United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

FEDERAL 

COURTHOUSE 

CONSTRUCTION 

Estimated Costs to 

House the L.A. District 

Court Have Tripled 

and There Is No 

Consensus on How to 

Proceed 

September 2008 

 

GAO-08-889 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2008

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

Estimated Costs to House the L.A. District Court Have 

Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to 

Highlights of GAO-08-889, a report to Proceed 

congressional requesters 

Since the early 1990s, the General

Services Administration (GSA) and 

the federal judiciary (judiciary) 

have been carrying out a

multibillion-dollar courthouse

construction initiative. In

downtown Los Angeles, California, 

one of the nation’s busiest federal 

district courts (L.A. Court), the 

federal judiciary has split its 

district, magistrate, and bankruptcy 

judges between two buildings—the

Spring Street Courthouse and the 

Edward R. Roybal Federal Building

and Courthouse. In 2000 the 

judiciary requested and GSA 

proposed building a new 

courthouse in downtown Los 

Angeles in order to increase

security, efficiency, and space. In

response, Congress authorized and

appropriated about $400 million for 

the project. GAO was asked to

provide information on the 

construction of the L.A. 

courthouse. This report answers: 

(1) What is the status of the 

construction of a new federal 

courthouse in Los Angeles? (2) 

What effects have any delays in the

project had on its costs and court 

operations? (3) What options are 

available for the future of the 

project? GAO reviewed project 

planning and budget documents, 

visited the key sites in Los Angeles, 

and interviewed GSA and judiciary 

officials. In its comments, the 

judiciary indicated that the report 

reflects the project’s general 

sequence of events and 

circumstances, and GSA partially

agreed with the report’s findings 

related to the delays. 

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

new courthouse in fiscal year 2006, but occupancy has been delayed by 8 

years to fiscal year 2014 at the earliest. GSA has spent $16.3 million designing

a new courthouse and $16.9 million acquiring and preparing a new site for it in

downtown Los Angeles. Since no construction has occurred, about $366.45 

million remains appropriated for the construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. 

Courthouse. Project delays were caused by GSA’s decision to design a larger

courthouse than what was authorized by Congress, slow decision making by 

GSA and the judiciary to reduce scope and stay on budget, unforeseen cost 

escalations, and low contractor interest that caused GSA to cancel the entire

41-courtroom courthouse project. 

Due to the delays, estimated costs for housing the L.A. Court have nearly 

tripled to over $1.1 billion, rendering GSA’s currently authorized 41-courtroom 

courthouse unachievable and causing the L.A. Court’s problems to persist. 

Because current cost estimates exceed authorized and appropriated amounts, 

GSA will need to obtain congressional approval to move forward on any plan. 

Meanwhile, almost half of the courtrooms in the L.A. Court’s Spring Street 

building do not meet the judiciary’s standards for size or security, and the U.S. 

Marshals have chosen not to use the prisoner passageways that exist in the 

building because they are too dangerous and inefficient. The L.A. Court also 

estimates that current courtroom and support space shortages will continue 

to worsen over time. 

GAO’s analysis showed that four options exist for the L.A. Courthouse project, 

which require balancing needs for courtroom space, congressional approval,

and additional estimated appropriations of up to $733 million. First, GSA has 

proposed 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. The L.A. Court 

supports this option, but it is the most expensive of the remaining options. 

Second, GSA has proposed constructing a new 20-courtroom, 20-chamber 

building and adding 12 more courtrooms to the Roybal building. GSA could 

begin construction with existing funds, but the L.A. Court opposes this option. 

Third, GSA has proposed housing the L.A. court in the existing buildings by 

adding 13 courtrooms to the Roybal building and upgrading security at the 

Spring Street building. GSA could begin work on the project with existing 

funds but the L.A. Court also opposes this option. Finally, another option, 

given the lack of consensus and adequate funding, is to restart the planning 

process. Under this option, the remaining $366.45 million appropriated for the 

courthouse could continue to be available for meeting the judiciary’s needs in 

Los Angeles or be used for other purposes through a transfer or rescission. 

While GAO takes no position on this or the other three options, it is clear the 

current process is deadlocked. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-889. 

For more information, contact Mark Goldstein 

at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Construction of a New Federal L.A. Courthouse Has Experienced 

Repeated Delays Due to Changes in Project Scope, Unforeseen 

Construction Cost Escalation, and Procurement Issues 6 

Delays Contributed to L.A. Project Cost Estimates Nearly Tripling 

and Current Problems Persisting 9 

Options for the Future of the Project Require Balancing Court 

Needs with Additional Costs and Other Factors 11 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 15 

Appendix I Los Angeles Courthouse Construction Project 

Briefing 17 

Appendix II Comments from the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts 53 

GAO Comments 58 

Appendix III Comments from the General Services 

Administration 59 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60 

Tables 

Table 1: GSA Proposals for a New L.A. Courthouse and Years of 

Delay from Original Schedule 7 

Table 2: Current and Projected Space Deficits in the L.A. Court 10 

Table 3: List of GSA Proposals for Housing the L.A. Court Since 

2000 11 

Table 4: Three Options for Housing the L.A. Court Currently under 

Consideration 12

Page i GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Abbreviations 

GSA General Services Administration 

judiciary federal judiciary 

L.A. Court Federal district court in Los Angeles, California 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

USMS U.S. Marshals Service 

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. 

Page ii GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 12, 2008 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton 

Chair 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, 

 Public Buildings, and Emergency Management 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jose E. Serrano 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

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

federal judiciary (judiciary) have been carrying out a multibillion-dollar 

courthouse construction initiative to address the judiciary’s growing space 

needs. In downtown Los Angeles, California, at one of the nation’s busiest 

federal district courts (L.A. Court),1

 the judiciary’s operations are split 

between two buildings—the Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the 

Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse built in 1992. 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 which remain today. Consequently, the judiciary ranked Los 

Angeles as its first priority for courthouse construction in fiscal year 2000. 

GSA agreed in 2000 that the existing buildings did not meet the court’s 

expansion and security requirements, and that many of the courtrooms in 

the Spring Street building did not meet court design standards. 

 1

California is divided into four judicial districts and the L.A. Courthouse is located in the

Central District. 

Page 1 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Accordingly, the judiciary requested and GSA proposed building a new 

courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. 

