United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Senate Committee on Rules 

and Administration

ARCHITECT OF THE 

CAPITOL 

Progress in Improving 

Energy Efficiency and 

Options for Decreasing 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Statement of Terrell G. Dorn, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 

 

GAO-08-917T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 18, 2008

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

Progress in Improving Energy Efficiency and Options

for Decreasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Highlights of GAO-08-917T, a testimony to 

the Committee on Rules and 

Administration, U.S. Senate 

In April 2007, GAO reported that 96

percent of the greenhouse gas 

emissions from the Capitol Hill 

Complex facilities—managed by 

the Architect of the Capitol

(AOC)—resulted from electricity 

use throughout the complex and 

combustion of fossil fuels in the 

Capitol Power Plant. The report 

concluded that AOC and other 

legislative branch agencies could

benefit from conducting energy

audits to identify projects that

would reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. GAO also recommended 

that AOC and the other agencies

establish a schedule for conducting 

these audits and implement 

selected projects as part of an 

overall plan that considers costeffectiveness, the extent to which

the projects reduce emissions, and 

funding options. AOC and the other

agencies agreed with our

recommendations. 

This statement focuses on (1) the 

status of AOC’s efforts to 

implement the recommendations in

our April 2007 report and (2) 

opportunities for the Senate to

decrease greenhouse gas emissions 

and associated environmental

impacts. The statement is based on 

GAO’s prior work, analysis of AOC 

documents, and discussions with

AOC management. 

AOC has made some progress toward implementing the recommendations 

in GAO’s April 2007 report, but opportunities remain. For example, AOC 

has prioritized a list of Capitol Hill buildings that need energy audits but 

has not developed a schedule for conducting the audits that explains the 

prioritization scheme or provides information on the anticipated costs. 

AOC prioritized the order of energy audits based on each building’s energy

use and has begun conducting the first of the audits. In addition, AOC has 

contracted with a private firm to conduct preliminary audits of the Senate 

office buildings that could lead to more targeted audits and eventually

identify cost-effective projects that would decrease energy use and related 

greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that developing a more detailed 

schedule for future audits that includes an explanation of the prioritization 

scheme and cost estimates would assist the Congress in its appropriations 

decisions and facilitate the completion of additional audits. With respect

to our recommendation that AOC implement selected projects as part of 

an overall plan to reduce emissions, AOC has implemented projects to 

reduce energy use and related emissions, but the projects were not 

identified through the processes we recommended. AOC could more fully 

respond to our recommendation by first completing the energy audits and 

then evaluating the cost-effectiveness and relative merits of projects that 

could further decrease the demand for energy. 

 

The Senate’s options for decreasing the greenhouse gas emissions and 

related environmental impacts associated with its operations fall into 

three main categories—implementing projects to decrease the demand for 

electricity and steam derived from fossil fuels, adjusting the Capitol Power 

Plant’s fuel mix, and purchasing carbon offsets or renewable electricity 

from external providers. Of these options, efforts to decrease the demand 

for energy could lead to recurring cost savings through reductions in 

energy expenditures while the other options may prove less cost-effective

and involve recurring expenses. However, a key challenge in identifying 

energy-saving opportunities results from limited data on the baseline level

of energy use within each Senate building. Specifically, the meters for 

steam and chilled water no longer function or do not provide reliable data. 

In addition, the buildings are not equipped with submeters for electricity

that, if installed, could enhance efforts to identify sections of the buildings 

that consume relatively high levels of energy. AOC has purchased but not

installed new chilled water meters, is evaluating options for acquiring new 

steam meters, and plans to install submeters by February 2009. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-917T. 

For more information, contact Terrell G. Dorn 

at (202) 512-6923 or dornt@gao.gov. 
Architect of the Capitol

Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing to discuss 

opportunities for enhancing energy efficiency and decreasing the carbon 

footprint of the Capitol Hill Complex. In April 2007, we reported that 96 

percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the Capitol Hill Complex 

resulted from purchased electricity (59 percent) and the combustion of 

fossil fuels in the Capitol Power Plant (37 percent).

