United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Economic 

Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 

Management, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives 

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE 

CONSTRUCTION 

Nationwide Space and Cost 

Issues Are Applicable to 

L.A. Courthouse Project 

Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Friday, November 4, 2011 

GAO-12-206T 
 United States Government Accountability Office 

Highlights of GAO-12-206T, a testimony to the 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, 

Public Buildings, and Emergency 

Management, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, House of Representatives 

November 4, 2011 

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION 

Nationwide Space and Cost Issues Are Applicable to 

L.A. Courthouse Project 

Why GAO Did This Study 

In 2000, as part of a multibillion-dollar 

courthouse construction initiative, the 

judiciary requested and the General 

Services Administration (GSA) 

proposed building a new courthouse in 

Los Angeles to increase security, 

efficiency, and space—but construction 

never began. About $400 million was 

appropriated for the L.A. courthouse 

project. For this testimony, GAO was 

asked to report on (1) the status of the 

L.A. courthouse project, (2) challenges 

GAO has identified affecting federal 

courthouses nationwide, and (3) the 

extent to which these challenges are 

applicable to the L.A. courthouse 

project. 

This testimony is based on 

GAO-10-417 and GAO’s other prior 

work on federal courthouses, during 

which GAO analyzed courthouse 

planning and use data, visited 

courthouses, modeled courtroom 

sharing scenarios, and interviewed 

judges, GSA officials, and others. 

In GAO-10-417, GAO recommended 

that (1) GSA ensure that new

courthouses are constructed within 

their authorized size or, if not, that 

congressional committees are notified, 

(2) the Judicial Conference of the 

United States retain caseload 

projections to improve the accuracy of 

its 10-year-judge planning, and (3) the 

Conference establish and use 

courtroom sharing policies based on 

scheduling and use data. GSA and the 

judiciary agreed with most of the 

recommendations, but expressed 

concerns with GAO’s methodology and 

key findings. GAO continues to 

believe that its findings were well 

supported and developed using an 

appropriate methodology. 

What GAO Found 

GAO reported in 2008 that GSA spent about $33 million on design and site 

preparations for a new 41-courtroom L.A. courthouse, leaving about $366 million 

available for construction. However, project delays, unforeseen cost escalation, 

and low contractor interest had caused GSA to cancel the project in 2006 before 

any construction took place. GSA later identified other options for housing the 

L.A. Court, including constructing a smaller new courthouse (36 courtrooms) or 

using the existing courthouses—the Spring Street Courthouse and the Edward R. 

Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. As GAO also reported, the estimated 

cost of the 36-courthouse option as of 2008 was over $1.1 billion, significantly 

higher than the current appropriation. 

The challenges that GAO has identified in recent reports on federal courthouses 

include increasing rent and extra operating, maintenance, and construction costs 

stemming from courthouses being built larger than necessary. For example, in 

2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual exemption from 

rent payments to GSA due to difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs. 

GAO found in 2006 that these increasing rent costs were primarily due to 

increases in total courthouse space—and in 2010, GAO reported that more than 

a quarter of the new space in recently constructed courthouses is unneeded. 

Specifically, in the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000, GAO found 

3.56 million square feet of excess space. This extra space is a result of (1) 

courthouses exceeding the congressionally authorized size, (2) the number of 

judges in the courthouses being overestimated, and (3) not planning for judges to 

share courtrooms. In total, the extra space GAO identified is equal in square 

footage to about 9 average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to construct 

this extra space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835 million, and the 

estimated annual cost to rent, operate and maintain it is $51 million. 

Each of the challenges GAO identified related to unnecessary space in 

courthouses completed since 2000 is applicable to the L.A. courthouse project. 

