a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairmen, Committee on 

Environment and Public Works and 

Subcommittee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, U.S. Senate

December 2004 L.A. FEDERAL 

COURTHOUSE 

PROJECT

Current Proposal 

Addresses Space 

Needs, but Some 

Security and 

Operational Concerns 

Would Remain

GAO-05-158
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-158.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mark L. 

Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-158, a report to the 

Chairmen, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works and Subcommittee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. 

Senate 

December 2004

L.A. FEDERAL COURTHOUSE PROJECT

Current Proposal Addresses Space 

Needs, but Some Security and 

Operational Concerns Would Remain 

GSA’s current proposal to construct a new courthouse in Los Angeles, while 

expanding the judiciary’s use of the existing Roybal Federal Building, would 

address some but not all of the underlying conditions that led to Los 

Angeles’s high urgency score. For example, it would address the judiciary’s 

need for additional space and alleviate some security concerns. There 

would be space to accommodate the 47 current district and magistrate 

judges and the 14 additional judges expected by 2011, with room to expand, 

if needed, for additional judges. The new building would also improve 

security by providing additional holding cells and separate prisoner 

walkways and elevators. However, the operational and security concerns 

related to housing a trial court in multiple buildings (split court) that was a 

significant factor in Los Angeles’s high urgency score would remain. For 

example, U.S. Marshals Service officials said that a split court would require 

them to duplicate much of their security equipment and personnel necessary 

for fulfilling its mission of protecting the courthouses. 

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

Score 

Urgency score criterion Extent to which current proposal addresses the criterion

Year courthouse runs out of space

Number of judges without courtrooms

Security concerns

Operational inefficiencies

Fully addressed Partially addressed Not addressed

Source: GAO.

To meet judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the federal government 

will likely incur additional construction and operational costs beyond the 

estimated $400 million for the new courthouse. Like other courthouse 

projects in recent years, GSA officials acknowledge that there is a potential 

for the L.A. Courthouse to incur future escalation in construction costs due 

to changes during the design and construction phases, such as increases in 

raw material and labor costs. Furthermore, additional construction costs 

will also be incurred to meet the judiciary’s space needs over the long term. 

Preliminary estimates by GSA show that these costs may exceed $100 

million. For example, GSA will need to build four additional magistrate 

courtrooms in the Roybal building and renovate the current courthouse to 

convert courtrooms into office space for the U.S. Attorneys and other federal

agencies. GSA also plans a long-term expansion project to construct seven 

more courtrooms to meet judiciary space needs by 2031. Judiciary officials 

also acknowledge that a split court would result in additional operational 

costs due to duplicate offices and staff in the Roybal building and the new 

courthouse.

Since the early 1990s, the General 

Services Administration (GSA) and 

the federal judiciary have been 

carrying out a multibillion dollar 

courthouse construction initiative 

to address the judiciary’s growing 

space needs. To plan for and make 

funding decisions on projects, 

Congress, the Office of 

Management and Budget, and GSA 

have relied on a rolling 5-year plan 

prepared annually by the judiciary 

that prioritizes new courthouse 

projects based on an urgency 

score. The urgency score is based 

on the year a courthouse runs out 

of space, the number of judges 

without courtrooms, security 

concerns, and operational 

inefficiencies. 

In recent years, the L.A. courthouse 

had the highest urgency score in 

the judiciary’s 5-year plan. At a cost 

of approximately $400 million, the 

new courthouse is expected to be 

one of the most expensive projects 

in the federal government’s 

courthouse construction program 

to date. 

In light of the project’s significance, 

GAO was asked: (1) To what extent 

does GSA’s current L.A. courthouse 

project proposal address the 

underlying conditions that led to 

Los Angeles’s high urgency score 

and (2) what construction and 

other costs, if any, may be required 

to meet judiciary and related needs 

in Los Angeles? The Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts and GSA 

provided technical comments on 

this report.
Page i GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Current Proposal Addresses Some Conditions That Led to the High 

Urgency Score, but Certain Operational and Security Concerns 

Would Remain 8

Additional Construction and Operational Costs Beyond the 

Estimated $400 Million for the New Courthouse Are Likely 13

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 15

Appendix

Appendix I: Briefing Slides 17

Related GAO Products 39

Table Table 1: Urgency Score Criteria 4

Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Drawing of Proposed L.A. Courthouse 6

Figure 2: Urgency Score for Spring Street Courthouse 9

Figure 3: Colored, Numbered Lines on the Floor of a Secure 

Hallway Leading from Prisoner Holding Cells to 

Corresponding Numbered Courtrooms in Los Angeles’s 

Spring Street Courthouse 11

Abbreviations

AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

FBF Federal Buildings Fund

GSA General Services Administration

L.A. Los Angeles

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 20, 2004 Letr

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate 

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond

Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA)1 and the 

federal judiciary have been carrying out a multibillion dollar courthouse 

construction initiative to address the judiciary’s growing needs. In 1993, the 

judiciary identified 160 court facilities that required either the construction 

of a new building or a major annex to an existing building. To prioritize 

requests for these new courthouse projects, Congress, the Office of 

Management and Budget, and GSA rely on a rolling 5-year plan prepared 

annually by the judiciary. The 5-year plan ranks projects using a 

methodology that assigns an urgency score to each project based on four 

criteria—the year a courthouse runs out of space, the number of judges 

without courtrooms, security concerns, and operational inefficiencies.2

 In 

recent years, the Los Angeles (L.A.) Courthouse has been ranked as the 

highest-priority project in the judiciary’s 5-year plan based on its high 

urgency score. 

Currently, the L.A. Courthouse operations are split between two 

buildings—the Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Roybal 

Federal Building built in 1992. The current proposal is to expand the 

judiciary’s use of the Roybal building for the magistrate judges while 

constructing a new courthouse to house the district judges. At a cost of 

approximately $400 million, the new courthouse could be one of the most 

expensive projects in the federal government’s courthouse construction 

program to date. Because of the project’s significance, GAO was asked: 

1

GSA is the federal government’s central agency for real property operations, including 

federal courthouse construction.

2

In September 2004, the Judicial Conference adopted a 2-year moratorium on 42 courthouse 

construction projects currently listed on the judiciary’s 5-year plan. 
Page 2 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

1. To what extent does GSA’s current L.A. Courthouse project proposal 

address the underlying conditions that led to Los Angeles’s high 

urgency score?

2. What construction and other costs, if any, may be required to meet 

judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles? 

To determine whether the current project proposal would address the 

courthouse space, security, and operational concerns in Los Angeles, we 

inspected the current and planned sites for the U.S. District Court in Los 

Angeles. We also interviewed judges and officials from the U.S. District 

Court in Los Angeles, and officials from the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts (AOUSC), GSA, and U.S. Marshals Service (Marshals Service).3

 

We reviewed the urgency score criteria developed by the judiciary and 

planning studies developed for GSA and the judiciary for the L.A. 

Courthouse project. To obtain information on courthouse construction and 

other costs, we reviewed relevant laws related to the construction of 

courthouses, appropriations laws, project prospectuses, and budgetary 

data. We also interviewed officials from GSA and the judiciary. To ensure 

the reliability of information presented in this report, we corroborated 

much of the documentation on construction cost estimates, planning 

studies and prospectuses, and urgency score criteria through testimonial 

interviews with GSA and judiciary officials. A list of related GAO reports on 

courthouse construction appears at the end of this report. We conducted 

our work from June 2004 through September 2004 in Los Angeles, 

California, and Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. This report summarizes the information 

we provided to your staff during our September 23, 2004, briefing. The 

briefing slides are included in appendix I. 

Results in Brief GSA’s current proposal to construct a new courthouse, while expanding the 

judiciary’s use of the existing Roybal building, would address some but not 

all of the underlying conditions that led to its high urgency score. On the 

positive side, it would address the judiciary’s need for space and alleviate 

some security concerns, both of which contributed to the L.A. Courthouse’s 

high urgency score. There would be space to accommodate current judges 

and room to expand to accommodate most of the judges projected in the 

3

The Marshals Service provides security for the federal judiciary, including physical 

protection of courthouses and prisoner transport.
Page 3 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

court’s long-range plan. The new building would also improve security by 

providing additional holding cells and separate prisoner walkways and 

elevators. However, the operational and security concerns related to a split 

court, where court functions are housed in multiple buildings in a city, 

would remain. The current split court was a significant factor in the L.A. 

Courthouse’s high urgency score. For example, judiciary and Marshals 

Service officials said that prisoners and evidence would need to be 

transported between the Roybal building and the new building and several 

court functions would require duplicate staff and offices.

To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the 

government will likely incur additional construction and operational costs 

beyond the estimated $400 million for the new courthouse. As GSA has 

experienced cost growth during the design and construction phases of 

courthouse projects in the past (such as increases in raw material and labor 

costs), GSA acknowledges that there is a potential for the L.A. Courthouse 

to incur future escalation in construction costs due to changes during these 

phases. GSA has also indicated that additional construction funds will be 

needed to meet the long-term space needs of the judiciary and other related 

agencies in Los Angeles. Preliminary estimates by GSA show that these 

costs may exceed $100 million. For example, AOUSC and GSA officials said 

that four additional magistrate courtrooms will need to be built in the 

Roybal building and the Spring Street Courthouse will need to be renovated 

to convert courtrooms into office space for the U.S. Attorneys and other 

federal agencies. To meet projected judiciary long-term space needs, GSA 

said that it could construct one district courtroom in the new courthouse 

and six magistrate courtrooms in the Roybal Building by 2031. 

Furthermore, GSA and judiciary officials have told us that there will be 

additional operational costs associated with constructing a new 

courthouse, although the extent of these costs are unknown at this time. 

These operational costs could include various moving expenses, leased 

parking spaces, and relocation of existing federal tenants in the Roybal 

building. Judiciary officials also acknowledge that a split court would 

continue to result in additional security and operational costs due to 

duplicate offices and staff in the Roybal building and the new courthouse. 

AOUSC, GSA, and the Marshals Service, which is part of the Department of 

Justice, reviewed a draft of this report. AOUSC and GSA provided technical 

comments and the Marshals Service did not have any comments.
Page 4 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Background Los Angeles has one of the largest federal court operations in the nation, 

processing more than 16,000 cases per year and serving an area with more 

than 11 million people. In downtown Los Angeles, the District Court 

operations are split between two buildings—the Spring Street Courthouse 

and the Roybal Federal Building—that are approximately one-quarter mile 

apart. The Spring Street building, considered by the court to be the main 

courthouse in Los Angeles, is more than 65 years old and, according to 

judiciary and GSA officials, requires major renovations and does not 

currently meet the security or space needs of the judiciary. By contrast, the 

Roybal building was constructed in the early 1990s and, according to GSA 

officials, complied with design and security specifications that were in 

place at the time it was built.4

 However, inefficiencies occur because the 

court’s operations are split between these two buildings.

Federal courthouse construction projects are prioritized based on urgency 

scores assigned by the judiciary—the higher the score, the more urgent the 

project is considered (see table 1). 

Table 1: Urgency Score Criteria

Source: GAO analysis of data from AOUSC.

4

AOUSC officials said that, while the Roybal building meets security standards, it does not 

comply with current U.S. Courts Design Guide and accessibility standards.

Criterion Value Description

Year courthouse runs out of

space

30 points The year in which the building was or is projected to be completely occupied by 

the district court and related components (such as the Marshals Service), as 

documented in the judiciary’s long-range facilities plan or as determined by the 

Circuit Judicial Council.

Number of judges without 

courtrooms

15 points Measures the number of judicial officers who currently do not have courtrooms 

or who are projected not to have them over the next 10 years. 

Security concerns 30 points Includes whether the trial court is split into separate facilities, whether there is a 

secure prisoner drop-off, and whether there are separate walkways and 

elevators for prisoners, judges, and the public.

Operational inefficiences 25 points Includes physical building conditions—such as inefficiently designed 

courtrooms with visual obstructions or operations that are split among 

locations—that cause significant disruptions to court operations.
Page 5 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

The Los Angeles court has the highest urgency score of any project in the 5-

year plan due to the space, security, and operational inefficiencies 

presented by the Spring Street Courthouse. To address these concerns, 

GSA and the judiciary prepared a series of feasibility studies looking at 

different options for accommodating the court’s long-term needs. One 

option involved constructing a stand-alone building that would consolidate 

all of the court operations into a single building. GSA and the judiciary also 

considered constructing a companion building physically connected to the 

Roybal building. A third alternative that was studied involved the partial or 

complete demolition of an existing federal building to provide a site for a 

new courthouse.

According to judiciary and GSA officials, after years of study and debate, 

these options were not selected because of cost or space limitations. For 

example, AOUSC noted that a consolidated courthouse would cost 

approximately $480 million. Currently, GSA is proposing the construction 

of a new 41-courtroom building, as shown in figure 1, to house district 

court judges and related operations at a location approximately 6/10 of a 

mile from the Roybal building. Under this proposal, the judiciary would 

expand its use of the Roybal building for magistrate and bankruptcy judges 

and related operations. GSA’s plan also involves consolidating the U.S. 

Attorneys Office in the Spring Street building, along with other federal 

agencies and grand jury suites. The briefing slides in appendix I also 

contain a map showing the locations of these sites.
Page 6 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

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

Source: GSA (reprinted with permission).
Page 7 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

GSA estimates that constructing the new courthouse will cost 

approximately $400 million. Funding for this project is contingent on 

multiple appropriations.5

 In fiscal year 2000, the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure authorized site acquisition and design of 

the proposed courthouse, and in the following fiscal year Congress 

appropriated $35 million for this purpose. In fiscal year 2004, the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure authorized additional 

design and construction of the proposed courthouse in Los Angeles. In that 

same fiscal year, Congress appropriated $50 million for the project6

 and 

appropriated $314 million in fiscal year 2005.7 On November 17, 2004, the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works also authorized the 

construction of the new courthouse in Los Angeles.

5

GSA requests funding for courthouse projects as part of the President’s annual budget 

request to Congress. These projects are financed through the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), 

a revolving fund used, among other things, for GSA’s courthouse projects. Under the Public 

Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, GSA is required to submit to the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works detailed project descriptions, called prospectuses, for authorization by these 

committees when the proposed construction, alteration, or acquisition of a building to be 

used as a public building exceeds a specified threshold. For example, in fiscal year 2005, 

GSA identified the prospectus threshold as $2,360,000. The statute further provides that 

these committees should review and approve individual projects before Congress 

appropriates funds. In practice, however, some projects are authorized after appropriations 

have been made.

6

GSA’s appropriation for fiscal year 2004 was contained in the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2004, P.L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3 (2004). Section 168(b) of Division H of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2004 included a provision rescinding an amount equal to 0.59 percent 

of the budget authority for any discretionary account in the act. According to a March 4, 

2004, Office of Management and Budget report specifying the amount and account of each 

rescission in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, there was a rescission of $3,403,000 of 

budget authority for the FBF from which an appropriation is made for the construction of 

courthouses. The Office of Management and Budget report did not specify the amount of the 

rescission for the L.A. Courthouse.

7

GSA’s appropriation for fiscal year 2005 is contained in the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2005, P.L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809 (2005). P.L. 108-447 appropriates from the FBF 

$314,385,000 for new construction for the Los Angeles Courthouse. There are two 

rescissions that may affect the final amount that is funded for the courthouse. The first is a 

rescission of $106,000,000 of the amounts made available from the FBF for new 

construction and repairs and alterations. The second rescission is an across-the-board 

rescission of budget authority of 0.8 percent for most agencies, including GSA.
Page 8 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Current Proposal 

Addresses Some 

Conditions That Led to 

the High Urgency 

Score, but Certain 

Operational and 

Security Concerns 

Would Remain

The current project proposal would address the judiciary’s need for more 

space and alleviate some security concerns, but the operational and 

security concerns related to a split court that contributed to the L.A. 

Courthouse’s high urgency score would remain. More specifically, while 

Los Angeles’s Spring Street Courthouse received a total score of 85 out of a 

possible 100 points, making it the most urgent project in the judiciary’s 5-

year plan, 50 of these points were related to the trial court being split into 

two buildings, a situation that the new project would not resolve. 

The L.A. Courthouse on Spring Street received high scores in all four 

criteria that the judiciary considers in assigning an urgency score (see fig. 

2). Because the L.A. Courthouse ran out of space in 1995, the judiciary 

assigned the courthouse a score of 19.5 points using its urgency scoring 

methodology. In addition, court officials projected that seven judges would 

not have their own courtrooms within 10 years, resulting in 10.5 points for 

number of judges without courtrooms. 
Page 9 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Figure 2: Urgency Score for Spring Street Courthouse

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

30

19.5

15

10.5

30 30

25 25

35

Urgency score

Spring Street Courthouse score

Total score possible

Operational 

inefficiencies

N

Security concerns

umber of judges 

without courtrooms

Year courthouse 

is out of space

Source: GAO analysis of data from AOUSC.
Page 10 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

The Spring Street building also received the maximum possible scores for 

security concerns and operational inefficiencies (30 and 25 points, 

respectively) because the trial court is split between two separate buildings 

and, according to the judiciary, the Spring Street building lacks a sufficient 

number of holding cells for prisoners. According to judiciary officials, it is 

also difficult to keep prisoners separate from judges and the public in the 

hallways. To address this last problem, the courthouse has colored, 

numbered lines designed to guide the U.S. Marshals as they lead prisoners 

from the detention cells to the courtrooms (see fig. 3). However, court 

officials said that this system is too confusing and difficult to follow 

through the narrow halls. Furthermore, many of the building’s courtrooms 

are less than half the size required under the U.S. Courts Design Guide8

 or 

have major visual obstructions. 

8

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

facilities. The guide was first developed in 1991 through a cooperative effort between the 

judiciary and experts in space planning, security, acoustics, mechanical-electrical systems, 

and automation, and is periodically reviewed and updated.
Page 11 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Figure 3: Colored, Numbered Lines on the Floor of a Secure Hallway Leading from 

Prisoner Holding Cells to Corresponding Numbered Courtrooms in Los Angeles’s 

Spring Street Courthouse

Source: GAO.
Page 12 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

The current proposal—constructing a new courthouse and expanding the 

judiciary’s use of the Roybal building—addresses some of the conditions 

that led to the high urgency score. For example, it addresses the judiciary’s 

space constraints by providing additional courtrooms—sized to meet the 

Design Guide standards—to accommodate the 47 current district and 

magistrate judges and the 14 additional judges expected by 2011. According 

to GSA officials, there is also room to build an additional district judge 

courtroom in the new building and additional magistrate judge courtrooms 

in the Roybal building to address the judiciary’s projected 30-year needs. In 

addition, the proposal addresses some of the more serious security and 

operational inefficiencies associated with the Spring Street building, such 

as providing additional prisoner holding cells, secure prisoner elevators, 

and separate, secured hallways for prisoners, judges, and the public. 

Marshals Service officials also told us that a split court would be 

acceptable from a security standpoint, provided the Marshals Service 

security standards are followed.9

 In addition, the court would receive the 

operational benefits of a new building, and under the current proposal, 

avoid the major structural deficiencies of using the 66-year-old Spring 

Street building as a courthouse. For example, according to the judiciary 

and GSA, the Spring Street building has outdated electrical and plumbing 

systems and requires a seismic retrofit to meet GSA’s standards. In 

contrast, the Roybal Federal Building, which was constructed in the early 

1990s, was designed to meet modern operational and security 

requirements. For example, it is connected to the Metropolitan Detention 

Center, which houses federal prisoners prior to arraignment and trial, via a 

secure underground passageway, so that prisoners do not have to be led 

through public areas on their way to and from the Roybal building cell 

block.

The current proposal’s major limitation is that it would still result in a split 

court, even though consolidating the district court into a single building 

was one of the main priorities in the judiciary’s most recent long-range plan 

for Los Angeles, published in 1996. Operational and security concerns 

stemming from a split court led to 50 of the 85 points in the Spring Street 

Courthouse’s urgency score. For example, the building received the 

maximum possible security score (30 points) because the trial court was 

split between two buildings—the Roybal building and Spring Street 

Courthouse. With the court still split between buildings under the current 

9

Marshals Service security standards are detailed in its Requirements and Specifications 

for Special Purpose and Support Space Manual.
Page 13 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

proposal, related operational inefficiencies and security concerns would 

remain. According to AOUSC and Marshals Service officials, operational 

inefficiencies would include the need to continue to transport judges, 

prisoners, and evidence between buildings; confusion among jurors and 

attorneys over which facility they should report to; and possible delays, 

misrouting, and loss of time-sensitive documents (such as restraining 

orders) as they flow between buildings. A split court would also require 

duplication of several offices and activities. For example, Marshals Service 

officials said that a split court would require them to replicate much of 

their security equipment and contract guards to operate the equipment and 

protect each building.

We noted during our review that the judiciary refined its urgency scoring 

methodology in March 2002 and gave less weight to split court factors. In 

the judiciary’s current 5-year plan, 26 projects are scored under the original 

methodology and 31 are scored under the refined methodology. The L.A. 

Courthouse was scored under the original methodology and has not 

officially been rescored. As a result, we use the original methodology to 

discuss the L.A. Courthouse’s urgency score in this report. In September 

2004, the Judicial Conference adopted a 2-year moratorium on 42 

courthouse construction projects currently listed on the judiciary's 5-year 

plan. During this moratorium period, AOUSC officials said that they plan to 

re-evaluate the urgency scoring methodology as part of a larger review of 

the design guide standards and the courthouse construction planning 

process.

Additional 

Construction and 

Operational Costs 

Beyond the Estimated 

$400 Million for the 

New Courthouse Are 

Likely

To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles, the 

federal government will likely incur additional construction and 

operational costs beyond the estimated $400 million for the new 

courthouse. These funds are designated for costs associated with the 

proposed courthouse, including the site acquisition and the design and 

construction costs. However, GSA recognizes that in recent years other 

courthouse construction projects have had cost escalations. Cost 

escalations may occur because of planning or design problems, such as 

changes in the scope or specific design elements in a project, or they may 

be the result of changes outside of the control of the planners, such as 

increases in the cost of labor or particular construction materials, such as 

steel. GSA has initiated actions intended to mitigate this problem, including 

improving the design modeling process and more closely reviewing project 

changes during construction. Nevertheless, GSA acknowledges that a 
Page 14 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

potential still exists for all courthouse projects, including the L.A. 

Courthouse, to incur future escalation in construction costs.

In addition to construction costs for the new courthouse, GSA has 

indicated that additional funds will be needed for construction related to 

the long-term space needs of the judiciary and other related agencies in Los 

Angeles. Preliminary estimates from GSA show that these additional costs 

may exceed $100 million. Specifically:

• To accommodate the anticipated need for additional magistrate judge 

courtrooms, GSA told us that it will need to build four additional 

magistrate courtrooms in the Roybal building to increase the total 

number of magistrate courtrooms from 16 to 20. GSA has estimated the 

cost of this renovation to be approximately $10 million.

• Once the District Court moves out of the Spring Street Courthouse and 

into the new courthouse, GSA said that it will need to renovate the 

Spring Street building to convert courtrooms into office space for U.S. 

Attorneys and other federal agencies. The costs for this project are not 

currently known, but a 1997 GSA study estimated the cost to be 

approximately $77 million in 2003 dollars. However, according to GSA, 

the Spring Street building will require major renovations, whether the 

judiciary or other federal agencies use it.

• GSA estimates the costs associated with future expansion in the Roybal 

building and the new courthouse needed to meet expected judiciary 

space needs by 2031 to be $21 million. According to GSA, this 

expansion, if necessary, would involve constructing six additional 

magistrate courtrooms and judges’ chambers in the Roybal building and 

one district courtroom and judge’s chambers in the proposed new 

courthouse. 

GSA and judiciary officials have also told us that there will likely be 

additional operational costs associated with constructing a new 

courthouse, although the extent of these costs is currently unknown. 

These officials indicated that there will be moving expenses for the 

judiciary to relocate to the new courthouse as well as to place all the 

magistrate judges in the Roybal building. According to GSA officials, the 

judiciary may also need to lease offsite parking spaces to accommodate 

court needs, although the total number of parking spaces needed, if any, is 

unknown at this time. In addition, in order to accommodate additional 

magistrate courtrooms in the Roybal building, GSA officials indicated that 
Page 15 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

there may be a need to relocate some of the existing federal tenants to 

leased space or to another federal building in downtown Los Angeles.

Judiciary officials in Los Angeles also expressed concerns about additional 

operational costs that would be incurred as the result of a split court. 

According to the judiciary, some of the office space and/or staff that would 

be duplicated in both the new courthouse and the Roybal building include 

the clerk’s office, pretrial services, jury assembly, Marshals Service, and the 

U.S. Attorneys Office. The additional costs associated with duplicating 

these offices are unknown at this time because a larger staff and more 

equipment would be necessary in a consolidated courthouse due to its 

larger size. However, judiciary officials also acknowledge that a split court 

would result in higher costs due to operational inefficiencies, including 

additional travel time between buildings for movement of staff, evidence, 

and prisoners. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

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

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

technical clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate. The 

Marshals Service, which is part of the Department of Justice, said that it did 

not have any comments on the draft.

We are providing copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, AOUSC, GSA, and the Marshals Service. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or
Page 16 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 

512-2834, or at goldsteinm@gao.gov, or David Sausville, Assistant Director, 

on (202) 512-5403, or sausvilled@gao.gov. Other contributors to this report 

were Keith Cunningham, Jessica Lucas-Judy, Susan Michal-Smith, Alwynne 

Wilbur, and Dorothy Yee.

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 17 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Appendix I

Briefing Slides ApApenednxidexiIs

Proposed Los Angeles Courthouse Project

Briefing for the

Committee on Environment and Public Works

and

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

U.S. Senate 

September 23, 2004
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 18 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Introduction

• Los Angeles has one of the largest federal court operations 

in the nation, processing approximately 16,000 cases per 

year and serving an area with more than 11 million people.

• The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles is ranked as the 

highest priority project in the judiciary’s 5-year construction 

plan1 based on its high urgency score—a measure of a 

court’s space, security, judges impacted, and operational 

deficiencies.

• The Los Angeles courthouse project could be one of the 

most expensive projects in the federal government’s multibillion dollar courthouse construction program.

1The judiciary uses its 5-year plan to prioritize requests for new courthouse projects to Congress and to GSA, the federal

government’s central agency for real property operations.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 19 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Introduction (continued)

• Many of the Los Angeles court’s deficiencies are based on 

the growth of the court, the inefficiencies caused by 

operating a split court,2 and the fact that the Spring Street 

building is 66 years old—it requires major renovations and 

does not meet today’s security needs.

• According to the judiciary’s plan, one of the court’s main 

priorities in Los Angeles was to consolidate district court 

operations (i.e., district judges, magistrate judges, and the 

district court clerk’s office) into one building.

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

Briefing Slides

Page 20 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Objectives

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

1. To what extent does the current Los Angeles courthouse 

project proposal address the underlying conditions that led 

to Los Angeles’s high urgency score?

2. What construction and other costs, if any, may be required 

to meet judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles?
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 21 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Scope and Methodology

• Inspected the current and planned sites for the U.S. 

District Court—Central District of California, Los 

Angeles.

• Interviewed judges and officials from the U.S. District 

Court—Central District of California, Los Angeles; and 

officials from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

(AOUSC), General Services Administration (GSA), and 

U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).

• Reviewed key documents, including urgency score 

criteria, planning studies, prospectuses and other 

budget data. 

• Conducted our work in Los Angeles, CA; and 

Washington, D.C.; from June through September, 2004, 

in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 22 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Results in Brief

• GSA’s current proposal to construct a new building, while

continuing to use the existing Roybal Building, would 

address the judiciary’s need for space and alleviate some 

security concerns. However, the operational and security 

concerns related to a split court that resulted in a high 

urgency score would remain.

• To meet the long-term judiciary and related needs in Los 

Angeles, the government will likely incur significant 

construction and operational costs beyond the estimated 

$400 million for the new courthouse. Preliminary estimates 

show that these additional costs may exceed $100 million.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 23 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Background: U.S. District 

Courthouses—Los Angeles

Opened in 1992

1.2 million square feet

Current Major Tenants:

U.S. Bankruptcy Court,

U.S. District Court,

U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals Satellite Library,

USMS,

Drug Enforcement

Administration,

U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission

Source: GAO.

Spring St. Courthouse

Opened in 1938

765,000 square feet

Current Major Tenants:

U.S. District Court, U.S. Attorneys,

USMS, U.S. Circuit Court, GSA

Source: GAO.

Roybal Federal Building
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 24 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Background: New Los Angeles 

Courthouse Proposal

• GSA is proposing:

• Constructing a new 41-courtroom building for district 

court judges and related operations,

• Retaining the use of the Roybal Federal Building for 

magistrate and bankruptcy judges and related 

operations, and

• Consolidating the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Spring St. 

building,3 along with other federal agencies and grand 

jury suites.

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

but is part of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 25 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Background: Current and Proposed 

Federal Court Buildings in Los Angeles
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 26 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Background: New Los Angeles 

Courthouse Proposal

• GSA estimates the new building will cost about $400 

million.4

• $35 million was authorized in 2000 and then 

appropriated in fiscal year 2001 for site acquisition and 

design.

• $50 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and 

authorized by the House authorizing committee, but GSA

said that it has not been authorized by the Senate.

• $314 million was proposed in the President’s budget, 

included in the fiscal year 2005 House & Senate 

appropriations bills,5 and authorized by the House 

authorizing committee.

4This amount includes construction, site acquisition, design, and management inspection.

5H.R. 5025 and S. 2806, 108th Congress.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 27 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Project Urgency: Findings

• The current project proposal would address the judiciary’s

need for space and alleviate some security concerns, but 

the operational and security concerns related to a split court 

that contributed to the Los Angeles Court’s high urgency

score, would remain.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 28 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Urgency Score Methodology

Includes physical building conditions—such as 

inefficiently designed courtrooms with visual

obstructions or operations that are split among 

locations—that cause significant disruptions to

court operations.

25 points Operational

inefficiencies

Includes whether the trial court is split into 

separate facilities, whether there is a secure

prisoner drop-off, and whether there are separate

walkways and elevators for prisoners, judges, and

the public.

30 points Security

concerns

Measures the number of judicial officers who 

currently do not have courtrooms or who are

projected not to have them over the next 10 years.

15 points

Number of

judges without 

courtrooms

The year in which the building was or is projected 

to be completely occupied by the district court and

related components, as documented in the 

judiciary’s long-range facilities plan or as 

determined by the Circuit Judicial Council.

30 points

Year courthouse

runs out of

space

Criterion Value Description
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 29 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Urgency Score for Los Angeles Court’s 

Spring Street Building

Urgency score

The Spring St. 

Courthouse has a 

total score of

85 out of 100, 

which is the 

highest score of

any of the projects

in the judiciary’s

5-year plan.

30

15

30

25

19.5

10.5

30

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Year courthouse out of space Number of judges w ithout courtrooms Security concerns Operational inefficiencies

Total Points Possible Los Angeles Score

Source: GAO analysis of data from AOUSC.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 30 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Project Urgency: Benefits of Current 

Proposal

• The current proposal addresses the judiciary’s space 

constraints by providing enough courtrooms for current 

judges and those expected by 2011, with room to 

expand to accommodate six additional magistrate judge 

courtrooms and one additional district judge courtroom.

• USMS6 officials said that a split court, although not 

ideal, would be acceptable from a security standpoint if 

its design manuals are followed. For example, the new 

building would provide more secure judge and prisoner 

circulation patterns and increase the number of holding 

cells.

• The court would also receive the operational benefits of 

a new building, avoiding major structural deficiencies 

(e.g., seismic vulnerability and old electrical systems).

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

Briefing Slides

Page 31 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Project Urgency: Limitations of Current 

Proposal

• Under the current proposal, the court would remain split 

between two buildings, even though consolidating the 

district court into one building was one of the main priorities

identified in the judiciary’s plan for Los Angeles.

• According to the judiciary and the USMS, a split court 

causes major operational inefficiencies. 

• Judges, prisoners, and evidence would need to be 

transported between buildings, and 

• Many offices and activities would likely be duplicated.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 32 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Project Urgency: Impact of Split Court

• The split court factors accounted for 50 of the 85 points 

the Los Angeles Court received under the judiciary’s 

urgency scoring methodology. (The split court 

accounted for all 30 points for security concerns and 20 

of the 25 for operational considerations.)

Note: During our review, officials from AOUSC informed us that the judiciary refined

its methodology for scoring urgency in March 2002. Under the refined methodology,

the impact of a split court on a project’s urgency score is noticeably reduced. The

current 5-year plan has 26 projects scored under the original methodology and 31 

projects scored using the refined one. The Los Angeles location was scored under

the original methodology. Further analysis by GAO would be needed to assess the

soundness of this approach and its impact on priorities in the 5-year plan.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 33 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Other Costs: Findings

• To meet long-term judiciary and related needs in Los 

Angeles, the government will likely incur additional

construction and operational costs beyond the estimated 

$400 million for the new courthouse. The extent of these 

costs is unknown, but preliminary estimates show that they 

may exceed $100 million.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 34 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Other Costs: Current Expenditures

• On the basis of funding already appropriated or requested, 

$400 million is designated for the site acquisition, design, 

and construction costs related to the proposed courthouse.

• On all courthouse construction projects, including Los 

Angeles, there is a potential for future escalation in costs 

due to design and planning changes during the construction 

process.

• According to GSA, cost escalations and scope changes 

for courthouse projects have been a nationwide concern 

in recent years, although GSA has initiated actions 

intended to address this problem. 
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 35 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Additional Construction Costs

Future expansion in Roybal $21 million.

and new courthouse to meet

judiciary needs by 2031.

Costs unknown at this time. (A

1997 GSA study estimated costs of

$77 million in 2003 dollars.)

Renovation of Spring St. 

Courthouse into office space

for U.S. Attorneys and others.

Renovation of Roybal building $10 million.

to accommodate 4 additional

magistrate judge courtrooms.

Description Preliminary cost estimates

Source: GSA.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 36 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Additional Operational Costs

Relocation of existing federal Costs unknown at this time.

tenants in the Roybal building.

Redundant court offices and Costs unknown at this time.

staff in the new courthouse and 

the Roybal building.

$180 per space per month.

(Total number needed, if any, is 

unknown at this time.)

Leased parking to

accommodate judiciary needs

at new building.

40 courtrooms at $10,000 per

courtroom, and $3.00 - $3.50 per

square foot for office space.

Moving expenses for the 

judiciary.

Description Estimated costs

Source: GSA.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 37 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Split Court Would Result in Costs Due 

to Operational Inefficiencies

• According to the judiciary, with the exception of the 

probation office, five other court and related offices would 

require staff and/or offices in both the new courthouse and 

Roybal.

• These five offices include:

1. Clerk’s Office

2. Pretrial Services

3. USMS

4. U.S. Attorneys Office

5. Jury Assembly

• The total costs associated with duplicating these offices 

are unknown at this time.
Appendix I

Briefing Slides

Page 38 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Concluding Observations

• Although the current proposal addresses the judiciary’s 

space needs, the security and operational concerns that led 

to Los Angeles’s high urgency score will remain and GSA is 

likely to need significant additional funding to fully address

judiciary and related needs in Los Angeles.
Page 39 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

Related GAO Products

General Services Administration: Factors Affecting the Construction 

and Operating Costs of Federal Buildings. GAO-03-609T. Washington, 

D.C.: April 4, 2003. 

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

January 1, 2003.

Courthouse Construction: Information on Courtroom Sharing. GAO-02-

341. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.

Courthouse Construction: Sufficient Data and Analysis Would Help 

Resolve the Courtroom-Sharing Issue. GAO-01-70. Washington, D.C.: 

December 14, 2000.

Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance 

Facility Planning and Decisionmaking. GAO/GGD-97-39. Washington, 

D.C.: May 19, 1997.

Courthouse Construction: Information on the Use of District 

Courtrooms at Selected Locations. GAO/GGD-97-59R. Washington, D.C.: 

May 19, 1997.

Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More 

Informed Decisionmaking. GAO/GGD-97-27. Washington, D.C.: December 

31, 1996.

Federal Courthouse Construction: More Disciplined Approach Would 

Reduce Costs and Provide for Better Decisionmaking. GAO/T-GGD-96-19. 

Washington, D.C.: November 8, 1995.

General Services Administration: Better Data and Oversight Needed to 

Improve Construction Management. GAO/GGD-94-145. Washington, D.C.: 

June 27, 1994.

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

1994.

Federal Judiciary Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revision. 

GAO/GGD-93-132. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 1993.
Related GAO Products

Page 40 GAO-05-158 Courthouse Construction

New L.A. Federal Courthouse: Evidence is Insufficient to Suggest that 

Congress Reconsider Its Approval. GAO/GGD-88-43BR. Washington, D.C.: 

March 23, 1988.

(543104)
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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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 “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

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

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548