1

 The Architect of the 

Capitol (AOC) has jurisdiction over the day-to-day operations of facilities 

located in the complex. Because the vast majority of greenhouse gas 

emissions from the Capitol Hill Complex stem from energy use, our April 

2007 report recommended that AOC and other legislative branch agencies

conduct energy audits to identify projects that would reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. We also recommended that AOC and other legislative 

branch agencies establish a schedule for conducting these audits and 

implement selected projects as part of an overall plan that considers the 

cost-effectiveness of the projects, the extent to which they reduce 

emissions, and options for funding them. AOC and the other agencies 

agreed with our recommendations. 

In addition to the work we did for our April 2007 report, we analyzed the 

potential costs of fuel-switching from coal to natural gas at the Capitol 

Power Plant, as directed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House 

of Representatives in the Green the Capitol Initiative.2

 Specific actions 

outlined in the initiative included purchasing electricity generated by 

renewable sources, purchasing carbon offsets, and directing AOC to adjust 

the fuel mix of the Capitol Power Plant so that the portion of its output 

 1

GAO, Legislative Branch: Energy Audits Are Key to Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse

Gas Emissions, GAO-07-516 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2007). Major greenhouse gases 

include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and certain synthetic gases including

hydrofluorocarbons emitted from refrigerants. Buildings within the Capitol Complex 

include the Senate Office buildings (Dirksen, Hart, and Russell), House Office Buildings 

(Cannon, Longworth, and Rayburn), U.S. Capitol Building and Grounds, the Capitol Power 

Plant, Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds, U.S. Capitol Police Buildings, and the 

U.S. Botanic Garden. The Capitol Power Plant provides steam and chilled water for 

heating and cooling the Capitol building and 23 surrounding facilities. 

2

GAO, Economic and Other Implications of Switching from Coal to Natural Gas at the

Capitol Power Plant and at Electricity-Generating Units Nationwide, GAO-08-601R 

(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2008). 

Page 1 GAO-08-917T
Architect of the Capitol

consumed by the House is derived entirely from natural gas.3 In May 2008, 

we recommended that, before adjusting the plant’s fuel mix beyond the 

level directed by the initiative, AOC consult with its oversight committees 

in the Congress and evaluate the economic and environmental tradeoffs 

associated with the use of each fuel at the plant.

My statement today will focus on (1) the status of AOC’s efforts to 

implement the recommendations in our April 2007 report and, (2) 

opportunities for the Senate to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, 

including the cost-effectiveness of decreasing demand for energy relative

to other options such as fuel switching at the Capitol Power Plant or 

purchasing renewable electricity and carbon offsets. Today’s remarks are 

based on our prior work, analysis of documents provided by AOC on its 

progress in responding to recommendations in our April 2007 report, and 

related discussions with AOC management. 

The Architect of the Capitol has made some progress toward

implementing the recommendations in our April 2007 report but more 

opportunities remain. For example, AOC has prioritized a list of Capitol 

Hill buildings that need energy audits but has not developed a schedule for

conducting the audits that explains the prioritization scheme or provides 

information on the anticipated costs. With respect to energy audits, AOC 

is conducting an energy audit of the U.S. Capitol Police Buildings and 

Grounds and plans to use $400,000 of fiscal year 2008 funds for energy 

audits of the Capitol Building and the Ford House Office Building. AOC 

has also requested $1.4 million for additional energy audits in its fiscal 

year 2009 budget request. In addition, AOC has contracted with a private

firm to conduct preliminary audits of the Senate Office Buildings that 

could lead to more targeted audits and eventually identify cost-effective 

projects that would decrease energy use and related greenhouse gas 

emissions. To more fully implement this recommendation, AOC would 

need to enhance its prioritized list of audits by providing a more detailed

schedule for completing the audits. AOC also has an opportunity to more 

fully address our recommendation that it implement selected projects as 

part of an overall plan to reduce emissions that considers costSummary 

 3

According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, for a 

comparable amount of energy input, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from burning 

natural gas is about half that emitted from burning coal. Carbon offsets are a measurable 

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from a project in one location that is used to

compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere. 