First, as GAO reported in 2008, GSA designed the L.A. Courthouse with 13 more 

courtrooms than congressionally authorized. This increase in size led to cost 

increases and delays. Second, in 2004, GAO found that the proposed 

courthouse was designed to provide courtrooms to accommodate the judiciary’s 

estimate of 61 district and magistrate judges in the L.A. Court by 2011—which, 

as of October 2011, exceeds the actual number of such judges by 14. This 

disparity calls into question the space assumptions on which the original 

proposals were based. Third, the L.A. court was planning for less courtroom 

sharing than is possible. While in 2008 the judiciary favored an option proposed 

by GSA that provided for some sharing by senior judges, according to GAO’s 

2010 analysis, there is enough unscheduled time in courtrooms for three senior 

judges to share one courtroom, two magistrate judges to share one courtroom, 

and three district judges to share two courtrooms. In 2011, the judiciary also 

approved sharing for bankruptcy judges. Additional courtroom sharing could 

reduce the number of additional courtrooms needed for the L.A. courthouse, 

thereby increasing the potential options for housing the L.A. Court. View GAO-12-206T. For more information, 

contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 

or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
 

Page 1 GAO-12-206T 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here to discuss our recent work on federal 

courthouse construction issues and on the Los Angeles (L.A.) courthouse 

in particular. Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration 

(GSA) and the federal judiciary (judiciary) have undertaken a multibilliondollar courthouse construction initiative that by June 2010 had resulted in 

66 new courthouses or annexes, with 29 additional projects in various 

stages of development. However, rising costs and other federal budget 

priorities threaten to stall the initiative. The L.A. courthouse is one of the 

projects that has not been constructed, even though in fiscal year 2000, 

the judiciary ranked Los Angeles, California, as its first priority for 

courthouse construction.1 Currently, in downtown Los Angeles at one of 

the nation’s busiest federal district courts (L.A. Court), the judiciary’s 

operations are split between two buildings—the Spring Street Courthouse 

and the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. In 1996, the 

judiciary concluded that the split created operational inefficiencies, that it 

needed additional space in downtown Los Angeles, and that the Spring 

Street building had obsolete building systems and poor security 

conditions. The split court was a significant factor in the high priority 

ranking given to the L.A. courthouse project. For example, according to 

GSA officials, inefficiencies occur because the court’s operations are split 

between these two buildings. GSA agreed in 2000 that the existing 

buildings did not meet the court’s expansion and security requirements, 

among other things. Accordingly, the judiciary requested and GSA 

proposed building a new courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. 

In July 2000, GSA was congressionally authorized to begin designing a 

new courthouse in Los Angeles, and from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal 

year 2005, Congress appropriated about $400 million for the project.2

 1

California is divided into four judicial districts and Los Angeles is located in the Central 

District. 

2

Before Congress makes an appropriation for a proposed project, GSA submits to the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure detailed project descriptions, called prospectuses, for 

authorization by these committees when the proposed construction, alteration, or 

acquisition of a building to be used as a public building exceeds a specified threshold. For 

purposes of this testimony, we refer to approval of these projects or prospectuses by 

these committees as “congressionally authorized.” See 40 U.S.C. § 3307. 
 

GSA initially estimated in 2000 that the L.A. Court could take occupancy 

of a new courthouse in fiscal year 2006, but construction never began. 

For this testimony, GAO was asked to address (1) the history and status 

of the L.A. courthouse project, (2) challenges we have identified affecting 

federal courthouses nationwide, and (3) the extent to which these 

challenges are applicable to the L.A. courthouse project. This testimony is 

based on GAO’s prior work on federal courthouses,3 for which we 

analyzed courthouse planning and use data; reviewed relevant laws, 

regulations, and project planning and budget documents; visited key sites 

in Los Angeles and courthouses in many locations; analyzed selected 

courthouses as case studies; modeled courtroom sharing scenarios; 

contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a panel of 

judicial experts, and conducted structured interviews with numerous other 

district and magistrate judges about the challenges and opportunities 

related to courtroom sharing; analyzed nationwide judiciary rent data 

generated from GSA’s billing system, and interviewed judges, GSA 

officials, and others. This prior work was conducted from June 2004 

through June 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. More detail on 

our scope and methodology is available in the full reports on which this 

testimony is based. 

 3

See GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom 

Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO-10-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 

2010); GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Estimated Costs to House the L.A. District 

Court Have Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to Proceed, GAO-08-889 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2008); GAO, Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to 

New Space and Growing Energy and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and 

Management, GAO-06-613 (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006); and GAO, L.A. Federal 

Courthouse Project: Current Proposal Addresses Space Needs, but Some Security and 

Operational Concerns Would Remain, GAO-05-158 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2004). 

Page 2 GAO-12-206T 
 

The judiciary pays rent annually to GSA for court-related space. In fiscal 

year 2010, the judiciary’s rent payments totaled over $1 billion. The 

judiciary’s rent payments are deposited into GSA’s Federal Buildings 

Fund, a revolving fund used to finance GSA’s real property services, 

including the construction and repair of federal facilities under GSA 

control. Since fiscal year 1996, the judiciary has used a 5-year plan to 

prioritize new courthouse construction projects, taking into account a 

court’s projected need for space related to caseload and estimated 

growth in the number of judges and staff, security concerns, and any 

operational inefficiencies that may exist. Under current practices, GSA 

and the judiciary plan new federal courthouses based on the judiciary’s 

projected 10-year space requirements, which incorporate the judiciary’s 

projections of how many judges it will need in 10 years. 

Background 

The L.A. Court’s operations are currently split between two buildings—the 

Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Roybal Federal Building 

built in 1992. In 2008, we reported that the Spring Street building consists 

of 32 courtrooms—11 of which do not meet the judiciary’s minimum 

design standards for size4—and did not meet the security needs of the 

judiciary. The Roybal Federal Building consists of 34 courtrooms (10 

district, 6 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy). (See fig. 1.) 

 4

The judiciary considers three of the courtrooms in the Spring Street Building to be 

hearing rooms and not courtrooms. 

Page 3 GAO-12-206T 
 

Figure 1: U.S. District Courthouses in Los Angeles 

Roybal Federal Building, opened in 1992 (1.2 million square feet)

Court family tenants as of December 2004:

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, U.S. District Court, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Satellite Library, U.S. Marshals Service

Spring St. Courthouse, opened in 1938 (765,000 square feet)

Court family tenants as of December 2004:

U.S. District Court, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals Service,

U.S. Circuit Court

Source: GAO.

Source: GAO.

Since 2000, the construction of a new L.A. courthouse has been a top 

priority for the judiciary because of problems perceived by the judiciary 

related to the current buildings’ space, security, and operations. From 

fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005, Congress made three 

appropriations for a new L.A. courthouse. Specifically, in fiscal year 2001, 

Congress provided $35.25 million to acquire a site for and design a 41-

courtroom building, and in fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $50 

million for construction of the new L.A. courthouse. In fiscal year 2005, 

Congress appropriated an additional $314.4 million for the construction of 

Page 4 GAO-12-206T 
 

a new 41-courtroom building in Los Angeles, which Congress designated 

to remain available until expended for construction of the previously 

authorized L.A. courthouse. 

In our 2008 report, we found that GSA had spent $16.3 million designing 

a new courthouse for the L.A. court and $16.9 million acquiring and 

preparing a new site for it in downtown Los Angeles. In addition, we 

reported that about $366.45 million remained appropriated for the 

construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. courthouse. Subsequent to the initial 

design and site acquisition, we noted that the project experienced 

substantial delays. The project was delayed because GSA decided to 

design a larger courthouse than congressionally authorized, GSA and the 

judiciary disagreed over the project’s scope, costs escalated 

unexpectedly, and there was low contractor interest in bidding on the 

project. We also reported that because of the delays, estimated costs for 

housing the L.A. Court had nearly tripled to over $1.1 billion, rendering 

the congressionally-authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable 

with current appropriations. As a result of the delays and the increases in 

estimated cost, in 2006, GSA cancelled the entire 41-courtroom 

courthouse project for which Congress had appropriated funds. 

L.A. Courthouse 

Project Cancelled 

After Delays and 

Increases in 

Estimated Costs 

By 2008, GSA was considering three options for a revised L.A. courthouse 

project, which would have required balancing needs for courtroom space, 

congressional approval, and additional estimated appropriations of up to 

$733 million. These options are summarized in Table 1. 

Table 1: Three Options for Housing the L.A. Court Currently under Consideration by GSA 

Description Total courtrooms

Estimated 

completion date 

Estimated new 

appropriations needed

Option 1: Construct a new 36-courtroom, 45-chamber 

building to house district judges; add 4 more courtrooms 

to Roybal to house the magistrate and bankruptcy judges; 

and the L.A. Court vacates the Spring Street building. 

74 2014 $733.6 million

Option 2: Construct a new 20-courtroom, 20-chamber 

courthouse to house about half of the district judges; add 

12 more courtrooms to the Roybal building; and the L.A. 

