulation patterns in order to
provide adequate security for federal courthouses. To maintain separate
circulation patterns, courthouses need elevators leading from each
independent circulation parking garage or building entrance to each
independent circulation area within each floor. For example, the Design
Guide provides for separate elevator systems (1) linking judicial officers
to their restricted parking areas, (2) linking prisoners with the secured
cell block and parking location, and (3) linking the public with the
public entrance. As a result, each courthouse has four elevator systems,
when including the need for a freight elevator system.
In our site visits, we found that these circulation patterns do not always
exist in the older courthouses, such as the Federal Building U.S.
Courthouse in Providence, Rhode Island. In these older courthouses, the
three groups access courtrooms through the same hallways, which, as
previously noted, is considered a security deficiency by the judiciary and
the Marshals Service. Moving into a courthouse that meets Design Guide
criteria improves security and increases the amount of space each
courtroom requires without increasing the actual size of the courtroom.
Figure 5 illustrates the Design Guide criteria provided for a courtroom
and the support space associated with it, including the three circulation
patterns, judges' chambers, prisoner holding cells, and public hallways.
Since the Design Guide also outlines the judiciary's policy for providing
one courtroom for each district judge, support spaces including chambers,
jury rooms, holding cells, and independent hallways for judges, the public
and prisoners, are replicated for each district judge in new courthouses.
This policy increases the judiciary's space requirements and, hence, its
rent payments.
Figure 5: Sample Courtroom and Associated Support Spaces That Were Based on
Design Guide Criteria
Source: GAO analysis of judiciary data.
GSA has also added architectural elements to courthouses that can increase
square footage and, in turn, rent. GSA's Design Excellence Program
establishes nationwide policies and procedures for selecting the finest
and most appropriate architects and artists for GSA buildings. The program
has produced architecturally important courthouses that were supported by
the judiciary. AOUSC said access to the federal courts is a core value in
the American system of government and that courthouses are historic and
important symbols of the federal government in communities across the
country that often play a significant role in urban redevelopment efforts.
According to judiciary and GSA officials, some of these architectural
elements, however, can increase the size of a building and consequently,
the rent the judiciary pays. Figure 6 illustrates how the public spaces
within a courthouse can help maintain architectural vision and increase
space requirements above functional needs, in turn leading to increased
rent.
Figure 6: The Atrium in the Sandra Day O'Conner U.S. Courthouse, Phoenix,
Arizona
Structural elements, including heightened security standards outlined in
the Design Guide, also contribute to the higher costs of modern
courthouses. Examples of these heightened security standards include exit
controls at the building perimeter; security door hardware; bullet- and
break-resistant glazing and physical barriers; and standard, emergency,
and backup power sources. The judiciary noted that some of these
Judiciary's Rent Validation Effort Intends to Monitor GSA Rent Charges but
Does Not Include Incentives for Efficient Space Management
elements reflect governmentwide building standards, not the judiciary's
own standards.
These structural and architectural elements have made federal courthouses
some of the most expensive federal facilities that GSA constructs, at
times increasing their price beyond what commercial market rates will
support. While the rent GSA charges for most properties is based on
commercial market appraisals, some properties' construction costs do not
garner an adequate ROI on the basis of the prevailing rates for
high-quality office space. For these facilities, GSA applies ROI pricing
that is based on the cost of design and construction of the building
shell. Increasingly, GSA is using ROI pricing for its federal courthouse
properties as compared with other federal facilities under the control of
GSA. Currently, 28, or 72 percent, of 39 ROI properties in GSA's inventory
are federal courthouses (excluding border-related facilities). This
includes several newly built courthouses in urban markets, such as
Seattle, Washington; Denver, Colorado; and Phoenix, Arizona. GSA officials
said that the complexity and physical requirements, mostly related to
security, drove the costs of these facilities above the price that the
commercial market would bear.
In January 2005, the judiciary initiated a nationwide rent validation
effort to ensure that GSA is accurately applying its rent pricing policy.
Phase I of the effort involves reviewing space assignments drawings
compared with the space occupied by the judiciary. Phase II involves the
examination of rental rates for buildings that the judiciary occupies. The
judiciary said that this effort has been hindered by an inability to get
underlying documentation, such as floor plans and appraisals, from GSA in
a timely manner. AOUSC indicated that this information is necessary to
truly validate GSA rent bills. As part of the validation effort, the
judiciary uncovered mistakes in GSA pricing that led to a significant
decrease in rent for the Northern and Southern Districts of New York.
According to the judiciary, the 9th Circuit also validates some rent
information, and GSA has corrected mistakes in that circuit that were
identified. In addition, the judiciary recently informally challenged $27
million in rent payments for several courthouses. Future discussions with
GSA will be needed to determine whether these rent challenges represent
actual rent errors.
The judiciary's rent validation effort will help the judiciary monitor GSA
billing. However, it does not address the lack of incentives for efficient
space management that we found in the judiciary's process for space-use
planning and rent payment. AOUSC pays the monthly rent bill on a national
level without providing access to billing information to circuit and
district officials. One AOUSC official processes the thousands of rent
bills monthly. While the rent bills are paid at a national level,
space-use decisions are made locally by circuit and district officials
since each circuit judicial council has the authority to determine space
needs. Some circuit and district officials that we visited said that this
process creates no incentives to save or reduce space and, consequently,
to lower rent payments. This is because the benefits of lower rent do not
directly benefit circuits or districts that reduce their space
requirements, and, conversely, neither the circuits nor the districts are
responsible for paying the higher costs associated with their space-use
and planning decisions. We also did not find a centralized oversight
function for judicial space-use at the district or courthouse level.
Consequently, the different court functions- such as the district,
bankruptcy, and appeals courts-are responsible for managing their own
space, thus limiting opportunities for efficient space management overall.
We identified a number of different examples during our site visits that
may illustrate how the lack of incentives may be undermining efficient
space-use and, consequently, causing increased rent payments by the
judiciary. We found the following:
o The judiciary builds to the 10-year need. That is, to avoid having to
obtain new space again soon after a new project is completed, judiciary
officials said that the judiciary plans for 10 years of excess space in
new buildings and major renovations. 1 1 However, building to the 10year
need assumes that the judiciary pays for excess space for the first 10
years of any new construction project. Because so many courthouses have
been constructed recently, the judiciary had excess space in many
courthouses. AOUSC officials said that having this excess space is
preferable to buildings being full upon occupancy because the benefits of
having the extra space available, especially if workload increases faster
than expected, outweigh the increased shortterm rental costs. There is a
risk in the 10-year plan that excess space could last beyond the 10-year
time frame if the judiciary overestimates growth. For example, the Union
Station Courthouse in Tacoma,
According to GSA, the judiciary's policy of planning for 10 years of
excess space upon occupancy of new buildings and major renovations is a
pilot test that GSA tentatively agreed to for four projects in fiscal year
2004. All prior projects were based on the 10-year requirement from the
design year.
Page 26 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Washington, and the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria,
Virginia, are reaching the 10-year point where they were expected to be
completely full, but both still had unassigned chambers and courtrooms. 1
2 AOUSC informed us that when this occurs, the judiciary seeks alternative
uses for the space, such as using it for conferences or storage. In
addition, AOUSC said that the Albert V. Bryan Courthouse should be full in
the next few years. Figure 7 illustrates space within the Seattle
Courthouse that is used for storage but was planned for conversion into a
district courtroom when needed.
According to AOUSC, these unassigned chambers and courtrooms are used when
needed by nonresident judges and for other purposes, and the Albert V.
Bryant Courthouse has reached space capacity for its district courts
clerks and probation offices.
Page 27 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Figure 7: Storage Space in the Seattle Courthouse That Was Planned for
Conversion into a District Courtroom
Source: GAO.
o Some courtrooms were built in excess of size standards. Two districts
we visited (Nebraska and Western Washington) chose to add features to
the bankruptcy and magistrate courtrooms, such as making them larger
or adding holding cells, in exchange for building fewer courtrooms
than allotted. Judiciary officials said that these districts reduced
the number of courtrooms they were allotted to offset the larger size.
While official deviations from the Design Guide require approval by
the appropriate circuit council and can yield a more flexible
courthouse, they also may result in additional enhanced space and
costs.
o Numerous courtrooms and chambers were reserved for visiting judges. 1
3 Districts often assign courtrooms and chambers for visiting
The judiciary defines visiting judges as those judges who travel to a
different courthouse location to provide temporary assistance to help meet
its caseload needs.
Page 28 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
judges. It is common judicial practice for judges to travel outside their
resident courthouse for limited periods. During those times, they need
chambers and courtrooms to perform their work responsibilities. However,
according to district court officials, reserving courtrooms and chambers
for visiting judges means that they are not used by the judiciary when
visiting judges do not need them. Since the judiciary does not currently
track courtroom usage statistics, 1 4 it is not possible to determine how
often visiting judges make use of the courtrooms and chambers, but on each
of our visits, the visiting chambers were not being used. The judiciary
said it intends, over time, to assign these courtrooms to resident judges
when a judicial vacancy is filled or a new judgeship is created. AOUSC
officials said that the absence of new judgeships and rise in caseload in
some areas of the country have made visiting judges one of the most
successful and immediate ways to handle the workload. Furthermore, AOUSC
said that visiting judge assignments have been helpful to courts where
criminal caseloads are increasing, where a court might be inundated with a
temporary spike in caseload, in courts where there has been a lag in
filling a judicial vancancy, or where a judge has been on extended leave
due to illness. Figure 8 shows unassigned judges' chambers in the Arizona
district that are used when needed by visiting judges.
We have done previous work on this issue. See GAO, Courthouse
Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance Facility Planning
and Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD-97-39 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1997).
Page 29 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Figure 8: Unassigned Chamber Suites Used by Visiting Judges in the Arizona
District
Source: GAO.
* A number of space saving opportunities were not fully realized.
During our visits, centralized libraries were either closed or
unused. In most cases, this was because judicial officers are
increasingly turning to electronic sources and research and keeping
the limited number of books they need in their chambers. However,
since the Design Guide provides space for law libraries, the
districts we visited all had them. For example, when planning the
new courthouse in Seattle, Washington, the judiciary decided to
reduce the size of the law library by half, but instead of reducing
the district's space requirements by that amount, the district used
the extra space to create a large conference center for the use of
the courthouse's tenants. Also, after the court switched from court
reporters to electronic recording, the extra space that had been
allocated for court reporters was reallocated to the bankruptcy
judge chamber suites, increasing their size above Design Guide
standards. District officials in Seattle said that this was not
* considered a departure from the Design Guide because it did not
increase the overall square footage of the building. 1 5 The AOUSC
said that the provision for library space in the Design Guide will
be considered at the Judicial Conference's September 2006 meeting.
o Special proceedings courtrooms were not routinely assigned to a
specific judge. The Design Guide provides for a special proceedings
courtroom in district courthouses that is larger than the other
district courtrooms. These special proceedings courtrooms tended to
also have architectural elements or finishes that made them more
aesthetically pleasing than the other courtrooms in a courthouse.
Instead of assigning these courtrooms to an individual judge, several
of the districts we visited said that they preferred to only use
special proceedings courtrooms for special events, such as
multidefendant trials, highly visible trials, or naturalization
ceremonies. The Design Guide indicates that a special proceedings
courtroom must be assigned for daily use and large, multiparty trials,
and the guide encourages flexible use of the courtroom. Although AOUSC
said that the judiciary intends to assign the courtrooms to judges, in
practice, only two courthouses of the seven we visited that had
special proceedings courtrooms, had assigned them to a judge. Figure 9
illustrates the special proceedings courtroom in the Sandra Day
O'Conner U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, which is not assigned to
an individual judge.
GSA said that it would consider the provision of space not in the approved
request as a departure from the Design Guide, even though it did not
increase the overall square footage of the building.
Page 31 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Figure 9: Special Proceedings Courtroom in the Sandra Day O'Conner U.S.
Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona
Source: GAO.
o Not all courtrooms were being used. At the Edward A. Garmatz Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse in Baltimore, Maryland, four magistrate
courtrooms were being used to store excess furniture. The district
chose not to use these courtrooms because they did not meet Design
Guide standards for square footage. 1 6 Judiciary officials said that
the magistrate judge hearing-room size poses security concerns due to
the lack of separation between individuals in custody, the victims,
law enforcement officers, judges, and the lawyers. However, the size
of courtrooms is not listed as a security risk factor for increasing
the priority for having a new courthouse built. The judiciary used the
lack of magistrate courtrooms in the courthouse to increase its
priority for having a new courthouse built in Baltimore. This goes
against Design Guide instructions, which indicate the following:
"Differences between space in the existing facility and the criteria
in the Design Guide are not justification for facility alteration and
expansion."
o Judges had exclusive access to facilities in multiple buildings. For
example, a bankruptcy judge with a full courtroom and chamber suite in
the Union Station Courthouse in Tacoma, Washington, also maintained an
exclusive courtroom and chamber suite about 30 miles away in Seattle,
Washington. As a result, the judge occupied about 8,000 square feet of
space, not including the jury rooms, holding cells (Tacoma), and
separate circulation patterns. In commenting on this report, AOUSC
said that the next bankruptcy judge assigned in Western Washington
will reside in Tacoma, although AOUSC did not say whether the current
judge would no longer travel. As another example, an appeals judge who
had been assigned space in the new Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in
Alexandria, Virginia, chose to stay in leased space 18 miles away in
McLean, Virginia. In addition to the about $272,000 it paid in 2005
for the 4,600 square feet in the Westpark Corporate Center in McLean,
the judiciary pays for a 4,300 square foot chamber in the federal
courthouse in Alexandria. While the chamber was vacant during our
visit, the judiciary said that the chamber suite is now used as a
conference room, a meeting place for the bar association, and file
storage.
Some circuit and district officials said that they would consider
different choices if they had incentives to better utilize space, but
determining what those differences would be or how they would ultimately
affect the
The Edward A. Garmatz Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Baltimore,
Maryland, was built before the first Design Guide was published.
Page 33 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Judiciary Lacks Space Allocation Criteria for Appeals Courts and Senior
District Judges
judiciary's rent bill is difficult to determine. Our financial management
work has shown that implementing effective acquisition decisions relies on
empowering stakeholders and holding them accountable for coordinating,
integrating, and implementing acquisition decisions. 1 7 It does not
appear that accountability for the cost of acquiring courthouses and other
facilities from GSA rests with circuit- and district-based officials, such
as judges and key staff. In our visits to court locations, we discussed
with judiciary officials a number of possible changes to incentives.
Judiciary officials said, for example, that the judiciary could charge
rent to the circuits that make space decisions. This approach would
provide greater accountability for, and understanding of, the consequences
of local space-use decisions. According to AOUSC, in March 2006 the
Judicial Conference approved a plan to establish budget caps for the
judiciary's space and facilities program as part of its budget check
process. This action may help the judiciary manage its space but could
face implementation challenges. In addition, AOUSC said that not all of
its space use decisions are within its control. For example, AOUSC said
that it faces challenges in what space within specially built courthouses
it can return to GSA for security reasons. Consequently, the judiciary may
be forced to retain space they do not need within the context of a larger
courthouse.
The Design Guide establishes the standards for most aspects of federal
courthouses; however, it lacks firm criteria for assigning courtroom and
chamber space for appeals and senior district judges. The Design Guide
suggests one courtroom be provided per district judge because district
hearings have one presiding judge. Since appeals judges sit in panels of
three or more, the one judge per courtroom criteria does not apply.
However, the Design Guide does not set different criteria for the number
of chambers/courtrooms per appeals judge. The absence of criteria could
lead to variation in the number of courtrooms that appeals courts are
provided and this hinders more efficient space management. Data provided
by the judiciary show that the number of courtrooms per appellate court
judge varies by circuit. Since 2000, the appeals court has increased its
rent costs and the square footage it occupies faster than the district and
bankruptcy courts. Additionally, this lack of criteria appears to
17
GAO, Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal Agencies,
GAO-05-218G (Washington, D.C.: September 2005).
Page 34 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
increase the number of courtrooms for appeals court judges, thereby
potentially increasing the rent costs.
In two districts we visited, the appeals courts were taking over the old
district courthouses after the district court moved into a new building.
Appeals courts are suitable for older courthouses because of their
differing security requirements, but there are no criteria for the number
of courtrooms for the appeals court or courtroom usage data. Furthermore,
while certain appeals courts are required by law to have regular sessions
at more than one location, 1 8 it is unclear whether their caseload is
sufficient to justify their own courthouses. Appeals judges sit in panels
and do the bulk of their work outside of the courtroom. When the new
district courthouse in Richmond, Virginia, which is currently under
construction, opens, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will take over
exclusive use of the courthouse that currently houses all district,
bankruptcy, and appeals courtrooms in that city. However, according to
judiciary officials, the 4th Circuit holds court in Richmond only 9 weeks
a year. Similarly, when the new courthouse in Seattle, Washington, opened
in 2004, the district court and appeals courts moved out of the old
building, the Nakamura Courthouse. After a $53 million renovation of the
Nakamura Courthouse, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals plans to reoccupy
most of the building, although it already has 9th Circuit Appeals
Courthouses in Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; and Pasadena,
California. In addition, court records showed that the 9th Circuit had
used only one courtroom for 1 week each month in Seattle over the last 3
years, with one exception. Moving into the Nakamura Courthouse will
quadruple the number of courtrooms and chambers that the appeals court
will occupy in Seattle. Circuit and district officials with space
management responsibilities said that national criteria for managing
appeals space would help encourage efficient space use, improve on current
space use, and limit the overall space appeals courts occupy.
The Design Guide suggests that circuits and districts consider courtroom
sharing for senior district judges, but it has not established national
criteria for when or how that sharing should occur. When a judge turns 65
For example, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is required to hold regular
court sessions at Richmond, Virginia, and Asheville, North Carolina. The
9th Circuit Court of Appeals is required to hold regular sessions in San
Francisco and Los Angeles, California; Seattle, Washington; and Portland,
Oregon. However, the statue does not specify how much space the courts
should occupy at any of these locations. For example, according to
judiciary data, the 4th Circuit Court does not have a courtroom in
Asheville.
Page 35 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
and has at least 15 years of service, the judge is eligible to retire.
Instead of immediately retiring, judges may continue to hear cases as
senior district judges, although at a reduced caseload, and some senior
district judges hear few, if any, cases. About 15 percent of the federal
court's caseload has been handled by senior district judges. The lack of
firm Design Guide criteria for assigning senior district judges space
gives circuit and district officials discretion in implementing a specific
courtroom-sharing policy among senior district judges and discourages
uniform practice. In the districts we visited, senior district judges
usually retained exclusive use of a courtroom and chamber suites. Figure
10 illustrates a courtroom in the Union Station Courthouse in Tacoma,
Washington, that is assigned exclusively to an active senior district
judge. Senior district judges with little or no caseload share courtrooms
in some districts. A circuit official and a chief district judge said that
national criteria, such as caseload requirements for maintaining an
exclusive courtroom or any courtroom, could provide leverage with district
judges and court staff in reducing the space requirements for senior
district judges.
Source: GAO.
Page 37 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
Additional Challenges Identified by the Judiciary
In commenting on our draft report, AOUSC provided a list of additional
challenges that it believes the judiciary faces. Some of the challenges
related to ongoing disagreements with GSA, which we did not evaluate for
this report. These included rent estimates from GSA that the judiciary
believes are not timely; weak communication, according to AOUSC, from GSA
regional offices to determine the cost implications of potential projects;
problems the judiciary believes GSA has with keeping projects on schedule;
GSA rent pricing practices for court space; and, according to AOUSC, GSA's
inconsistent execution of current policies. AOUSC cited other challenges
which are addressed in our report, including increases in workload and
staff, the requirements of modern courthouses, statutorily designated
places of holding court, and security requirements. AOUSC identified
challenges of aging facilities, which is a challenge agencies face
governmentwide, and the benefits from GSA backfilling old courthouses with
court functions. We agree that helping GSA address the challenges of
vacant GSA buildings is beneficial to FBF, but that this can have negative
consequences for tenants. Lastly, AOUSC stated that inconsistent streams
of funding for courthouse projects are a challenge. In June 2005, we
testified 1 9 that federal agencies' rent payments provided a relatively
stable, predictable source of revenue for FBF but that this revenue has
not been sufficient to finance both growing capital investment needs and
the cost of leased space.
Conclusions
Neither the judiciary nor GSA had routinely and comprehensively analyzed
rent trends to fully understand that the judiciary's growing rent costs
were primarily due to increases in the amount of space the judiciary
occupies, together with rising operating and security costs. Without
accurate data on the costs of rent components (e.g., shell rent,
operations, and tenant improvements) maintained over time, the judiciary
cannot identify, monitor, and respond to trends in rent costs. Similarly,
without tracking its use of space over time-both overall (rentable square
footage) and by function (district, appeals, and bankruptcy) and level
(circuit and district)-the judiciary cannot identify and address trends
affecting its rent costs. Obtaining and analyzing information on rent
costs and space use would give the judiciary a better understanding of the
reasons for rent increases and help guide its decisions about space use,
especially as the judiciary plans to continue to expand into more new
courthouses after the
19GAO-05-838T.
judiciary's moratorium on new construction expires at the end of fiscal
year 2006.
To some extent, the judiciary's space uses are mandated, and some
associated rent costs are beyond the judiciary's control (e.g., complying
with security requirements and paying for energy costs). However, the
judiciary has discretion and could reduce its space use and rent costs
through better tracking and management of rent costs. The judiciary's rent
validation effort is intended to monitor GSA rent charges, but it does not
address the growth in square footage that is a key driver in the rent
increases. Without incentives for efficient space management, firm
criteria for assigning space for appeals and senior district judges, and
space allocation standards that are based on use, the judiciary often
appeared to rent as much space as it is allocated in its Design Guide,
without fully considering the impact of its space management decisions on
rent costs. As a result, the appeals courts' portion of the judiciary's
square footage and rent bill is growing, and exclusive courtroom space is
provided for senior district judges with limited caseloads. Additionally,
our observations of space use in selected courthouses, while not
generalizable to all courthouses, suggest that some of the judiciary's
space allocation standards, such as those for law libraries and court
reporting, may not be consistent with current use due, for example, to
advancements in technology.
To help the federal judiciary better understand and manage rent costs, we
Recommendations
make the following five recommendations for steps that the judiciary
should take:
1. Work with GSA to track rent and square footage trend data on an annual
basis for the following factors:
o rent component (shell rent, operations, tenant improvements, and other
costs) and security (paid to the Department of Homeland Security);
o judicial function (district, appeals, and bankruptcy);
o rentable square footage; and
o geographic location (circuit and district levels).
This data will allow the judiciary to create a better national
understanding of the effect that local space management decisions have on
rent and to identify any mistakes in GSA data.
2. Work with the Judicial Conference of the United States to improve the
way it manages its space and associated rent costs.
a.
Create incentives for districts/circuits to manage space more
efficiently. These incentives could take several forms, such as a
pilot project that that charges rent to circuits and/or districts
to encourage more efficient space use.
b.
Revise the Design Guide to (1) establish criteria for the number
of appeals courtrooms and chambers, (2) establish criteria for the
space allocated for senior district judges, and (3) make
additional improvements to space allocation standards related to
technological advancements (e.g., libraries, court reporter space,
and staff efficiency due to technology) and decrease requirements
where appropriate.
We provided a draft of this report to GSA and AOUSC for review and comment
and received written comments from both. GSA agreed with the thrust of the
report and concurred with our recommendations, but expressed one concern.
GSA felt it was more aware of the reasons for rent increases than our
draft portrayed. GSA's complete comments are contained in appendix II.
AOUSC strongly disagreed with several of the findings and conclusions in
the draft report, but indicated that it was already implementing actions
related to our recommendations. AOUSC's extensive comments are contained
in appendix III, along with specific GAO comments on issues AOUSC raised
and facts it questioned about, among other things, our methodology and
approaches. In response to AOUSC's comments, we made numerous additions to
the report to provide context from the judiciary's perspective, and made
some minor corrections that did not impact our findings, conclusions, or
recommendations.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
GSA Comments
GSA agreed with the thrust of the report and concurred with our
recommendations. GSA stated it has the programs and systems in place to
assist AOUSC in tracking rent and square footage data and revising the
Design Guide. To support the judiciary in managing its space requirements,
it will be important for GSA to cooperate and assist the judiciary,
including being responsive to reasonable requests for rentrelated
information. Regarding our conclusion that neither the judiciary nor GSA
conducted an analysis to fully understand the factors contributing to
judiciary's growing rent costs, GSA stated that both GSA
AOUSC Comments
and the judiciary were aware that increases in the amount of space
occupied and increases in security countermeasures comprised the primary
reasons for judiciary's rent increases, and requested that we revise the
report accordingly. While we acknowledge that GSA performed limited
analyses of the judiciary's rent data, we continue to believe, as stated
in our report, that GSA and the judiciary did not conduct routine and
comprehensive examinations of trend data for the various components of the
rent charges. The effect of this was that GSA and the judiciary were not
fully aware of the impact that certain rent components had on rent bill
increases the judiciary was experiencing. As an example, until we did our
analysis of trends by rental component, GSA and AOUSC were not fully aware
of the extent to which operating costs, driven in part by spikes in energy
costs, were partially driving rent increases.
AOUSC strongly disagreed with the draft report's findings and overall
conclusions. However, AOUSC said that it has actions underway that relate
to our recommendations but provided no details or timelines regarding
implementation of these actions. AOUSC expressed concerns regarding the
scope and methodology of our analysis, as well as our presentation of
appropriate context. AOUSC said that GAO did not address important aspects
of GSA rent-charging practices, such as identifying GSA rent billing
errors. AOUSC also disagreed with the draft report's methodology and
subsequent findings related to rent payment trends, citing our analysis of
a positive correlation between the increase in space and increase in rent.
Moreover, AOUSC stated that the draft report did not provide proper
context to understand the judiciary's increasing space needs and rent
costs, including an expansion in workload, security requirements, and
challenges obtaining data from GSA. AOUSC also challenged several of the
statements and facts in the report pertaining to individual court
locations and discussions we held with judiciary officials in the cities
we visited.
We disagree with AOUSC's assessment of our report and believe our
findings, conclusions, and recommendations are well supported. Moreover,
we believe that AOUSC's concerns about the scope of our research stem from
a misunderstanding of the purpose of our review. While we had several
discussions during the course of the review to clarify the scope of our
work, AOUSC continued to assert that addressing the judiciary's request
for rent relief should be the central purpose of the review. Our review
was never intended to examine the judiciary's request for rent relief, but
rather to identify recent trends in the judiciary's rent payments and
square footage occupied and challenges that the judiciary faces in
managing its rent costs. AOUSC contends that we began our analysis with a
preconceived conclusion about rent relief and that this affected the
methodological approach we took. In previous reports we have expressed the
view that exemptions on rental payments undermine the FBF, an
intragovernmental revolving fund that was established, in part, to make
federal tenants, including the federal judiciary, directly accountable for
the space they occupy. 2 0 This position had no bearing on our ability to
independently evaluate trends in rental payments and related challenges.
Our methodological approach allowed us to identify the primary factors
influencing the judiciary's rent bill increases, which include square
footage, operating costs, and security charges. This data can help all
stakeholders better understand the reasons behind the judiciary's rent
bill increases, make more informed space allocation decisions in the
future, and-as our report states-help address AOUSC's concerns with
identifying errors in GSA's rent billing. We also believe this review can
act as a starting point for future research, which could include some of
the analyses suggested by AOUSC, such as evaluating rent increases by
building age. However, we continue to believe that it was necessary to
conduct an initial factual analysis to determine the factors driving rent
increases that focused on the basic components of rent-shell rent,
operational costs, security, and tenant improvements.
We also disagree with AOUSC's assertion that our report does not provide
proper context within the scope of our objectives. As discussed earlier,
while we added context from the judiciary's perspective on the basis of
AOUSC's comments, the draft report AOUSC reviewed already contained
information that AOUSC asserted it was lacking. For example, it contained
references to the judiciary's workload including increases in civil case
filings and security requirements for such items as building circulation.
We added additional context as a result of AOUSC's comments and believe
our report provides a fair and balanced portrayal of the challenges facing
the judiciary within the bounds of our study objectives.
In commenting on our recommendations, AOUSC said the recommendations
reflect areas they are already addressing, but have little bearing on the
issue of rental charges. We disagree that our recommendations related to
trend analysis, space allocation criteria, and incentives for managing
costs have little bearing on increasing rental
We addressed this issue in our June 2005 testimony at a congressional
hearing that examined the judiciary's request for rent relief. See
GAO-05-838T.
Page 42 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
changes. We continue to believe the findings and recommendations in our
report can help the judiciary better understand and manage rent costs.
AOUSC also noted that effective implementation of some of our
recommendations will require more timely and accurate data gathering from
GSA. We concur and as stated in our first recommendation, we believe that
AOUSC should work with GSA to track rent and square footage data on an
annual basis to allow the judiciary to create a better national
understanding of the effect of local space management decisions and
identify any mistakes in GSA data, and that, in doing so, GSA's
cooperation with the judiciary's reasonable requests for rent data would
be helpful. In addition, although AOUSC indicated that it is in the
process of updating its Design Guide to address libraries and other
issues, it does not believe that additional criteria are necessary for the
appeals court or senior district judges. We believe these recommendations
have merit because the appeals courts' portion of the judiciary's square
footage and rent bill is growing, and exclusive courtroom space is
provided for senior district judges with limited caseloads.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of
GSA and the Director of AOUSC. Copies will also be made available to other
interested parties on request. In addition, the report will be available
at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected] . GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Mark L. Goldstein Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Our objectives were to identify (1) recent trends in the judiciary's rent
payments and square footage occupied and (2) challenges that the judiciary
faces in managing its rent costs. To address these objectives, we reviewed
General Services Administration (GSA) rent data, laws relevant to GSA, the
regulation related to the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), and judiciary
planning and budget documents; interviewed GSA and judiciary officials;
and conducted audit site visits at six United States District Courts
located across the country. We assessed the reliability of rent data
provided by GSA's Public Building Service by (1) reviewing GSA annual
financial audits, (2) interviewing knowledgeable officials about these
data, and (3) reviewing an independent third-party rent bill validation
effort. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable and valid
for the purposes of this report.
To identify trends in judiciary's rent payments, we examined GSA's billing
information and its primary rent database, the System for Tracking and
Administering Real Property, to analyze nationwide judiciary rent
expenditure data from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. We chose fiscal year
2000 as a starting point for our analysis to coincide with GSA's
introduction of a new rent pricing policy, which provided numeric
breakouts for each of the various rent bill components (e.g., shell,
operating costs, and tenant improvements). Additionally, we chose fiscal
year 2005 as an ending point since this was the last full year of
GSAgenerated rent data. We reviewed GSA's information on the judiciary's
Agency/Bureau Code designations to provide information related to the
various court functions (e.g., U.S. Circuit, District, and Bankruptcy) and
their space allocations. We removed the effect of inflation on the rent
data by using the Gross Domestic Product price index (2005 dollars).
Generally, this index is preferred as a general price index because its
coverage is broader than the Consumer Price Index.
For our purposes, we used rentable square footage because that is the
metric GSA uses to bill tenant agencies, including the judiciary. GSA
calculates rentable square feet by measuring building space, including
courthouses, in terms of usable and common spaces, based on the Building
Owners and Managers Association's market-based definitions of those terms.
For example, lobbies and public restrooms are considered common space. GSA
converts usable space into rentable square feet by multiplying the usable
space by the building's rentable/usable factor, which distributes common
space proportionally among tenants in a given building. We adjusted the
rentable square footage for the number of months a facility was occupied
during a given fiscal year to avoid distortions in rentable square footage
statistics due to partial year occupancy in certain courthouses. We also
reviewed relevant GSA documents, such as the GSA's Desk Pricing Guide, for
additional information on GSA's rent pricing policy and the cost
components that comprise rent payments.
To identify challenges that the judiciary faces in managing its rent
costs, we visited federal courthouses in the following districts: Arizona,
Eastern Virginia, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Western
Washington. We selected Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Western
Washington because they were in districts that experienced large overall
rent increases from fiscal years 2000 through 2005, were geographically
dispersed, and may have been more likely to have challenges in managing
rent costs. We also visited Maryland and Eastern Virginia court facilities
because they contained a new courthouse, a renovated courthouse, and a
courthouse that was targeted for replacement. During our site visits, we
interviewed GSA officials in the regions, as well as other facilities
experts, to discuss rent cost increases. The findings from these
courthouse visits cannot be generalized to the population of federal
courthouses nationwide. We also interviewed district, magistrate, and
bankruptcy judges; clerks; circuit executives; and other representatives
from U.S. circuit and district courts with authority over space and
facilities. We interviewed judiciary officials associated with the rent
bill payment process, including Administrative Office of the United States
Courts officials. We also reviewed the judiciary's U.S. Courts Design
Guide to determine space allocations for the different court components,
including chambers, courtrooms, and ancillary space for U.S. appeals,
district, and bankruptcy courts.
Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration
Appendix III: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the end of
this appendix.
See comment 1.
See comment 2.
See comment 3. See comment 4.
See comment 5. See comment 6.
See comment 7.
See comment 8.
See comment 9.
See comment 10.
See comment 11. See comment 12.
See comment 13.
See comment 14.
See comment 15.
See comment 16. See comment 17.
See comment 18.
See comment 19.
See comment 20. See comment 21.
See comment 22.
See comment 23. See comment 24.
See comment 25. See comment 26.
See comment 27.
See comment 28. See comment 29.
See comment 30. See comment 31.
See comment 32.
See comment 33. See comment 34. See comment 35.
See comment 36.
See comment 37. See comment 38. See comment 39.
See comment 40.
See comment 41. See comment 42.
See comment 43.
See comment 44.
See comment 45.
See comment 46. See comment 47.
See comment 48. See comment 49.
See comment 50.
See comment 51. See comment 52.
See comment 53.
See comment 54.
See comment 55. See comment 56.
See comment 57. See comment 58.
See comment 59.
See comment 60. See comment 61. See comment 62.
See comment 63. See comment 64.
See comment 65. See comment 66.
See comment 67. See comment 68.
See comment 69. See comment 70.
See comment 71. See comment 73.
See comment 74. See comment 75.
GAO Comments
Appendix III: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The following are GAO's comments on the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts letter dated June 6, 2006.
1. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) said that the
draft report is about the federal judiciary's request for rent relief
from the GSA. This is not the case. Addressing the judiciary's request
for rent relief was not one of the objectives of this review. Our
objectives were to determine the recent trends in the judiciary's rent
payments and square footage occupied and challenges that the judiciary
faces in managing its rent costs. AOUSC's misinterpretation of the
scope of our work is, in our view, at the root of its criticisms of
the study's design and methods. Regarding the judiciary's request for
rent relief, exemptions on rental payments undermine the FBF, an
intragovernmental revolving fund that was established, in part, to
make federal tenants, including the federal judiciary, directly
accountable for the space they occupy. In fact, we addressed this
issue in our June 2005 testimony at a congressional hearing that
examined the judiciary's request for rent relief. 1
2. AOUSC listed seven factors summarizing its need for an adjustment to
its rent. The judiciary's request for a rent adjustment is outside the
scope of this review (see comment 1). However, the report does
indicate that the judiciary has experienced problems with obtaining
underlying documentation for rent charges from GSA and is informally
challenging a number of its rent bills. AOUSC states that rent
increases outpacing its appropriations has created a funding crisis.
AOUSC does not effectively explain why the judiciary should obtain
space and services from GSA at a reduced rate. The judiciary's rental
agreements with GSA are interagency agreements the judiciary is
expected to fulfill like other GSA tenants. If the judiciary believes
specific charges are inappropriate, informal and formal appeals can be
made to GSA.
3. AOUSC's analysis of direct appropriations for FBF projects is
incorrect. AOUSC suggested that courthouses are funded through direct
appropriations. AOUSC further asserted that Office of Management and
Budget and GSA officials have said that courthouse projects are funded
through direct appropriations and not from FBF revenue. In all but 4
years between 1990 and 2006, Congress appropriated additional funds
for FBF. This additional funding was not tied directly to any
particular project or
1GAO-05-838T.
types of projects. The statutory language relating to the direct
appropriations states that additional amounts are being deposited into FBF
for the purposes of the fund. Courthouse projects have been funded through
FBF, whether or not there were additional appropriations made to the FBF.
We have called this misinterpretation to the judiciary's attention on
several occasions, including at the June 2005 hearing on rent relief and
in related questions for the record that we provided to the subcommittee.
2
4. AOUSC said that we made an inferential leap to conclude that space
growth caused $139 million of the rent increase. We disagree with AOUSC's
comment and strongly believe that AOUSC mischaracterized our analysis as
being inferential. In fact, this analysis is based on calculations of rent
data trends rooted in basic mathematical logic. More specifically, our
analysis is based on the logical conclusion that a net increase in square
footage will lead to additional rent charges associated with that space,
and the judiciary acknowledges a positive correlation between square
footage and rent as "common sense." In estimating the amount of rent to
attribute to the judiciary's increase in square footage, we separated the
rent into its base components (shell rent, tenant improvements, security,
operating, and remaining costs).
o Shell rent increased proportionally with the increase in net square
footage from fiscal year 2000 through 2005. In other words, the
dollars per square foot that the judiciary pays in shell rent did not
change after accounting for inflation. Shell rent is based on the
appraised dollars per square foot multiplied by the number of square
feet in a building. On the aggregate level, the dollars per square
foot remained constant at about $15 in real terms, meaning that the
growth in square footage alone caused shell rent to increase. Based on
this formula, we can estimate in the aggregate that the judiciary's 19
percent net increase in square footage can be attributed to the $94
million increase in shell rent from fiscal year 2000 through 2005. Any
influence of other outside factors, such as real estate rates, would
be expressed in the dollars per square foot variable that remained
constant.
o Tenant improvements and the remaining costs also increased by 12 and
10 percent, respectively from fiscal year 2000 through 2005-rates
slower than the growth in square footage. Although the tenant
improvement costs increased, the dollar per square foot rate that the
GAO, Questions for the Record: Hearing on the Judiciary's Ability to Pay
for Current and Future Space Needs, GAO-05-941R (Washington, D.C.: July
27, 2005).
Page 82 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
judiciary pays nationwide for tenant improvements actually decreased in
real terms since fiscal year 2000. Tenant improvement costs increased at a
slower rate because they amortize after 25 years and are removed from the
rent bill once fully amortized, and a number of judiciary facilities are
amortizing their tenant improvements. There were a number of courthouse
renovations, which included increases in tenant improvement costs, but did
not increase the judiciary's overall square footage. However, the slower
growth in tenant improvements shows that these were more than compensated
for by the amortization of tenant improvements in older facilities. In
other words, if the judiciary would not have expanded its space, tenant
improvement costs would have fallen rather than risen. Consequently, we
attributed the $11 million increase in tenant improvements and the
remaining costs to the net increase in square footage occupied by the
judiciary.
o Security and operating costs increased at 134 percent and 45 percent,
respectively-faster rates than the increase in square footage. Given the
19 percent increase in square footage, we attributed a 19 percent increase
in security and operating costs to the net increase in the square footage
occupied by the judiciary because the net new space must be protected,
heated, and cleaned. As a result, $29 million of the increase in operating
costs and $5 million of the increase in security costs are associated with
the judiciary's growth in square footage. However, since the actual
increases in security and operating costs exceeded the growth in square
footage, it is clear that the growth in square footage does not explain
all of the increases in security and operating costs. We attributed the
remaining $40 million increase in operating costs and $31 million increase
in security costs to the disproportionately high increases in those
components from fiscal year 2000 through 2005. Security increased because
of the increased focus on security since the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, and operating costs increased due to recent increases in energy
costs.
5. AOUSC conducted a space versus growth analysis of its own. However,
AOUSC's analysis uses different rent data and time periods, which greatly
limits its analytical value as a comparison to our methodology's results.
* Different data. Our data are exactly what GSA billed the judiciary
by rent component for every building the judiciary occupied for
fiscal years 2000 through 2005. AOUSC's data are different in a
number of important ways. First, the AOUSC's table only expresses
rent in gross terms, making it impossible to analyze how the
different rent components changed. Second, based on the note in the
table, AOUSC's rent and square footage statistics do not appear to
include the
* bankruptcy court, which represents 17 percent of all square footage
in the federal judiciary as of fiscal year 2005. Third, the note in
the table also indicates that the rent statistics represent the
judiciary's Judicial Services Salaries and Expense account. It is
unclear if it is a rent line item within the account or other
expenses.
o Different years. We chose fiscal year 2000 as a starting point to
coincide with GSA's introduction of a new rent pricing policy, which
provided numeric breakouts for each of the various rent bill
components (e.g., shell, operating costs, tenant improvements, etc.).
Prior to that year, it is impossible to break out these components,
which allow an understanding of the reasons behind rent increases.
However, AOUSC chose some dates in their analysis that preceded this
change in GSA's rent pricing policy, which limits the information's
usefulness. We chose fiscal year 2005 as an ending point because it
was the last full year of GSA rent billing data, but AOUSC chose
fiscal year 2006 as the end date for each set of figures. Since fiscal
year 2006 does not end until September, we chose not to estimate
square footage and rent statistics for fiscal year 2006. Consequently,
we chose the longest time frame for which to measure trends in the
different rent components. Our conclusions apply only to our time
frame and should not be considered predictive in nature.
1. AOUSC also said that we should have analyzed other independent
variables, such as movement in the real estate market. The aggregate
impact of those other variable are captured in the dollars per square
foot variable for shell rent that remained constant in real terms from
fiscal year 2000 through 2005. For example, if rising real estate
rates would have been a large nationwide factor it would have been
reflected in rising dollars per square foot rate for shell rent. Other
variables are important for understanding the change in rent at the
building level, but at the aggregate level, the effect of these
variables offset each other. This point is illustrated by the circuit
based analysis in figure 4; even though rent and square footage
increased proportionally at the aggregate nationwide level, the rates
of growth observed at the disaggregate circuit levels varied.
2. AOUSC said that the report's primary focus on rent cost increases in
recent years is only a fraction of the whole rent picture because rent
for existing courthouses constitutes the majority of the judiciary's
rental costs. Although our report discusses the addition of new space
as one factor driving rent increases, our aggregate trend data and
data at the individual circuit level include rental payments on
existing space.
3. AOUSC said that our report provides no context for why the judiciary
has needed more space. Our report provides context for why the
judiciary has added square footage in a number of places. For example,
the draft report we sent to AOUSC for comment contained the following
context:
According to judiciary officials, much of the judiciary's growth and
accompanying spacerelated needs have been the result of elevating
workloads, such as increases experienced in civil case filings.
Accordingly, judiciary officials stated that the additional space the
courts have added, often through construction of new courthouses, was
essential in accommodating the creation of new judgeships. Further, more
judiciary officials have said this growth has also resulted in the need
for ancillary space for court support staff.
In addition, we have added information to the report about the judiciary's
increasing workload, such as the workload statistics that AOUSC included
on page 14 of its comment letter.
1. AOUSC said that it is mystifying how better data analysis could enable
the judiciary to better manage its rent increases. Obtaining and
analyzing information on rent costs and space use would give the
judiciary a better understanding of the reasons for rent increases and
help guide its decisions about space use, especially as the judiciary
plans to continue to expand into more new courthouses after its
moratorium expires. As discussed in our report, until our review, both
GSA and the judiciary were not fully aware of the extent to which
energy and security costs had affected rent increases. We believe
analyzing cost data to better manage those costs is a basic managerial
principle in government and business.
2. AOUSC said that the implication that it had larger than expected
increases in rent is inaccurate and insulting. As discussed in the
report, it is useful, for purposes of comparison, to consider that
percentage increases in rent would occur proportionally with
percentage increases in net space added. In other words, holding all
factors constant, a net increase in space of 19 percent would
logically be accompanied by a 19 percent increase in rent. As our data
showed, rent costs increased 27 percent. We did not intend to insult
AOUSC; we meant that some rent components increased more than expected
given a 19 percent increase in square footage. AOUSC made reference
again to its lack of appropriations to pay its rent bill. As mentioned
earlier, AOUSC does not effectively explain in its comments why the
judiciary's should obtain space and services from GSA at a reduced
rate. In the appropriations process, congressional subcommittees
conduct hearings at which federal officials provide detailed
justifications for their funding requests.
3. AOUSC said that our report assumed that public officials need
financial incentives to exercise responsible stewardship. We
recommended creating incentives for districts/circuits to manage space
more efficiently. One such incentive is linking dollars to space
usage. During our review, circuit and district officials with space
management responsibility essentially agreed and said that they would
consider different choices if they had incentives to better utilize
space. In addition, the FBF itself is based on holding federal
agencies accountable for the space they occupy.
4. AOUSC said that our report pays inordinate attention to the current
assignment of chambers and courtrooms and draws unfounded conclusions
about them. Our report does not generalize our site visit findings to
all courthouses nationwide, as noted in the report. However, we use
the findings from those case studies to illustrate how a lack of
incentives may lead to less than efficient space use in these
locations.
5. AOUSC said that the team neither spoke with an appellate judge nor
asked the judiciary about the appellate courtroom usage practice or
needs. In several locations, we met with circuit level officials with
responsibility over space use decisions for the appeals courts in
their circuits and requested information about the appellate courts'
need for space. In addition, we reviewed the long-range facility
plans, which include information on the appellate courts' need for
space. We also interviewed numerous district, senior district,
bankruptcy, and magistrate judges.
6. AOUSC stated that we began our analysis with a preconceived conclusion
about rent relief and that this affected the methodological approach
we took. In previous reports we have expressed the view that
exemptions on rental payments undermine the FBF, an intragovernmental
revolving fund that was established, in part, to make federal tenants,
including the federal judiciary, directly accountable for the space
they occupy. 3 This position had no bearing on our ability to
independently evaluate trends in rental payments and related
challenges. Our methodological approach allowed us to identify the
primary factors influencing the judiciary's rent bill increases, which
include square footage, operating costs, and security charges. These
data can help all stakeholders better understand the reasons behind
the judiciary's rent bill increases, make more informed space
allocation decisions in the future,
3 GAO-05-838T.
and-as our report states-help address AOUSC's concerns with identifying
errors in GSA's rent billing.
1. AOUSC said that we chose not to address fundamental issues regarding
the appropriateness of GSA's rent pricing policy for courthouses,
whether these policies were implemented properly, the impact of rising
rental costs on the judiciary's ability to fund other essential needs,
or mission-based reasons why the judiciary has and will need
additional facilities. These were not the objectives of this review
(see comment 1). However, the report does include context on why the
judiciary believes it needed additional courthouses (see comment 8).
2. AOUSC said that our report portrays the judiciary as being wrong and
being GSA as right. As an example, AOUSC asserts that we only focused
on incentives for the judiciary to control costs and not GSA. We
disagree that our report portrays any entity as right or wrong. We
were not asked to review the appropriateness of GSA's rent pricing
policies, incentive structure, or other challenges facing GSA.
3. AOUSC said that our support for GSA's ability to charge rent for
donated property, which is not in the report but was discussed at
meetings with AOUSC officials, illustrated deferential treatment to
GSA. We disagree. GSA is authorized to charge rent on a donated
parking lot. Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3175, the Administrator of General
Services is authorized to accept, on behalf of the federal government,
gifts of real property. The Administrator is further authorized
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 586 to set rates for the space and services that
GSA provides to federal agencies, and in doing so, shall approximate
commercial charges for comparable space and services. We have stated
that agency appropriations are available for charges attributable to
employee parking spaces that are included as part of GSA's charges for
space and services that it provides to agencies. (See in the Matter of
Parking Fees and Charges for General Services Administration,
B-177610, 55 Comp. Gen. 897 (1976).) While we did not review whether
the $11,000 that GSA charged the judiciary for parking in Providence,
Rhode Island, was reasonable, GSA was acting within its authority when
it accepted the property and charged approximate commercial rates for
the parking spaces.
1. AOUSC said our report suggests that the judiciary's rent problems
may be due to unnecessary growth in space. We disagree. We make
no value judgment on whether the growth was necessary or not.
However, given its rent problems, the judiciary's efforts to
justify its additional space and validate GSA rent charges are
prudent. In addition, AOUSC also said that
2. GAO sought very little information about the judiciary and
ignored pertinent facts provided by judiciary officials. We
disagree. We conducted numerous interviews with judiciary
officials to obtain information about the judiciary and many of
the facts that the judiciary provided were outside the scope of
our review.
4. AOUSC questioned our use of site visits as a methodological tool. We
often use site visits to illustrate findings and in the case of this
report, did not generalize those findings to the larger population
(see comment 12). We selected Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and
Western Washington because they were in districts that experienced
large overall rent increases from fiscal year 2000 through 2005, were
geographically dispersed, and may have been more likely to have
challenges in managing rent costs. We chose fiscal year 2000 as a
starting point for our analysis to coincide with GSA's introduction of
a new rent pricing policy, which provided numeric breakouts for each
of the various rent bill components (e.g., shell, operating costs,
tenant improvements, etc.) and fiscal year 2005 as an ending point
because it was the last full year of rent billing data.
5. AOUSC said that our report characterized the space associated with
visiting judges as unused. This comment was not a complete
characterization of these issues in our draft report. Our draft report
stated that these courtrooms and chambers are not used when a visiting
judge is not present. We have clarified the report to allow for the
possibility of nonjudicial uses of visiting courtrooms and chambers.
6. AOUSC questioned our understanding of visiting judge policies and
practices and said that we never asked about visiting judge courtroom
and chamber usage. However, on October 25, 2005, we asked for all
courtroom usage data compiled by the judiciary, but AOUSC officials
said that the judiciary does not track courtroom usage at any level.
We also reviewed
The Use of Visiting Judges in Federal District Courts: A Guide for Judges
and Court Personnel, published by the Federal Judicial Center, the
research arm of the federal judiciary.
1. AOUSC said that we mislabeled six photographs of empty courtrooms and
chambers as being in Phoenix, Arizona. We clarified the caption to
state that the photographs were taken in courthouse locations within
the District of Arizona. Regarding the courtroom in Phoenix that
AOUSC said was used on 103 days or nearly half of all business days.
We have
2. concluded in a past report that usage rates this low indicate that
greater use of courtroom sharing could be considered. 4 We discussed
the use of courtrooms and chambers with court officials during our
site visits, and we requested courtroom usage data nationwide. AOUSC
officials said they do not track courtroom usage at any level and
added that any tracking mechanism would under value courtrooms, which
are absolutely essential to the judicial process.
1. AOUSC questioned our decision to visit districts where rent costs have
increased and said that the report contained no information on why the
district needed new facilities. First, our report methodology clearly
indicates that we chose the U.S. Districts of Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode
Island, and Western Washington because their rent costs were rising
and they were geographically diverse, but we also visited Eastern
Virginia and Maryland because they contained a new courthouse, a
renovated courthouse, and a courthouse that was targeted for
replacement. Second, our report addresses why the judiciary believes
it needed new facilities (see comment 8).
2. AOUSC said that GAO did not validate the rental charges for
courthouses, as it said we would. Although validating GSA rent charges
was not part of our objectives (see comment 1), we did interview GSA
officials at each of our site visits. In those interviews, we
discussed how GSA calculates rental charges, including reviewing floor
plans, occupancy agreements, and rent bills. In addition, our report
correctly describes Rhode Island's disputed rent bill as informal in
that the judiciary has not pursued an official challenge under
policies prescribed by GSA.
3. AOUSC's subtitle said we inaccurately assessed judicial chambers and
courtroom space, but AOUSC does not raise any factual inaccuracies in
the body of its comments. Instead, AOUSC said that the issue of how
chambers and courtrooms are assigned has little significance to rent.
Our draft report addressed how courtrooms and chambers are assigned to
illustrate the challenges that the judiciary faces in managing its
rent costs. For example, we noted that special proceedings courtrooms
are not routinely assigned to a district judge, as an illustration of
how a lack of incentives may be undermining efficient space use and
consequently causing increased rent payments by the judiciary. In
addition, we noted
4GAO-97-39 and GAO, Courthouse Construction: Sufficient Data and Analysis
Would Help Resolve the Courtroom-Sharing Issue, GAO-01-70 (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 14, 2000).
Page 89 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses
that the judiciary said that it intends, over time, to assign courtrooms
reserved for visiting judges to resident judges when a judicial vacancy is
filled or a new judgeship is created. Regarding AOUSC's criticism of some
of our observations of how space is used as "snapshots" that are not
useful; we agree that courthouses are built for the long-term and that
complex factors are involved. However, the judiciary is experiencing
significant growth in rent costs in locations where it is paying for space
that is not used regularly or sometimes not at all. This demonstrates one
of the challenges facing the judiciary that we describe in our report.
While the judiciary has identified a long-term need for space that is
currently underutilized, it is unclear whether the judiciary has
determined if there are opportunities for better utilization in the
short-term.
1. AOUSC said that our report included no information on new judgeships
in the Districts we visited and lists the District of Arizona as an
example. The draft report AOUSC reviewed included information on the
creation of new judgeships, and the report now includes the District
of Arizona as an example. The Chief Judge within the District of
Arizona said that these new courthouses were necessary due to new
judgeships and increasing caseloads. AOUSC asserted that limiting our
analysis to square footage figures suggests that the construction of
courthouses is unrelated to definable needs. As discussed in comment
8, our report discusses the judiciary's increased caseload in the
context of space needs.
2. AOUSC questioned our use of testimonial evidence obtained during site
visits and our refusal to release names of officials associated with
specific testimonial evidence. We generally do not identify
individuals by name in our audit reports for several reasons, one of
which is to avoid adversely affecting those individuals. For similar
reasons, during the auditing process, we have found that we are better
able to obtain information from officials in circumstances in which
they do not feel intimidated or pressured. Thus, we avoid identifying
officials by name so they can speak freely without concern that their
statements will be held against them. In addition, our processes and
procedures for collecting testimonial evidence provide assurance that
such statements, when used in a report, are heard by more than one
analyst, accurately described, and corroborated by multiple sources.
AOUSC and a district judge made a formal request for revealing the
identities of the individuals whom we interviewed, which we declined
for these reasons.
1. The questions AOUSC raises, including whether methods used for
determining commercially equivalent rental charges are
appropriate for courthouses and whether GSA's bills are accurate,
were never objectives
2. of this review. AOUSC also suggests that we did not address how
GSA calculates rent in the draft report. We addressed this issue
in the background section of our report. At the beginning of our
review, we identified a descriptive objective related to how GSA
calculates rent. This was never intended to be an evaluative
objective, and as such, we included the information in the
background section of this report. It is common in our audits
that background or descriptive information collected be conveyed
in this manner.
3. AOUSC said that we chose to ignore judiciary officials' concerns about
a GSA rent billing and bonus program. Neither of these issues were
within the objectives of this study (see comment 1). Our report says
that the judiciary has identified errors. In addition, we discussed
the issue of GSA billing errors with an official in GSA's Office of
the Inspector General (OIG). This official said that OIG has begun
work looking into GSA rent billing errors in response to AOUSC's
concerns. We agreed to discuss our findings with OIG staff after the
completion of our review.
4. AOUSC said that we amended our report to reflect new information
regarding AOUSC's identification of billing errors. We have added
information to our report regarding AOUSC's challenges to GSA rent
bills.
5. AOUSC said that the draft report did not address or identify that the
judiciary has found it challenging to obtain GSA's back-up
documentation regarding rent charges. We have added the following
information on judiciary's rent validation effort to our report:
The judiciary said that this [rent validation] effort has been hindered by
an inability to get underlying documentation, such as floor plans and
appraisals, from GSA in a timely manner. AOUSC indicated that this
information is necessary to truly validate GSA rent bills.
1. AOUSC noted that we described the basic components of rental charges
but suggests that we examine the rental charges in a number of other
ways, including the rent trends over the life of buildings and the
effect of real estate trends on rent. The trend data we developed
represent a first step in understanding judiciary's rental payments to
GSA and can serve as a basis for questions and inquiries by GSA and
the judiciary.
2. AOUSC said that thestudy does not say whether GSA's appraisal-based
pricing approach is appropriate for courthouses. Examining the
appropriateness of GSA's rent pricing policy was not part of this
study (see comment 1).
3. AOUSC said that the study does not assess GSA's return on investment
pricing policy and raises a number of concerns with the GSA policy.
Evaluating the relative merits of GSA's different methods for rent
pricing was not one of the objectives of this study (see comment 1).
4. AOUSC questioned our knowledge of the federal courts. Over the past 20
years, we have compiled a large body of work on federal courthouse
construction and federal real property. Our work on courthouse
construction has focused primarily on construction costs, planning,
and courtroom sharing (see Related GAO Products at the end of this
report). In addition, we have a large body of work on the federal
courts' missionrelated activities, such as caseload management and
sentencing.
5. AOUSC said that it is essential to provide information about the
judiciary's growth and cited a number of statistics related to
filings, judges, and staff. Our report provides context for why the
judiciary has added square footage in a number of places, including
the growth statistics listed here (see comment 8).
6. AOUSC cited additional contextual issues missing from the report
including the fact that access to the federal courts is a core value
in the American system of government, and that courthouses are
historic and important symbols of the federal government in
communities across the country and often play a significant role in
redevelopment efforts. We added context to the report to reflect this
comment.
7. AOUSC says that the GAO did not include information in the report
about the need to build courthouses that can accommodate future
expansion and that it makes no sense to have a courthouse full upon
occupancy. However, our draft report discussed as a challenge that the
judiciary builds to the 10-year need to accommodate future expansion,
and this can lead to larger rent payments in the short term. We added
context to the report to reflect AOUSC's view on this issue.
8. AOUSC attributes a quote "inefficient space use" that is not in the
draft report.
1. AOUSC said that our draft report indicated that the Alexandria,
Virginia, Courthouse "should" be full. We have clarified the
report to state that the Albert V. Bryan Courthouse in
Alexandria, Virginia is reaching the 10-year point where it is
expected to be completely full but that we found that there were
unassigned chambers and courtrooms. In addition, we
2. noted in the report that AOUSC said that the courthouse in
Alexandria should be full in the next few years.
9. AOUSC said that thereport unfairly criticizes the judiciary for
increasing courtroom flexibility in exchange for building fewer
courtrooms than were allotted. Our report says that this approach can
create a more flexible courthouse and that the judiciary expanded the
courtrooms in exchange for building fewer courtrooms than allotted.
However, it is important to note that any benefits of this policy
would only be realized in the future if the Districts can effectively
implement a policy of courtroom sharing that does not presently exist.
10. AOUSC said that we did not include information on the challenges
associated with changes in real estate market dynamics. The challenge
to which the judiciary refers is an inherent part of the FBF. Rent
payments by law must approximate commercial rates; and GSA, through
FBF, encourages federal agencies to be accountable for the space they
use by requiring them to budget and pay for their own space
requirements. A committee report accompanying the enactment of FBF
noted that because each agency would have to budget for its space
needs, doing so would promote more efficient and economical use of
space by government agencies. However, this approach may not work as
intended with the judiciary unless the incentives are in place at the
point where space use decisions are made. We found that the judiciary
lacks incentives at the circuit and district levels for efficient
space use and management. In addition, AOUSC said that it faces
challenges in what space within specially built courthouses it can
return to GSA for security reasons. We added context to the report to
reflect this point.
11. AOUSC said that the draft report did not include information on the
challenges associated with obtaining underlying documentation in
support of GSA's rent bills. We added context to our report indicating
that the judiciary has experienced problems with obtaining underlying
documentation for rent charges from GSA.
1. AOUSC said that the draft report did not include information on
the challenges involving space implications of technology.
However, our draft report included a section indicating that the
Design Guide criteria does not keep up with technological
changes, and we recommended that AOUSC update its criteria,
accordingly. In addition, AOUSC cites the fact that the Seattle
court reduced its library by half the size, as an example of
implications of technology. However, it is important to note that
instead of reducing the size of the courthouse by this amount,
the district chose to
2. create a large conference center with the extra space. AOUSC also
indicated that the Judicial Conference will review library space
standards in September of 2006, which is a positive step.
12. AOUSC said that our draft report mischaracterizes what transpired in
Seattle, with regard to court reporter space. We disagree. Although we
were unable to verify when these decisions were made, our report
reflects the statements made by circuit and district officials on our
visit, and we found that the bankruptcy chambers in the Seattle
courthouse exceed Design Guide standards. AOUSC also said that it is
not always practical to return space in an existing courthouse to GSA.
We added context to the report to reflect this point, and we believe
that this makes the decisions made during courthouse design even more
critical.
13. AOUSC said that it will update the Design Guide to reflect the impact
of electronic filing on storage requirements in the clerks' office,
which we view as a positive step that is in line with our
recommendations.
14. AOUSC indicates that the four magistrate courtrooms in the Baltimore
courthouse are an inadequate size that creates security concerns. We
have added additional context in the draft on this matter. However,
the size of courtrooms is not listed as a security risk factor for
increasing the priority for having a new courthouse built. In
addition, it is important to note that the judiciary used the lack of
magistrate courtrooms in the courthouse to increase its priority for
having a new courthouse built in Baltimore. This goes against Design
Guide instructions, which indicate the following: "Differences between
space in the existing facility and the criteria in the Design Guide
are not justification for facility alteration and expansion."
15. AOUSC said that a number of challenges were not addressed in the
report, including workload, security, and statutorily designated
places of holding court. AOUSC also listed a number of challenges,
including problems with the funding stream for courthouse construction
projects, communication from GSA regional offices to determine the
cost implications of potential projects, and GSA keeping projects on
schedule. Our draft report addressed a number of these challenges, and
we have listed AOUSC's views of these challenges in the body of this
report.
16. AOUSC incorrectly interprets our draft report as stating that we use
the word "inefficient." The word "inefficient" did not appear in the
draft report.
17. AOUSC indicates that we make an incorrect statement about a bankruptcy
judge that travels between Tacoma and Seattle, Washington. We continue
to believe our statement that a bankruptcy judge in the Western
District of Washington maintains an exclusive courtroom and chambers
in two separate locations, within a 30-mile radius, is factual and
accurate. First, this is the way judiciary officials conveyed his
status in interviews. Second, the Web site for the Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Washington lists different chambers,
courtrooms, and staff contacts for the bankruptcy judge in Seattle and
Tacoma.
18. AOUSC notes that both courtrooms used by the bankruptcy judge, who
travels between Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, do not have holding
cells. We clarified the report to note that the Tacoma courthouse has
holding cells, which exceed Design Guide standards for bankruptcy
courtrooms, but the bankruptcy courtrooms in Seattle do not.
19. AOUSC said that our highlights page incorrectly states that an appeals
court judge had designated chamber space in Alexandria as well as
McLean, Virginia. We believe that the word "designated" is appropriate
because the appeals court judge occupied that space at one point,
according to a judiciary official, before choosing to move to leased
space in McLean, Virginia. Thus, it is correct to state that this
judge had designated space in the building. The space was vacant
during the time of our visit. We note in our report that the judiciary
now uses this space for a variety of other purposes. However, it is
not clear that it needed to use the space designated for the appeals
judge for these purposes since the courthouse is not currently fully
occupied. Specifically, the judiciary said that the Alexandria
courthouse currently has 9 judges for 14 courtrooms in addition to
excess space in its secure parking lot.
20. AOUSC said that we make several inappropriate statements about tenant
improvements in the draft report. AOUSC said that it is inappropriate
to refer to tenant improvements as "finishes." We feel that referring
to tenant improvements as finishes is appropriate because GSA defines
tenant improvements as the improvements that take the space from shell
to finished condition. AOUSC said that the report links "steep
increases in cost to the types of finishes." We believe that this is a
mischaracterization of the text in the draft report. We link the
increases in tenant improvement costs to the new courthouses
constructed in recent years and the types of finishes the judiciary
has chosen. We clarified the report to indicate that there are tenant
improvement finishes in addition to wood finishes.
21. AOUSC said that we need to add context to the finding that tenant
improvement costs in the District of Rhode Island increased 927
percent, but we believe our draft report addressed these issues. Our
report states:
The District of Rhode Island experienced a 927 percent increase in its
tenant improvement costs, which GSA attributed to the cost of finishes for
major renovations of the district's two primary courthouses-the Federal
Building U.S. Courthouse and the adjacent J.O. Pastore Federal Building.
District court officials told us that practically every part of the
building had tenant improvement needs. GSA officials said that both of
these major renovation projects, chosen in lieu of new construction, led
to increases in the overall quality of the space the district occupies
and, consequently, very large increases in tenant improvement charges. The
judiciary noted that this facility was renovated within Design Guide
standards and within the tenant improvement allowance limits established
by GSA.
1. AOUSC suggested that we change the word "architectural" to
"structural" in our references to the security based elements of
courthouses. We accepted this suggestion, and changed our report,
accordingly.
2. AOUSC said that the draft includes misleading information about
security needs and secure circulation patterns. We disagree with this
statement. Our draft report included context that the judiciary
suggests. For example, the draft report stated:
The Marshals Service requires separate circulation patterns in order to
provide adequate security for federal courthouses. To maintain separate
circulation patterns courthouses need elevators leading from each
independent circulation parking garage or building entrance to each
independent circulation area within each floor. For example, the Design
Guide provides for separate elevator systems (1) linking judicial officers
to their restricted parking areas, (2) linking prisoners with the secured
cell block and parking location, and
(3) linking the public with the public entrance.
AOUSC also again questioned our expertise, which we addressed in comment
35.
1. AOUSC said that figure 5 in the draft report labeled "Sample
Courtroom and Associated Support Spaces That Were Based on Design
Guide Criteria" is inaccurate. We developed this figure because the
Design Guide depiction of a district sized courtroom is not drawn to
scale. In addition, our sample courtroom graphic is based on the
floor plan of an actual courtroom that was built to Design Guide
standards. The AOUSC also states that we imply that every courtroom
has a separate set of elevators. We have clarified the report to
reflect that independent
2. hallways, rather than a separate set of elevators, are replicated for
each district judge. The point remains that modern courtrooms include
more than just the actual courtroom and that a policy which provides
one courtroom per district judge in new courthouses also must provide
all the support spaces as well.
1. AOUSC said that our draft report implies that the judiciary uses a one
courtroom per judge criteria for the appeals court and says that this
is not true. We disagree that our draft report makes this implication.
Our report states that the absence of criteria could lead to variation
in the number of courtrooms that appeals courts are provided. Data
from the judiciary shows that the number of courtrooms per appeals
court judge varies by circuit. For example, the 3rd Circuit has two
appeals courtrooms for 22 circuit judges while the 8th Circuit has
nine appeals courtrooms for 21 judges.
2. AOUSC said that our linkage between the lack of criteria for the
number of appeals courtrooms and a possible increase in rent is
conjecture. We believe there is evidence to support a logical link
between criteria for the number of appeals courtrooms and chambers and
the judiciary's ability to limit growth and consequently rent.
Specifically, since fiscal year 2000, the appeals court has increased
its share of rent costs and the square footage it occupies faster than
the district and bankruptcy courts. Criteria on the number of
courtrooms and chambers assigned to the appeals court may help stem
this growth.
1. In responding to our first recommendation, AOUSC said that the
specific types of data we recommend tracking would not be useful
for program planning, management or budgeting. We disagree.
Without accurate data on the costs of rent components (e.g.,
shell rent, operations, and tenant improvements) maintained over
time, the judiciary cannot identify, monitor, and respond to
trends in rent costs. Similarly, without tracking its use of
space over time-both overall (rentable square footage) and by
function (district, appeals, and bankruptcy) and level (circuit
and district)-the judiciary cannot identify and address trends
affecting its rent costs. Obtaining and analyzing information on
rent costs and space use would give the judiciary a better
understanding of the reasons for rent increases and help guide
its decisions about space use, especially as the judiciary plans
to continue to expand into more new courthouses after its
moratorium expires at the end of fiscal year 2006. As previously
mentioned (see comment 9), until our review, both GSA and the
judiciary were not fully aware of the extent to which energy and
security costs had driven rent increases. We believe that the
benefits of analyzing cost data to better
2. manage those costs is a basic managerial principle in government
and business.
3. AOUSC said that we should recommend that GSA provide all data that
will help the judiciary to identify mistakes in rent bills. We agree
that data accuracy and accountability are important and recommended
that the judiciary work with GSA on tracking changes in rent. We
discussed the issue of GSA billing errors with an official in GSA's
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). This official said that OIG has
begun work looking into GSA rent billing errors in response to AOUSC's
concerns. We agreed to discuss our findings with OIG staff after the
completion of our review.
4. AOUSC said that it is possible that some of the growth in the appeals
courts square footage may be attributed to library space, previously
assigned to the district courts. AOUSC raised this issue for the first
time in these official comments. Consequently, we did not formally
evaluate the coding of judiciary space at that level, and it is not
clear from the AOUSC's statement when the recoding occurred or how
much space was affected. However, we still believe that establishing
criteria for the number of appeals courtrooms and chambers is needed
in order to better control the amount of space allocated to them.
5. AOUSC said that it is integral to an understanding of square footage
growth that we explain there are many factors outside the judiciary's
control that drive the courts' space needs. Our draft report addressed
workload issues, as does our final report. See comment 8.
6. AOUSC indicates that accurate data is important, and we agree. We
noted in the draft report that one of the ways trend data can be
useful is in identifying rent billing errors.
1. In responding to our second recommendation regarding incentives
for efficient space management, AOUSC says that the
recommendation is based on the false premise that space decisions
are within the control of the local districts and circuits. We
disagree. While the law specifies some of the locations where the
judiciary holds regular sessions of court, the amount of space
occupied at each location is within the judiciary's discretion.
According to AOUSC, Congress has recognized the importance of
local decision making on space matters by providing circuit
judicial councils-the entity that has first-hand knowledge of
local caseload and other trends important to the judiciary's
space needs-with the statutory authority to determine the need
for space accommodations. AOUSC also states that one could argue
that there is no need for the Tacoma facility
2. because there is a large facility in Seattle and notes that
Congress chooses some of the locations at which the judiciary
operates, however, our draft report does not address the relative
merits of locating the court in Tacoma but only the challenges
associated with using it efficiently.
7. AOUSC said that the report should recognize that there are interests
outside the judiciary that can influence space decisions. We believe
that the draft report did this. For example, the conclusion section of
the draft report stated that "to some extent, the judiciary's space
uses are mandated, and some associated rent costs are beyond the
judiciary's control." In addition, we have added information on other
challenges identified by the judiciary that either related to ongoing
disagreements with GSA that we did not evaluate or are addressed in
our report in other places.
8. AOUSC said that it is working to create incentives by establishing
budget caps for space rental costs. This concept was approved on March
14, 2006, and many of the details have yet to be determined. This
action has the potential to be an effective tool in space management.
As AOUSC points out, it faces serious implementation challenges. We
agree.
9. AOUSC said that GAO had committed to deleting the recommendation that
the judiciary should establish a policy for senior district judges'
courtrooms. We disagree. AOUSC officials pointed out in a meeting that
we have acknowledged in the past that the judiciary has a policy
encouraging courtroom sharing among senior district judges. Our
recommendation would enhance this policy by providing specific
criteria on when such sharing could take place. We agreed in a
discussion of this issue with AOUSC to consider whether the
judiciary's existing policy, which only encourages sharing, addressed
this issue. We concluded that the policy of granting flexibility to
the circuits and districts regarding senior district judges does not
represent nationwide criteria for when and how courtroom sharing for
senior district judges should occur.
1. AOUSC said that theappeals courtrooms are not a significant part
of the judiciary's space inventory and that we do not have
sufficient knowledge to make such a recommendation. We believe
that the appeals court is a significant part of judiciary's space
inventory. Specifically, our report found that in fiscal year
2005, the court of appeals represented 11 percent of the
judiciary's overall square footage, or 4.4 million square feet,
which includes courtrooms, chambers, and support space. We also
found that the appellate courts' share of square footage occupied
by the judiciary had grown between fiscal years 2000 and 2005.
And, as discussed in
2. comment 13, AOUSC said that the team neither spoke with an
appellate judge nor asked the judiciary about the appellate
courtrooms usage practice or needs. In several locations, we met
with Circuit level officials with responsibility over space-use
decisions for the appeals courts in their circuits and obtained
information about the appellate courts' need for space. In
addition, we reviewed the long-range facility plans, which
include information on the appellate courts' need for space. We
also interviewed numerous district, senior district, bankruptcy,
and magistrate judges.
10. AOUSC said that the judiciary is committed to updating its space
standards on a regular basis. We support this effort.
11. AOUSC said that backfilling old courthouses can have benefits to FBF.
We agree that vacant buildings of which GSA cannot dispose creates a
drain on FBF, and we have added context to the report to reflect that.
12. AOUSC said that a problem with the draft report is that it does not
contain a fair, objective, and thoughtful assessment of the
judiciary's request for rent relief. An assessment of the judiciary's
request for rent relief was not one of the objectives of this study
(see comment 1). We have provided additional contextual information on
the growth in the judiciary's workload to our report.
13. In a letter enclosed in AOUSC's comments, the Chief Judge of the U.S.
District Court of Maryland said that the four magistrate courtrooms in
the Edward A. Garmatz Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse were
ill-suited to handle the drug and gun cases that characterize a
big-city federal docket. We added context to the report indicating
that judiciary officials said that the magistrate judge hearing-room
size poses security concerns because of the lack of separation between
individuals in custody, the victims, law enforcement officers, judges,
and the lawyers (see comment 47).
1. The Chief Judge said that he did not know how we concluded that
the lack of courtrooms in the Baltimore Courthouse were used to
increase its priority for having a new courthouse built in
Baltimore. We obtained the project scoring worksheet for
Baltimore that indicated that four magistrate judges are
"impacted," meaning that they do not have courtrooms. Each
impacted judge increases a district's urgency score for
justifying a new courthouse. Four magistrate judges are impacted
because the district has chosen to use four magistrate courtrooms
for storage. This appears inconsistent with the Design Guide,
which states, "Differences
2. between space in the existing facility and the criteria in the
Design Guide are not justification for facility alteration and
expansion."
14. The Chief Judge said that our draft report portrays the court's space
decisions as irrational and arbitrary and that we did not study the
type of proceedings that magistrate judges handle. We disagree that
our report portrays the judiciary in this way. Our report states that
the district chose not to use the courtrooms because they do not meet
Design Guide standards, and we have added that the judiciary believes
they pose security concerns (see comment 43). However, the size of
courtrooms is not listed as a security risk factor for increasing the
priority for having a new courthouse built. In addition, as part of
our review, we reviewed the role of magistrate judges and interviewed
numerous judges, district clerks of court, and circuit officials that
were knowledgeable of the role of magistrate judges.
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Mark Goldstein (202) 512-2834
GAO Contact
In addition to the individual named above, Keith Cunningham, Randy
Staff
DeLeon, Bess Eisenstadt, Brandon Haller, Grant Mallie, Susan
Michal-Acknowledgments Smith, Joshua Ormond, Elizabeth Repko, David
Sausville, and Gary Stofko made key contributions to this report.
Related GAO Products
Questions for the Record: Hearing on the Judiciary's Ability to Pay for
Current and Future Space Needs, GAO-05-941R . Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2005.
Courthouse Construction: Overview of Previous and Ongoing Work,
GAO-05-838T . Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005.
Courthouse Construction: Information on Project Cost and Size Changes
Would Help to Enhance Oversight, GAO-05-673 . Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2005.
L.A. Federal Courthouse Project: Current Proposal Addresses Space Needs,
but Some Security and Operational Concerns Would Remain, GAO-05-158 .
Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2004.
Courthouse Construction: Information on Courtroom Sharing, GAO-02- 341 .
Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.
Federal Judiciary Space: Update on Improvement of the Long-Range Planning
Process, GAO-01-308R . Washington, D.C.: January 25, 2001.
Courthouse Construction: Sufficient Data and Analysis Would Help Resolve
the Courtroom-Sharing Issue, GAO-01-70 . Washington, D.C.: December 14,
2000.
General Services Administration: Comparison of Space Acquisition
Alternatives-Leasing to Lease-Purchase and Leasing to Construction,
GAO/GGD-99-49R . Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 1999.
Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use 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: Opportunities for Cost Savings in the
Public Buildings Area, GAO/T-GGD-95-149 . Washington, D.C.: July 13, 1995.
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 Buildings Fund Limitations, GAO/GGD-93-34R . Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 5, 1993.
Federal Office Space: Increased Ownership Would Result in Significant
Savings, GAO/GGD-90-11 . Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 1989.
(543132)
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
To Report Fraud, Contact:
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
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***