In July 2000, Congress authorized GSA to begin designing a new 

courthouse in Los Angeles and has appropriated approximately $400 

million for the project, which matched GSA’s estimate at that time for 

completing the project. In December 2004, we reported, and GSA 

acknowledged, that the government would likely incur additional 

construction and operational costs beyond the estimated $400 million for 

the new courthouse.2

 You asked that we provide an update of the 

construction of a new courthouse in Los Angeles. To do that, we answered 

the following questions:

1. What is the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse in 

Los Angeles? 

2. What effects have any delays in the project had on its costs and court 

operations? 

3. What options are available for the future of the project? 

To determine the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse 

and the effects of any delays on project costs and court operations, we 

reviewed key documents dating from 1996 to present, including a project

time line, project options analysis, planning studies, proposals, and other 

budget data. We toured the current L.A. federal court sites, including the 

Spring Street Courthouse and the Roybal building to observe the 

operational and security conditions of the facilities. In addition, we toured 

the federal building on Los Angeles Street and the planned courthouse 

site. We also interviewed L.A. district and magistrate judges and other 

court officials, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, GSA, and the 

U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to obtain their perspectives on the L.A. 

courthouse project and determine the options available for the future of 

the project. We conducted our work in Los Angeles, California, and 

Washington, D.C., from January 2008 through September 2008 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 

 2

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-08-889 L.A Courthouse
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. This report presents the information we 

provided to your staff during a May 19, 2008, briefing. The briefing slides 

are included in appendix I. 

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

a new courthouse in Los Angeles in fiscal year 2006, but projected 

occupancy has been delayed by 8 years to fiscal year 2014 at the earliest. 

GSA has spent $16.3 million designing a new courthouse and $16.9 million 

acquiring and preparing a new site for it in downtown Los Angeles. Since 

no construction has occurred, about $366.45 million remains available for

the construction of a courthouse in Los Angeles. The reasons for the 

project delays include GSA’s decision to design a larger courthouse than 

what was authorized by Congress, slow decision making by GSA and the 

judiciary to reduce scope and stay on budget, unforeseen cost escalations, 

and low contractor interest in the project. In 2000, Congress authorized 

and later funded the design of a new courthouse in Los Angeles, based on

a 41-courtroom, 1,016,300-square-foot GSA prospectus.3

 GSA decided 

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

the judiciary’s long-term needs. The 54-courtroom building proposal was 

subsequently rejected by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

according to GSA, and not included in the President’s budget in fiscal year 

2005. GSA then had to return to designing a 41-courtroom building, which, 

combined with the unsuccessful effort to obtain approval for a 54-

courtroom building, delayed the construction of the building by 2 years, 

according to a senior GSA official involved with the project. This 2-year 

delay necessitated additional scope and design changes, such as the 

removal of the building-high atrium from building plans, which GSA and 

judiciary were slow to make. Furthermore, unexpectedly high 

construction cost escalations in the L.A. area required additional scope 

reductions and related design delays. Lastly, GSA canceled the project due 

to low contractor interest in bidding on the project. 

Results in Brief 

The delays have caused the estimated costs for housing the L.A. Court to 

nearly triple to over $1.1 billion, rendering GSA’s currently authorized 41-

 3

GSA officials said that the decision to propose a 41-courtroom courthouse was based on

80 percent of the federal judiciary’s stated need at the time and that the judiciary could fit 

within that space by sharing courtrooms.

Page 3 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
courtroom courthouse unachievable with currently available funding and 

causing the L.A. Court’s operational and security problems to persist. 

Because current cost estimates exceed authorized and appropriated 

amounts, GSA will need to obtain congressional approval to move forward 

on any plan. Meanwhile, almost half of the courtrooms in the L.A. Court’s 

Spring Street building do not meet the judiciary’s standards for size or 

security, and USMS has chosen not to use the prisoner passageways that 

exist in the building because they are too dangerous and inefficient. The

L.A. Court also estimates that current courtroom and support space 

shortages will continue to worsen over time. 

Since 2000, GSA has developed eight different proposals for housing the 

L.A. Court, ranging from constructing a new 54-courtroom building to 

making do with the existing buildings, and the three options still being 

considered require balancing needs for courtroom space, congressional 

approval, and additional estimated appropriations of up to $733 million. A 

fourth option is to restart the planning process between GSA the judiciary.

The four options are as follows: 

• GSA has proposed 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. This 

proposal is supported by the L.A. Court and would not require GSA to do 

significant construction work in an occupied building, but it is the most 

expensive of the three options, requiring additional estimated 

appropriations of $733 million. 

• GSA also has proposed constructing a new 20-courtroom, 20-chamber 

building and adding 12 more courtrooms to the Roybal building. If this 

proposal is approved, GSA could begin work immediately with the existing

appropriations and the judiciary could eventually vacate the Spring Street

building. However, the district judges from the L.A. Court unanimously 

oppose this option because they believe it would increase the distance 

over which district judges would be split based on the location of the 

proposed building. Based on GSA estimates, this option would require 

$301.5 million in additional appropriations. 

• GSA has proposed housing the L.A. court in the existing buildings by 

adding 13 courtrooms to the Roybal building, retaining 17 courtrooms and 

upgrading security at the Spring Street building, and moving some support 

functions into the federal building currently located between the Spring 

Street and Roybal buildings. If this proposal is approved, GSA could begin

work on the project with existing funds and the project would maximize 

the use of the existing federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. 

Page 4 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
However, the L.A. Court also opposes this proposal and it would require 

GSA to make substantial renovations to two buildings while they were in 

use as courthouses. This proposal also would take the longest to complete 

of the three proposals. Based on GSA estimates, this option would cost 

$282.1 million in additional appropriations, but these estimates were based 

on the assumption that work would have started by now, which has not 

occurred. 

• Since there is neither consensus nor adequate funding, another option is 

for GSA and the judiciary to restart the planning process and develop a 

new proposal to meet the long-term needs of the L.A. Court. This option 

would not solve any of the L.A. Court’s immediate space, operational, or 

security challenges, but it would help avoid permanently implementing 

one of the plans the judiciary does not support. The remaining $366.5 

million appropriated for the project could remain in place for meeting the 

judiciary’s needs in Los Angeles once a project is agreed upon, or it could

be used for other purposes, such as addressing GSA’s $6.6 billion repair 

and maintenance backlog by receiving congressional approval to transfer 

or rescind funds. 