Court vacates the Spring Street building. 

66 2014 $301.5 million

Option 3: Add 13 more courtrooms in the Roybal building, 

retain 17 courtrooms and upgrade security in the Spring 

Street building, and house the remaining court functions in 

the federal building on L.A. Street (located in between the 

Spring Street and the Roybal buildings). 

64

(some below design 

standards for size)

2016 $282.1 million

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data. 

Page 5 GAO-12-206T 
 

The L.A. Court supported the first of these options—building a 36-

courtroom, 45-chamber courthouse to house all district and senior judges 

and adding 4 more courtrooms in the Roybal building to house all 

magistrate and bankruptcy judges—but it was the most expensive, 

pushing the total project costs to $1.1 billion at that time. While in 2008, 

we took no position on the three options, it was clear that the process had 

become deadlocked. Moreover, none of the options considered in 2008 

would have solved the issue of a split court, as all involved using two 

buildings to house the L.A. Court. 

GAO Found 

Judiciary’s Rent 

Challenge Stems from 

Courthouses Having 

Unneeded Space with 

Higher Associated 

Costs 

GAO Found That Increases 

in the Judiciary’s Rent 

Costs Were Primarily Due 

to Increases in Space and 

That Courthouses Have 

Significant Unneeded 

Space 

In 2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual 

exemption from rent payments to GSA because it was having difficulty 

paying for its increasing rent costs. GSA denied this request. GAO found 

in 20065 that the federal judiciary’s rental obligations to GSA for 

courthouses had increased 27 percent from fiscal year 2000 through 

fiscal year 2005, after controlling for inflation, and that these increasing 

rent costs were primarily due to the judiciary’s simultaneous 19-percent 

increase in space.6 Much of the net increase in space was in new 

courthouses that the judiciary had taken occupancy of since 2000. In 

2010, we found that the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 

 5

GAO, Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy and 

Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management, GAO-06-613 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 20, 2006). 

6

The judiciary’s rent increased from $780 million in fiscal year 2000 to $990 million in 

fiscal year 2005, after controlling for inflation. During this time, the judiciary’s space 

increased from 33.6 million to 39.8 million rentable square feet. 

Page 6 GAO-12-206T 
 

include 3.56 million square feet of unneeded space—more than a quarter 

of the space in courthouses completed since 2000. This extra space 

consists of space that was constructed as a result of (1) exceeding the 

congressionally authorized size, (2) overestimating the number of judges 

the courthouses would have, and (3) not planning for judges to share 

courtrooms. Overall, this space is equal to the square footage of about 9 

average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to construct this extra 

space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835 million, and the annual cost 

to rent, operate, and maintain it is $51 million. 

Most Federal Courthouses 

Constructed Since 2000 

Exceed Authorized Size, 

Some by Substantial 

Amounts 

In our 2010 report on federal courthouse construction, we found that 27 of 

the 33 courthouses completed since 2000 exceeded their congressionally 

authorized size by a total of 1.7 million square feet. Fifteen exceed their 

congressionally authorized size by more than 10 percent, and 12 of these 

15 also incurred total project costs that exceeded the estimates provided 

to congressional committees. However, there is no statutory requirement 

to notify congressional committees about size overages. According to our 

analysis, a lack of oversight by GSA, including not ensuring its space 

measurement policies were understood and followed, and a lack of focus 

on building courthouses within the congressionally authorized size, 

contributed to these size overages. 

For example, all 7 of the courthouses we examined in case studies for 

this 2010 report included more building common and other space—such 

as mechanical spaces and atriums—than planned for within the 

congressionally authorized gross square footage. The increase over the 

planned space ranged from 19 percent to 102 percent. Regional GSA 

officials involved in the planning and construction of several courthouses 

we visited stated that they were unaware until we told them that the 

courthouses were larger than authorized. 

Further indicating a lack of oversight in this area, GSA relied on the 

architect to validate that the courthouse’s design was within the 

authorized gross square footage without ensuring that the architect 

followed GSA’s policies on how to measure certain commonly included 

spaces, such as atriums. Although GSA officials emphasized that open 

space for atriums would not cost as much as space completely built out 

with floors, these officials also agreed that there are costs associated with 

constructing and operating atrium space. In fact, the 2007 edition of the 

Page 7 GAO-12-206T 
 

U.S. Courts Design Guide,7 which reflects an effort to impose tighter 

constraints on future space and facilities costs, emphasizes that 

courthouses should have no more than one atrium. 