Page 2 GAO-08-917T
Architect of the Capitol

effectiveness, the extent to which the projects reduce emissions, and 

funding options. Specifically, AOC has implemented numerous energy 

efficiency projects throughout the Capitol Complex but has not identified 

these projects through the process we recommended of first conducting 

energy audits and then implementing selected projects based on costeffectiveness and other considerations. Projects underway or completed 

include upgrading lighting systems, replacing steam system components, 

conducting education and outreach, purchasing energy-efficient 

equipment and appliances, and installing new windows in the Ford House 

Office Building. 

The Senate’s options for decreasing Capitol Hill greenhouse gas emissions 

and related environmental impacts associated with its operations fall into 

three main categories—(1) implementing projects to decrease the demand 

for electricity and steam, (2) adjusting the Capitol Power Plant’s fuel mix, 

and (3) purchasing carbon offsets or renewable electricity from external 

providers. Of these options, efforts to decrease the demand for energy 

could lead to a reduction in the Capitol Hill Complex carbon footprint and 

recurring cost savings through reductions in energy expenditures. On the 

other hand, the other options may involve recurring expenses which may 

be large enough to render them less cost-effective. If natural gas prices 

remain relatively high, fuel switching may prove particularly costly. As we 

reported in April 2007, a strategy for reducing emissions could include 

energy audits that identify and evaluate energy-efficiency and renewableenergy projects, and the evaluation of other projects that may fall outside 

the scope of energy audits, such as purchasing energy-efficient appliances

and computers. Importantly, these steps could assist the Senate in 

addressing the largest sources of emissions—the consumption of 

purchased electricity and fossil fuel combustion in the Capitol Power 

Plant. However, a key challenge in identifying energy-saving projects for 

the Senate buildings results from limited data on the baseline level of 

energy use within each Senate building. Specifically, the Senate Office 

Buildings currently have meters provided by the local utility to track 

electricity use in each building, but the AOC-owned meters that track the

consumption of steam and chilled water either no longer work or do not 

provide reliable data. In addition, the Senate buildings are not equipped

with submeters for electricity that, if installed, could enhance efforts to 

identify sections of the buildings that consume relatively high levels of 

energy. AOC has purchased but not installed new chilled water meters, is 

evaluating options for acquiring new steam meters, and plans to install 

submeters by February 2009. In addition to decreasing the demand for 

energy, the Senate could require AOC to adjust the fuel mix at the Capitol 

Power Plant to rely more heavily on natural gas, which produces about 

Page 3 GAO-08-917T
Architect of the Capitol

half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned but also costs about 

four times as much for a comparable amount of energy input. As we 

estimated in May 2008, meeting the House of Representative’s fuelswitching requirement would cost between $1.0 and $1.8 million in fiscal 

year 2008 and between $4.7 and $8.3 million over a five-year period. While 

we have not analyzed the potential costs of fuel switching at the Capitol 

Power Plant to meet the needs of the Senate, our estimates for the House 

may provide some indication of the potential costs of such a directive. 

Additionally, fuel-switching requirements could impose a recurring cost on 

AOC and may prove less cost-effective than implementing projects that 

decrease the demand for energy. Finally, the Senate could pay for 

electricity derived from renewable sources or purchase carbon offsets. 

Such steps could encourage emissions reductions outside of the Capitol 

Complex but would also impose a recurring cost on the Senate and may be

less cost effective than decreasing the demand for energy. 

Energy audits typically identify information on projects that could address 

the consumption of fossil fuel and electricity as well as projects that could 

reduce emissions from other sources, such as leaks in refrigeration 

equipment. Energy audits also include information on the costeffectiveness of projects and on the extent to which the projects could 

reduce emissions. This information can then be used to evaluate and

select projects. The audits generally fall into three categories—

preliminary, targeted, and comprehensive—and are distinguished by the 

level of detail and analysis required. Preliminary audits are the least 

detailed and provide quick evaluations to determine a project’s potential. 

These audits typically do not provide sufficiently detailed information to 

justify investments but may prove useful in identifying opportunities for 

more detailed evaluations. Targeted audits are detailed analyses of 

specific systems, such as lighting. Comprehensive audits are detailed 

analyses of all major energy-using systems. Both targeted and 

comprehensive audits provide sufficiently detailed information to justify 

investing in projects. 

Background 

Energy-saving projects that fall outside the scope of energy audits include 

efforts to enhance outreach and education efforts to curtail energy use by

building occupants and purchasing high-efficiency appliances. Outreach 

and education efforts include providing information on how employees 

can conserve energy, such as AOC’s “how-to guides” that detail costeffective methods to save energy in the workplace. Efforts to curtail 

energy use include purchasing energy-efficient computer equipment and 

appliances, using information available from the Environmental Protection 

Page 4 GAO-08-917T
Architect of the Capitol

Agency’s Energy Star program or the Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP). Energy Star-qualified and FEMP-designated products 

meet energy-efficiency guidelines set by the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the Department of Energy and, in general, represent the top 30

percent most energy-efficient products in their class of products. These 

products cover a wide range of categories, including appliances and office 

equipment. According to the Energy Star program, office products that 

have earned the Energy Star rating use about half as much electricity as 

standard equipment and generally cost the same as equipment that is not 

Energy Star qualified. 

AOC has made some progress toward implementing the two 

recommendations in our April 2007 report. First, AOC has taken steps to 

address our recommendation that it develop a schedule for routinely 

conducting energy audits by developing a prioritized list of buildings for 

which it plans to conduct comprehensive energy audits (see App. 1). 

Specifically, AOC is currently undertaking a comprehensive energy audit

of the U.S. Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds and obtained a draft 

submission in May 2008 from the private contractor performing the audit. 

AOC also plans to use $400,000 of fiscal year 2008 funds to perform 

comprehensive energy audits of the Capitol Building and the Ford House 

Office Building, and says it will direct any remaining fiscal year 2008 funds 

to an audit of the Hart Senate Office Building.4

 Additionally, AOC has 

contracted with a private firm to conduct a preliminary energy audit of the 

Senate Office Buildings that could prove useful in identifying opportunities 

for more comprehensive and targeted evaluations. 

AOC Has Made Some 

Progress toward 

Implementing GAO’s 

Recommendations on 

Energy Audits and 

Implementing 

Projects that 

Decrease Emissions 

AOC officials said that they developed the prioritized list of buildings to 

audit by comparing the amount of energy used per square foot of space in

each building (referred to as energy intensity) and then placing the 

buildings that use relatively higher levels of energy at the top of the list. 

However, AOC’s prioritized list does not provide information on the 

energy intensity of each building, an explanation of its prioritization 

scheme, or cost estimates. Furthermore, AOC has not developed a 

schedule for routinely conducting audits as we recommended in our April 

2007 report. AOC officials said that they cannot complete a more 

 4

AOC completed energy audits of the Capitol Building in 2001, and of the Rayburn and 

James Madison Buildings in May 2005. AOC has requested $1.4 million for energy audits in 

its fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

Page 5 GAO-08-917T
Architect of the Capitol

comprehensive schedule because of uncertainty about the extent to which 

AOC will receive future appropriations to conduct the audits. We believe 

that developing a more detailed schedule for future audits along with an 

explanation of its prioritization scheme and cost estimates would assist 

the Congress in its appropriations decisions and facilitate the completion 

of additional audits. 

Second, AOC can do more to fully address the second recommendation in 

our April 2007 report that it implement selected projects as part of an 

overall plan to reduce emissions that considers cost-effectiveness, the 

extent to which the projects reduce emissions, and funding options. In 

recent years, AOC has undertaken numerous projects throughout the 

Capitol Hill Complex to reduce energy use and related emissions, but 

these projects were not identified through the process we recommended. 

Projects completed or underway include upgrading lighting systems, 

conducting education and outreach, purchasing energy-efficient 

equipment and appliances, and installing new windows in the Ford 

building. Examples of projects in Senate office buildings include 

upgrading the lighting in 11 offices with daylight and occupancy sensors, 

installing energy efficiency ceiling tiles in the Hart building, and replacing 

steam system components. According to AOC, these efforts have already 

decreased the energy intensity throughout the Capitol Hill Complex. 

Specifically, AOC said that it decreased its energy intensity—the amount 

of energy used per square foot of space within a facility—by 6.5 percent in 

fiscal year 2006 and 6.7 percent in fiscal year 2007. 

As AOC moves forward with identifying and selecting projects that could 

decrease energy use and related emissions, it could further respond to our 

recommendation by developing a plan that identifies the potential benefits

and costs of each option based on the results of energy audits. Such a 

plan could build on AOC’s existing Sustainability Framework Plan and its 

Comprehensive Emissions Reduction Plan for the Capitol Complex, which 

identify measures that could lead to improvements in energy efficiency

and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Complementing these plans 

with information on projects identified through energy audits would 

further assist AOC in using the resources devoted to energy efficiency

enhancements as effectively as possible. 

Page 6 GAO-08-917T
The Senate has three primary options for decreasing greenhouse gas 

emissions and related environmental impacts associated with its 

operations. These include (1) implementing additional projects to 

decrease the demand for electricity and steam derived from fossil fuel; (2) 

adjusting the Capitol Power Plant’s fuel mix to rely more heavily on 

natural gas, which produces smaller quantities of greenhouse gas 

emissions for each unit of energy input than the coal and oil also burned in 

the plant; and (3) purchasing renewable electricity or carbon offsets from 

external providers. Each option involves economic and environmental 

tradeoffs and the first option is likely to be the most cost-effective because 

the projects could lead to recurring cost savings through reductions in 

energy expenditures. 

Efforts to Further 

Reduce Energy 

Consumption May 

Prove More CostEffective Than Other 

Measures in 

Decreasing Emissions 

Regarding the first option, as we reported in April 2007, conducting energy 

audits would assist AOC in addressing the largest sources of emissions 

because the audits would help identify cost-effective energy-efficiency

projects. In general, energy projects are deemed cost-effective if it is 

determined through an energy audit that they will generate sufficient 

savings to pay for their capital costs. These projects may require up-front 

capital investments that the Senate could finance through direct 

appropriations or contracts with utility or energy service companies, 

under which the company initially pays for the work and the Senate later 

repays the company with the resulting savings. Until AOC exhausts its 

opportunities for identifying energy-efficiency projects that will pay for 

themselves over a reasonable time horizon, this option is likely to be more 

cost-effective than the second two options, both of which would involve 

recurring expenditures. 

In pursuing energy audits, AOC faces a significant challenge collecting 

reliable data on the baseline level of energy use within each Senate office

building. Such data would help identify inefficient systems and provide a

baseline against which AOC could measure potential or actual energyefficiency improvements. First, while AOC has meters that track 

electricity use in each building, the meters that track the steam and chilled 

water used by each building no longer work or provide unreliable data. 

AOC officials said that they have purchased but not installed new meters 

to track the use of chilled water and are evaluating options for acquiring 

new steam meters. Installing these meters and collecting reliable data

would enhance any efforts to identify potential energy saving measures. 

Second, AOC does not have submeters within each building to track the 

electricity use within different sections of each building. Such

submetering would further assist in targeting aspects of the Senate 

buildings’ operations that consume relatively high quantities of energy. 

Page 7 GAO-08-917T Architect of the Capitol
Page 8 GAO-08-917T Architect of the Capitol 

AOC said that it plans to install submeters for electricity, chilled water, 

and steam by February 2009. 

A second option for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions would involve 

directing AOC to further adjust the fuel mix at the Capitol Power Plant to 

rely more heavily on the combustion of natural gas in generating steam for 

space heating. The plant currently produces steam using a combination of 

seven boilers—two that primarily burn coal, but could also burn natural 

gas, and five boilers that burn fuel oil or natural gas. The total capacity of 

these boilers is over 40 percent higher than the maximum capacity 

required at any given time, and the plant has the flexibility to switch 

among the three fuels or burn a combination of fuels. The percentage of 

energy input from each fuel has varied from year to year, with an average 

fuel mix of 43 percent natural gas, 47 percent coal, and 10 percent fuel oil 

between 2001 and 2007. 