We are not advocating any of these options. Our intent is to identify 

current options so that Congress and stakeholders can evaluate them. 

Nonetheless, it is clear the current process is deadlocked. 

In its written comments on a draft of this report, the Administrative Office 

of the U.S. Courts indicated that the report reflects the general sequence of

events and circumstances that have led to the current situation. In its 

written comments, GSA indicated that it partially agreed with the report’s 

findings related to the delays in the L.A. Courthouse project. The letters 

are contained in appendixes II and III, respectively. 

The L.A. courthouse operations currently are split between two 

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

Federal Building built in 1992. The Spring Street building currently 

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

minimum design standards for size.4

 It also does not meet the security 

needs of the judiciary. The Roybal Federal Building, on the other hand, 

consists of 34 courtrooms (10 district, 6 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy). 

Background 

 4

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

rooms and not courtrooms.

Page 5 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
The space within the L.A. Court’s buildings, like most courthouses, are 

divided into courtroom space with associated jury and public spaces, 

chamber space where the judge and staff office space is located, cell

blocks and other USMS spaces, and other support spaces, such as 

administrative offices. 

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

priority for the judiciary because of the current buildings’ space, security, 

and operational problems. Since fiscal year 2001, Congress has made three 

appropriations totaling about $400 million for a new L.A. courthouse. 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 $314.4 million for the construction 

of 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. 

Since 2000 when GSA originally proposed building a new courthouse in 

downtown Los Angeles, the project has experienced repeated delays in its 

schedule. In 2000, GSA projected occupancy of a new L.A. courthouse by 

fiscal year 2006. However, after proposing several changes in project 

scope and design and repeated delays, GSA projected in 2008 the 

completion of a new courthouse by fiscal year 2014—a delay of 8 years as 

of now (see table 1). GSA has spent $16.3 million designing a new 

courthouse and $16.9 million acquiring and preparing a new site for it in 

downtown Los Angeles. Since no construction has occurred, about $366.45 

million remains in GSA’s Federal Building Fund5

 for the construction of a 

41-courtroom L.A. Courthouse. 

Construction of a 

New Federal L.A. 

Courthouse Has 

Experienced 

Repeated Delays Due 

to Changes in Project 

Scope, Unforeseen 

Construction Cost 

Escalation, and 

Procurement Issues 

 5

The Federal Building Fund is a revolving fund used, among other things, for GSA’s

courthouse construction projects. 

Page 6 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Table 1: GSA Proposals for a New L.A. Courthouse and Years of Delay from

Original Schedule

Year of

proposal

GSA’s scheduled occupancy in

new courthouse (fiscal year) 

Years delayed from

original schedule

2000 2006 —

2003 2009 3

2004 2010 4

2008 2014 8

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data. 

The delays were initially caused by GSA’s decision to design a courthouse 

much larger than what was authorized by Congress. In fiscal year 2001,

Congress appropriated6

 funds for project design for a 1,016,300-square-foot

courthouse that corresponded with plans for a 41-courtroom courthouse. 

In November 2001, however, GSA designed a 1,279,650-square-foot 

courthouse that contained 54-courtrooms. GSA officials said that GSA 

increased the scope of the project to accommodate the judiciary’s stated 

need. Judiciary officials stated that the decision was made jointly with 

GSA and that changes to GSA’s planning criteria contributed to the 

increased scope. GSA officials disagreed and stated that GSA’s planning 

criteria did not contribute to the increase in the scope of the project. A 

year and a half later, after it had conducted the environmental assessments 

and purchased the site for the new courthouse, GSA informed Congress 

that it had designed a 54-courtroom courthouse in a May 2003 proposal. 

However, OMB did not include the 54-courtroom building plan in the 

President’s fiscal year 2005 budget, which caused GSA to revise its plans 

and reduce the number of courtrooms in the plans for the new L.A. 

courthouse to 41. According to GSA, the 54-courtroom courthouse plan 

was designed to be readily adaptable to a reduced scope, if a larger scope 

was not approved. Nonetheless, a senior GSA official estimated that the 

initial decision to design a 54-courtroom courthouse delayed the project 2 

years due to redesign and re-procurement requirements. 

 6

Before Congress makes an appropriation, GSA submits 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. On July 26, 2000, the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works approved a prospectus for the L.A. Courthouse project. 

(See 40 USC S3307). 

Page 7 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
This delay caused the project as initially planned to go over budget due to

inflationary cost escalations, and GSA needed to make further reductions 

to the courthouse in order to procure it within authorized and 

appropriated amounts. However, GSA and L.A. Court officials were slow 

to reduce scope, which caused additional delays and led to the need to

make additional reductions. For example, GSA did not simplify the 

building-high atrium and associated curtain wall that were initially 

envisioned for the new courthouse until January 2006 even though the 

judiciary had expressed repeated concerns about the construction and 

maintenance costs of the atrium since 2002. In July 2005, GSA advised the 

judiciary that the project could not be constructed for the appropriated 

amounts because of material shortages and other market factors, and in 

January 2006, GSA completed a redesigned plan with a simplified atrium 

and curtain wall. In addition, it took 18 months for GSA to formally 

propose reducing the number of courtrooms in an attempt to reduce costs.

In March 2006, GSA cancelled the procurement of the new courthouse due 

to insufficient competition when one of the two construction contractors 

bidding on the 41 courtroom project withdrew. Yet, it was not until the 

following year in May 2007 that the judiciary proposed reducing the 

number of courtrooms in a new building to 36, and another 4 months 

before GSA delivered a revised 36-courtroom proposal to Congress. 

Additionally, an unforeseen, rapid increase in construction costs 

contributed to delays in the L.A. courthouse project. According to GSA 

officials, construction costs escalated in the L.A. market at more than 

twice the inflation factor used by GSA, necessitating scope reductions and 

redesigns and causing more delays. GSA officials stated that the 

escalations in construction costs, which went as high as 16 percent in 

2006, were unprecedented and unpredictable. According to information 

provided by GSA, construction costs escalated nationwide and also 

affected the construction of a California State courthouse in Long Beach,

California, which is near Los Angeles. 

