General Services Administration: Response to Follow-up Questions Related
to Building Repairs and Alterations and Courthouse Utilization
(Correspondence, 05/11/2000, GAO/GGD-00-124R).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO followed up on its report on
the General Services Administration's (GSA) building repairs and
alterations program.

GAO noted that: (1) according to GSA repair and alteration officials,
efforts are under way to develop a 5-year plan initiative within the
next 2 years; (2) GSA program officials said that they would give
priority to those repair and alteration projects that have the greatest
potential to increase the inventory, desirability, and value of rentable
space; (3) GSA officials also said that they are exploring other ways to
increase funds in the Federal Buildings Fund; (4) they are also
considering exploring whether Congress might be receptive to directly
appropriating funds for the repairs and alterations program and have GSA
repay these appropriations from additional rent revenues generated from
completed projects; (5) building repairs involved major components, such
as electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning
systems, fire alarms and sprinkler systems, or other fire and life
safety items; (6) GSA officials said they recognize that the physical
condition of many federal buildings is far from ideal, that a
significant inventory of repair and alteration work exists, and that
some buildings cannot support 21st century operations; (7) GAO found
instances where: (a) certain GSA regions did not include all repair and
alteration requirements in the database; (b) major repairs and
alterations were identified as still being in inventory when, in fact,
they had already moved into design, construction, or had been completed;
(c) work items were included in the inventory when they should have been
deleted; and (d) construction cost estimates were not always current;
(8) GAO also found that the Inventory Reporting Information System
(IRIS), did not include the estimated costs for repair; (9) GAO also
identified instances where important facts about a building, such as its
age or historical significance, were not included in GSA's database;
(10) IRIS was changed in July 1999 to start recording when new work
requirements were entered into the inventory; (11) GSA is testing
software packages that are supposed to: (a) consistently record and
track the status of each identified repair and alteration work item; (b)
develop more accurate cost estimates for work items; and (c) assist in
establishing priorities for identified repairs and alterations; (12) GSA
established a standardized format and standard data elements that must
be included in all asset business plans; and (13) when the new asset
business plans are fully implemented, they are to identify all repair
and alteration needs over the entire life cycle of a building.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-124R
     TITLE:  General Services Administration: Response to Follow-up
	     Questions Related to Building Repairs and Alterations
	     and Courthouse Utilization
      DATE:  05/11/2000
   SUBJECT:  Government facility construction
	     Federal property management
	     Building inspection
	     Safety standards
	     Federal office buildings
	     Obsolete facilities
	     Property depreciation
	     Facility repairs
	     Strategic planning
IDENTIFIER:  Capital Investment Program
	     Federal Buildings Fund
	     GSA Inventory Reporting Information System
	     Public Buildings Service Information System
	     Santa Fe (NM)
	     Dallas (TX)
	     Miami (FL)
	     Albuquerque (NM)
	     Las Cruces (NM)
	     San Diego (CA)
	     District of Columbia

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

GAO/GGD-00-124R

Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(240405)

B-283787
Page 10   GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions
B-285241

May 11, 2000

The Honorable Bob Franks
Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
 Buildings, Hazardous Materials, and Pipeline Transportation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
 
Subject:  General Services Administration: Response to Follow-
up Questions Related to Building Repairs and Alterations and
Courthouse Utilization

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On April 11, 2000, we testified at the Subcommittee's
oversight hearing on the General Services Administration's
(GSA) FY 2001 Capital Investment Program.1 This letter
responds to your request of April 12, 2000, in which you asked
additional questions about GSA's federal building repairs and
alterations program and courtroom utilization. To respond to
these questions, we primarily relied on three of our previous
reports: (1) Federal Buildings: Billions are Needed for
Repairs and Alterations (GAO/GGD-00-98, Mar. 30, 2000); (2)
Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could
Enhance Facility Planning and Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD-97-39,
May 19, 1997); and (3) Federal Buildings: Actions Needed to
Prevent Further Deterioration and Obsolescence (GAO/GGD-91-57,
May 13, 1991), as well as our body of knowledge in these
areas. We prepared this response during April 2000 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Because this letter was primarily based on
previously issued reports, we did not seek agency comments on
a draft of this letter. Our responses to the questions that
you asked follow.

Question 1. Could you elaborate on the 1991 GAO
recommendations, and what became of them?

In our 1991 report, we made several recommendations aimed at
promoting more informed decisionmaking and preventing federal
buildings from becoming deteriorated and functionally
obsolete. Specifically, we recommended that the Administrator
of GSA annually develop and communicate to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress a comprehensive plan
that (1) identifies total repair and alteration requirements
in federally owned buildings and their estimated cost; (2)
assesses the short-term and long-term economic and operational
implications of the requirements in each building; and (3)
proposes a strategy, action plan, and funding levels to repair
and modernize the most severely deteriorated, functionally
obsolete, and unsafe buildings. We recognized that before such
a plan could be developed, GSA would, among other things, need
to establish appropriate management controls to help ensure
that (1) all identified building repair and alteration needs
are included in the computerized inventory, assigned
priorities, and properly costed; and (2) needs that had
already been deferred for 2 or more years are identified,
tracked, and coordinated with the affected tenant agencies.
The report went on to say that once GSA developed and
submitted this plan, the Administrator should explore with
Congress and OMB how to finance the needed building repairs
and alterations.

As we recently testified, GSA has not fully implemented these
recommendations.  However, a review of GSA's audit resolution
file on our 1991 report showed that GSA attempted to respond
to some of them. For example, following our 1991 report, GSA
developed policies on building inspection reports and
established a 5-year plan requirement for identifying building
reinvestment needs. We also found that GSA completed a 5-year
plan of its proposed prospectus-level projects,2 but the plan
was not shared with congressional committees. According to GSA
repair and alteration officials, the 5-year plan initiative
waned; but efforts are currently under way to develop such a
plan within the next 2 years. In summary, GSA's initiatives
fell short in responding to our 1991 recommendations.

Question 2. How have these 1991 recommendations addressed the
perennial problem of a lack of funding?

Our 1991 recommendations were designed to get GSA to provide
more context to the repair and alteration problem and to
explore with Congress and OMB how to finance needed repairs
and alterations. We believed then, as we do now, that GSA
needs current and more reliable information about its repair
and alteration needs and a comprehensive plan that identifies
and prioritizes these needs and the corresponding funding
requirements. We further believe that if GSA implemented our
recommendations, Congress and OMB would be in a better
position to fully understand the magnitude of the problem, the
options available to address the problem, and the cost-benefit
implications of making or not making needed repairs and
alterations. The information contained in a comprehensive plan
would provide the needed context for decisionmakers to make
(1) more informed decisions about annual funding levels and
which particular projects to fund and (2) more knowledgeable
trade-offs when allocating scarce resources among competing
projects. We recommended that once GSA developed and submitted
this plan, it should explore with Congress and OMB how to
finance the needed building repairs and alterations.

Question 3.What kinds of financing opportunities could GSA
pursue to solve the funding issue?

Our work on this issue did not specifically address financing
opportunities. However, our past work has shown that the
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), a revolving fund administered by
GSA, has not generated sufficient revenues to meet all its
capital investment needs. GSA officials recognize the
shortfalls of FBF and as mentioned on page 14 of our March 30,
2000, report to the Subcommittee, they said they were
exploring ways to increase funds to better meet its
multibillion-dollar repair and alteration needs. Specifically,
GSA program officials said that they would give priority to
those repair and alteration projects that have the greatest
potential to increase the inventory, desirability, and value
of rentable space. When previously vacant space is rented,
additional revenues are generated for the FBF, making more
funds available for Congress to provide new obligational
authority for repairs and alterations. GSA officials also said
that they are exploring other ways to increase funds in FBF.
They cited as one example the retention of revenues from sales
of assets no longer needed by the government. They are also
considering exploring whether Congress might be receptive to
directly appropriating funds for the repairs and alterations
program and have GSA repay these appropriations from
additional rent revenues generated from completed projects.

Question 4. Could you elaborate on the 44 buildings that have
repair needs in excess of $20 million?

