United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

B-285241

May 11, 2000

The Honorable Bob Franks

Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public

 Buildings, Hazardous Materials, and Pipeline Transportation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Subject: General Services Administration: Response to Follow-up Questions Related to

Building Repairs and Alterations and Courthouse Utilization

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On April 11, 2000, we testified at the Subcommittee’s oversight hearing on the General

Services Administration’s (GSA) FY 2001 Capital Investment Program.1

 This letter responds to

your request of April 12, 2000, in which you asked additional questions about GSA’s federal

building repairs and alterations program and courtroom utilization. To respond to these

questions, we primarily relied on three of our previous reports: (1) Federal Buildings: Billions

are Needed for Repairs and Alterations (GAO/GGD-00-98, Mar. 30, 2000); (2) Courthouse

Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance Facility Planning and

Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD-97-39, May 19, 1997); and (3) Federal Buildings: Actions Needed

to Prevent Further Deterioration and Obsolescence (GAO/GGD-91-57, May 13, 1991), as well

as our body of knowledge in these areas. We prepared this response during April 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Because this letter was

primarily based on previously issued reports, we did not seek agency comments on a draft of

this letter. Our responses to the questions that you asked follow.

Question 1. Could you elaborate on the 1991 GAO recommendations, and what

became of them?

In our 1991 report, we made several recommendations aimed at promoting more informed

decisionmaking and preventing federal buildings from becoming deteriorated and

functionally obsolete. Specifically, we recommended that the Administrator of GSA annually

develop and communicate to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress a

comprehensive plan that (1) identifies total repair and alteration requirements in federally

owned buildings and their estimated cost; (2) assesses the short-term and long-term

 1

 Federal Buildings: Billions Are Needed for Repairs and Alterations (GAO/T-00-73, Apr. 11, 2000).
B-283787

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

economic and operational implications of the requirements in each building; and (3) proposes

a strategy, action plan, and funding levels to repair and modernize the most severely

deteriorated, functionally obsolete, and unsafe buildings. We recognized that before such a

plan could be developed, GSA would, among other things, need to establish appropriate

management controls to help ensure that (1) all identified building repair and alteration needs

are included in the computerized inventory, assigned priorities, and properly costed; and (2)

needs that had already been deferred for 2 or more years are identified, tracked, and

coordinated with the affected tenant agencies. The report went on to say that once GSA

developed and submitted this plan, the Administrator should explore with Congress and OMB

how to finance the needed building repairs and alterations.

As we recently testified, GSA has not fully implemented these recommendations. However, a

review of GSA’s audit resolution file on our 1991 report showed that GSA attempted to

respond to some of them. For example, following our 1991 report, GSA developed policies on

building inspection reports and established a 5-year plan requirement for identifying building

reinvestment needs. We also found that GSA completed a 5-year plan of its proposed

prospectus-level projects,2

 but the plan was not shared with congressional committees.

According to GSA repair and alteration officials, the 5-year plan initiative waned; but efforts

are currently under way to develop such a plan within the next 2 years. In summary, GSA’s

initiatives fell short in responding to our 1991 recommendations.

Question 2. How have these 1991 recommendations addressed the perennial

problem of a lack of funding?

Our 1991 recommendations were designed to get GSA to provide more context to the repair

and alteration problem and to explore with Congress and OMB how to finance needed repairs

and alterations. We believed then, as we do now, that GSA needs current and more reliable

information about its repair and alteration needs and a comprehensive plan that identifies

and prioritizes these needs and the corresponding funding requirements. We further believe

that if GSA implemented our recommendations, Congress and OMB would be in a better

position to fully understand the magnitude of the problem, the options available to address

the problem, and the cost-benefit implications of making or not making needed repairs and

alterations. The information contained in a comprehensive plan would provide the needed

context for decisionmakers to make (1) more informed decisions about annual funding levels

and which particular projects to fund and (2) more knowledgeable trade-offs when allocating

scarce resources among competing projects. We recommended that once GSA developed and

submitted this plan, it should explore with Congress and OMB how to finance the needed

building repairs and alterations.

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

funding issue?

Our work on this issue did not specifically address financing opportunities. However, our

past work has shown that the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), a revolving fund administered

 2

 Prospectus-level projects are those that exceed a statutorily prescribed threshold, which was $1.93 million in fiscal year 2000.
B-283787

Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

by GSA, has not generated sufficient revenues to meet all its capital investment needs. GSA

officials recognize the shortfalls of FBF and as mentioned on page 14 of our March 30, 2000,

report to the Subcommittee, they said they were exploring ways to increase funds to better

meet its multibillion-dollar repair and alteration needs. Specifically, GSA program officials

said that they would give priority to those repair and alteration projects that have the greatest

potential to increase the inventory, desirability, and value of rentable space. When previously

vacant space is rented, additional revenues are generated for the FBF, making more funds

available for Congress to provide new obligational authority for repairs and alterations. GSA

officials also said that they are exploring other ways to increase funds in FBF. They cited as

one example the retention of revenues from sales of assets no longer needed by the

government. They are also considering exploring whether Congress might be receptive to

directly appropriating funds for the repairs and alterations program and have GSA repay

these appropriations from additional rent revenues generated from completed projects.

Question 4. Could you elaborate on the 44 buildings that have repair needs in excess

of $20 million?

The types of repairs and alterations needed at these buildings varied. However, they typically

involved repairs to major building components, such as electrical, plumbing, heating,

ventilation and air conditioning systems; fire alarms and/or sprinkler systems; or other fire

and life safety items. The enclosure provides more specific information on the repair and

alteration needs that were unfunded for the 44 buildings covered in our review.

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

We did not do a specific analysis of ongoing renovation projects at the 44 buildings covered in

our review. However, GSA’s database indicates that most of the 44 buildings had major

ongoing design and construction work that could be considered as renovation projects.

Question 6. Are there any buildings in the GSA inventory that pose an immediate

danger to the occupants?

Our recent work on GSA’s repairs and alterations program was not designed to specifically

look for unsafe buildings that may be an immediate threat to its tenants. GSA officials said

they recognize that the physical condition of many federal buildings is far from ideal, that a

significant inventory of repair and alteration work exists, and that some buildings cannot

support 21st century operations. These officials stress, however, that federal buildings have

not been, and are not being, neglected and that examples of serious deterioration of these

buildings are few and far between. GSA officials also said that given the age of their inventory

and the limited resources available to fund repairs and alterations, they take pride in knowing

that the agency has kept many buildings operational far beyond their normal life expectancy.

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

In our March 30, 2000, report to the Subcommittee, we reported that our detailed analysis of

44 buildings found 49 work items that, according to GSA’s records, had been in inventory for

more than 10 years. Most of these work items were in the GSA work category for
B-283787

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

repairs/replacements/improvements. The work in this category included such items as

replacing heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, upgrading elevator systems, and

replacing cracked exterior marble panels.

Question 8. How reliable is the information in the Inventory Reporting Information

System (IRIS) system?

Although we did not systematically test IRIS, we did note that IRIS contained some

inaccurate and incomplete information. As discussed on pages 9 and 10 of our March 30,

2000, report, we found instances where (1) certain GSA regions did not include all repair and

alteration requirements in the database; (2) major repairs and alterations were identified as

still being in inventory when, in fact, they had already moved into design, construction, or had

been completed; (3) work items were included in the inventory when they should have been

deleted because, for example, they were no longer needed, had become part of another

project, or were duplicates of other work items; and (4) construction cost estimates were not

always current. We also found that IRIS listed some buildings as needing major repairs and

alterations, but the estimated costs of this work were not included. Finally, we identified

instances where important facts about a building, such as its age or historical significance,

were not included in GSA’s database. We also noted that in most cases the explanation

contained in the database on why the repair and alteration was needed was vague. The data

currently available on repairs and alterations do not allow program managers to easily

determine the length of time that work has been in inventory, the criticality of each work

item, or the possible adverse consequences associated with delaying repair and alteration

work.

We believe that reliable and complete information about identified repairs and alterations is

essential for effective management and oversight of program activities. Without such

information, it is difficult for program managers to (1) quantify the total amount of repair and

alteration needs, (2) effectively target the most critical needs and set priorities within and

among the 11 GSA regions, and (3) justify to OMB and Congress the need for additional repair

and alteration funding. Simply stated, inadequate program information does not permit

informed decisionmaking.

Question 9. What is GSA doing to address the lack of consistency of information

from different regions?

GSA officials recognize that the quality and consistency of repair and alteration data need

improvement. They also recognize that other tools are needed to provide more consistent

cost estimates, updates, and comparable priorities among regions. According to these

officials, IRIS—the computerized system that contains the inventory of repair and alteration

needs—was changed in July 1999, to start recording when new work requirements were

entered into the inventory. This change, if implemented effectively, should allow GSA

program managers the opportunity to identify how long repairs and alterations are being

deferred in each of the GSA regions. The officials also said that they have other actions under

way and planned that will establish standards for and measures of data accuracy in IRIS and

other Public Buildings Service systems. They went on to say that GSA is also testing software

packages that are supposed to (1) consistently record and track the status of each identified
B-283787

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

repair and alteration work item, (2) develop more accurate cost estimates for work items,

and (3) assist in establishing priorities for identified repairs and alterations.

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

about it?

We did not specifically analyze GSA’s asset business plans. However, we believe that the new

approach has merit and that GSA is moving in the right direction in its efforts to revise the

plans and make them more useful. As pointed out on page 12 of our March 30, 2000, report to

the Subcommittee, an asset business plan is to provide a wide array of information related to

a building’s physical characteristics, the rent revenues and expenses associated with

operating the building, and the repair and alteration requirements that have been identified.

For a number of years GSA has required that an asset business plan be prepared for all

buildings included in its portfolio. Before the fall of 1999, each of GSA’s 11 regional offices

had significant discretion in determining the format of its asset business plans, the detailed

information contained in its plans, and how these plans would be used in determining which

repair and alterations would be funded. Therefore, the asset business plan of the past did not

lend itself to the collection and comparison of information about building repairs and

alterations within a region, let alone among the 11 regions.

During the fall of 1999, GSA took steps to help ensure that these plans are consistently

prepared, accessible to all program managers, and used to develop standardized management

reports about the repair and alteration requirements at all GSA buildings. Specifically, GSA

established a standardized format and standard data elements that must be included in all

asset business plans. According to GSA officials, when the new asset business plans are fully

implemented, they are to identify all repair and alteration needs over the entire life cycle of a

building. With this information, GSA managers should be in a better position to determine the

critical nature of each work item, how long each work item has been delayed, and the

adverse consequences of delaying repair and alteration work. The plans are to be on an

automated nationwide network and, therefore, readily available for all program managers to

use.

Question 11. If GSA has a backlog at the end of fiscal year 2006, how can it expect

to ever clear up this situation?

If GSA had more reliable information on the magnitude of the repair and alteration problem

and a comprehensive plan that identified total repair and alteration needs and funding

requirements, established the relative benefits and priorities of all competing projects, and

proposed a strategy to repair its most seriously deteriorated buildings, it would be in a better

position to justify additional funding for repair and alteration work. This information would

provide the needed context for Congress and OMB to better understand the magnitude of the

problem and permit decisionmakers to make (1) more informed decisions about annual

funding levels and which particular projects to fund and (2) more knowledgeable trade-offs

when allocating scarce resources among competing projects.
B-283787

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

Question 12. Given the recent experience of GSA’s lack of resources to repair the

Pentagon, do you expect that there will be attempts to transfer other costly

buildings to the agencies for them to find sufficient funding to make needed

repairs?

We found no evidence to suggest that GSA plans to transfer costly buildings to the agencies

for them to find sufficient funding to make needed repairs. However, as buildings deteriorate,

as was the case with the Pentagon, it is possible that other agencies may want responsibility

for their buildings. As mentioned in our March 2000 report, Agriculture South is a unique

building in GSA’s inventory in that the Department of Agriculture has been getting direct

appropriations to do the repair and alteration work at this building.

Question 13. What operational changes would GAO make to GSA’s current

management of the repair and alteration process?

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

reports.

Question 14. Please comment on GSA’s strategic approach to its repair and

alteration program.

As discussed in our March 30, 2000, report and April 11, 2000, testimony, GSA has not made

much progress in developing a strategic approach to meet its repair and alteration

requirements. This was a major issue in our 1991 report, which discussed in some detail the

shortcomings associated with managing repair and alteration requirements on a project-byproject basis and GSA’s need for a comprehensive, long-term strategy for effectively meeting

its building repair and alteration needs. However, GSA continues with a project-by-project

mind set and has not yet developed a comprehensive plan that (1) identifies its total repair

and alteration needs and corresponding funding requirements, (2) establishes the relative

benefits or priorities of all competing projects, and (3) proposes a strategy and the funding

needed to repair or modernize its most seriously deteriorated buildings. With such a plan,

Congress and OMB would be in a better position to fully understand GSA’s total repair and

alteration needs and associated funding requirements, as well as the cost-benefit implications

of making or not making needed repairs and alterations. The information in the plan would

provide the needed context and permit decisionmakers to make (1) more informed decisions

about the annual funding levels and which particular projects to fund and (2) more

knowledgeable trade-offs when allocating scarce resources among competing projects.

Finally, GSA would be in a better position to target limited resources to buildings with the

greatest needs.

GSA recognizes that more needs to be done and, as discussed in our March report and April

testimony, GSA has an ongoing effort aimed at developing a 5-year repair and alteration plan.

If GSA is successful in developing and effectively implementing this plan and the several

other related initiatives it is pursuing, it will be moving in the right direction toward

institutionalizing its thinking and planning about how best to strategically respond to its

multibillion-dollar repair and alteration needs.
B-283787

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

Question 15. Please supply to the committee the location and names of the seven

GSA buildings that are on the National Historic Register.

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

our review.

Building name City State

Estimated cost of

unfunded repairs and

alterations

(in millions)

Number of

repair and

alteration

work items

Size in gross

square feet

Dwight D. Eisenhower Building Washington DC $186.7 14 691,783

Justice Building Washington DC $88.5 25 1,052,827

Interior Building Washington DC $65.0 2 1,217,477

GSA Building Washington DC $65.0 11 774,848

Frank E. Moss Courthouse Salt Lake City UT $34.1 10 210,603

Milwaukee Federal

Building/Courthouse Milwaukee WI $23.7 7 500,247

Metzenbaum Courthouse Cleveland OH $21.9 12 258,221

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

Question 16. Has GSA prioritized in any manner its repair and alteration program—

for example by health and safety, vacant space, or any criteria?

According to GSA program officials, GSA headquarters sets priorities for the prospectus-level

projects it submits to Congress annually. They said that prior to GSA’s fiscal year 2001

submission, priorities had been set after GSA staff considered each project in terms of

general criteria found in a document that was revised annually. For example, some of the

general fiscal year 2000 criteria were:

• limited available resources needed to be applied to cost-effective projects with high income

producing potential,

• project justifications should be based on financial factors and physical and programmatic

urgency and a clear indication that the scope and cost of the proposal will address critical

requirements,

• regions should submit prospectuses for projects that received design funds in the prior year

or are ready to enter the next phase of construction that is currently unfunded, and

• prospectuses should be prepared in line with budget constraints.

The final project priorities were largely based on GSA staff’s subjective judgments, which

were not well documented. GSA officials said that GSA changed its process for fiscal year

2001 projects. To set priorities for prospectus-level projects, GSA used a computerized model

that better documented the decisionmaking process. For each proposed project, GSA staff

assigned a value to each of the 5 criteria and 16 subcriteria, which the computer analyzed to

set priorities. The model had, among others, a subcriterion on health and safety and another

one on the project’s impact on space.

Table 1: Information on the Name, Location, Needed Repairs and Alterations, and Size of the Seven

Historic Buildings
B-283787

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

Headquarters allocates funds to regions for nonprospectus-level projects. Regional program

officials set and modify priorities for projects to be undertaken with these funds, unless

Congress mandates in the appropriation process that specific nonprospectus-level projects be

done. Regional officials said they give priorities to projects that involve health and safety

needs that pose an immediate threat to federal employees or building visitors, the recapture

of space to generate additional funds for the FBF, and the ability to begin a project in the next

fiscal year.

Question 17. Please explain to the committee differences between GSA’s previous

asset business plans and the new plan the agency put into effect in 1999.

As discussed in our March 2000 report, for a number of years GSA has required that an asset

business plan be prepared for all buildings included in its portfolio. However, only recently

has it taken steps to help ensure that these plans are consistently prepared, accessible to all

managers, and used to develop standardized management reports about the repair and

alteration requirements at all of GSA’s buildings. Before the fall of 1999, each of the 11

regional offices had significant discretion in determining the format of its asset business

plans, the detailed information contained in its plans, and how these plans would be used in

determining which repairs and alterations would be funded. Therefore, the asset business

plan of the past did not lend itself to collection and comparison of information about the

building repairs and alterations within a region, let alone among the 11 regions. During the

fall of 1999, GSA established a standardized format and standard data elements that must be

included in all asset business plans.

Question 18. Has GAO made any recommendations regarding GSA’s plan to develop

a 5-year repair and alteration plan?

GAO recommended in its 1991 report that the Administrator of GSA develop and

communicate to OMB and Congress a comprehensive plan that (1) identifies total repair and

alteration requirements in federally owned buildings and their estimated cost; (2) assesses

the short-term and long-term economic and operational implications of the requirements in

each building; and (3) proposes a strategy, action plan, and funding levels to repair or

modernize the most severely deteriorated, functionally obsolete, and unsafe buildings. As

pointed out in our March 2000 report to the Subcommittee, GSA has not yet implemented this

recommendation. However, the report goes on to say that GSA is currently in the process of

developing such a plan, and we view this initiative as a step in the right direction. In fact, we

made a recommendation in the March report that GSA develop an action plan, with time

frames, to guide the development and implementation of its initiatives to improve the

management and oversight of its repairs and alterations program, including the development

of a 5-year plan.
B-283787

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

Question 19: The Subcommittee recently met with officials of OMB, who explained

that they used a 1997 GAO study on courthouse utilization to make a determination

on courtroom sharing—Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could

Enhance Facility Planning and Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD-97-39, May 1997). Could

you comment on that study and its applicability to general policy?

At the time of our study, GSA and the federal judiciary had embarked on a multibillion-dollar

courthouse construction initiative aimed at addressing the housing needs of the federal

district courts and related agencies. Included in this initiative were plans to construct

hundreds of new district judge trial courtrooms to replace existing ones and to accommodate

future increases in federal judgeships. Using GSA data, we estimated that the cost to build a

typical trial courtroom in 1995 dollars could range from about $640,000 to $1.3 million,

depending on geographic location. For example, the cost in Washington, D.C., was about

$800,000. This study was done at the request of several congressmen who were concerned

that trial courtrooms may have been underutilized and that unneeded costly courtrooms may

have been, and continued to be, constructed. Given this, the objectives of this study were to

(1) determine how often and for what purposes courtrooms have been used and (2) examine

what steps the judiciary was taking to assess space and courtroom usage issues.

The report recognized that the judiciary’s process for administering justice is dynamic and

complex. According to the judiciary, the availability of a trial courtroom is an integral part of

the judicial process because judges need the flexibility to resolve cases more efficiently.

Nonetheless, trial courtrooms, because of their size and configuration, are expensive to

construct and constructing any unneeded courtrooms wastes taxpayer dollars. The judiciary

maintained a general practice of, whenever possible, assigning a trial courtroom to each

district judge. The extent to which trial courtrooms are utilized for trial and nontrial

activities—trials are defined as any contested proceeding and nontrial activities include

motion hearings, arraignments, and other proceedings—is one indication of need. But, the

judiciary did not compile data on how often and for what purpose courtrooms are actually

used or have analytically based criteria for determining how many and what types of

courtrooms are needed to effectively administer justice. Therefore, the judiciary did not have

sufficient data to support its practice of providing a trial courtroom for every district judge.

Our detailed analysis of data at seven geographically dispersed locations—Dallas, TX; Miami,

FL; Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces, NM; San Diego, CA; and Washington, D.C.—

showed that courtroom usage for trials and nontrial activities varied by judge and location.

Furthermore, on many of the workdays during 1995, courtrooms were not used at all for

these purposes. Our analyses for 1995 showed that:

• On average, trial courtrooms were used for trial or nontrial purposes about 54 percent of all

the days that they could have been used. In other words, these courtrooms were, on average,

used for some purpose 135 days and vacant 115 days out of the 250 federal workdays in 1995.

• Courtrooms were used for trials less than one-third of the days, and the use of the

courtrooms for trial varied by location. The highest average trial usage rate was 32 percent in

Miami, FL, and the lowest was 13 percent in Santa Fe, NM. Nontrial activities consumed the
B-283787

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

remainder of the days courtrooms were used and on most of the nontrial days, the

courtrooms were used for 2 hours or less.

• Senior judges—district judges who are eligible to retire but choose to continue to carry out

judicial duties often at reduced caseloads—used the courtrooms assigned to them for trials

and nontrial activities considerably less frequently than active district judges. For example,

41 active district judges at the locations visited used the courtrooms assigned to them about

65 percent of the days for both trial and nontrial activities, but average use for 21 senior

judges was 38 percent. For trial only, the active district judges’ average utilization rate was 33

percent and for senior judges it was 17 percent.

Our study suggested that courtroom usage for 1995 was low, especially for some senior

judges. It also recognized, even though the judiciary had no data to support its contention,

that other factors such as latent use, which relates to a judge’s ability to use an available

courtroom and the scheduling of that courtroom as leverage to encourage a case to settle

without going to trial, and scheduling issues may be important considerations in determining

the need for courtrooms. Given that the data analyzed covered only 1 year—1995—and the

uncertainty associated with these other factors, we recommended that the Director,

Administrative Office of the United States Courts; Director, Federal Judicial Center; and the

Judicial Conference’s committees on (1) Court Administration and Case Management and (2)

Security, Space and Facilities design and implement cost-effective research to fully examine

the courtroom usage issue to form a better basis for determining the number and type of

courtrooms needed, as well as whether each district judge needs a dedicated courtroom. We

recommended that this effort include:

• establishing criteria for determining effective courtroom utilization and a mechanism for

collecting and analyzing data at a representative number of locations so that trends can be

identified over time and better insights obtained on court activity and usage;

• designing and implementing a methodology for capturing and analyzing data on latent

courtroom usage and courtroom scheduling, and other factors that may substantially affect

the relationship between the availability of courtrooms and judges’ abilities to effectively

administer justice;

• using these data and criteria to explore whether the one judge, one courtroom practice is

needed to promote efficient courtroom management or whether other courtroom alternatives

exist; and

• establishing an action plan with time frames for implementing and overseeing these efforts.

We are sending copies of this letter to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members with

jurisdiction over GSA; the Honorable David J. Barram, Administrator, GSA; and Mr. Leonidas

Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. We will make
B-283787

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

copies available to others on request. If you have any questions, please contact me on (202)

512-8387 or at ungarb.ggd@gao.gov.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Government Business

Operations Issues

Enclosure
Enclosure 

Types of Work Identified at the 44 Buildings

With the Highest Estimated Dollar Value of

Repair & Alteration Needs as of 9/30/99

Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions
Enclosure

Types of Work Identified at the 44 Buildings With the Highest Estimated Dollar Value of

Repair & Alteration Needs as of 9/30/99

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions
Enclosure

Types of Work Identified at the 44 Buildings With the Highest Estimated Dollar Value of

Repair & Alteration Needs as of 9/30/99

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions
Enclosure

Types of Work Identified at the 44 Buildings With the Highest Estimated Dollar Value of

Repair & Alteration Needs as of 9/30/99

Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

a

Definitions for the Building Name abbreviations are: FB-Federal Building; FOB-Federal Office

Building; PO-Post Office; CH-Courthouse; BS-Border Station; ROB-Regional Office Building.

b

Work items were only put in the modernizations/renovations subcategory if GSA’s data did not

provide the detail needed to distribute the types of work among the other major repair subcategories.

c

Agriculture South is a government-owned building in GSA’s inventory. However, this building is

unique in that the Department of Agriculture has been getting direct appropriations to do the repair

and alterations work at this building. According to the Agriculture’s Director of Design and

Construction Division, the estimated cost of repair and alterations for this building ranged from $183.5

million to $222 million. We chose to use the most conservative estimate for our analysis.
Enclosure

Types of Work Identified at the 44 Buildings With the Highest Estimated Dollar Value of

Repair & Alteration Needs as of 9/30/99

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions

d

DFC Building 20 had one work item in the Environmental category, but GSA did not have a cost

estimate for this item.

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-124R Capital Investment Hearing Questions
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA

and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or

more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25

percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using

fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to

obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

To contact GAO FraudNET use:

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

E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(240405)