Other issues related to the procurement process for the new courthouse 

also contributed to the delays in the L.A. courthouse project by 

diminishing contractor interest in the project or diverting contractors to 

other projects. For example, GSA solicited bids for the construction of the 

neighboring San Diego and L.A. courthouses around the same time. 

According to GSA officials, in hindsight, this may have limited the number 

of potential bidders for the construction of the L.A. courthouse as 

contractors with limited regional capacity chose to bid on the smaller San 

Diego project instead of the L.A. project. Furthermore, the L.A. courthouse 

project was competing with other public works construction in the Los 

Page 8 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Angeles area. GSA officials estimated that $50 billion worth of public 

construction projects in the L.A. market, which includes increased 

spending to renovate local schools, further limited the number of potential 

bidders for the L.A. courthouse project. GSA officials also stated that they 

chose a procurement approach designed to provide contractors with 

flexibility in meeting budgeted construction costs, but this approach may 

in actuality have lowered contractor interest by making the contractor 

responsible for more of the risk of cost overruns.7

Over 8 years of delay in GSA’s estimated occupancy of the new L.A. 

courthouse, estimates have nearly tripled, rendering GSA’s currently 

authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable. In May 2004, GSA 

estimated the 41-courtroom courthouse project would cost about $400 

million, but current estimates for building a new federal courthouse of 

similar scope now exceed $1.1 billion. At this rate, each day of additional

delay costs about $54,000, assuming current escalation rates, according to

GSA. Consequently, every 44 days of additional delay cost as much as one

2,400-square-foot district courtroom. 8

GSA is currently at a standstill because current cost estimates for a 41-

courtroom courthouse exceed authorized and appropriated amounts and 

the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request did not include any funds 

for the L.A. courthouse project. Consequently, GSA will need to obtain 

congressional approval to move forward on any plan. Specifically, all

options currently under consideration would require approval of a new 

prospectus and an estimated appropriation of from $282.1 million to 

$733.6 million if cost estimates are still viable. 

Because of the delays in the courthouse project, the operational, space, 

and security issues that made the new courthouse a top priority have 

persisted and in some cases worsened. 

Delays Contributed to 

L.A. Project Cost

Estimates Nearly

Tripling and Current 

Problems Persisting 

• The L.A. Court’s operational problems continue. Housing district and 

magistrate judges in both the Spring Street and the Roybal buildings 

 7

In commenting on a draft of this report, GSA indicated that this assessment was based on

information acquired from the current southern California construction market and was

specifically related to very large, long-term federal projects. 

8

This estimate does not include all of the support space associated with courtroom

operations.

Page 9 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
causes operational inefficiencies, according to judiciary officials. For 

example, judges, prisoners, juries, and evidence must be transported 

between buildings, and many judicial offices need to be duplicated. In

addition, a high-level L.A. Court official said that the judiciary has stopped 

investing in the parts of the Spring Street Courthouse for which it is 

responsible because it expects the judiciary to move into a new building. 

• The L.A. Court’s space needs persist. L.A. Court officials said that the 

court does not have chamber or courtroom space for four pending district 

judgeships and that it currently faces growing deficits in a number of 

support areas (see table 2). 

Table 2: Current and Projected Space Deficits in the L.A. Court 

Court office 

Current deficit 

(in square feet) 

Projected 2011 deficit 

(in square feet)

Court, chamber, and support space 133,838 197,613

Probation 3,292 6,426

District clerk’s office 6,165 25,696 

Jury Assembly 9,635 9,650

Source: L.A. federal district court. 

• Severe security problems at Spring Street remain. According to USMS 

officials, the Roybal building has strong security, but security at the Spring 

Street building is poor and cannot be improved due to the age and design 

of the building. The Spring Street building lacks a secure parking area and

secure prisoner corridors for 20 of its 32 courtrooms. In addition, USMS 

officials said that they do not use the prisoner corridors that do exist 

because they are unsafe and do not have holding cells just outside the 

courtrooms in accordance with judiciary security standards. In addition, 

USMS officials said that the security situation is worsening in Los Angeles 

because logs showed a five-fold increase in suspicious activities9

 in L.A. 

federal courthouses from 2004 to 2007. 

 9

Suspicious activities are acts that may affect the security in and around the federal 

courthouses, including photographing a courthouse, surveillance in or around a

courthouse, graffiti, loitering, disruptive behavior, abandoned property, and suspicious 

deliveries. 

Page 10 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Since 2000, GSA has developed eight different proposals for housing the 

L.A. court. Three of them are still under consideration (see table 3); 

proposals still under consideration are bolded in the table and identified as 

options in the rest of the report. Each of the options under consideration 

would require balancing court needs with costs, obtaining a new 

authorization and appropriation, and considering other benefits and 

challenges. 

Table 3: List of GSA Proposals for Housing the L.A. Court Since 2000 

Options for the Future 

of the Project Require 

Balancing Court 

Needs with Additional 

Costs and Other 

Factors 

Description

Year GSA developed

the proposal

Currently under 

consideration

1 Build a 24-courtroom companion 

building to the Roybal building 2000 No

2 Build a 41-courtroom building 2000 No

3 Build a 51-courtroom building 2000 No

4 Build a 54-courtroom building 2003 No

5 Build a 36-courtroom building 2007 Yes

6 Build a 17-courtroom building 2008 No

7 Build a 20-courtroom building 2008 Yes

8 Use existing buildings to house the 

L.A. Court 2008 Yes

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data. 

Each of these remaining options expands the use of Roybal as a federal 

courthouse to varying degrees and only one option would continue to use 

the Spring Street building as a courthouse (see table 4). 

Page 11 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Table 4: Three Options for Housing the L.A. Court Currently under Consideration 

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. 

Each of these options would require congressional approval beyond what 

GSA has already received. In September 2007, GSA drafted the 36-

courtroom building proposal, but the President did not include any funds 

for the project in his fiscal year 2009 budget request to Congress. Then, in

March 2008, GSA developed the 20-courtroom building proposal, but it has 

not been authorized and no funds have been appropriated to for it. 

Option 1: Build a 36-

Courtroom, 45-Chamber 

Building and Add 4 

Courtrooms to Roybal 

GSA estimated that this proposed project would cost $1.1 billion10—$733.6 

million more than Congress has already appropriated—and be completed 

by 2014 if construction starts in 2009. This project would provide the L.A. 

Court with 74 courtrooms in total, including 36 district courtrooms, 20 

magistrate courtrooms, and 18 bankruptcy courtrooms, all of which would 

meet or exceed the judiciary’s current design standards for size and 

security. The main advantage of this project is that it would allow a 

division of operational and support activities between the new courthouse 

and the Roybal building according to the function and responsibilities of 

the judges, which court officials and judges said would be more efficient 

than the current split. All the district and senior judges would be housed in

the new courthouse, while the magistrate and bankruptcy judges would be 

in the Roybal building. In addition, because this plan includes a large new 

 10This estimate does not include the site and design work that has already occurred on the 

project. 

Page 12 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
building, its implementation would not disrupt court operations by 

substantially renovating space the court simultaneously is using. The court 

favors this plan, in part, because it would fulfill its need for a larger 

building through courtroom sharing among senior judges who would 

occupy the extra chambers in the new building. The challenges of building 

a 36-courtroom courthouse are the high costs and the possibility that GSA 

would face the same problems attracting contractors as it did when it 

attempted to contract for the construction of a 41-courtroom building. 

Option 2: Build a 20-

Courtroom, 20-Chamber 

Building and Add 12 

Courtrooms to Roybal 

GSA estimated that this proposed project would cost $701.1 million11—

$301.5 million more than Congress has already appropriated—and be 

completed by 2014 if construction starts in 2009. This project would 

provide the L.A. Court with 66 courtrooms in total, including 36 district 

courtrooms, 20 magistrate courtrooms, and 10 bankruptcy courtrooms. 

With congressional approval, GSA could use existing funds to begin 

planning and constructing the new building. In addition, the planned 20-

courtroom building may be expandable at some future time. This plan 

would also maximize the use of Roybal as a courthouse. The challenges of

building the 20-courtroom courthouse are that district judges would 

continue to be split between two buildings and it is unclear what support 

operations would move to the new building. In addition, the success of 

this plan relies on GSA’s obtaining an authorization and appropriation to 

add 12 courtrooms in Roybal. Without that appropriation, the L.A. Court 

would likely have to remain in the Spring Street building—meaning it 

would be split between three buildings, not just two, as is currently the 

case. Another challenge related to the 20-courtroom building plan is that 

GSA would need to build the new courtrooms in Roybal while the building 

is occupied by the L.A. Court. GSA officials said that this type of 

renovation is possible if the most disruptive work is done at night and on

weekends. However, judiciary officials said that court officials often need

to work at nights and on weekends. In addition, the L.A. district judges 

unanimously opposed it because it would split district judges over a 

further distance. The proposed location of the 20-courtroom building is 

about a third of a mile further from Roybal and the Spring Street 

Courthouse is. The L.A. Court also opposes this plan because it believes 

that GSA has underestimated the costs, overstated the end capacity, and 

would have trouble attracting bidders for the project. 

 11This estimate does not include the site and design work that has already occurred on the 

project. 

Page 13 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
GSA estimated that this project would cost $648.4 million—$282.1 million 

more than Congress has already appropriated. In 2008, GSA estimated that 

it could complete the project by 2016, but to do so, it would have had to

start work in January, which it did not do. For example, GSA’s time line 

for this project assumed that procurement of the design contract would be 

completed by April 2008; that work has not yet begun. This proposal 

would provide the L.A. Court with 64 courtrooms in total, which would be 

composed of 29 district courtrooms, 17 magistrate courtrooms, and 18 

bankruptcy courtrooms. GSA’s proposal indicated that some of the 

courtrooms would not meet the judiciary’s design standards for size. The 

advantages of this plan are that it would maximize the use of GSA’s 

current stock of owned buildings in downtown Los Angeles, and that, with

congressional approval, GSA could use existing funds to begin working on 

the project. Another advantage would be that GSA could sell the site it 

initially purchased for the new courthouse in order to help offset the costs 

of the project. The plan also would attempt to address the security 

concerns that currently exist in the Spring Street building. However, many 

of the same challenges for the 20-courtroom courthouse also exist for this 

plan, including the need to renovate occupied space and a lack of clarity 

about where different support operations would be located. In addition, 

the court’s operations would be split further among the Spring Street 

building, the Roybal building, and the federal building located between 

those two buildings. Also, the estimate only covers security upgrades for 

the Spring Street building, not a complete renovation. This project also has 

the longest time until completion of the three projects, putting it at greater 

risk for additional cost escalations. Finally, the L.A. Court considers this 

the worst of the three options. 

Because there is neither consensus nor adequate funding to complete any 

of the plans currently under consideration, another option is for GSA and 

the judiciary to restart the planning process and develop a new proposal to 

meet the long-term needs of the L.A. Court that all stakeholders can 

support. Since GSA has developed numerous proposals on housing the 

L.A. Court, it is difficult to know which one it believes is the best solution, 

and the district judges assigned to the L.A. Court unanimously opposed 

GSA’s most recent proposal to build a 20-courtroom building. Restarting 

the planning process would help avoid implementing one of the plans that 

the judiciary does not support. The remaining $366.5 million appropriated 

for the project could remain in place for meeting the judiciary’s needs in 

Option 3: Add 13 

courtrooms to Roybal and 

Upgrade Spring Street 

Building Security 

Option 4: Restart Planning 

Process and Possibly Use 

Remaining Funds for Other 

Purposes 

Page 14 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Los Angeles once a project is agreed upon, or the funds could be used for 

other purposes, such as addressing GSA’s $6.6 billion repair and 

maintenance backlog by receiving congressional approval to transfer12 or 

rescind the funds.13 This option would not address any of the L.A. Court’s 

long-standing space deficits, operational problems with a split court, or 

security and other problems related to the Spring Street building, and

some of the problems would likely worsen until a long-term solution could 

be found. 

We are not advocating this or any of the other three options. Our intent is 

to identify current options so that Congress and stakeholders can evaluate 

them. Nonetheless, it is clear the current process is deadlocked. 

We provided the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and GSA with 

draft copies of this report for their review and comment. In written 

comments, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicated that the

report reflects the general sequence of events and circumstances that have 

led to the current situation. The letter also provided technical comments 

that we incorporated, as appropriate. The letter and our comments are 

contained in appendix II.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

In written comments, GSA indicated that it partially agreed with the 

report’s findings related to the delays in the L.A. Courthouse project and 

provided additional technical comments that we incorporated, as 

appropriate. In the technical comments, GSA indicated that the judiciary 

has been reluctant to consider any reduction in the scope of the project as

requested by GSA. Our report indicates that GSA and the judiciary were 

slow to reduce scope to stay on budget. GSA’s written comments are 

contained in appendix III. 

 12According to GSA’s appropriation acts, funds in the Federal Buildings Fund may be

transferred between activities to the extent necessary to meet program requirements if the 

proposed transfers are approved in advance per the committees on appropriations. 

13The appropriation was designated to remain available for the new L.A. courthouse project

until expended for construction. 

Page 15 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
We are sending copies of this report to the GSA Administrator and the 

Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. We also will 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 your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff that made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV. 

Mark L. Goldstein 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 16 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los

C

 Angeles Courthouse 

onstruction Project Briefing

Page 17 GAO-08-889

Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing 

1

Los Angeles Courthouse

Construction Project Briefing

A Briefing for Congressional Requesters

May 19, 2008 

L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

2

The L.A. courthouse has been top-priority

project for more than a decade

• The federal judiciary (judiciary) ranked the L.A. courthouse as

its first priority for courthouse construction in fiscal year 2000. 

• In its 2000 proposal to design a new courthouse in Los 

Angeles, GSA noted that the current buildings could not meet

the L.A. Court’s expansion requirements and some

courtrooms did not meet court standards.

• A 1996 judiciary facility plan concluded that one of the federal

courthouses in Los Angeles had poor security and obsolete

building systems—problems that remain.

Page 18 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

3

Key Questions

1. What is the status of the construction of a new federal 

courthouse in Los Angeles?

2. What effects have any delays in the project had on project

costs and court operations?

3. What are the options for the future of the project?

Page 19 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

4

Scope and Methodology 

• Reviewed key documents dating from 1996 to present,

including project time line, project options analysis, planning 

studies, proposals, and other budget data.

• Toured L.A. federal court sites, including the Spring Street

Courthouse, the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and 

Courthouse, the federal building on Los Angeles Street, and

the planned courthouse site.

• Interviewed L.A. district and magistrate judges and other

court officials, the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts,

the General Services Administration (GSA), and the U.S. 

Marshals Service (USMS).

Page 20 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

5

Scope and Methodology (continued)

• We conducted our work in Los Angeles, California, and 

Washington, D.C., from January 2008 to May 2008 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.

Page 21 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

6

Results in brief

• The L.A. courthouse project has been delayed by an 

increase in scope, slow decision making, and unforeseen 

cost escalation. Despite congressional authorization for a 41-

courtroom building, GSA designed a 54-courtroom building 

based on the federal judiciary’s updated long-range request.

• The delays have caused project costs to nearly triple to over

$1 billion, exacerbated the L.A. Court’s operational and 

security problems, and forced GSA to stop procurement for a 

project on which it has already spent $33.2 million.

• All options currently being considered require balancing 

court needs, additional funding, and congressional approval.

Page 22 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

7

Background: U.S. district courthouses in Los 

Angeles — 300 North Spring Street

Opened in 1938

Currently 32 courtrooms (11

do not meet minimum design

standards for size—the federal 

judiciary considers 3 of them as

hearing rooms, not courtrooms)

Current major tenants: 

U.S. District Court, U.S. 

Source: GAO. Attorneys, USMS, GSA

Page 23 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

8

Background: U.S. district courthouses in Los 

Angeles — Roybal Federal Building

Opened in 1992

Currently 34 courtrooms

Current major tenants: 

U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts, 

Satellite Library, USMS, Drug 

Enforcement Administration, U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

Source: GAO.

Page 24 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

9

Background: Congress has appropriated $400 

million for the new L.A. courthouse

• FY 2001: $35.25 million for site 

acquisition and design of a 41-

courtroom courthouse

• FY 2004: $50 million for

construction

• FY 2005: $314.4 million for

construction of 41-courtroom 

courthouse

Page 25 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

10

Background: Location of current and planned 

court buildings

Page 26 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

11

$399.65 million appropriated 

— $33.20 million spent

$16.3 million to develop building designs

$2.5 million to purchase site

$14.4 million to demolish building on new site

$366.45 million remaining

Background: GSA has spent $33.2 million on 

the new L.A. courthouse

Page 27 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

12

Objective 1

Status of the L.A. courthouse project

Page 28 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

13

Status: L.A. Courthouse construction project 

has experienced repeated delays 

2014

2010

2009

2006

GSA’s scheduled occupancy

in new courthouse (fiscal 

year)

2008 8

2004 4

2003 3

2000 --

Years delayed from 

original schedule Year of proposal

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

Page 29 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

14

Status: GSA designed a larger building than 

Congress approved

• In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $35 million for

design of a 41-courtroom building based on an approved 

proposal for a consolidated courthouse.

• Despite authorization for a 41-courtroom building, GSA 

designed a 54-courtroom building in November 2001.

• GSA officials said they increased the scope of the project in

response to the judiciary’s stated need. 

• Judiciary officials said that the decision to change the scope 

was made jointly by GSA and the judiciary and that changes

to GSA’s planning criteria contributed to the greater need. 

GSA officials disagreed and said that GSA’s planning criteria 

did not contribute to the increase in scope.

Page 30 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

15

Status: Design of a building larger than what

was approved delayed the project 2 years

• During design, GSA conducted the environmental

assessment and purchased the site for the new courthouse.

• On May 2, 2003, GSA prepared a draft proposal for the

congressional authorizing committees to increase the project

to 54 courtrooms.

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not include the 

54-courtroom building plan in President’s fiscal year 2005 

budget, causing GSA to reduce design to 41 courtrooms.

• A senior GSA official estimated that the initial decision to

design a 54-courtroom courthouse delayed the project 2 

years due to redesign and reprocurement requirements.

Page 31 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

16

Status: GSA and L.A. Court were slow to

reduce scope

• Atrium change

• Initial building design included a large, building-high 

atrium and associated glass curtain wall.

• The judiciary expressed repeated concerns about the 

atrium.

• In July 2005, GSA advised the judiciary that the project

could not be constructed for appropriated amounts 

because of material shortages and other market factors.

• Redesign with simplified atrium and curtain was

completed in January 2006.

Page 32 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

17

Status: GSA and L.A. Court were slow to

reduce scope (continued)

• Reduction in the numbers of courtrooms

• In March 2006, GSA canceled the procurement when one 

of the two construction contractors bidding on the 41-

courtroom project withdrew.

• In May 2007, the judiciary proposed reducing the number 

of courtrooms in the proposed building to 36.

• In September 2007, GSA submitted a revised proposal to

OMB to reduce costs by removing one floor in the

planned courthouse, thereby reducing the number of

courtrooms by 5 (to 36 courtrooms).

Page 33 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

18

Status: Rapid cost escalation exacerbated 

delays

• According to GSA, construction cost escalation in the L.A.

market was more than double the inflation factor used for

budgeting purposes – necessitating scope reductions and 

redesigns that caused more delays.

• GSA stated that the escalation in construction costs, which 

went as high as 16 percent in 2006, was unprecedented and 

unpredictable. 

• Information provided by GSA indicates that the cost

escalation was nationwide and also affected a state 

courthouse construction project in the L.A. area.

Page 34 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

19

Status: Other factors reduced contractor

interest

• GSA bid the construction of the San Diego and L.A.

courthouses around the same time. In hindsight, according 

to GSA, this may have limited the number of bidders.

• GSA chose a procurement approach designed to provide 

contractors with flexibility in meeting budgeted construction

costs, but the approach may have lowered contractor 

interest by placing more of the risk for cost overruns on the

contractor. 

• GSA estimated that $50 billion worth of public construction

projects in the L.A. market, such as increased spending on 

local schools, further limited the number of bidders for the

L.A. courthouse project.

Page 35 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

20

Objective 2

Effects of any delays on project costs and 

court operations

Page 36 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

21

Effects of delays: Project costs have nearly

tripled

• In May 2004, GSA estimated that the construction 

project would cost about $400 million. Current 

estimates are over $1.1 billion.

• GSA estimates it may be able to build a much smaller

courthouse with the remaining $366.45 million in

appropriated funds.

• Based on current escalation rates, each day of delay

costs $54,000, according to GSA. Every 44 days of

additional delay incur costs equal to the cost of one 

district courtroom.

Page 37 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

22

Effects of delays: GSA cannot currently move 

forward on any plan

• Cost estimates for a 41-courtroom building now greatly

exceed authorized and appropriated amounts. 

• All options now under consideration would require 

approval of a new prospectus and the authorization and 

an estimated appropriation of from $282.1 million to 

$733.6 million.

• The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request did not 

include any funds for the L.A. courthouse project.

Page 38 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

23

Effects of delays: Operational problems 

continue

• Housing district and magistrate judges in both Spring Street 

and Roybal buildings causes operational inefficiencies.

• Judges, prisoners, juries, and evidence must be transported 

between buildings.

• As a result, many offices and activities need to be duplicated.

• A high-level L.A. Court official said that the judiciary has 

stopped investing in the parts of the Spring Street

Courthouse for which it is responsible because it expects the 

judiciary to move into a new building.

Page 39 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

24

Effects of delays: Court space needs are not 

addressed

• The L.A. Court indicated that it does not have chamber

or courtroom space for four pending district judgeships.

• The L.A. Court indicated that it also lacks sufficient

support space.

Jury assembly 9,635 sq. ft. 9,650 sq. ft.

District clerk 6,165 sq. ft. 25,696 sq. ft.

Probation 3,292 sq. ft. 8,144 sq. ft.

133,838 sq. ft. 197,613 sq. ft. Court, chamber, and 

support space

Projected 2011 

deficit Court office Current deficit

Source: L.A. Court.

Page 40 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

25

Effects of delays: Severe security problems at

Spring Street remain

• Secure prisoner corridors do not exist for 20 of Spring 

Street’s 32 courtrooms. In addition, USMS officials said that 

they do not use the existing corridors because they are 

unsafe and do not have holding cells outside the courtrooms.

• USMS officials believe that security at the Spring Street

Courthouse is poor and cannot be improved due to the age 

and design of the building, but that Roybal has strong 

security.

Page 41 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

26

Effects of delays: Severe security problems at

Spring Street are worsening

• USMS officials said that the situation is worsening.

• USMS is no longer making security upgrades at Spring Street 

because of its uncertain future.

• Marshals’ security logs showed a five-fold increase in 

suspicious activities in L.A. federal courthouses from 2004 to 

2007.

Note: In commenting on this report, a USMS official said that USMS has started reinvesting in the 

Spring Street Courthouse. 

Page 42 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

27

Objective 3

Current options for the future of the project

Page 43 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

28

Options: GSA has developed 8 different 

proposals for housing the L.A. Court

1. 24-courtroom companion building (2000)

2. 41-courtroom building (2000)

3. 51-courtroom building (2000)

4. 54-courtroom building (2003)

5. 36-courtroom building (2007)

6. 17-courtroom building (2008)

7. 20-courtroom building (2008)

8. Use existing buildings (2008)

Only the three 

bolded proposals 

are still under

consideration.

Page 44 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

29

Options: GSA and the judiciary are 

considering three options for Los Angeles

1. Build a 36-courtroom building to house district judges; add 4

more courtrooms to Roybal to house the magistrate and 

bankruptcy judges; vacate Spring Street.

2. Build a 20-courtroom building1 to house about half of the 

district judges; add 12 more courtrooms to Roybal; vacate

Spring Street.

3. Use existing buildings; add 13 more courtrooms in Roybal;

keep 17 courtrooms and upgrade security in Spring Street; 

house remaining functions in federal building on L.A. Street.

1 GSA has chosen to pursue the 20-courtroom building over the 17-courtroom building.

Page 45 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

30

Options: There is no consensus among 

stakeholders on how to proceed

• All options require congressional approval.

• In September 2007, GSA drafted a proposal to build a 36-

courtroom building, but the President did not include any 

funds for the project in his fiscal year 2009 budget request.

• In March 2008, GSA proposed building a 20-courtroom 

building and expanding Court use of Roybal, but the district

judges unanimously opposed this proposal because it could 

further split court operations.

Page 46 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

31

Options: Options for housing L.A. Court 

currently under consideration

2016

2014

2014

Estimated 

completion

date

$282.1 million

64

(some below design

standards for size)

Add 13 courtrooms in

Roybal, upgrade security at

Spring Street

66 $301.5 million

Build 20-courtroom building, 

add 12 courtrooms in Roybal

74 $733.6 million

Build 36-courtroom building, 

add 4 courtrooms in Roybal

Estimated new 

appropriations

needed

Total

courtrooms Option

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

Page 47 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

32

Option 1: Build a new 36-courtroom building

and continue using Roybal

• GSA estimate: $1.1 billion ($733.6 million more needed)—

estimate includes $161 million to renovate and add 4 courtrooms in 

Roybal.

• Courtrooms: 74 (36 district, 20 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy)

• Estimated delivery date: 2014 if construction starts in 2009

• Advantages: Would consolidate each different type of judge 

(district, magistrate, and bankruptcy) in one of two locations; new 

construction would not require renovation of occupied space; would 

fulfill court’s need for 41-courtroom building through courtroom 

sharing by senior judges; favored by Court

• Challenges: High cost; possible difficulty attracting contractors 

Page 48 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

33

Option 2: Build 20-courtroom building and add 

12 courtrooms in Roybal

• GSA estimate: $701.1 million ($301.5 million more needed)

• Courtrooms: 66 (36 district, 20 magistrate, 10 bankruptcy)

• Estimated delivery date: 2014 if construction starts in 2009

• Advantages: Existing funds available for constructing new building; 

design could incorporate future expansion; would maximize use of

Roybal as courthouse; Court would leave Spring Street

• Challenges: District court split over a greater distance; unclear what 

support operations would move to new building; additional 

appropriation of $320 million needed for Roybal; would require 

renovating Roybal while occupied by Court; Court opposes this plan 

and believes cost estimates are low, GSA would have difficulty 

attracting bidders, and capacity is overstated

Page 49 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

34

Option 3: Add 13 courtrooms in Roybal and 

upgrade Spring Street security

• GSA estimate: $648.4 million ($282.1 million more needed)

• Courtrooms: 64 (29 district, 17 magistrate, 18 bankruptcy)

• Estimated delivery date: 2016 (based on several work items

starting by now that are not yet underway)

• Advantages: Could start work using existing funds; the site 

purchased for the planned courthouse could be sold to offset costs;

would maximize use of current stock; would address some safety

concerns in Spring Street Courthouse

• Challenges: All of the challenges associated with option 2; would 

further split Court with some operations in Federal Building; would 

require that the L.A. Court occupy spaces below its design 

standards; estimate includes security but not a full renovation of 

Spring Street; longest lead time increases risk associated with cost

escalation; Court considers this the worst option

Page 50 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

35

Additional Option: Restart planning and 

possibly reapply remaining funds 

• Another option is for GSA and the judiciary to restart the planning 

process and develop a new proposal for housing the L.A. Court that 

all stakeholders can support. The $366.5 million appropriated for

the courthouse could remain available for meeting the judiciary’s

needs in Los Angeles or be used for other purposes through a 

transfer or rescission. 

• Advantages: Would avoid permanently implementing one of the 

plans that the judiciary opposes and could allow the appropriated 

funds to be used for other purposes, lessening the financial 

pressure to do something right now 

• Challenges: Space deficits and problems with a split court and 

Spring Street would remain

Page 51 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse 

Construction Project Briefing

36

Concluding observations

• Delays from exceeding the congressional authorization and 

slow decision making, paired with unexpectedly high cost

escalation rates, rendered the currently authorized

prospectus for a new 41-courtroom building unachievable 

with currently appropriated funds.

• Stakeholders do not agree on how to proceed.

• GSA has developed numerous proposals on the L.A.

courthouse and currently supports the 20-courtroom

courthouse. The federal judges in Los Angeles unanimously

opposed GSA’s most recent proposal to build a 20-

courtroom building.

Page 52 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix II: Comments from the Appendix II: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

Page 53 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

Page 54 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

See comment 5. 

Page 55 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

See comment 6. 

See comment 7. 

Page 56 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 57 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

The following are GAO’s comments on the Administrative Office of the

U.S. Courts’ letter dated August 25, 2008. 

1. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicated that additional 

details on the reasoning behind the decision to propose a 41-

courtroom courthouse would be helpful. GSA officials said that the 

decision to propose a 41-courtroom courthouse was based on 80 

percent of the federal judiciary’s stated need at the time—80 percent of 

51 courtrooms is approximately 41—and that the judiciary could fit 

within that space by sharing courtrooms. We added this information to 

the body of the report. 

GAO Comments 

2. We clarified the report in response to this comment. 

3. We did not do a detailed assessment of the possible 20-courtroom 

courthouse plan and, consequently, did not assess whether it provides 

space for future expansion. However, there may be design concepts 

that would leave sufficient room for expansion on the 3.7-acre site, 

which originally supported the 54-courtroom courthouse plan 

developed by GSA. 

4. Our report does not make any statements related to the number of 

bankruptcy courtrooms required by the federal judiciary in Los 

Angeles, but does list the number of those courtrooms that GSA 

projects for each of the current options thus shows that the 20-

courtroom courthouse option would provide 8 fewer bankruptcy 

courtrooms in Los Angeles than the other options currently being 

considered.

5. Assessing the validity of GSA’s project budget and schedule were 

outside the scope of this report. The U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Transportation, Subcommittee on Economic 

Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management 

requested this information from the GSA Inspector General. 

6. We have clarified the report to reflect that the estimated costs to house 

the L.A. Court have tripled. 

7. We clarified the report to reflect that Roybal currently houses 10 

district, 6 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy courtrooms. 

Page 58 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix III: Comments from the General Appendix III: Comments from the General Services Administration 

Services Administration 

Page 59 GAO-08-889 L.A Courthouse
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 60 GAO-08-889

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834, or goldsteinm@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, David Sausville, Assistant 

Director; Keith Cunningham; Bess Eisenstadt; Susan Michal-Smith; 

Jennifer Kim; and Susan Sachs made key contributions to this report. 

L.A Courthouse

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(543212) 
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