The types of repairs and alterations needed at these buildings
varied. However, they typically involved repairs to major
building components, such as electrical, plumbing, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning systems; fire alarms and/or
sprinkler systems; or other fire and life safety items. The
enclosure provides more specific information on the repair and
alteration needs that were unfunded for the 44 buildings
covered in our review.

Question 5. Are any of these buildings currently undergoing
renovations?

We did not do a specific analysis of ongoing renovation
projects at the 44 buildings covered in our review. However,
GSA's database indicates that most of the 44 buildings had
major ongoing design and construction work that could be
considered as renovation projects.

Question 6. Are there any buildings in the GSA inventory that
pose an immediate danger to the occupants?

Our recent work on GSA's repairs and alterations program was
not designed to specifically look for unsafe buildings that
may be an immediate threat to its tenants. GSA officials said
they recognize that the physical condition of many federal
buildings is far from ideal, that a significant inventory of
repair and alteration work exists, and that some buildings
cannot support 21st century operations. These officials
stress, however, that federal buildings have not been, and are
not being, neglected and that examples of serious
deterioration of these buildings are few and far between. GSA
officials also said that given the age of their inventory and
the limited resources available to fund repairs and
alterations, they take pride in knowing that the agency has
kept many buildings operational far beyond their normal life
expectancy.

Question 7. What are some of the repair needs that are 10
years old or more?

In our March 30, 2000, report to the Subcommittee, we reported
that our detailed analysis of 44 buildings found 49 work items
that, according to GSA's records, had been in inventory for
more than 10 years. Most of these work items were in the GSA
work category for repairs/replacements/improvements. The work
in this category included such items as replacing heating,
ventilation and air conditioning systems, upgrading elevator
systems, and replacing cracked exterior marble panels.

Question 8. How reliable is the information in the Inventory
Reporting Information System (IRIS) system?

Although we did not systematically test IRIS, we did note that
IRIS contained some inaccurate and incomplete information. As
discussed on pages 9 and 10 of our March 30, 2000, report, we
found instances where (1) certain GSA regions did not include
all repair and alteration requirements in the database; (2)
major repairs and alterations were identified as still being
in inventory when, in fact, they had already moved into
design, construction, or had been completed; (3) work items
were included in the inventory when they should have been
deleted because, for example, they were no longer needed, had
become part of another project, or were duplicates of other
work items; and (4) construction cost estimates were not
always current. We also found that IRIS listed some buildings
as needing major repairs and alterations, but the estimated
costs of this work were not included. Finally, we identified
instances where important facts about a building, such as its
age or historical significance, were not included in GSA's
database. We also noted that in most cases the explanation
contained in the database on why the repair and alteration was
needed was vague. The data currently available on repairs and
alterations do not allow program managers to easily determine
the length of time that work has been in inventory, the
criticality of each work item, or the possible adverse
consequences associated with delaying repair and alteration
work.

We believe that reliable and complete information about
identified repairs and alterations is essential for effective
management and oversight of program activities. Without such
information, it is difficult for program managers to (1)
quantify the total amount of repair and alteration needs, (2)
effectively target the most critical needs and set priorities
within and among the 11 GSA regions, and (3) justify to OMB
and Congress the need for additional repair and alteration
funding. Simply stated, inadequate program information does
not permit informed decisionmaking.

Question 9. What is GSA doing to address the lack of
consistency of information from different regions?

GSA officials recognize that the quality and consistency of
repair and alteration data need improvement. They also
recognize that other tools are needed to provide more
consistent cost estimates, updates, and comparable priorities
among regions. According to these officials, IRIS-the
computerized system that contains the inventory of repair and
alteration needs-was changed in July 1999, to start recording
when new work requirements were entered into the inventory.
This change, if implemented effectively, should allow GSA
program managers the opportunity to identify how long repairs
and alterations are being deferred in each of the GSA regions.
The officials also said that they have other actions under way
and planned that will establish standards for and measures of
data accuracy in IRIS and other Public Buildings Service
systems. They went on to say that GSA is also testing software
packages that are supposed to (1) consistently record and
track the status of each identified repair and alteration work
item, (2) develop more accurate cost estimates for work items,
and (3) assist in establishing priorities for identified
repairs and alterations.

Question 10. Have you reviewed the asset business plan, and
what are your thoughts about it?

We did not specifically analyze GSA's asset business plans.
However, we believe that the new approach has merit and that
GSA is moving in the right direction in its efforts to revise
the plans and make them more useful. As pointed out on page 12
of our March 30, 2000, report to the Subcommittee, an asset
business plan is to provide a wide array of information
related to a building's physical characteristics, the rent
revenues and expenses associated with operating the building,
and the repair and alteration requirements that have been
identified.  For a number of years GSA has required that an
asset business plan be prepared for all buildings included in
its portfolio. Before the fall of 1999, each of GSA's 11
regional offices had significant discretion in determining the
format of its asset business plans, the detailed information
contained in its plans, and how these plans would be used in
determining which repair and alterations would be funded.
Therefore, the asset business plan of the past did not lend
itself to the collection and comparison of information about
building repairs and alterations within a region, let alone
among the 11 regions.

During the fall of 1999, GSA took steps to help ensure that
these plans are consistently prepared, accessible to all
program managers, and used to develop standardized management
reports about the repair and alteration requirements at all
GSA buildings. Specifically, GSA established a standardized
format and standard data elements that must be included in all
asset business plans. According to GSA officials, when the new
asset business plans are fully implemented, they are to
identify all repair and alteration needs over the entire life
cycle of a building. With this information, GSA managers
should be in a better position to determine the critical
nature of each work item, how long each work item has been
delayed, and the adverse consequences of delaying repair and
alteration work. The plans are to be on an automated
nationwide network and, therefore, readily available for all
program managers to use.

Question 11. If GSA has a backlog at the end of fiscal year
2006, how can it expect to ever clear up this situation?

If GSA had more reliable information on the magnitude of the
repair and alteration problem and a comprehensive plan that
identified total repair and alteration needs and funding
requirements, established the relative benefits and priorities
of all competing projects, and proposed a strategy to repair
its most seriously deteriorated buildings, it would be in a
better position to justify additional funding for repair and
alteration work. This information would provide the needed
context for Congress and OMB to better understand the
magnitude of the problem and permit decisionmakers to make (1)
more informed decisions about annual funding levels and which
particular projects to fund and (2) more knowledgeable trade-
offs when allocating scarce resources among competing
projects.

Question 12. Given the recent experience of GSA's lack of
resources to repair the Pentagon, do you expect that there
will be attempts to transfer other costly buildings to the
agencies for them to find sufficient funding to make needed
repairs?

We found no evidence to suggest that GSA plans to transfer
costly buildings to the agencies for them to find sufficient
funding to make needed repairs. However, as buildings
deteriorate, as was the case with the Pentagon, it is possible
that other agencies may want responsibility for their
buildings.  As mentioned in our March 2000 report, Agriculture
South is a unique building in GSA's inventory in that the
Department of Agriculture has been getting direct
appropriations to do the repair and alteration work at this
building.

Question 13. What operational changes would GAO make to GSA's
current management of the repair and alteration process?

We would effectively implement the recommendations made in our
May 1991 and March 2000 reports.

Question 14. Please comment on GSA's strategic approach to its
repair and alteration program.

As discussed in our March 30, 2000, report and April 11, 2000,
testimony, GSA has not made much progress in developing a
strategic approach to meet its repair and alteration
requirements. This was a major issue in our 1991 report, which
discussed in some detail the shortcomings associated with
managing repair and alteration requirements on a project-by-
project basis and GSA's need for a comprehensive, long-term
strategy for effectively meeting its building repair and
alteration needs. However, GSA continues with a project-by-
project mind set and has not yet developed a comprehensive
plan that (1) identifies its total repair and alteration needs
and corresponding funding requirements, (2) establishes the
relative benefits or priorities of all competing projects, and
(3) proposes a strategy and the funding needed to repair or
modernize its most seriously deteriorated buildings. With such
a plan, Congress and OMB would be in a better position to
fully understand GSA's total repair and alteration needs and
associated funding requirements, as well as the cost-benefit
implications of making or not making needed repairs and
alterations. The information in the plan would provide the
needed context and permit decisionmakers to make (1) more
informed decisions about the annual funding levels and which
particular projects to fund and (2) more knowledgeable trade-
offs when allocating scarce resources among competing
projects. Finally, GSA would be in a better position to target
limited resources to buildings with the greatest needs.

GSA recognizes that more needs to be done and, as discussed in
our March report and April testimony, GSA has an ongoing
effort aimed at developing a 5-year repair and alteration
plan. If GSA is successful in developing and effectively
implementing this plan and the several other related
initiatives it is pursuing, it will be moving in the right
direction toward institutionalizing its thinking and planning
about how best to strategically respond to its multibillion-
dollar repair and alteration needs.

Question 15. Please supply to the committee the location and
names of the seven GSA buildings that are on the National
Historic Register.

The following table provides information on the seven historic
buildings that were included in our review.

Table 1: Information on the Name, Location, Needed Repairs and
Alterations, and Size of the Seven Historic Buildings
Building name      City     Sta  Estimated cost  Number  Size in
                          te      of unfunded      of    gross
                                  repairs and  repair   square
                                  alterations     and     feet
                                (in millions) alterati
                                             on  work
                                                items
Dwight D.          Washingt DC           $186.7      14  691,783
Eisenhower         on
Building
Justice Building   Washingt DC            $88.5      25 1,052,827
                  on
Interior Building  Washingt DC            $65.0       2 1,217,477
                  on
GSA Building       Washingt DC            $65.0      11  774,848
                  on
Frank E. Moss      Salt     UT            $34.1      10  210,603
Courthouse         Lake
                  City
Milwaukee Federal  Milwauke WI            $23.7       7  500,247
Building/Courthous e
e
Metzenbaum         Clevelan OH            $21.9      12  258,221
Courthouse         d
Source:  GAO analysis of GSA data.

Question 16. Has GSA prioritized in any manner its repair and
alteration program-for example by health and safety, vacant
space, or any criteria?

According to GSA program officials, GSA headquarters sets
priorities for the prospectus-level projects it submits to
Congress annually. They said that prior to GSA's fiscal year
2001 submission, priorities had been set after GSA staff
considered each project in terms of general criteria found in
a document that was revised annually. For example, some of the
general fiscal year 2000 criteria were:

ï¿½limited available resources needed to be applied to cost-
effective projects with high income producing potential,
ï¿½project justifications should be based on financial factors
and physical and programmatic urgency and a clear indication
that the scope and cost of the proposal will address critical
requirements,
ï¿½regions should submit prospectuses for projects that received
design funds in the prior year or are ready to enter the next
phase of construction that is currently unfunded, and
ï¿½prospectuses should be prepared in line with budget
constraints.

The final project priorities were largely based on GSA staff's
subjective judgments, which were not well documented. GSA
officials said that GSA changed its process for fiscal year
2001 projects.  To set priorities for prospectus-level
projects, GSA used a computerized model that better documented
the decisionmaking process.  For each proposed project, GSA
staff assigned a value to each of the 5 criteria and 16
subcriteria, which the computer analyzed to set priorities.
The model had, among others, a subcriterion on health and
safety and another one on the project's impact on space.

Headquarters allocates funds to regions for nonprospectus-
level projects. Regional program officials set and modify
priorities for projects to be undertaken with these funds,
unless Congress mandates in the appropriation process that
specific nonprospectus-level projects be done. Regional
officials said they give priorities to projects that involve
health and safety needs that pose an immediate threat to
federal employees or building visitors, the recapture of space
to generate additional funds for the FBF, and the ability to
begin a project in the next fiscal year.

Question 17. Please explain to the committee differences
between GSA's previous asset business plans and the new plan
the agency put into effect in 1999.

As discussed in our March 2000 report, for a number of years
GSA has required that an asset business plan be prepared for
all buildings included in its portfolio. However, only
recently has it taken steps to help ensure that these plans
are consistently prepared, accessible to all managers, and
used to develop standardized management reports about the
repair and alteration requirements at all of GSA's buildings.
Before the fall of 1999, each of the 11 regional offices had
significant discretion in determining the format of its asset
business plans, the detailed information contained in its
plans, and how these plans would be used in determining which
repairs and alterations would be funded. Therefore, the asset
business plan of the past did not lend itself to collection
and comparison of information about the building repairs and
alterations within a region, let alone among the 11 regions.
During the fall of 1999, GSA established a standardized format
and standard data elements that must be included in all asset
business plans.

Question 18. Has GAO made any recommendations regarding GSA's
plan to develop a 5-year repair and alteration plan?

GAO recommended in its 1991 report that the Administrator of
GSA develop and communicate to OMB and Congress a
comprehensive plan that (1) identifies total repair and
alteration requirements in federally owned buildings and their
estimated cost; (2) assesses the short-term and long-term
economic and operational implications of the requirements in
each building; and (3) proposes a strategy, action plan, and
funding levels to repair or modernize the most severely
deteriorated, functionally obsolete, and unsafe buildings. As
pointed out in our March 2000 report to the Subcommittee, GSA
has not yet implemented this recommendation. However, the
report goes on to say that GSA is currently in the process of
developing such a plan, and we view this initiative as a step
in the right direction. In fact, we made a recommendation in
the March report that GSA develop an action plan, with time
frames, to guide the development and implementation of its
initiatives to improve the management and oversight of its
repairs and alterations program, including the development of
a 5-year plan.

Question 19: The Subcommittee recently met with officials of
OMB, who explained that they used a 1997 GAO study on
courthouse utilization to make a determination on courtroom
sharing-Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data
Could Enhance Facility Planning and Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD-97-
39, May 1997). Could you comment on that study and its
applicability to general policy?

At the time of our study, GSA and the federal judiciary had
embarked on a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction
initiative aimed at addressing the housing needs of the
federal district courts and related agencies. Included in this
initiative were plans to construct hundreds of new district
judge trial courtrooms to replace existing ones and to
accommodate future increases in federal judgeships. Using GSA
data, we estimated that the cost to build a typical trial
courtroom in 1995 dollars could range from about $640,000 to
$1.3 million, depending on geographic location. For example,
the cost in Washington, D.C., was about $800,000. This study
was done at the request of several congressmen who were
concerned that trial courtrooms may have been underutilized
and that unneeded costly courtrooms may have been, and
continued to be, constructed. Given this, the objectives of
this study were to (1) determine how often and for what
purposes courtrooms have been used and (2) examine what steps
the judiciary was taking to assess space and courtroom usage
issues.

The report recognized that the judiciary's process for
administering justice is dynamic and complex. According to the
judiciary, the availability of a trial courtroom is an
integral part of the judicial process because judges need the
flexibility to resolve cases more efficiently. Nonetheless,
trial courtrooms, because of their size and configuration, are
expensive to construct and constructing any unneeded
courtrooms wastes taxpayer dollars. The judiciary maintained a
general practice of, whenever possible, assigning a trial
courtroom to each district judge. The extent to which trial
courtrooms are utilized for trial and nontrial
activities-trials are defined as any contested proceeding and
nontrial activities include motion hearings, arraignments, and
other proceedings-is one indication of need. But, the
judiciary did not compile data on how often and for what
purpose courtrooms are actually used or have analytically
based criteria for determining how many and what types of
courtrooms are needed to effectively administer justice.
Therefore, the judiciary did not have sufficient data to
support its practice of providing a trial courtroom for every
district judge.

Our detailed analysis of data at seven geographically
dispersed locations-Dallas, TX; Miami, FL; Albuquerque, Santa
Fe, and Las Cruces, NM; San Diego, CA; and Washington,
D.C.-showed that courtroom usage for trials and nontrial
activities varied by judge and location. Furthermore, on many
of the workdays during 1995, courtrooms were not used at all
for these purposes. Our analyses for 1995 showed that:

ï¿½On average, trial courtrooms were used for trial or nontrial
purposes about 54 percent of all the days that they could have
been used. In other words, these courtrooms were, on average,
used for some purpose 135 days and vacant 115 days out of the
250 federal workdays in 1995.

ï¿½Courtrooms were used for trials less than one-third of the
days, and the use of the courtrooms for trial varied by
location. The highest average trial usage rate was 32 percent
in Miami, FL, and the lowest was 13 percent in Santa Fe, NM.
Nontrial activities consumed the remainder of the days
courtrooms were used and on most of the nontrial days, the
courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.
ï¿½Senior judges-district judges who are eligible to retire but
choose to continue to carry out judicial duties often at
reduced caseloads-used the courtrooms assigned to them for
trials and nontrial activities considerably less frequently
than active district judges. For example, 41 active district
judges at the locations visited used the courtrooms assigned
to them about 65 percent of the days for both trial and
nontrial activities, but average use for 21 senior judges was
38 percent. For trial only, the active district judges'
average utilization rate was 33 percent and for senior judges
it was 17 percent.
Our study suggested that courtroom usage for 1995 was low,
especially for some senior judges. It also recognized, even
though the judiciary had no data to support its contention,
that other factors such as latent use, which relates to a
judge's ability to use an available courtroom and the
scheduling of that courtroom as leverage to encourage a case
to settle without going to trial, and scheduling issues may be
important considerations in determining the need for
courtrooms. Given that the data analyzed covered only 1
year-1995-and the uncertainty associated with these other
factors, we recommended that the Director, Administrative
Office of the United States Courts; Director, Federal Judicial
Center; and the Judicial Conference's committees on (1) Court
Administration and Case Management and (2) Security, Space and
Facilities design and implement cost-effective research to
fully examine the courtroom usage issue to form a better basis
for determining the number and type of courtrooms needed, as
well as whether each district judge needs a dedicated
courtroom. We recommended that this effort include:

ï¿½establishing criteria for determining effective courtroom
utilization and a mechanism for collecting and analyzing data
at a representative number of locations so that trends can be
identified over time and better insights obtained on court
activity and usage;

ï¿½designing and implementing a methodology for capturing and
analyzing data on latent courtroom usage and courtroom
scheduling, and other factors that may substantially affect
the relationship between the availability of courtrooms and
judges' abilities to effectively administer justice;
ï¿½using these data and criteria to explore whether the one
judge, one courtroom practice is needed to promote efficient
courtroom management or whether other courtroom alternatives
exist; and
ï¿½establishing an action plan with time frames for implementing
and overseeing these efforts.
We are sending copies of this letter to the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Members with jurisdiction over GSA; the
Honorable David J. Barram, Administrator, GSA; and Mr.
Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the
United States Courts.  We will make

copies available to others on request. If you have any
questions, please contact me on (202) 512-8387 or at
[email protected].

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar
Director, Government Business
 Operations Issues

Enclosure

_______________________________
1 Federal Buildings: Billions Are Needed for Repairs and
Alterations (GAO/T-00-73, Apr. 11, 2000).
2 Prospectus-level projects are those that exceed a
statutorily prescribed threshold, which was $1.93 million in
fiscal year 2000.

Enclosure
Types of Work Identified at the 44 Buildings With
the Highest Estimated Dollar Value of Repair &
Alteration Needs as of 9/30/99
Page 13GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing
Questions

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
aDefinitions for the Building Name abbreviations
are: FB-Federal Building; FOB-Federal Office
Building; PO-Post Office; CH-Courthouse; BS-Border
Station; ROB-Regional Office Building.
bWork items were only put in the
modernizations/renovations subcategory if GSA's
data did not provide the detail needed to
distribute the types of work among the other major
repair subcategories.
cAgriculture South is a government-owned building
in GSA's inventory. However, this building is
unique in that the Department of Agriculture has
been getting direct appropriations to do the
repair and alterations work at this building.
According to the Agriculture's Director of Design
and Construction Division, the estimated cost of
repair and alterations for this building ranged
from $183.5 million to $222 million. We chose to
use the most conservative estimate for our
analysis.
dDFC Building 20 had one work item in the
Environmental category, but GSA did not have a
cost estimate for this item.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

*** End of Document ***