In June 2007, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 

Representatives released the Green the Capitol Initiative, which directed 

AOC to operate the plant with natural gas instead of coal to meet the 

needs of the House. The House Appropriations Committee subsequently 

directed GAO to determine the expected increase in natural gas use for 

House operations and the associated costs at the power plant that would 

result from the initiative. In May 2008, we reported that the fuel-switching 

directive should lead to a 38 percent increase in natural gas use over the 

average annual quantity consumed between 2001 and 2007. We also 

estimated that the fuel switching should cost about $1.4 million in fiscal 

year 2008 and could range from between $1.0 and $1.8 million depending 

on actual fuel costs, among other factors.5

 We also estimated that the 

costs would range from between $4.7 million and $8.3 million over the 

2008 through 2012 period, depending on fuel prices, the plant’s output, and 

other factors. While we have not analyzed the potential costs of fuel 

switching at the Capitol Power Plant to meet the needs of the Senate, our 

estimates for the House may provide some indication of the potential costs 

of such a directive. Additionally, AOC officials said that further directives 

to increase its reliance on natural gas in the plant could require equipment 

upgrades and related capital expenditures. 

Our May 2008 report also found that decreasing the plant’s reliance on 

coal could decrease greenhouse gas emissions by about 9,970 metric tons 

 5

All of our cost estimates are in constant 2006 dollars. 
Architect of the Capitol

per year at an average cost of $139 per ton and could yield other 

environmental and health benefits by decreasing emissions of nitrogen 

oxides, particulate matter, and pollutants that cause acid rain. While fuel 

switching could decrease emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful 

substances, it would also impose recurring costs because natural gas costs 

about four times as much as coal for an equal amount of energy input. 

Thus, fuel switching may prove less cost-effective than decreasing the 

demand for energy. 

Finally, a third option for the Senate to decrease greenhouse gas emissions 

and related environmental impacts includes purchasing electricity that is 

derived from renewable sources and paying external parties for carbon 

offsets. Neither of these activities would involve modifications to the 

Capitol Complex or its operations but could nonetheless lead to offsite 

reductions in emissions and related environmental impacts. Both options, 

if sustained, would result in recurring costs that should be considered in 

the context of other options for decreasing emissions that may prove more 

cost-effective. 

Madam Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee 

may have. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Terrell Dorn 

at (202) 512-6923. Other key contributors to this testimony include Daniel

Cain, Janice Ceperich, Elizabeth R. Eisenstadt, Michael Hix, Frank Rusco, 

and Sara Vermillion. 

Page 9 GAO-08-917T
Appendix I: Prioritized List of Buildings for 

Comprehensive Energy Audits 

Fiscal Year Facility 

2008 Capitol Building

 Rayburn House Office Building

 Hart Senate Office Buildinga

2009 Russell Senate Office Building

 Dirksen Senate Office Building

 Senate Underground Garage 

 Senate Employees Child Care Center 

 Webster Hall Page Dormitory

 Senate Furniture Warehouse

 Robert A. Taft Memorial

 CPP Boiler Plant 

 CPP West Refrigeration Plant

 CPP Administration Building 

 CPP Generator Building 

 CPP East Refrigeration Plant 

 CPP Storage (Butler) Building

2010 Ford House Office Building 

 Longworth House Office Building 

 East and West Underground Garages 

 House Page Dormitory 

 Cannon House Office Building

2011 Thomas Jefferson Building 

 James Madison Memorial Building 

 LOC Special Facilities Center 

 Book Storage Modules 

2012 Alternate Computer Facility 

 U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters 

 67 K Street 

 Canine Facility 

 Capitol Police Courier Acceptance Site 

 John Adams Building 

 BG Conservatory 

 BG Administration Building 

 BG Production Facility (Greenhouse) 

 Construction Management Division 

Page 10 GAO-08-917T Architect of the Capitol
Architect of the Capitol

Fiscal Year Facility 

 CG Vehicle Maintenance Garage 

 Supreme Court Building 

Source: AOC.

a

Hart is third in order for fiscal year 2008, if funding permits. 

Page 11 GAO-08-917T (542144) 
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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

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 “E-mail Updates.” 

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, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: 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 

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

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER