FEDERAL 

BUILDINGS

More Consideration of 

Operations and 

Maintenance Costs 

Could Better Inform 

the Design Excellence 

Program

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2018

GAO-18-420

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-420, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2018

FEDERAL BUILDINGS

More Consideration of Operations and Maintenance

Costs Could Better Inform the Design Excellence 

Program

What GAO Found

The goals of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Design Excellence 

Program are to creatively design federal buildings that meet federal agencies’

functional needs and become public landmarks. Some design choices for Design 

Excellence buildings have decreased ongoing operations and maintenance 

(O&M) costs, but others have increased those costs. GSA’s building managers 

and tenants told GAO that design choices that have reduced O&M costs include 

the use of durable materials and low maintenance landscaping. Other design 

choices have increased O&M costs. For example, according to GAO’s survey of 

78 building managers of Design Excellence buildings, multistory atriums often 

led to additional O&M costs, including the need to erect expensive scaffolding for 

maintenance.

Atriums That Increased Operations and Maintenance Costs in Buildings Constructed under 

GSA’s Design Excellence Program, according to Respondents

While GSA aims to create Design Excellence buildings that are cost-effective 

and functional, it makes design choices without fully considering their effect on 

O&M costs and functionality. For example, GSA officials do not estimate the 

majority of O&M costs, such as the building maintenance associated with their 

design choices until the design is almost finalized. This outcome is partly 

because GSA procedures do not direct GSA officials to develop such estimates 

during the design and planning of Design Excellence buildings and because 

building and regional managers responsible for addressing the O&M 

consequences are also not involved in the design and planning process. As a 

result, important cost information that could help building project teams make the 

most cost-effective design choices is not available to help them. In addition, 

while building managers GAO surveyed reported that GSA’s design choices 

generally support a building’s functionality, they also reported that some design 

choices increased O&M costs without improving functionality. For example, they 

identified design choices related to material color and lighting that increased 

O&M costs but did not enhance the functionality of the building for the tenants.

Although GSA has developed some information on how design choices can 

affect O&M costs, it does not consistently collect and share such information. For 

example, GSA has evaluated the performance of only six Design Excellence 

buildings, and does not systematically collect information on how design choices 

have affected O&M costs in all existing buildings. Without a process to collect 

and share such information, future buildings may not benefit from these lessons,

and problematic choices may be repeated.

View GAO-18-420. For more information, 

contact Lori Rectanus at (202) 512-2834 or 

rectanusl@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Since 1994, GSA has spent more than 

$8 billion to construct 78 new federal 

buildings through its Design Excellence 

program. Some design choices can 

affect a building’s O&M costs and 

functionality.

GAO was asked to review GSA’s 

ability to manage O&M costs under the 

Design Excellence program. This 

report assesses the extent to which: 

(1) GSA’s design choices affect O&M 

costs; (2) GSA considers O&M costs 

and functionality when planning and 

designing buildings; and (3) GSA 

systematically collects and shares 

information on O&M costs.

GAO conducted a web-based survey 

of building managers for the 78 Design 

Excellence buildings. GAO also visited 

10 Design Excellence buildings in 

three GSA regions selected based on 

several factors, including geographic 

and agency diversity. GAO reviewed 

GSA documents, and interviewed GSA 

officials and building tenants. 

Information obtained through site visits 

and interviews is not generalizable.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations

to update existing GSA procedures for 

planning and designing new buildings 

to: (1) estimate full O&M costs; (2) 

obtain information from personnel 

responsible for addressing the O&M 

consequences of design decisions; (3) 

further consider how design choices 

may affect building functionality; and 

(4) systematically collect and share 

lessons from existing buildings. GSA 

agreed with these recommendations.
Page i GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Letter 1

Background 4

GSA Made Design Choices That Decreased and Increased O&M 

Costs 7

GSA Does Not Fully Consider O&M and Functionality Effects 

When Making Design Choices 14

GSA Does Not Systematically Collect and Share Information on 

Common O&M Cost Experiences That Could Affect Design 

Choices 25

Conclusions 32

Recommendations for Executive Action 32

Agency Comments 33

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix II Buildings Constructed under the General Services Administration’s 

(GSA) Design Excellence Program 40

Appendix III Survey of General Services Administration (GSA) Building 

Managers and Summarized Results 43

Appendix IV Comments from the General Services Administration 58

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 61

Tables

Table 1: Number of Design Excellence Buildings Where Building 

Managers Indicated That a Design Choice Increased 

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs 10

Table 2: Design Excellence Buildings Where Building Managers 

Indicated a Design Choice That Increased Operations and 

Maintenance (O&M) Costs and Did Not Further Improve 

Functionality 20

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Table 3: Design Excellence Buildings Selected for GAO Site Visits 36

Table 4: Information on Buildings Constructed under the General 

Services Administration’s (GSA) Design Excellence 

Program 40

Figures

Figure 1: Selected Courthouses and Federal Buildings 

Constructed under the General Services Administration’s 

(GSA) Design Excellence Program 7

Figure 2: Design Excellence Buildings with Durable and Easily 

Maintained Materials and Finishes, Low Maintenance 

Landscaping, and Increased Natural Light, according to 

Building Managers 9

Figure 3: Separate Structure in a Design Excellence Building That 

Increased Operations and Maintenance Costs, according 

to Building Managers 11

Figure 4: Lobby in a Design Excellence Building That Increased 

Operations and Maintenance Costs, according to Building 

Managers 12

Figure 5: Large, Custom Windows in a Design Excellence Building 

That Increased Operations and Maintenance Costs, 

according to Building Managers 13

Figure 6: Design Choice in a Tenant Mission Space That 

Increased Operations and Maintenance Costs in a 

Design Excellence Building, according to Building 

Managers 14

Figure 7: Cumulative Construction and Projected O&M Costs for 

the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Design 

Excellence Buildings Constructed between 1996 and 

2016 18

Figure 8: Design Excellence Building with a Publicly Visible 

Exterior and Interior 22

Figure 9: Design Excellence Building with a Publicly Visible 

Exterior and Publicly Restricted Interior 23

Figure 10: Design Excellence Buildings with Obstructed Exterior 

Views and Publicly Restricted Interiors 24

Figure 11: Design Excellence Buildings with Inefficiently Located 

Mechanical Systems, according to Building Managers 27

Figure 12: Design Excellence buildings with Difficult to Access 

Interior Lights, according to Building Managers 28
Page iii GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 13: Design Excellence Buildings Using Unique, Difficult to 

Maintain Finishes and Exterior Surfaces, according to 

Building Managers 30

Figure 14: Design Excellence Buildings That Are Challenging to 

Clean Due to Chosen Windows and Surface Materials, 

according to Building Managers 31

Abbreviations

FRPP Federal Real Property Profile 

GSA General Services Administration 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 

LED light-emitting diode 

O&M operations and maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

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 1 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 22, 2018 

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable James Lankford

Chairman

The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

United States Senate

Since 1994, the General Services Administration (GSA) has spent more 

than $8 billion to construct 78 new federal courthouses and office 

buildings through the Design Excellence Program. Under this program, 

GSA works with private-sector architects, interior designers, engineers, 

and construction firms to plan buildings that meet the needs of

government agencies while also meeting certain design principles, such 

as visually representing the dignity of the federal government and 

avoiding uniformity. Beyond construction costs, some design choices, 

such as multistory atriums, can also affect how much the government 

spends for ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the

buildings. Design choices also can affect functionality of the building for

government workers and the public.1 Understanding how GSA considers

the tradeoffs between aesthetics, costs, and functionality is important as

the agency embarks on construction projects, including current plans to

spend billions of dollars more to construct courthouses and other federal

buildings.

1

We define functionality as the extent to which a building allows the tenant to efficiently 

meet its mission.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

You asked us to evaluate GSA’s ability to manage O&M costs for federal 

buildings constructed under the Design Excellence Program. This report 

assesses the extent to which:

• GSA made design choices that affect O&M costs;

• GSA considers O&M costs and functionality when planning and 

designing buildings; and

• GSA systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs 

related to design choices in existing buildings.

Our review focused on the 78 federal buildings and courthouses that GSA 

has constructed under the Design Excellence Program—referred to as 

“Design Excellence buildings”—since the program started in 1994.2 To 

address our objectives, we administered a web-based survey to the GSA 

building managers of these 78 Design Excellence buildings and achieved 

a response rate of 100 percent. The survey asked for information on the 

extent to which certain design choices affect O&M costs and building 

functionality. We also visited 10 Design Excellence buildings in three GSA 

regions to view design choices and O&M activities. We interviewed tenant 

agencies located in these buildings, GSA building managers responsible 

for managing these buildings, and officials from GSA regional offices with 

oversight responsibilities for these buildings. To ensure geographic and 

agency diversity, we selected our site-visit locations based on several 

factors, including location and the tenant agency. Although not 

generalizable to all Design Excellence buildings, information gathered 

from our site visits shows how O&M costs were considered in specific 

buildings and the effects of design choices.

To address our objectives, we also examined relevant GSA documents 

pertaining to all buildings included in our review, including those detailing 

investment needs for maintenance and repairs and evaluations 

commissioned by GSA on, for example, how well these buildings comply 

with building standards and their overall performance. We also reviewed 

applicable federal regulations and guidance, including GSA procedures, 

policies and standards for designing, constructing, and operating federal 

facilities; our prior work; and reports by other federal agencies and related 

industry associations on topics including the standard costs of operating 

 2

Based on input from GSA officials indicating that large campuses were unlikely to have 

reliable O&M data, we excluded 9 buildings included on the White Oak Campus in Silver 

Spring, MD from our review. Therefore, when we refer to the 78 Design Excellence 

buildings in our review, this figure does not include these 9 buildings. 
Page 3 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

and maintaining office buildings. We collected information on the extent to 

which Design Excellence buildings are visible and accessible to the public 

and analyzed GSA data on project construction and O&M costs from 

2000 to 2016.3 We assessed the reliability of these data through 

electronic testing and a review of documentation on the data and 

determined that the data were reliable for the purpose of illustrating the 

extent to which O&M costs make up total building costs.

In addition, we interviewed GSA officials located in the Washington, D.C., 

headquarters office and in four of GSA’s 11 regional offices. We selected 

regional offices based on the location of our site visits and included one 

additional regional office based on its having the highest total O&Moperating costs of the remaining eight regional offices. With GSA officials, 

we discussed several topics including how O&M costs were considered 

during planning and design and how information on design choices’ O&M 

costs are shared. We compared GSA’s efforts to consider O&M costs and 

functionality when planning and designing these buildings and their 

process for collecting and sharing O&M information across these 

buildings to the federal standards for internal control related to using 

complete and relevant information when making decisions and designing

control activities and internal communications. We also compared GSA’s 

efforts to consider O&M costs in the planning and design of these 

buildings to guidance from GSA and the Office of Management and 

Budget.4 Further details on our scope and methodology can be found in 

appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to May 2018 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

 3

In addition to our analysis of GSA data on project construction and O&M costs from 2000 

to 2016, we also analyzed GSA and Department of Labor data from 2014 to 2016 of 

buildings under GSA custody and control that were 40 years old or less, which indicated 

O&M costs can be explained by building size and differences in wages paid for O&M 

services across geographic locations. We were not able to draw statistically significant 

conclusions about whether Design Excellence buildings had higher O&M costs than 

similar non-Design Excellence buildings. 

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014) and Office of Management and Budget, OMB 

Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, (Washington DC: Dec. 

21, 2004); Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, PBS-P100 (April 2017); 

and OMB, Capital Programming Guide V 3.0; Supplement to Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A-11: Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets, 2017, 

(Washington, D.C.).
Page 4 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

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.

The federal government is the largest real property owner in the United 

States with a vast inventory costing billions of dollars annually to operate 

and maintain. Federally owned buildings include courthouses, offices, 

warehouses, schools, hospitals, housing, data centers, and laboratories, 

among other things. GSA acts as the federal government’s landlord, and 

is responsible for designing, constructing, and managing federal buildings 

for other federal agencies and the judiciary to occupy.5 There are 

currently approximately 1,600 federally owned buildings under GSA’s 

custody and control.

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies, 

including GSA, should have accurate information on acquisition and 

“lifecycle” costs of current and proposed assets, including costs for 

designing and constructing the building, O&M, and disposal.6 For 

example, when planning and designing new federal buildings, GSA must 

analyze building energy and water systems (e.g., for air conditioning and 

heating) to identify those with the lowest acquisition and operating costs.7

In addition, once the building is constructed, GSA building managers and 

O&M contractors are responsible for maintaining the building, which 

includes tasks related to recurring maintenance and repair (e.g., on 

heating and cooling systems), maintaining the property’s roads and 

grounds, cleaning and janitorial services, and paying for utilities.

 5

According to GSA officials, federal buildings, such as courthouses, must adhere to 

numerous, specific design guidelines for aesthetics, security, interior circulation, 

mechanical and electrical systems, and other things. GSA officials also stated that these 

guidelines make it difficult to compare construction and O&M costs of federal buildings to 

private sector buildings.

6

OMB defines lifecycle costs as “all direct and indirect initial costs, including planning and 

other costs or procurement; all periodic or continuing costs of operations and 

maintenance; and costs of decommissioning and disposal.” OMB, Capital Programming 

Guide V 3.0; Supplement to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11: Planning, 

Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets, (Washington, D.C.: 2017).

7

GSA, Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, PBS-100 (Washington, D.C.: 

April 2017).

Background
Page 5 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

In 1994, GSA instituted the Design Excellence Program, a process for 

designing, constructing, renovating, altering, and repairing federal 

courthouses and office buildings. This program was developed in 

response to criticisms that federal buildings lacked architectural 

distinction. It stresses creativity in the design of buildings with the intent of 

constructing spaces that meet the tenant’s functional needs while also 

becoming public landmarks. More specifically, the program aims to meet 

several guidelines—called the Guiding Principles for Federal 

Architecture— including designing spaces that:

• reflect the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the U.S. 

government;

• avoid uniformity; and

• are built in locations in which federal buildings can be incorporated 

into the existing public streets and landscape.8

According to GSA officials, the Design Excellence Program also 

streamlines how GSA selects and manages the private-sector architects 

and engineering firms it hires for new projects. The process consists of 

four primary stages:

• planning for the prospective tenant’s needs and general project details 

(e.g., request for proposal announcement);

• selecting and working with an architectural and engineering firm to 

design the building;

• selecting a contractor to construct the building; and

• occupancy by the tenants.

The process is overseen by a GSA project team, consisting of a project 

manager, contracting officer, officials from GSA’s Office of the Chief 

Architect, and additional subject matter experts, who work with the federal 

tenant that plans to occupy the space.

A large number of the federal courthouses and office buildings 

constructed and controlled by GSA in the last 20 years have been 

 8

U.S. House Committee on Public Works, Report to the President by the Ad Hoc 

Committee on Federal Office Space (Washington D.C.: June 1, 1962).
Page 6 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

completed under the Design Excellence Program.9 Under the program, 

GSA has constructed 78 facilities including 62 courthouses and 16 federal 

office buildings, including a data center and laboratories.10 These 

buildings account for more than 36-million square feet of space, are 

located in 33 states and the District of Columbia, and many have won 

architecture and design awards. Figure 1 shows examples of federal 

courthouses and office buildings constructed under the Design 

Excellence Program.

 9

In the last 20 years GSA has constructed 34 facilities outside of the Design Excellence 

Program. Thirty of these facilities are relatively small (under 20,000 square feet) or 

modular structures that were not designed as permanent courthouses or federal buildings. 

The other four facilities—two courthouses and two federal buildings—were constructed 

more than 15 years ago and had completed substantial planning efforts before the Design 

Excellence Program was created. GSA has also constructed a number of land ports of 

entry, which are used to monitor trade and process citizens, visitors and immigrants.

10As noted above, we excluded nine buildings constructed under the Design Excellence 

Program from our review because they were unlikely to have reliable O&M data. See 

appendix II for the full list of buildings constructed under the Design Excellence Program 

that we included in our review.
Page 7 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 1: Selected Courthouses and Federal Buildings Constructed under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) 

Design Excellence Program

According to interviews with GSA officials and building tenants, GSA has 

made choices in some Design Excellence buildings intended to reduce 

long-term O&M costs. For example:

GSA Made Design 

Choices That 

Decreased and 

Increased O&M Costs

Some GSA Design 

Choices Have Decreased 

O&M Costs
Page 8 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

• Increased natural light. All 10 of the Design Excellence buildings we 

visited were designed to include interior natural light, which some 

building managers reported reduced energy costs. According to GSA 

officials, natural light is not only aesthetically pleasing; it also 

improves lighting quality for building tenants and reduces lighting 

costs. For example, the First Street Federal Courthouse (Los Angeles,

California) has a light well as part of its atrium and a serrated glass 

façade that maximizes natural light. Building officials said that 22 of 

the 24 courtrooms in the building receive natural light from multiple 

sources, reducing energy usage and requiring less frequent 

replacement of lighting. In addition, building officials at the Albert 

Armendariz, Sr., U.S. Courthouse (El Paso, Texas) reported extensive 

natural light from a three story window wall and the front atrium; both 

features provide ample light for building tenants. (See fig. 2).

• Durable and easily maintained materials and finishes. In most of the 

10 Design Excellence buildings we visited, GSA officials and building 

tenants reported selecting materials and finishes that (1) are highly 

durable and easy and inexpensive to clean; (2) are expected to last a 

long time; and (3) required little maintenance. For example, the lobby 

walls and floors of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and 

Courthouse (Santa Ana, California) are made out of travertine, a very 

durable stone, which has lasted more than 15 years without the need 

for repairs or replacement. In addition, officials at a few buildings 

noted that the decision to install carpet tiles in lieu of large patches of 

carpet has made it very easy and relatively inexpensive to maintain 

and repair office spaces and courtrooms.

• Low-maintenance landscaping. Several of the 10 Design Excellence 

buildings we visited incorporated native flora into the landscape 

design, which can reduce energy and water costs. For example, 

officials planted native, drought resistant plants around the First Street 

Federal Courthouse (Los Angeles, California). Building officials at the 

Las Cruces U.S. Courthouse (Las Cruces, New Mexico), which is 

located in a desert environment, also reported most of the native 

landscape around the courthouse does not require watering.
Page 9 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 2: Design Excellence Buildings with Durable and Easily Maintained Materials 

and Finishes, Low Maintenance Landscaping, and Increased Natural Light, 

according to Building Managers

According to our survey respondents—building managers at all 78 Design 

Excellence buildings included in our review—certain GSA design choices, 

such as multistory atriums and custom windows, have resulted in 

increased O&M costs compared to an average GSA building without 

Some GSA Design 

Choices Have Increased 

O&M Costs
Page 10 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

those features.11 Almost all Design Excellence building managers (76 out 

of 78) reported that certain design choices resulted in increased O&M 

costs that would not have occurred had that design choice not been 

selected. For example, 67 out of 78 building managers for Design 

Excellence buildings stated that the effect of including multistory open 

spaces, like atriums, increased O&M costs due to the challenges 

associated with heating and cooling, making needed repairs, and 

cleaning these spaces. (See table 1). Building managers and tenants we 

spoke with confirmed our survey results, and provided examples of 

design choices that resulted in unexpected O&M cost increases. For 

example, officials noted increased O&M costs associated with separate 

structures and multistory atriums that were difficult to access for cleaning 

and repairs.

Table 1: Number of Design Excellence Buildings Where Building Managers Indicated That a Design Choice Increased 

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Design choice Number of buildings that 

included design choice

Number with 

increased 

O&M costs

Percentage of buildings in 

which design choice 

increased O&M costs

An attached, but separate structure (e.g., pavilion, 

rotunda)

21 19 90%

Vertical penetrations (e.g., multistory atriums, lobbies) 78 67 86%

Window choice 78 65 83%

Mission space design (e.g., courtrooms, control 

centers)

76 48 63%

Energy efficient elements (e.g., solar panels and 

green roofs)

31 19 61%

Courtyard design 49 28 57%

Flooring choice 78 41 53%

Circulation design (e.g., hallways, stairways, 

elevators)

78 40 51%

Source: Analysis of GAO survey results. | GAO-18-420

Note: We received responses from building managers at all 78 Design Excellence buildings included 

in our review. The results in this table do not include building managers who reported that design 

choices were not applicable to their building. For example, 49 of 78 building managers reported that a 

courtyard was included as a design choice in their building but 29 building managers indicated that a 

 11We asked survey respondents to use their judgement on whether a design choice 

increased, decreased, or had no impact on O&M costs. We did not ask them to quantify 

the size of the increase or decrease or to identify a baseline cost. See appendix I for more 

details on our survey methodology and appendix III for a copy of the survey and 

summarized responses.
Page 11 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

courtyard was not an applicable design feature in their building. As a result, we did not include in this 

table responses from these 29 managers.

Separate Structures. Managers from only 21 of 78 Design Excellence 

buildings reported having an attached, but separate structure (e.g., 

pavilions, rotundas, restaurants, and other additional spaces connected to 

the building), but managers at 19 of those buildings stated that the effect 

of such design features increased O&M costs. For example, one federal 

building we visited had a rotunda with a domed roof that, according to 

building managers, has multiple gutter leaks that are not currently 

accessible due to the design of the space. As a result, maintenance staff 

continuously patch the ceiling without addressing the cause of the leaks 

(see fig. 3).

Figure 3: Separate Structure in a Design Excellence Building That Increased Operations and Maintenance Costs, according to 

Building Managers

Atriums and Lobbies. Managers from 67 of 78 Design Excellence 

buildings reported their buildings’ multistory atriums and lobbies 

increased O&M costs. Several GSA managers we interviewed identified 

additional costs to maintain a multistory atrium or lobby, including costs 

for renting expensive scaffolding or mechanical lifts. For example, one 

Design Excellence building we visited has water leaks in the lobby ceiling, 

which can only be reached by extensive and expensive scaffolding (see 

fig. 4).
Page 12 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 4: Lobby in a Design Excellence Building That Increased Operations and 

Maintenance Costs, according to Building Managers

Large, Custom Windows. Managers from 65 of 78 Design Excellence 

buildings reported that the effect of design choices related to their 

buildings’ windows increased O&M costs. In addition, several Design 

Excellence buildings we visited had custom or uniquely shaped windows, 

which occasionally increased the costs to replace, repair, or maintain 

them. For example, GSA officials at one courthouse reported repairing 

one two-story, custom-made window pane, which cost $80,000 to 

fabricate and $50,000 to install. The courthouse had eight of these 

windows, and a GSA official stated that the windows are an attractive 

feature of the building that introduced natural light, but a different window 

choice would have been cheaper to maintain (see fig. 5).
Page 13 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 5: Large, Custom Windows in a Design Excellence Building That Increased 

Operations and Maintenance Costs, according to Building Managers

Mission Spaces. Managers from 48 Design Excellence buildings reported 

that the effect of design choices related to mission spaces (i.e., spaces in 

which federal employees conduct work) increased O&M costs. 

Specifically, managers from 32 buildings stated that design choices made 

in mission spaces increased repair costs, and managers from 30 

buildings reported increased cleaning costs. GSA officials at several 

buildings we visited discussed challenges accessing and maintaining 

mechanical systems incorporated into tenant mission spaces. For 

example, one Design Excellence building includes a heating, ventilation, 

and air-conditioning (HVAC) system that is hidden under a raised floor 

within mission spaces. Because building managers cannot easily access 

the system, there are maintenance delays and challenges identifying and 

making necessary repairs, which ultimately result in higher O&M costs. 

Building officials reported they considered replacing the HVAC system, 

but doing so would cost approximately $55 million. (See fig. 6).
Page 14 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 6: Design Choice in a Tenant Mission Space That Increased Operations and 

Maintenance Costs in a Design Excellence Building, according to Building 

Managers

Other Design Choices. According to Design Excellence building 

managers that responded to our survey and at locations we visited, the 

effect of several other design choices including energy efficient elements 

(e.g., solar panels and green roofs), courtyards, floors, and circulation 

(e.g., hallways, stairways, and elevators) increased O&M costs. For 

example, according to these officials, (1) the design of green roofs led to 

water leaks; (2) the design of courtyards led to problems maintaining 

unique landscaping; (3) flooring choices, specifically selected materials, 

led to premature scuffing and cracking; and (4) the design of hallways 

and stairways made them difficult to maintain.

With the Design Excellence Program, GSA aims to create buildings that 

are cost-effective and function well for tenants. However, GSA makes 

design choices for Design Excellence buildings during the planning and 

design stages of new projects without fully considering the effect of these 

choices on O&M costs and functionality.

GSA Does Not Fully 

Consider O&M and 

Functionality Effects

When Making Design 

Choices
Page 15 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

GSA does not estimate most O&M costs during planning and design. 

Specifically, according to GSA officials we interviewed and planning 

documents we reviewed, when planning and designing new buildings, 

officials estimate the costs of major energy systems, such as boilers and 

chillers. However, based on our review of GSA and industry data, these 

systems only account for about one-third of O&M costs in Design 

Excellence buildings. GSA officials stated that they do not estimate the 

remaining two-thirds of O&M costs—which include maintenance, 

cleaning, and landscaping—until late in the building’s construction.12

However, GSA officials also said that it would be costly to make 

significant design changes at that point in the process. In addition, the 

O&M estimates for maintenance, cleaning, and landscaping are for the 

purpose of selecting a contractor to provide these services, not as a 

means for addressing or reducing future O&M costs, according to 

officials.

GSA building and regional managers who are responsible for addressing 

the O&M consequences of design choices told us that they were not 

always integrated or asked to participate in planning and designing new 

Design Excellence buildings. Specifically, GSA building and regional 

managers at several of the buildings we visited stated that they were 

never, or seldom, consulted on O&M costs and issues during the design 

process, nor did they have an opportunity to review design documents. A 

few GSA building managers we spoke with stated that on rare occasions 

when they were consulted their input was rarely incorporated, or was 

requested too late in the construction stage to allow for necessary 

changes. According to these officials, if given the chance, they could have 

highlighted issues with certain design choices that would significantly 

increase O&M costs and could have offered potential solutions to reduce 

those costs. Officials responsible for overseeing the Design Excellence 

Program told us that other officials with an understanding of issues 

surrounding O&M are involved in the process for designing new buildings 

through, for example, subject matter reviews of the design concepts. 

Officials agreed, however, that more could be done to formally involve the 

perspective of facilities staff, such as building managers, who are 

responsible for the day-to-day management of O&M.

 12These percentages are based on GSA’s O&M data for Design Excellence buildings from 

2000–2016. Industry data, which include information on federal and private-sector 

buildings, indicate that non-energy costs for large federal buildings are approximately 60 

percent, i.e., almost two-thirds, of O&M costs. See Building Owners Management 

Association, Office Experience Exchange Report (Washington, DC: 2017). 

GSA Does Not Fully 

Consider How Design 

Choices Affect O&M Costs
Page 16 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

We found that GSA’s lack of consideration of how design choices may 

affect the O&M costs of Design Excellence buildings could be attributed 

to existing procedures that do not emphasize the need to consider such 

costs during the planning and design stage. Specifically, GSA’s 

procedures for planning, designing, and constructing new Design 

Excellence buildings focus on design creativity, construction challenges, 

budget, and schedule and do not direct GSA to estimate O&M costs 

during planning and design.13 While these procedures promote several 

factors to consider in a building’s design—including aesthetics, 

functionality, and constructability—and generally require firms to submit 

documentation on budget and schedule, they do not call for information 

on expected O&M costs. In addition, these procedures do not include

seeking input on design decisions from facilities personnel who will have 

responsibility for the ongoing O&M once the building is occupied.

Federal standards for internal control state that federal agencies should 

use complete and relevant information when making decisions and 

design control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives.14

These federal standards also state that federal agencies should ensure 

the communication of information internally, for example through 

procedures that allow management to receive quality information from 

personnel, to help achieve the entity’s objectives. In addition, guidance 

from GSA and the Office of Management and Budget directs officials to 

consider and strive for the lowest possible costs, including O&M costs, 

when designing buildings.15

Information on how specific design choices could affect ongoing O&M 

costs would allow GSA to better understand the impact of those choices. 

Such information is critical as O&M accounts for a significant proportion of 

resources dedicated to federal buildings over the long-term. According to 

GSA and industry associations, O&M costs are significantly higher over 

 13GSA, Design Excellence Policies and Procedures (Washington DC: Jan. 1, 2005; 

updated Feb. 2016).

14GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014) and Office of Management and Budget, 

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, OMB Circular A-123 (Washington DC: 

Dec. 21, 2004).

15Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, PBS-P100 (April 2017); and OMB, 

Capital Programming Guide V 3.0; Supplement to Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-11: Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets, (Washington, D.C.: 

2017).
Page 17 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

time than all other costs, including for construction, and typically account 

for between 60 and 80 percent of building lifecycle costs.16 To illustrate 

this point, we analyzed GSA construction and O&M data for Design 

Excellence buildings. As figure 7 shows, we estimate that over an 

average building’s age (60 years) the total construction and O&M costs 

for GSA’s 78 existing Design Excellence buildings could be about $18 

billion—$8.1 billion for construction (45 percent) and $9.9 billion for O&M 

(55 percent).17 Because GSA’s procedures do not direct officials to 

estimate about two-thirds of O&M costs or fully integrate officials with an 

understanding of the O&M consequences of design decisions, officials 

may not have been aware of how design choices would affect 

approximately $6.6 billion (two-thirds of $9.9 billion) in O&M costs. In 

addition, without procedures that clearly emphasize the need to more fully 

consider O&M costs in Design Excellence buildings during the planning 

and design stage, GSA and other stakeholders may not have a complete 

picture of all relevant information necessary to make informed decisions 

on how to best design future federal buildings.

 16See GSA, Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, PBS-100 (Washington, 

D.C.: April 2017); National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide, 

December 5, 2017; and The Builder’s Association, Total Cost of Ownership, Feb.1, 2013.

17Our projection aggregates construction costs (1996 to 2016), as well as O&M costs 

(2000 to 2016) in nominal terms, and assumes the annual O&M costs grow from 2017 to 

2061 at 2016 levels. This simple analysis is for illustrative purpose and is not a lifecycle 

cost computation, which typically includes use of net present value. In addition, these data 

exclude construction and O&M costs for the First Street Federal Courthouse because it 

was recently constructed and there was insufficient O&M data. The data also exclude the 

Theodore Roosevelt U.S. Courthouse because GSA could not provide accurate 

construction cost data.
Page 18 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 7: Cumulative Construction and Projected O&M Costs for the General 

Services Administration’s (GSA) Design Excellence Buildings Constructed between 

1996 and 2016

Notes: We projected O&M costs based on 2016 costs, and average GSA building age.

Our projection aggregates construction costs (1996 to 2016), as well as O&M costs (2000 to 2016) in 

nominal terms, and assumes the annual O&M costs grow from 2017 to 2061 at 2016 levels. This 

simple analysis is for illustrative purpose and is not a lifecycle cost computation, which typically 

includes use of net present value.

While several buildings were constructed in the late 1990s, GSA did not begin to collect O&M cost 

data in its current database until 2000 and, as a result, O&M costs in this figure are likely 

underreported.

This figure excludes construction and O&M costs for the First Street Federal Courthouse because it 

was recently constructed and there was insufficient O&M data. The figure also excludes the Theodore 

Roosevelt U.S. Courthouse because GSA could not provide accurate construction cost data.

GSA realizes that the focus of Design Excellence projects has been on 

design and construction, not O&M costs, and, in September 2017, 

initiated a process, called “Operational Excellence”, to more fully consider 

O&M costs. This process includes considering ways to more fully 

consider O&M costs during planning and design, including developing a 

cost tool that would estimate future O&M costs. In addition, GSA is 

considering ways to update existing procedures for designing and 

constructing new buildings to include a more comprehensive evaluation of 

potential O&M costs, for example, by more fully integrating 
Page 19 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

knowledgeable personnel at key stages. However, according to GSA 

officials, they are still in the early stages of determining what needs to be 

done in part due to a small staff, which includes one full-time employee 

and one part-time employee. As of March 2018, GSA has not established 

a schedule for updating its procedures to require considering O&M during 

design.

Most design choices made for Design Excellence buildings, including the 

shape and size of courtrooms and the lighting in hallways, have had a 

positive effect on overall building functionality (i.e., helped the tenant 

agency achieve its mission), according to officials we surveyed and 

interviewed. For example, GSA building managers we surveyed reported 

the functionality of at least one design choice in most buildings (72 of 78 

buildings) as good or very good. Specifically, they reported that in most 

buildings, the overall functionality of design choices was good in many of 

the areas we asked them about. In addition, building managers reported 

that the functionality of the following design choices was also good or 

very good:

• selected material color (53 buildings) and lighting (58 buildings);

• shape and size of the space (61 buildings);

• pedestrian circulation (61 buildings); and

• temperature control in the areas critical for a building’s operation, 

such as courtrooms or office space (46 buildings).

GSA and tenant agency officials whom we interviewed were also positive 

about how the design choices affected the functionality of their buildings, 

especially the use of windows and atriums to allow natural light. Tenants 

also reported they enjoyed other features of the new buildings, including 

commissioned artwork and the design of the interior and exterior. 

Tenants’ satisfaction with the function of Design Excellence buildings 

may, in part, reflect the condition of their previous office space. For 

example, one tenant noted that moving from temporary trailers into a 

state-of-the-art courthouse was a substantial functional improvement.

However, we found that increased spending on certain design choices did 

not always provide improved functionality for the building tenant. For 

example, GSA building managers reported that in many buildings (67 of 

78) atriums and lobbies (i.e., vertical penetrations) have increased O&M 

costs due to higher repair, cleaning, and energy costs. At the same time, 

building managers reported that in 51 of those 67 buildings, choices 

Design Excellence 

Buildings Generally 

Function Well, but Some 

Costly Design Choices Did 

Not Improve Functionality
Page 20 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

made in the design of multistory atriums and lobbies, e.g., material color 

and lighting, did not have a positive effect on building functionality (see 

table 2).18 Similarly, the decision to install solar panels and green roofs 

(e.g., energy efficient elements), increased O&M costs in several areas, 

particularly repair costs, but in over half of the buildings with these 

features, building managers did not report an improvement in 

functionality. For example, in two courthouses we visited solar panels 

installed with the intention of saving on energy costs are not supplying as 

much power as expected and, therefore, have not yet provided the 

expected energy benefits.

Table 2: Design Excellence Buildings Where Building Managers Indicated a Design Choice That Increased Operations and 

Maintenance (O&M) Costs and Did Not Further Improve Functionality

Design choice Number with 

increased 

O&M cost

Increased cost and did 

not further improve 

functionality

Percentage of buildings in which design 

choice increased O&M cost and did not 

further improve functionality

Vertical penetrations (e.g., atriums, 

lobbies)

67 51 76%

Energy efficient elements (e.g., 

solar panels, green roofs)

19 12 63%

An attached, but separate structure 

(e.g., pavilion, rotunda)

19 12 63%

Mission space design (e.g., 

courtrooms, control centers)

48 28 58%

Circulation design (e.g., hallways, 

stairways, elevators)

40 22 55%

Courtyard design 28 14 50%

Source: Analysis of GAO survey results. | GAO-18-420

Notes: This table presents information on whether or not respondents indicated a design choice 

increased O&M costs and whether aspects of those choices, e.g. material color, lighting, and 

pedestrian circulation, also did not further improve functionality. These responses do not preclude 

that a specific design choice may be functional or have a functional benefit. For example, mission 

spaces, such as offices and courtrooms, are functional for conducting government business, and 

separate structures may serve key security functions, e.g., a place for security screening facilities that 

are physically located away from the main building.

 18These are responses in which GSA building managers indicated a design choice 

increased O&M costs and whether aspects of those choices—e.g. material color, lighting, 

and pedestrian circulation—did not further improve functionality. These responses do not 

preclude that a specific design choice may be functional or have a functional benefit. For 

example, mission spaces, such as offices and courtrooms, are functional for conducting 

government business, and separate structures may serve key security functions, e.g., a 

place for security-screening facilities that are physically located away from the main 

building.
Page 21 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

We received responses from building managers for all 78 Design Excellence buildings included in our 

review. The results in this table do not include building managers that reported certain design choices 

are not applicable to their building or did not increase O&M costs. For example, 48 out of 78 building 

managers reported that mission spaces increased O&M costs. We did not include responses on 

functional benefits from the 30 building managers who indicated that mission spaces did not increase 

O&M costs or this design choice was not applicable to their building.

Tenants we interviewed also noted that in some cases, design choices 

have not functioned well and are costly to maintain and operate. 

According to a tenant at one Design Excellence office building, while the 

decision to construct a multistory atrium has added aesthetic value for 

federal employees, it has also resulted in challenges balancing air 

pressure between the atrium and the adjacent office spaces. These 

differences in air pressure have resulted in uncomfortable working 

conditions, such as fluctuating temperatures, which have hampered 

productivity. Another tenant told us about design choices such as long 

hallways and elevators that do not stop at all floors, making it difficult for 

tenant employees to move efficiently through the building. Some of these 

design choices, such as elevators with mechanical systems at the bottom 

of the elevator shaft, have proven costly to maintain as they age more 

quickly. Other tenants noted that the selection of heating and cooling 

systems, which automatically adjust building temperatures based on time 

of day, for example, have not functioned as planned, resulting in variable 

temperatures and employee discomfort.

In addition, GSA has sometimes made design choices in buildings that do 

not apply to one of the primary functional goals of the Design Excellence 

Program—to serve as a landmark that positively represents the federal 

government to the public. Specifically, GSA does not consider that some 

buildings, due to their purpose or location, are unlikely to function as 

landmarks because they have limited interaction with or limited visibility 

by the public. In this regard, we found that most Design Excellence 

buildings (66 of 78) are visible and accessible to the general public, i.e., 

“public-facing”.

19 Many of these buildings have succeeded in becoming 

public landmarks and several have won awards for their design. 

Specifically,

• 62 serve as courthouses, which are visible from public streets and 

people may enter to observe judicial proceedings or conduct personal 

 19GSA defines a public-facing building as one with a primary mission to serve and interact 

with the public.
Page 22 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

business.20 See figure 8 for an example of a Design Excellence 

courthouse with publicly visible exteriors and interiors.

• Four serve as office buildings for various federal agencies that are 

publicly accessible.21

Figure 8: Design Excellence Building with a Publicly Visible Exterior and Interior

In contrast, we found that 12 Design Excellence office buildings restrict 

the public from accessing interior spaces. Specifically,

• Seven can be seen from public sidewalks or roads, even though the 

building is not open to the public, such as the U.S. Secret Service 

Headquarters and FBI field office buildings. As a result, these 

buildings’ exteriors could be public landmarks that represent the 

federal government, but the interior design features are not publicly 

 20While courthouses do not limit public entry, there are areas of these buildings that will 

not be accessible to the public. For example, judges’ chambers are not open to the public.

21These buildings are (1) the David Skaggs Federal Building in Boulder, Colorado; (2) the 

San Francisco Federal Building in San Francisco, California; (3) the Ronald Reagan 

Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C.; and (4) the Oklahoma City 

Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Page 23 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

accessible.22 For example, the Ronald H. Brown U.S. Mission to the 

United Nations Building in New York City has an impressive and 

publicly visible exterior façade but restricts public access to a multistory rotunda and art space (see fig. 9).

Figure 9: Design Excellence Building with a Publicly Visible Exterior and Publicly Restricted Interior

• Five have obstructed views from public roads and sidewalks in 

addition to restricting public access to the interior.23 Neither the 

exterior nor interior design choices, which can be expensive to 

operate and maintain, in these buildings can be seen or appreciated 

by the public. For example, according to the tenant agency and GSA 

officials, the visually impressive interior atrium and courtyard at the 

Ariel Rios Federal Building have proven logistically challenging and 

expensive to maintain and are not accessible to the public. In addition, 

 22These buildings are (1) the U.S. Secret Service Headquarters in Washington, D.C.; (2) 

the Benjamin P. Grogan and Jerry L. Dove Federal Building in Miramar, Florida; (3) the 

Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building in College Park, Maryland; (4) the FBI Houston Field 

Office in Houston, Texas; (5) the FBI Washington Field Office Memorial Building in 

Washington, D.C.; (6) the New Carrollton Federal Building in Lanham, Maryland; and (7) 

the Ronald H. Brown U.S. Mission to the United Nations Building in New York City, New 

York. 

23These buildings are (1) the Ariel Rios Federal Building in Washington, D.C.; (2) the 

Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building in Washington, DC; (3) the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite Operations Facility in Suitland, 

Maryland; (4) the U.S. Census Bureau Headquarters in Suitland, Maryland; and (5) the 

Federal Center South in Seattle, Washington.
Page 24 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

the façade of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Satellite Operations Facility, which, according to GSA officials, is 

expensive to maintain and repair, is not accessible by the public. (See 

fig. 10).

Figure 10: Design Excellence Buildings with Obstructed Exterior Views and Publicly Restricted Interiors

According to GSA officials, when they carry out their planning and design 

for Design Excellence buildings, they do not differentiate between 

buildings that will be public-facing and those that will not. This approach 

may be in part due to the fact that GSA’s procedures for planning and 

designing new Design Excellence buildings do not call for consideration 

of how design choices may have different functional benefits, including 

whether the interior and exterior of planned buildings would be accessible 

to the public. Federal standards for internal control state that federal 

agencies should use complete and relevant information when making 

decisions and designing control activities, including procedures to achieve 
Page 25 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

objectives.24 By taking a “one size fits all” approach and not considering 

the functionality of design choices, such as how a building’s location and 

intended use will affect the public’s ability to see the exterior and interior, 

GSA may be selecting design choices that increase O&M costs without 

improving functionality.

According to GSA officials, GSA currently does not systematically collect 

and share information on how design choices made for previous Design 

Excellence projects have affected O&M costs with the project teams—

consisting of a project manager, contracting officer, and other GSA 

officials—that are responsible for overseeing the planning and design of 

new buildings. GSA has evaluated what is and is not working effectively 

in some existing Design Excellence buildings and has on occasion shared 

these evaluations with project teams. For example, GSA has evaluated 

the performance of 6 out of 78 Design Excellence buildings. These 

evaluations included identifying design decisions that led to higher O&M 

costs and, on one occasion, developed a formal presentation to share 

these lessons with the team working on a new Design Excellence project.

According to officials, GSA requires agency personnel with subject matter 

expertise to review building design concepts provided by private-sector 

architects and engineers. GSA also fosters information sharing through 

procedures that encourage project teams to exchange ideas, lessons 

learned, and concerns. However, these processes either (1) are not done 

in a consistent or systematic way, or (2) require information sharing 

among a small group of officials, i.e., a project team, which might not 

have visibility over the extensive design choices made in all existing 

buildings. While all of these information-sharing initiatives offer benefits, 

GSA’s procedures do not include a systematic collection and sharing of 

information with the project teams responsible for managing new Design 

Excellence projects on how design choices affected O&M costs in 

existing Design Excellence buildings. According to GSA officials, they are 

considering formalizing this sort of information collection and sharing as 

part of the Operational Excellence process, but as previously noted, GSA 

is in the early stages of setting up this initiative and has not established a 

schedule for completing its actions or updating its procedures.

 24GAO-14-704G.

GSA Does Not 

Systematically Collect 

and Share 

Information on 

Common O&M Cost 

Experiences That 

Could Affect Design 

Choices
Page 26 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

As discussed, some design choices in existing Design Excellence 

buildings have decreased or increased O&M costs. Since GSA does not 

systematically share how these types of design choices affected O&M 

costs with teams responsible for planning and designing new buildings, 

similar issues could occur in future buildings. For example, we previously 

mentioned that building managers indicated that using durable materials, 

low maintenance landscaping, and energy-efficient lighting can reduce 

long-term O&M costs.

Building managers also reported common issues caused by design 

choices that led to increased costs including:

• Inefficiently located mechanical systems. Building managers reported 

the location of mechanical systems in Design Excellence buildings 

often led to increased cost. Specifically, building managers reported 

the location of these systems increased repair costs (41 out of 77 

buildings) and energy costs (32 out of 77 buildings).25 In the Design 

Excellence buildings we visited, building managers and tenants 

reported issues with the location of mechanical systems (4 buildings). 

For example, officials indicated that air-conditioning systems were 

placed in inefficient locations that required more energy usage 

because water had to be pumped unnecessarily far distances (see fig. 

11).

 25Numbers of buildings reported in this report are based on survey results from the 

building managers of 78 Design Excellence buildings in our review. Although all building 

managers responded to our survey, some did not respond to individual survey questions. 

Specifically, between 1 and 3 managers (of the 78) did not provide answers to several 

questions we used to compile results included in this report.
Page 27 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 11: Design Excellence Buildings with Inefficiently Located Mechanical 

Systems, according to Building Managers

• Difficult-to-access lights. Building managers reported that design 

choices for the location of interior lights increased maintenance costs 

in the majority of Design Excellence buildings (55). In particular, 

managers reported that the location of lights in atriums and lobbies 

(38 buildings) and courtrooms and other mission spaces (33 

buildings) increased costs. In addition, GSA officials at locations we 

visited said that lights above tall staircases, ceiling lights in atriums 

and auditoriums, and lights directly above permanent structures led to 

additional costs, including the need to use scaffolding or rent large 

equipment to maintain these lights. (See fig. 12). One way that a 

majority of GSA building managers (61) we surveyed are attempting 
Page 28 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

to mitigate high maintenance cost for lighting issues is to install 

energy efficient equipment, such as light-emitting diode (LED) lights.26

Figure 12: Design Excellence buildings with Difficult to Access Interior Lights, according to Building Managers

 26LED lightbulbs last longer, are more durable, and offer comparable or better light quality 

than other types of lighting.
Page 29 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

• Difficult-to-maintain materials and finishes. In 68 Design Excellence 

buildings, building managers reported that materials or finishes were 

chosen that are easily worn. Similarly, in buildings we visited (4 

buildings), GSA officials reported that decisions on the materials used 

or configuration of exterior surfaces (e.g., the roof or façade) of a 

Design Excellence building led to repair and maintenance problems, 

particularly water leaks. (See fig. 13).
Page 30 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Figure 13: Design Excellence Buildings Using Unique, Difficult to Maintain Finishes and Exterior Surfaces, according to 

Building Managers
Page 31 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

• Hard to clean surfaces. Cleaning surfaces, especially in atriums, can 

be a challenge for maintaining Design Excellence buildings. For 

example, building managers we surveyed reported that the decision to 

install certain types of window treatments increased cleaning costs 

(49 buildings). In three buildings we visited, building managers and 

tenants also said Design Excellence buildings required special 

equipment or scaffolding to clean windows or surfaces, which led to 

increased cleaning costs. (See fig. 14).

Figure 14: Design Excellence Buildings That Are Challenging to Clean Due to Chosen Windows and Surface Materials, 

according to Building Managers

According to federal standards for internal control, agencies should use 

and communicate complete and relevant information when designing 
Page 32 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

control activities, including procedures to achieve objectives.27 Without a 

formalized process for systematically collecting and sharing how design 

choices affected O&M costs in existing buildings, designs for future 

Design Excellence buildings may not benefit from the successful 

strategies used by others to reduce O&M costs or may continue to repeat 

problematic choices that may result in increased O&M costs.

Through the Design Excellence Program, GSA has achieved excellence 

in architecture and the design of federal buildings. Buildings constructed 

under the Design Excellence Program have created unique and 

aesthetically pleasing workspaces, have met the functional needs of 

tenant agencies, and have become public landmarks. However, because 

GSA does not have program procedures that call for consideration of how 

certain design features may affect O&M, it may not be fully aware of the 

costs of including these features in its building design and plans. 

Specifically, GSA does not estimate or gather all perspectives from 

building and regional managers on the full O&M costs of design choices, 

or consider the extent to which they will improve the functionality of the 

building for tenants and the public. For example, GSA’s one-size fits all 

approach in designing these buildings does not consider whether nonpublic buildings need the same costly architectural elements as buildings 

intended to serve as public landmarks. Further, GSA is missing 

opportunities to improve future building designs by not systematically 

gathering and sharing information on the common design choices that 

had both positive and negative effects on O&M costs. Without a clear 

picture of the ongoing costs of these choices, GSA and other 

stakeholders are missing critical information to better inform the design 

and construction of new buildings. While GSA has just begun an 

Operational Excellence initiative to help identify future O&M costs, it is not 

clear what actions GSA will take to improve consideration of O&M costs 

during planning and design or when it will take those actions.

We are making the following four recommendations to GSA:

• The Administrator of the General Services Administration should 

update existing procedures to require GSA officials to estimate the full 

operations and maintenance costs of design choices in the planning 

 27GAO-14-704G.

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 33 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

and design process for new Design Excellence buildings. 

(Recommendation 1)

• The Administrator of the General Services Administration should 

update existing procedures to require GSA officials to obtain 

information from personnel responsible for addressing the operations 

and maintenance consequences of design choices at key decision 

points during the planning and design of new Design Excellence 

buildings. (Recommendation 2)

• The Administrator of the General Services Administration should 

update existing procedures to require GSA officials to further consider 

and document, during the planning and design of new Design 

Excellence buildings, how design choices may affect building 

functionality, such as whether a building is publicly visible and 

accessible. (Recommendation 3)

• The Administrator of the General Services Administration should 

update existing procedures to require GSA officials to systematically 

collect and share information with project teams responsible for 

overseeing the planning and design of new buildings on the positive 

and negative effects of common design choices on operations and 

maintenance costs in existing Design Excellence buildings. 

(Recommendation 4)

We provided a draft of this report to GSA, the U.S. Administrative Office 

of Courts, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of 

Justice, and the Department of Commerce for comment. In written 

comments, reproduced in appendix IV, GSA stated that it agreed with our 

recommendations and provided several technical comments. GSA 

clarified its policies for selecting and analyzing the lifecycle costs of 

building systems. In addition, GSA stated that table 2 in our report did not 

capture the full functional benefits and reasons for making certain design 

choices. As we noted in the report, this table does not preclude that a 

specific design choice may be functional or have functional benefits. We

also included several of the examples GSA highlighted in their comments, 

such as the functional need for a separate structure, which may serve key 

security functions. GSA also stated that our conclusions did not indicate 

that most Design Excellence buildings functioned well. We added 

language to the conclusions to clarify this point.

Agency Comments
Page 34 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

The U.S. Administrative Office of Courts, the Department of Homeland 

Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce 

did not provide comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, 

Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Attorney General, and 

the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Commerce. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

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

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

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

report are listed in appendix V.

Lori Rectanus

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

This report assesses the extent to which: (1) the General Services 

Administration (GSA) made design choices that affect operations and 

maintenance (O&M) costs; (2) GSA considers O&M costs and 

functionality when planning and designing buildings; and (3) GSA 

systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs related to 

design choices in existing buildings.

To address all of our objectives, we reviewed applicable federal 

regulations; GSA procedures, policies, and standards for designing, 

constructing, and operating federal facilities, including specific policies 

and procedures for Design Excellence buildings;1 our prior work;2 and 

reports by other federal agencies and related professional organizations 

on topics, including the standard costs of operating and maintaining office 

buildings. Our review examined 78 federal buildings and courthouses that 

GSA constructed under the Design Excellence Program—referred to as 

“Design Excellence buildings”—since the program started in 1994.3 At our 

request, GSA provided a list of all buildings under the agency’s custody 

and control that were constructed under the Design Excellence Program. 

Based on input from GSA officials indicating that large campuses were 

unlikely to have reliable O&M data, we excluded nine buildings that are 

part of the White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland. We reviewed 

relevant GSA documents pertaining to the remaining 78 Design 

Excellence buildings, including the most recent Asset Business Plans 

detailing investment needs for maintenance and repairs, strategies for 

efficient operations, building use, and tenant satisfaction. We analyzed 

GSA-provided historical data on construction and O&M costs from 2000 

to 2016 for the buildings in our review and projected O&M future costs. To 

calculate our projection, we made several assumptions, including (1) that 

annual O&M costs would increase at the same level as 2016 O&M costs 

($174 million), and (2) that Design Excellence buildings will reach the 

average age of all current GSA buildings (60 years). We assessed the 

reliability of these data through electronic testing and reviewing 

 1

In our review of GSA procedures, policies, and standards, we used Facilities Standards 

for the Public Buildings Service, PBS-P100 (April 2017) and GSA’s Design Excellence: 

Policies and Procedures (updated Feb. 2016).

2

GAO, Recovery Act: GSA’s Courthouse Projects Illustrate Opportunities to Improve 

Management Practices and Analyze Environmental Outcomes. GAO-15-307 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 12, 2015); and GAO, Embassy Construction: State Has Made Progress 

Constructing New Embassies, but Better Planning is Needed for Operations and 

Maintenance Requirements, GAO-06-641 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2006).

3

For the full list of Design Excellence buildings included in our review, see appendix II.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

documentation on the data. We determined that the data provided were 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of illustrating the extent to which O&M 

costs make up total building costs.

We also conducted a web-based survey of GSA building managers 

responsible for overseeing O&M for the 78 Design Excellence buildings 

included in our review. The survey addressed the extent to which certain 

design choices affect O&M costs and building functionality. We developed 

the survey based on our objectives, prior GAO work, and site visits to 10 

Design Excellence buildings. We pretested the survey with GSA officials 

at three Design Excellence buildings, which were selected based on 

building age, location, total square feet, fiscal year 2016 O&M costs, and 

the building’s primary use (e.g., office or courthouse). As part of our 

pretesting, we asked GSA building managers to explain their 

understanding of survey questions and made edits based on their 

comments. We conducted the survey from November 2017 to March 

2018 and our response rate was 100 percent (78 out of 78). See 

appendix III for a copy of the survey and summarized responses.

We visited 10 Design Excellence buildings in three GSA regions to view 

design choices and O&M activities. As part of these site visits, we 

conducted interviews that included tenant agencies located in these 

buildings, GSA building managers responsible for managing these 

buildings and officials from GSA regional offices with oversight 

responsibilities for these buildings. To select our site visit locations and 

ensure geographic and agency diversity, we considered several factors 

including building operating costs, size, location, and the tenant agency. 

Based on these criteria we selected the buildings listed in table 3. The 

interviews and tours we conducted during our site visits do not allow us to 

generalize the findings to all Design Excellence buildings. Information 

gathered from our site visits did allow us to show how O&M costs were 

considered in specific Design Excellence buildings and the effects of 

design choices.

Table 3: Design Excellence Buildings Selected for GAO Site Visits

Building name Location Tenant agency

Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse Santa Ana, CA Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

James M. Carter & Judith N. Keep U.S. Courthouse San Diego, CA Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Bakersfield Federal Courthouse Bakersfield, CA Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

First Street Federal Courthouse Los Angeles, CA Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center Washington, D.C. General Services Administration
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Building name Location Tenant agency

Ariel Rios Federal Building Washington, D.C. Department of Justice

Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building Washington, D.C. Department of Homeland Security

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite 

Operations Facility

Suitland, MD Department of Commerce

Las Cruces U.S. Courthouse Las Cruces, NM Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Albert Armendariz, Sr., U.S. Courthouse El Paso, TX Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data. | GAO-18-420

We also interviewed GSA officials located in GSA Headquarters within 

the Office of Design and Construction, including the Chief Architect, and 

the Office of Facilities Management. We also interviewed GSA regional 

officials within the Office of Facilities Management in four of GSA’s 11 

regional offices: Greater Southwest Region, National Capital Region, 

Pacific Rim Region, and Southeast Sunbelt Region. We selected regional 

offices based on the location of our site visits and included one additional 

regional office based on it having the highest total O&M operating costs of 

the eight remaining regional offices. We discussed several topics with 

GSA officials, including how O&M costs were considered during planning 

and design and how information on the O&M costs of design choices are 

shared.

To determine the extent to which GSA considers O&M costs and 

functionality when planning and designing buildings, we analyzed Federal 

Real Property Profile (FRPP) data.4 Our analysis of U.S. governmentowned office buildings that are less than 40 years old, occupied, and 

needed for a tenant’s mission, identified five potentially relevant variables 

to explain variation in the O&M costs: building type (i.e., whether a 

building was constructed under the Design Excellence Program), size, 

age, and condition of the building, as well as the median hourly wage of 

O&M services in the building’s location. After controlling for these 

variables, we found that size and median hourly wage but not building 

type had a statistically significant relationship to O&M costs. We 

assessed the reliability of these data through electronic testing as well as 

a review of documentation for each federal data source. We determined 

that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 

describing our attempts to identify factors that influence O&M costs in 

federal buildings. We also requested and received additional information 

 4

The Federal Real Property Profile is the building inventory database for federal agencies, 

including GSA, subject to the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

from the building managers of Design Excellence federal office buildings. 

Specifically we asked for information on the extent to which these federal 

office buildings are public-facing, have restrictions on public entry and are 

visible from public sidewalks or roads, and what the daily volume of public 

visitors was.

We compared GSA’s efforts to consider O&M costs in the planning and 

design of Design Excellence buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government on using complete and relevant 

information when making decisions and design control activities, including 

procedures, to achieve objectives, as well as on communicating 

information internally.5 In addition, we compared GSA’s efforts to consider 

these costs in the planning and design of Design Excellence buildings to 

guidance from GSA and the Office of Management and Budget that 

directs agency officials to consider and strive for the lowest possible 

costs, including O&M costs, when designing buildings.6 We also 

compared GSA’s efforts to consider functionality when planning and 

designing these buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government on using complete and relevant information when 

making decisions and design control activities, including procedures, to 

achieve objectives.7

To assess the extent to which GSA systematically collects and shares 

information on O&M costs related to design choices in existing Design 

Excellence buildings, we reviewed Post Occupancy Evaluations 

commissioned by GSA on six Design Excellence buildings. These 

evaluations contain information, such as how GSA buildings are 

performing and the extent to which they comply with GSA’s federal 

standards for public buildings. These evaluations can include reviews of 

operations and maintenance documentation, interviews and surveys with 

building occupants, and interviews with relevant GSA staff, architectural 

and engineering design team staff, and an on-site evaluation. We also 

 5

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014). These standards provide the overall framework for 

establishing and maintaining an effective internal control system for the federal 

government, including using quality information to achieve an entity’s objectives.

6

Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service, PBS-P100 (April 2017); and OMB, 

Capital Programming Guide V 3.0; Supplement to Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-11: Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets, (Washington, D.C.: 

2017).

7

GAO-14-704G. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

compared GSA’s process for collecting and sharing how design choices 

affected O&M costs in existing buildings to pertinent Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government on using and communicating 

complete and relevant information when designing control activities, 

including procedures, to achieve objectives.8

We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to May 2018 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.

 8

GAO-14-704G. 
Appendix II: Buildings Constructed under the 

General Services Administration’s (GSA) 

Design Excellence Program

Page 40 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

GSA created the Design Excellence Program in 1994. Under this 

program, GSA has constructed 78 buildings in 33 states and the District 

of Columbia, buildings that range in size from about 35,000- to over 3-

million gross square feet (see table 4).1

Table 4: Information on Buildings Constructed under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Design Excellence 

Program

Building name Location (city, state) Size (gross 

square feet)

Year 

built

Frank M. Johnson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse Annex Montgomery, Alabama 325,866 2001

Tuscaloosa Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse Tuscaloosa, Alabama 126,531 2011

Richard Sheppard Arnold U.S. Courthouse Annex Little Rock, Arkansas 254,911 2007

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse Phoenix, Arizona 579,922 2000

Evo A. DeConcini Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse Tucson, Arizona 432,591 2000

John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse Yuma, Arizona 62,162 2013

Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse Santa Ana, California 645,419 1999

San Francisco Federal Building San Francisco, California 639,678 2007

Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse Sacramento, California 762,983 1999

Robert E. Coyle U.S. Courthouse Fresno, California 481,785 2005

James M. Carter & Judith N. Keep U.S. Courthouse San Diego, California 480,941 2012

First Street Federal Courthouse Los Angeles, California 629,981 2016

Bakersfield Federal Courthouse Bakersfield, California 35,468 2012

David Skaggs Federal Building Boulder, Colorado 415,938 1999

Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse Denver, Colorado 327,618 2002

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Centera Washington, DC 3,029,360 1996

FBI, Washington Field Office Memorial Building Washington, DC 537,586 1997

U.S. Secret Service Headquarters Washington, DC 692,024 1999

Ariel Rios Federal Building Washington, DC 460,889 2007

William B. Bryant Annex Washington, DC 404,425 2005

Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building Washington, DC 1,292,749 2013

Tallahassee U.S. Courthouse Annex Tallahassee, Florida 158,251 2000

Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse Miami, Florida 592,154 2008

Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse Tampa, Florida 433,687 1998

John Milton Bryan Simpson U.S. Courthouse Jacksonville, Florida 464,168 2002

 1

Based on input from GSA officials indicating that large campuses were unlikely to have 

reliable operations and maintenance (O&M) data, we excluded nine buildings included on 

the White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland from our review.

Appendix II: Buildings Constructed under the 

General Services Administration’s (GSA) 

Design Excellence Program
Appendix II: Buildings Constructed under the 

General Services Administration’s (GSA) 

Design Excellence Program

Page 41 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Building name Location (city, state) Size (gross 

square feet)

Year 

built

Orlando U.S. Courthouse Annex Orlando, Florida 468,348 2007

Alto Lee Adams, Sr., U.S. Courthouse Fort Pierce, Florida 145,742 2011

Benjamin P. Grogan and Jerry L. Dove Federal Building Miramar, Florida 606,122 2014

C.B. King U.S. Courthouse Albany, Georgia 82,448 2001

Cedar Rapids U.S. Courthouse Cedar Rapids, Iowa 305,999 2012

Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse Rockford, Illinois 211,320 2011

Hammond U.S. Courthouse Hammond, Indiana 280,802 2002

London U.S. Courthouse Annex London, Kentucky 89,664 2002

John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse Boston, Massachusetts 945,421 1998

Springfield U.S. Courthouse Springfield, Massachusetts 176,054 2008

New Carrollton Federal Building Lanham, Maryland 1,903,788 1997

Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building College Park, Maryland 441,304 2001

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite Operations 

Facility

Suitland, Maryland 357,869 2006

U.S. Census Bureau Headquartersb Suitland, Maryland 2,551,705 2006

Minneapolis U.S. Courthouse Minneapolis, Minnesota 734,361 1997

Christopher S. Bond U.S. Courthouse Jefferson City, Missouri 117,522 2011

Charles Evans Whittaker U.S. Courthouse Kansas City, Missouri 674,508 1998

Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse St. Louis, Missouri 1,239,728 2000

Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. U.S. Courthouse Cape Girardeau, Missouri 173,395 2008

Judge Dan M. Russell, Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse Gulfport, Mississippi 183,939 2003

Jackson U.S. Courthouse Jackson, Mississippi 407,771 2010

James F. Battin U.S. Courthouse Billings, Montana 146,669 2012

Quentin N. Burdick U.S. Courthouse Annex Fargo, North Dakota 122,926 1998

Roman L. Hruska Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse Omaha, Nebraska 364,173 2000

Pete V. Domenici U.S. Courthouse Albuquerque, New Mexico 333,271 1998

Las Cruces U.S. Courthouse Las Cruces, New Mexico 235,239 2010

Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse Las Vegas, Nevada 454,893 2000

Alfonse M. D’Amato U.S. Courthouse Central Islip, New York 995,807 2000

Ronald H. Brown U.S. Mission to the United Nations Building New York, New York 165,637 2010

Robert H. Jackson U.S. Courthouse Buffalo, New York 284,674 2008

Theodore Roosevelt U.S. Courthouse Brooklyn, New York 669,413 2005

Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse Cleveland, Ohio 766,423 2002

Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse Youngstown, Ohio 52,255 2002

Oklahoma City Federal Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 178,342 2003

Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse Portland, Oregon 591,692 1997

Wayne Lyman Morse U.S. Courthouse Eugene, Oregon 308,306 2006
Appendix II: Buildings Constructed under the 

General Services Administration’s (GSA) 

Design Excellence Program

Page 42 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Building name Location (city, state) Size (gross 

square feet)

Year 

built

William J. Nealon U.S. Courthouse Annex Scranton, Pennsylvania 126,251 1999

Erie U.S. Courthouse Annex Erie, Pennsylvania 64,499 2004

Matthew J. Perry, Jr. U.S. Courthouse Columbia, South Carolina 213,305 2003

James H. Quillen U.S. Courthouse Greeneville, Tennessee 154,897 2001

Laredo Federal Building and Courthouse Laredo, Texas 152,681 2004

Corpus Christi Federal Courthouse Corpus Christi, Texas 183,581 2001

Reynaldo G. Garza & Filemon B. Vela U.S. Courthouse Brownsville, Texas 205,358 1999

Albert Armendariz, Sr., U.S. Courthouse El Paso, Texas 277,634 2008

Austin Courthouse Austin, Texas 250,995 2012

FBI Houston Field Office Houston, Texas 305,438 2005

Utah U.S. District Courthouse Salt Lake City, Utah 401,209 2014

Spottswood W. Robinson III & Robert R. Merhige, Jr., U.S. 

Courthouse

Richmond, Virginia 344,798 2008

Seattle U.S. Courthouse Seattle, Washington 679,979 2004

Federal Center South Seattle, Washington 190,521 2012

Robert C. Byrd Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse Charleston, West Virginia 430,849 1998

Robert C. Byrd Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse Beckley, West Virginia 179,853 1999

Wheeling U.S. Courthouse, Federal Building & Annex Wheeling, West Virginia 92,413 2004

Source: GSA. | GAO-18-420

a

The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center includes a federal office building and an 

international trade center. We added the gross square feet of each facility to determine the gross 

square feet of the combined facility.

b

The U.S. Census Bureau Headquarters includes two facilities, a North building and a South building. 

We added the gross square feet of each facility to determine the gross square feet of both facilities. 

The North building was built in 2006 and the South building was built in 2007.
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 43 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

This appendix provides a copy of the survey completed by managers for all 78 

buildings constructed under GSA’s Design Excellence Program included in our 

review.1 The appendix also includes the responses received for each of the closeended questions (1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a, 3a, and 4a); it does not include information on 

open-ended responses (1d, 1f, 2b, 3b, 3c, 4b, and 5).2 The purpose of this survey 

was to gather responses on how design choices affected operation and maintenance 

(O&M) costs and building function. See appendix I for additional information on our 

survey methodology.

 1

The letter in this appendix makes reference to 71 Design Excellence buildings. We initially sent our 

survey to GSA managers for 71 buildings, but were subsequently informed by GSA of seven additional 

Design Excellence buildings. We sent the survey to building managers responsible for these additional 

buildings for a total of 78 buildings included in our survey.

2

Several building managers did not respond to every question, which resulted in fewer than 78 total 

responses to some of the questions listed in the appendix.

Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 44 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 45 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 46 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 47 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and

Summarized Results

Page 48 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 49 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 50 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 51 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 52 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 53 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 54 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 55 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 56 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix III: Survey of General Services 

Administration (GSA) Building Managers and 

Summarized Results

Page 57 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 58 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 59 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 60 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 61 GAO-18-420 Federal Buildings

Lori Rectanus, (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant 

Director); Matthew Cook (Analyst in Charge); Eli Albagli; Sarah Arnett; 

Colin Ashwood; Melissa Bodeau; Lacey Coppage; Caitlin Cusati; 

Terrence Lam; Joshua Ormond; Dae Park; Minette Richardson; Kelly 

Rubin; Ardith Spence; and Dave Wise made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101930)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

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

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

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

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@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

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.