Because the Judiciary 

Overestimated the Number 

of Judges, Courthouses 

Have Much Extra Space 

after 10 Years 

For 23 of 28 courthouses whose space was planned at least 10 years 

ago, the judiciary overestimated the number of judges who would be 

located in them, causing them to be larger and costlier than necessary. 

Overall, the judiciary has 119, or approximately 26 percent, fewer judges 

than the 461 it estimated it would have. This leaves the 23 courthouses 

with extra courtrooms and chamber suites that, together, total 

approximately 887,000 square feet of extra space. A variety of factors 

contributed to the judiciary’s overestimates, including inaccurate caseload 

projections, difficulties in projecting when judges would take senior status, 

and long-standing difficulties in obtaining new authorizations and filling 

vacancies. However, we found that the contribution of inaccurate 

caseload projections to inaccurate estimates of how many judges would 

be needed cannot be measured because the judiciary did not retain the 

historic caseload projections used in planning the courthouses. 

Low Levels of Use Show 

That Judges Could Share 

Courtrooms, Reducing the 

Need for Future 

Courtrooms by More than 

One-Third 

According to our analysis of the judiciary’s data,8 courtrooms are used for 

case-related proceedings only a quarter of the available time or less, on 

average. Furthermore, no event (case related or otherwise) was 

scheduled in courtrooms for half the time or more, on average. Using the 

judiciary’s data, we designed a model for courtroom sharing, which shows 

that there is enough unscheduled time for substantial courtroom sharing. 

(For more information on our model, see app. I). Specifically, our model 

shows that under dedicated sharing, in which judges are assigned to 

share specific courtrooms, three district judges could share two 

courtrooms, three senior judges could share one courtroom, and two 

magistrate judges could share one courtroom with time to spare. This 

level of sharing would reduce the number of courtrooms the judiciary 

 7

The U.S. Courts Design Guide specifies the judiciary’s criteria for designing new court 

facilities and sets the space and design standards for court-related elements of 

courthouse construction. 

8

Federal Judicial Center, The Use of Courtrooms in U.S. District Courts: A Report to the 

Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration & Case Management, 

(Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2008). 

Page 8 GAO-12-206T 
 

requires by a third for district judges and by more for senior district and 

magistrate judges. 

In our 2010 report, we found that dedicated sharing could have reduced 

the number of courtrooms needed in courthouses built since 2000 by 126 

courtrooms—about 40 percent of the total number—accounting for about 

946,000 square feet of extra space. Furthermore, we found that another 

type of courtroom sharing—centralized sharing, in which all courtrooms 

are available for assignment to any judge based on need—improves 

efficiency and could reduce the number of courtrooms needed even 

further. 

Some judges we consulted raised potential challenges to courtroom 

sharing, such as uncertainty about courtroom availability, but others with 

experience in sharing indicated they had overcome those challenges 

when necessary and no trials were postponed. In 2008 and 2009, the 

Judicial Conference adopted sharing policies for future courthouses under 

which senior district and magistrate judges are to share courtrooms at a 

rate of two judges per courtroom plus one additional duty courtroom for 

courthouses with more than two magistrate judges. Additionally, the 

conference recognized the greater efficiencies available in courthouses 

with many courtrooms and recommended that in courthouses with more 

than 10 district judges, district judges also share. 

Our model’s application of the judiciary’s data shows that still more 

sharing opportunities are available. Specifically, sharing between district 

judges could be increased by one-third by having three district judges 

share two courtrooms in courthouses of all sizes. Sharing could also be 

increased by having three senior judges—instead of two—share one 

courtroom. We found that, if implemented, these opportunities could 

further reduce the need for courtrooms, thereby decreasing the size of 

future courthouses. 

GSA and the Judiciary 

Have an Opportunity to 

Align Courthouse Planning 

and Construction with the 

Judiciary’s Real Need for 

Space 

In 2010, we concluded that, for at least some of the 29 courthouse 

projects underway at that time and for all future courthouse construction 

projects not yet begun, GSA and the judiciary have an opportunity to align 

their courthouse planning and construction with the judiciary’s real need 

for space. Such changes would reduce construction, operations and 

maintenance, and rent costs. We recommended, among other things, that 

GSA ensure that new courthouses are constructed within their authorized 

size or that congressional committees are notified if authorized sizes are 

going to be exceeded; that the Judicial Conference of the United States 

Page 9 GAO-12-206T 
 

retain caseload projections to improve the accuracy of its 10-year-judge 

planning; and that the Conference establish and use courtroom sharing 

policies based on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed 

with most of the recommendations, but expressed concerns about our 

methodology and key findings. We continue to believe that our findings 

were well supported and developed using an appropriate methodology, 

as explained in the report.9

The three causes of extra space—and the associated extra costs—in 

courthouses that we identified in 2010 are all applicable to the L.A. 

courthouse project. These causes, as described above, include (1) 

exceeding the congressionally authorized size, (2) overestimating the 

number of judges the courthouses would have, and (3) not planning for 

courtroom sharing among judges. 

Challenges Related to 

Costs and Unneeded 

Space in Courthouses 

Are All Applicable to 

the L.A. Courthouse 

Project In 2008, we reported that GSA’s decision to design a larger courthouse in 

Los Angeles than was congressionally authorized had led to cost 

increases and delays. The design of a new courthouse in Los Angeles 

was congressionally authorized in 2000 and later funded based on a 41-

courtroom, 1,016,300-square-foot GSA prospectus. GSA decided instead 

to design a 54-courtroom, 1,279,650-square-foot building to meet the 

judiciary’s long-term needs. A year and a half later, after conducting the 

environmental assessments and purchasing the site for the new 

courthouse, GSA informed Congress that it had designed a 54-courtroom 

courthouse in a May 2003 proposal. However, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) rejected this proposal, according to GSA, and did not 

include it in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2005. GSA then 

designed a 41-courtroom building, but by the time it completed this effort, 

the schedule for constructing the building had been delayed by 2 years, 

according to a senior GSA official involved with the project. 

With this delay, inflation pushed the project’s cost over budget, and GSA 

needed to make further reductions to the courthouse in order to procure it 

within the authorized and appropriated amounts. However, GSA and L.A. 

Court officials were slow to reduce the project’s scope, which caused 

additional delays and then necessitated additional reductions. For 

example, GSA did not simplify the building-high atrium that was initially 

 9

GAO-10-417. 

Page 10 GAO-12-206T 
 

envisioned for the new courthouse until January 2006, even though the 

judiciary had repeatedly expressed concerns about the construction and 

maintenance costs of the atrium since 2002. In our 2010 report, we found 

that large atriums contributed to size overages in several courthouses 

completed since 2000. Moreover, according to GSA officials in 2010, 

GSA’s current policy on how to count the square footage of atriums and 

its target for the percentage of space in a building that should be used for 

tenant space (which does not include atriums) should make it difficult, if 

not impossible, for a courthouse project to include large atriums spanning 

many floors—although relatively modest atriums should still be feasible. 

Second, overestimates of how many judges the L.A. Court would need led 

to the design of a courthouse with more courtrooms than necessary. 

Specifically, we reported in 2004 that the proposed L.A. courthouse was 

designed to include courtrooms for 61 judges (47 current district and 

magistrate judges and 14 additional judges expected by 2011), but in 2011, 

the L.A. Court still has 47 district and magistrate judges—and none of the 

14 additional judges that were expected. This outcome calls into question 

the space assumptions that the original proposals were based on. 

Third, in 2008 we reported that in planning for judges to share 

courtrooms, the judiciary favored an option proposed by GSA that 

provided for sharing by senior judges, but our 2010 analysis indicated that 

further sharing was feasible and could reduce the size and cost of the 

L.A. courthouse project. Specifically, GSA’s proposal to build a 36-

courtroom, 45-chamber building and add 4 courtrooms to Roybal’s 

existing 34 courtrooms—which GSA estimated at the time would cost 

$1.1 billion, or $733.6 million more than Congress had already 

appropriated—would have provided the L.A. Court with 74 courtrooms in 

total—36 district courtrooms in the new building and 38 courtrooms (20 

magistrate and 18 bankruptcy) in Roybal. The judiciary supported this 

proposal in part, it said, because, with more chambers than courtrooms 

included in the plan, it could fulfill its need for a larger building through 

courtroom sharing among senior judges who would occupy the extra 

chambers in the new building. In this option, the district and senior judges 

would be housed in the new courthouse, while the magistrate and 

bankruptcy judges would be housed in the Roybal building. As described 

above, our model suggested that additional courtroom sharing would be 

possible in a courthouse such as the L.A. courthouse, which could reduce 

the number of courtrooms needed for this project, broadening the 

potential options for housing the L.A. District Court. 

Page 11 GAO-12-206T 
 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes our testimony. We are pleased to answer 

any questions you might have. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Mark L. 

Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include Keith Cunningham, Assistant 

Director, Susan Michal-Smith, and Alwynne Wilbur. 

Contact Information 

Page 12 GAO-12-206T 
Appendix I: Additional Information on GAO’s Appendix I: Additional Information on GAO’s Courtroom Sharing Model 

Courtroom Sharing Model 

To learn more about the level of courtroom sharing that the judiciary’s 

data support, we used the judiciary’s 2008 district courtroom scheduling 

and use data to create a simulation model to determine the level of 

courtroom sharing supported by the data. 

The data used to create the simulation model for courtroom usage were 

collected by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC)—the research arm of the 

federal judiciary—for its Report on the Usage of Federal District Court 

Courtrooms, published in 2008. The data collected by FJC were a 

stratified random sample of federal court districts to ensure a nationally 

representative sample of courthouses—that is, FJC sampled from small, 

medium, and large districts, as well as districts with low, medium, and 

high weighted filings. Altogether, there were 23 randomly selected 

districts and 3 case study districts, which included 91 courthouses, 602 

courtrooms, and every circuit except that of the District of Columbia. The 

data sample was taken in 3-month increments over a 6-month period in 

2007 for a total of 63 federal workdays, by trained court staff who 

recorded all courtroom usage, including scheduled but unused time. 

These data were then verified against three independently recorded 

sources of data about courtroom use. Specifically, the sample data were 

compared with JS-10 data routinely recorded for courtroom events 

conducted by district judges, MJSTAR data routinely recorded for 

courtroom events conducted by magistrate judges, and data collected by 

independent observers in a randomly selected subset of districts in the 

sample. We verified that these methods were reliable and empirically 

sound for use in simulation modeling. 

Working with a contractor, we designed this sharing model in conjunction 

with a specialist in discrete event simulation and the company that 

designed the simulation software to ensure that the model conformed to 

generally accepted simulation modeling standards and was reasonable 

for the federal court system. Simulation is widely used in modeling any 

system where there is competition for scarce resources. The goal of the 

model was to determine how many courtrooms are required for courtroom 

utilization rates similar to that recorded by FJC. This determination is 

based on data for all courtroom use time collected by FJC, including time 

when the courtroom was scheduled to be used but the event was 

cancelled within one week of the scheduled date. 

The completed model allows, for each courthouse, user input of the 

number and types of judges and courtrooms, and the output states 

whether the utilization of the courtrooms does not exceed the availability 

of the courtrooms in the long run. When using the model to determine the 

Page 13 GAO-12-206T 
Appendix I: Additional Information on GAO’s 

Courtroom Sharing Model 

level of sharing possible at each courthouse based on scheduled 

courtroom availability on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., we established 

a baseline of one courtroom per judge to the extent that this sharing level 

exists at the 33 courthouses built since 2000. In selecting the 8 a.m. to 6 

p.m. time frame for courtroom scheduling, we used the courtroom 

scheduling profile that judges currently use, reflecting the many uses and 

flexibility needed for a courtroom. Judges stated that during trials 

courtrooms may be needed by attorneys before trial times in order to set 

up materials. This set up time was captured in the judiciary’s data; other 

uses of a courtroom captured by the judiciary are time spent on 

ceremonies, education, training, and maintenance. We differentiated 

events and time in the model by grouping them as case-related events, 

nonjudge-related events, and unused scheduled time, and we allotted 

enough time for each of these events to occur without delay. Then we 

entered the number of judges from each courthouse and determined the 

fewest number of courtrooms needed for no backlog in court proceedings. 

(543295) Page 14 GAO-12-206T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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. 
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 website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Connect with GAO 

Contact: 

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper