GAO 

June 2006 FEDERAL 

COURTHOUSES 

Rent Increases Due to 

New Space and 

Growing Energy and 

Security Costs Require 

Better Tracking and 

Management 

GAO-06-613 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

FEDERAL COURTHOUSES 

Rent Increases Due to New Space and 

Growing Energy and Security Costs 

Require Better Tracking and Management 

Highlights of GAO-06-613, a report to 

congressional requesters 

 

The judiciary pays over $900

million in rent annually to GSA for 

court-related space, and this 

amount represents a growing 

proportion of the judiciary’s

budget. The judiciary’s rent

payments are deposited into GSA’s 

Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), a

revolving fund used to finance 

GSA’s real property services, 

including the construction and

repair of federal facilities under 

GSA control. In December 2004, 

the judiciary requested a $483

million dollar permanent, annual

rent exemption, which GSA denied,

saying that it undermined the intent 

of FBF and that GSA was unlikely 

to obtain appropriations to replace 

lost FBF income. GAO identified 

(1) recent trends in the judiciary’s 

rent and space occupied and (2) 

challenges that the judiciary faces 

in managing its rent costs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the

judiciary (1) track rent trends and 

(2) improve its management of 

space and associated costs by

providing incentives for efficient 

use and updating its space 

allocation criteria. AOUSC 

strongly disagreed with our report 

and said that it does not believe

tracking the data recommended by

GAO would be useful. We believe 

otherwise. AOUSC also said it is 

already implementing incentives 

and updating its criteria; however, 

the actions it identified do not fully 

address our recommendations. 

GSA generally agreed with the 

report. 

The federal judiciary’s rental obligations to GSA for courthouses have 

increased from $780 million to $990 million—or 27 percent from fiscal years 

2000 through 2005, after controlling for inflation—primarily due to a 

simultaneous net increase in space from 33.6 million to 39.8 million rentable 

square feet, a 19 percent increase nationwide. Much of the net increase in 

space was the result of new courthouses that the judiciary has taken 

occupancy of since 2000. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts (AOUSC), the judiciary’s workload has grown and the number of 

court staff has doubled since 1985. Shell rent (the building with basic 

infrastructure) increased proportionately with net square footage growth, 

but operational (utilities and general maintenance) and security costs grew

disproportionately higher than square footage due to external factors, such 

as increasing energy costs and security requirements. Neither GSA nor the 

judiciary had routinely and comprehensively analyzed the factors causing 

rent increases, making it more difficult for the judiciary to manage increases.

The Approximate Share of Judiciary Rent Increases Attributable to Net Growth in Square 

Footage and Other Factors (Fiscal Years 2000 through 

2005)

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

Security costs that exceeded net 

increases in square footage

Operating costs that exceeded net 

increases in square footage

All rent components attributable to net 

increases in square footage

Total: $210 million increase, adjusted for inflation

Dollars in millions

$139

$40

$31

The federal judiciary faces several challenges to managing its rental 

obligations, including costly new construction requirements, a lack of 

incentives for efficient space use, and a lack of space allocation criteria for 

appeals and senior judges. First, building requirements, such as three 

separate circulation patterns for judges, prisoners, and the public and other 

structural and architectural elements make courthouses among the most 

expensive federal facilities to construct, often leading to higher rent 

payments. Second, the judiciary has begun a rent validation effort intended 

to monitor GSA rent charges, but it does not address the lack of incentives 

for efficient space management that we found at the circuit and district 

levels. An example of the inefficiencies that may result is in the Eastern 

District of Virginia, where the judiciary paid about $272,000 in 2005 to rent 

space for an appeals judge in McLean, Virginia, in addition to paying for 

space designated for that judge in a nearby federal courthouse that the 

judiciary later used for alternative purposes. Finally, the lack of criteria for 

assigning courtrooms for appeals and senior judges can contribute to 

inefficiencies in the amount of space provided, which can result in higher

rent payments. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-613.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mark Goldstein 

at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 6 

Increases in Square Footage and Operating and Security Costs 

Have Driven Increases in the Judiciary’s Rent Bill from Fiscal 

Years 2000 through 2005 10 

Judiciary Faces a Number of Challenges but Could Take Actions to 

Better Manage Its Future Rent Payments 21 

Conclusions 38 

Recommendations 39 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 40 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 44 

Appendix II Comments from the General Services Administration 46 

Appendix III Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts 48 

GAO Comments 81 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 102 

Related GAO Products 103 

Table 

Table 1: Newly Constructed Federal Courthouses Occupied since 

Fiscal Year 1998 14 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figures 

Figure 1: Space Distribution within the Federal Judiciary in Fiscal 

Year 2005 9 

Figure 2: Change in Judiciary Rent and Rentable Square Footage 

(Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005) 11 

Figure 3: The Approximate Share of Judiciary Rent Increases 

Attributable to Net Growth in Square Footage and Other 

Factors (Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005) 12 

Figure 4: Percentage Change in Square Footage and Major Rent Bill 

Components, by Judicial Circuit, Fiscal Years 2000 

through 2005 17 

Figure 5: Sample Courtroom and Associated Support Spaces That 

Were Based on Design Guide Criteria 23 

Figure 6: The Atrium in the Sandra Day O’Conner U.S. Courthouse, 

Phoenix, Arizona 24 

Figure 7: Storage Space in the Seattle Courthouse That Was 

Planned for Conversion into a District Courtroom 28 

Figure 8: Unassigned Chamber Suites Used by Visiting Judges in 

the Arizona District 30 

Figure 9: Special Proceedings Courtroom in the Sandra Day 

O’Conner U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona 32 

Figure 10: Senior District Judge Courtroom in the Union Station 

Courthouse in Tacoma, Washington 37 
Page iii GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Abbreviations 

AOUSC Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FBF Federal Buildings Fund 

FPS Federal Protective Service 

GSA General Services Administration 

ROI return on investment 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

June 20, 2006 

The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman 

The Honorable James Oberstar 

Ranking Democratic Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton 

Ranking Democratic Member 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 

 Buildings, and Emergency Management 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

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

federal judiciary1

 have undertaken a multibillion dollar courthouse 

construction initiative to address what the judiciary has identified as 

growing needs. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

(AOUSC), the judiciary’s workload has grown substantially and the 

number of court staff has doubled since 1985. The judiciary pays over $900 

million in rent annually to GSA to occupy space for court-related 

purposes, and this amount represents a growing proportion of the 

judiciary’s budget. The rent payments, which by law approximate 

commercial rates, are deposited into GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). 

With slightly over 20 percent of its budget allocated for rent payments, in 

December 2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual 

exemption from rent payments to GSA so that, according to judiciary 

officials, they would not have to reduce personnel to pay the rent. In 

denying the judiciary’s requested rent exemption, GSA noted that FBF was 

 1

The federal judiciary is comprised of 94 judicial districts organized around state 

boundaries and grouped into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States Court 

of Appeals. There is also a 13th Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which 

has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving 

patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal 

Claims. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

designed to encourage efficient space utilization by making agencies 

accountable for the space they occupy, and that it is unlikely GSA could 

obtain direct appropriations to replace lost FBF income. 

In June 2005, we testified2

 that federal agencies’ rent payments provided a 

relatively stable, predictable source of revenue for FBF, but that this 

revenue has not been sufficient to finance both growing capital investment 

needs and the cost of leased space. We also found that previous rent 

exemptions, such as the one requested by the judiciary, hampered GSA’s 

ability to generate sufficient revenue for needed capital investment. To 

address its budget- and space-related concerns, in 2004, the judiciary 

placed a 2-year moratorium on new capital courthouse projects, which is 

planned to be lifted at the end of fiscal year 2006. The judiciary said that it 

is pursuing and implementing cost-containment initiatives through a 

number of strategies associated with the moratorium. For example, the 

judiciary is reviewing its design standards for new courthouses that could 

lead to rent reductions, and it has initiated a new asset management 

planning process that it expects to use to select less costly renovations 

over building new courthouses on future projects. We have not evaluated 

these measures. In addition, no new projects were included in the 

President’s fiscal year 2007 budget submission to Congress. On the basis of 

a request by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 

Emergency Management, the judiciary has recently initiated a detailed 

study of courtroom use. The Federal Judicial Center, the research arm of 

the federal judiciary, plans to conduct this study. Federal Judicial Center 

officials met with GAO staff on April 18, 2006, to discuss the study. 

You asked us to review the judiciary’s courthouse rent costs. Accordingly, 

we identified (1) recent trends in the judiciary’s rent payments and square 

footage occupied and (2) challenges that the judiciary faces in managing 

its rent costs. To address these objectives, we analyzed nationwide 

judiciary rent data generated from GSA’s billing system, reviewed laws and 

the regulation related to FBF and GSA’s rent pricing process and policies, 

and reviewed the U.S. Courts Design Guide and other judiciary rent 

planning documents. Additionally, we toured federal courthouses in the 

following districts: Arizona, Eastern Virginia, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode 

Island, and Western Washington. We selected Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode 

 2

GAO, Courthouse Construction: Overview of Previous and Ongoing Work, GAO-05-838T 

(Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005). 
Page 3 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Island, and Western Washington because they were districts that 

experienced large overall rent increases from fiscal years 2000 through 

2005 and were geographically dispersed. We also visited Maryland and 

Eastern Virginia court facilities while we were designing this audit and 

included them in the review because they contained a new courthouse, a 

renovated courthouse, and a courthouse that was targeted for 

replacement. The findings from these courthouse visits cannot be 

generalized to the population of federal courthouses nationwide. We 

interviewed district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges; officials from 

AOUSC, which is the judiciary’s administrative agency; clerks, circuit 

executives, and other representatives from U.S. circuit and district courts 

with authority over space and facilities; GSA officials in headquarters and 

the regions; and other real property management experts. We determined 

that the rent data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. 

We conducted our work from May 2005 to May 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I contains 

additional information on our scope and methodology. 

The federal judiciary’s rental obligations for federally owned and leased 

space have steadily risen from $780 million to $990 million, or 27 percent 

from fiscal years 2000 through 2005, after controlling for inflation. During 

this period, the judiciary had an increase in the amount of space it 

occupies, from 33.6 million to 39.8 million rentable square feet, which is a 

19 percent increase nationwide. About two-thirds of the rent increase is 

attributable to this net increase in square footage, much of which was 

caused by the construction of new courthouses. Among the components of 

rent, shell (the building with basic infrastructure) grew proportionately 

with the amount of net space added—about 19 percent. However, 

increases in operating costs (driven by increases in energy costs) and 

security costs grew disproportionately higher than the percentage of net 

space added, thus contributing to the overall 27 percent increase in rent. 

The costs of tenant improvements (finishes such as carpeting) increased at 

a slower rate than the amount of net space added. Square footage and total 

rent growth occurred in all years, circuits, and courts. The judiciary’s rent 

increases have outpaced those of other agencies located in GSA space, 

largely because the federal judiciary’s square footage is growing faster 

than that of other agencies. However, the rate of operating cost growth 

was similar to those experienced by other agencies.3

 We found that neither 

 3

Interagency comparisons regarding security costs are not possible since the methods used 

to secure federal courthouses differ from other agencies. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

the judiciary nor GSA had routinely and comprehensively analyzed the 

factors influencing the rent increases. To improve the judiciary’s 

understanding of its rent costs, we are recommending that the judiciary 

coordinate with GSA to analyze its rent trends and factors causing any 

changes on an annual basis. 

The federal judiciary faces several challenges to managing its rent costs 

including costly new construction requirements, a lack of incentives for 

efficient space use, and a lack of space allocation criteria for appeals and 

senior district judges. First, modern courthouses require structural and 

architectural elements that make them among the most costly types of 

federal space to construct. Chief among these elements are the three 

separate circulation patterns for judges, prisoners, and the public that the 

U.S. Marshals Service (Marshals Service) requires for security. These 

construction costs necessitate rental rates under GSA’s pricing policy that 

are more expensive than the highest-quality office space in some markets, 

including Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; and Seattle, Washington. 

The judiciary’s policy of providing one courtroom per district judge sets 

the number of courtrooms needed in new federal courthouses and adds 

space requirements, consequently increasing rent payments. Second, a 

rent validation effort the judiciary began recently does not address the 

lack of incentives for efficient space use at the circuit and district levels. 

Because rent is paid centrally by AOUSC, circuits and districts have few 

incentives to efficiently manage their space. An example of the 

inefficiencies that may result is in the Eastern District of Virginia, where 

the judiciary paid about $272,000 in 2005 to rent 4,600 square feet of office 

space for an appeals judge in McLean, Virginia, in addition to paying for 

4,300 square feet of chamber space originally designated for that judge in 

the nearby Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. 

According to AOUSC, the judiciary has pursued alternative uses for this 

chamber space. 

During site visits, we observed multiple instances of unused or unassigned 

courtrooms, chambers, and support spaces. Some of this underutilization 

is the result of outdated criteria, which stipulated the existence of support 

areas, such as libraries, that in some cases are now rarely used. Lastly, 

assigning space to appeals courts and senior district judges poses 

challenges due to a lack of criteria, which can lead to variation and 

inefficiencies and, thus, higher rent. Although the appeals court is required 

by law to hold court in specific locations, the statute does not indicate 

how much space it should occupy. For example, the judiciary plans to 

increase the space the appeals courts occupy by taking over former 

district courthouses in Richmond, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington, for 
Page 5 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

appeals court use, even though the appeals courts conduct court there 

once a month or less. We are recommending that the judiciary establish 

incentives for more efficient space use at the circuit and district levels, 

establish criteria for the number of appeals court and senior district judge 

courtrooms and chambers, and revisit its space allocation criteria related 

to technological advancements. 

We provided a draft of this report to GSA and AOUSC for review and 

comment. GSA agreed generally with the thrust of the report and 

concurred with our recommendations, but said that it was more aware of 

the reasons for rent increases than our draft portrayed (see appendix II). 

AOUSC strongly disagreed with the findings and recommendations in the 

draft report. For example, AOUSC said that our objectives did not focus 

on important issues, such as increases in the judiciary’s workload and the 

appropriateness of GSA rent pricing policy. These issues fell outside the 

scope of our review. In addition, AOUSC questioned our methodology for 

attributing two-thirds of the judiciary’s rent increase to net increases in 

square footage, however, we continue to believe that our methodology is 

sound and a discussion of the reasons is contained at the end of this letter 

and in comment 4 of appendix III. In commenting on our draft report, 

AOUSC also identified several challenges in addition to the ones we 

identified that we subsequently incorporated into the report but did not 

evaluate. These included statutorily designated places of holding court, the 

benefits to GSA and the Federal Building Fund of retaining old 

courthouses with other courts, and inconsistencies in the funding stream 

for courthouse construction projects. In addition, we added context from 

the judiciary’s perspective in other areas and made technical changes in 

response to AOUSC’s comments. While important, these changes did not 

impact our overall findings, conclusions, or recommendations. See 

appendix III for AOUSC’s letter and our comments. 

With regard to our recommendations, AOUSC said that tracking trends is 

necessary, but that the specific types of data recommended would not be 

particularly useful. AOUSC also said that it is in the process of creating 

incentives by establishing an annual budget cap for space rent costs, but 

no final decisions on the structure or level of the caps have been made. 

AOUSC disagreed that additional space allocation criteria are needed for 

appeals courts and senior district judges, but said that it has already 

started updating its space allocation criteria related to technology and 

plans to consider other changes in the future. We believe additional 

criteria for the appeals court and senior district judges are needed because 

the appeals courts’ portion of the judiciary’s square footage and rent bill is 

growing, and exclusive courtroom space is provided for senior district 
Page 6 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

judges with limited caseloads. AOUSC also noted concerns about 

obtaining needed data from GSA to manage its rental obligations; we agree 

that cooperation from GSA is important. 

Federal agencies, including the judiciary, that operate in facilities under 

the control and custody of GSA are required to pay rent for the space they 

occupy. Rent payments, which by law must approximate commercial 

rates, are deposited into FBF, which is a revolving fund that GSA uses to 

provide a range of real property services, including maintenance, repairs, 

and alterations, to space occupied by federal agencies. GSA, through FBF, 

encourages federal agencies to be accountable for the space they use by 

requiring them to budget and pay for their own space requirements. A 

committee report accompanying the enactment of FBF noted that because 

each agency would have to budget for its space needs, doing so would 

promote more efficient and economical use of space by government 

agencies.4

 The judiciary’s rent payments represent roughly 15 percent of 

all rent payments made into FBF, making it one of the two largest 

contributors.5

 Over the last 20 years, we have compiled a large body of 

work on courthouse construction and federal real property that focused 

primarily on the need to better manage courthouse costs, planning, and 

courtroom use. A list of GAO reports related to federal real property and 

federal courthouses appears at the end of this report. 

On the basis of a rent pricing policy that was fully implemented in fiscal 

year 2000, the rent GSA charges is composed principally of shell rent, 

operating expenses, tenant improvements, and security costs. These 

components account for over 96 percent of the judiciary’s rent bill 

payments in fiscal year 2005. The shell rent represents the cost of using the 

structure, base building systems, concrete floor, and basic wall and ceiling 

finishes and is the largest rent component, representing 60 percent of the 

judiciary’s annual rent bill payments in fiscal year 2005.6

 For most 

government-owned properties, shell rent does not represent the actual 

costs, but is based instead on comparable private sector commercial rents 

in the local commercial market. GSA updates the shell rent rates every 5 

 4

H.R. Rep. No. 92-989, at 3 & 4 (1972). 

5

The Department of Justice is the other largest contributor. 

6

According to GSA, it uses shell rent proceeds to finance the cost of acquiring, repairing, 

altering, and operating buildings under the custody and control of GSA. 

Background 
Page 7 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

years on the basis of a commercial market real estate appraisal. GSA 

officials said that because the specialized courthouse finishes are paid for 

separately as tenant improvements, the remaining shell is comparable with 

other high-quality office space. In areas where there is no commercial real 

estate market to use in developing an appraisal or where the appraisal 

does not provide a fair return on GSA’s capital investment, GSA applies a 

return on investment (ROI) pricing model. ROI pricing uses a cost 

recovery approach based on the cost to design and construct the building, 

plus a GSA fee spread over a 25-year period. GSA officials indicated that 

the ROI approach is primarily used for border-related facilities and that 

less than 1 percent of GSA’s non judiciary facilities are priced using ROI. 

In government-leased space, GSA passes the actual lease costs directly to 

the tenant, plus a GSA management fee. Regardless of how GSA prices it, 

the tenant agency is responsible for paying shell rent for as long as it 

occupies the facility. 

In both owned and leased space, tenant improvements reflect customizing 

space for that tenant and can include private offices, special type spaces, 

floor covering, doors, and wood finishes. The tenant is responsible for 

deciding how to finish the space beyond some basic minimum standards 

and thus has control over much of the cost. GSA officials have said that 

the judiciary has the highest costs for tenant improvements in its inventory 

because of the level of finishes needed in federal courthouses. Unlike the 

other rent components, tenant improvement costs are removed from the 

rent bill once the tenant has completely paid for them. 

Rental rates for operating costs—which cover cleaning, general 

maintenance, heating, air conditioning, and other utilities—are set as part 

of the market appraisal for the shell rent in owned space. But unlike the 

shell rent, operating costs are adjusted annually for inflation in between 

appraisals. In leased spaces and some owned locations, GSA passes the 

actual operating costs directly to the tenant, plus a GSA fee to recoup the 

expenses incurred. 

The Marshals Service provides security services to judges, courts staff, and 

the public inside courthouses, and the Federal Protective Service (FPS) 

generally protects the exterior of courthouses. Until fiscal year 2005, the 

judiciary paid security costs to GSA as part of its rent payment. Starting in 

fiscal year 2005, however, the judiciary began paying FPS security costs 

directly to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after FPS’s 

transfer to that department. However, since FPS security costs still exist, 

and they were an important part of rent for all of the other years we 

analyzed, we included these costs as if they were still part of annual rent 
Page 8 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

bill payments for fiscal year 2005. Rent is also composed of several other 

components, including fees for parking, building joint use (e.g., cafeterias 

and daycare centers), antennas, and GSA’s Public Buildings Service. These 

other components comprised about 4 percent of the judiciary’s entire rent 

bill in fiscal year 2005. 

It is GSA’s policy that all space assignments in its inventory have an 

occupancy agreement between GSA and the tenant agency that explains 

the financial terms and conditions of the occupancy, as well as the years of 

occupancy. According to GSA, the occupancy agreement provides the 

tenant with a preview of total rent charges prior to construction of a 

facility and can act as a rent planning mechanism. GSA tenants, including 

the judiciary, can appeal a rent charge for a bill if they think that GSA may 

have made a mistake or misapplied its rent policy. GSA said that formal 

rent appeals are rare. GSA officials said that they do not track informal 

appeals because they are resolved locally. For example, the District of 

Rhode Island is currently informally challenging its appraised rate for the 

Federal Building U.S. Courthouse and the adjacent J.O. Pastore Federal 

Building but this has not yet risen to the level of a formal challenge. 

The Judicial Conference of the United States (Judicial Conference) is the 

judiciary’s principal policy making body. The Judicial Conference works in 

coordination with AOUSC, which is responsible for administering the 

federal judiciary’s budget as well as performing other programmatic and 

administrative functions, such as paying the judiciary’s rent bill from its 

annual appropriations from Congress. Each circuit has a judicial council, 

which is composed of federal judges in that circuit, and the council has the 

authority to determine the need for all space accommodation within its 

circuit. As such, the district, bankruptcy, and appeals courts occupy space 

in courthouses or lease space in other federal or private office buildings. 

The district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system, housing 

both district and magistrate judges. They occupy the most space within the 

federal judiciary. The district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all 

categories of federal cases, including both civil and criminal matters. The 

federal judiciary has exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases, which 

are overseen by bankruptcy judges. The court of appeals from each circuit 

hears appeals from the district courts located within its boundaries, as 

well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. Figure 1 

illustrates the rentable square feet distribution within the federal judiciary. 
Page 9 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 1: Space Distribution within the Federal Judiciary in Fiscal Year 2005 

Note: The remaining space is composed of AOUSC, the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and other 

specialized federal courts. 

The judiciary and GSA are responsible for managing the multibillion-dollar 

federal courthouse construction program, which is designed to address 

the judiciary’s long-term facility needs. AOUSC works with the nation’s 94 

judicial districts to identify and prioritize needs for new and expanded 

courthouses. Since fiscal year 1996, AOUSC has used a 5-year plan to 

prioritize new courthouse construction projects, taking into account a 

court’s need for space, security concerns, growth in judicial appointments, 

and operational inefficiencies that may exist. The Design Guide specifies 

the judiciary’s criteria for designing court facilities and sets the space and 

design standards that GSA uses for courthouse construction and 

renovation. First published in 1991, the Design Guide has been revised 

several times to address economic constraints, functional requirements, 

and other issues, and the guide is currently undergoing another revision. 

Any significant deviation from the Design Guide’s standards must be 

approved by the appropriate circuit council—a group of judges within a 

circuit—and reported to Congress. 

68%

11%

17%

4%

Bankruptcy courts

(6.7 million square feet)

Remaining space

(1.6 million square feet)

District courts

(27.6 million square feet)

Courts of Appeals

(4.4 million square feet)

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Page 10 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

The federal judiciary’s rental obligations for federally owned and leased 

space have steadily risen from $780 million to $990 million, or 27 percent 

from fiscal years 2000 through 2005, after controlling for inflation. During 

this time, the judiciary had a net increase in the amount of space it 

occupies nationwide of 6.2 million rentable square feet, from 33.6 million 

to 39.8 million rentable square feet—a 19 percent increase. The judiciary’s 

rent increases have outpaced those of other agencies located in GSA 

space, largely because the judiciary’s square footage is growing faster than 

that of other agencies. According to AOUSC, the judiciary’s workload has 

grown substantially and the number of court staff has doubled since 1985. 

In analyzing the increases in rent, it is useful, for purposes of comparison, 

to consider that percentage increases in rent would occur proportionally 

with percentage increases in net space added. In other words, holding all 

factors constant, a net increase in space of 19 percent would logically be 

accompanied by a 19 percent increase in rent. Although several factors 

make it difficult to predict rent increases, comparisons with percentage 

increases in net space provide a frame of reference to better understand 

changes in rent from a prior period. As such, in analyzing the individual 

components of the actual rent increases the judiciary experienced, we 

found that shell rent, which includes the building with basic infrastructure, 

grew proportionately with the percentage of net space added—19 percent. 

However, operating and security costs grew disproportionately more than 

net space added. Operating costs grew 45 percent during this period and 

security costs grew 134 percent. On the basis of discussions with GSA, the 

private sector, and our review of industry data, we concluded that the 

primary reasons for this growth are, in the case of operating costs, 

significant spikes in recent years in energy costs, and, in the case of 

security, the increased emphasis on security needs in the aftermath of the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Figure 2 shows the percentage 

increase in net rentable square feet between fiscal years 2000 and 2005 

compared with the percentage increase in rent. Figure 3 shows that about 

two-thirds of the rent increase is attributable to the 19 percent increase in 

net square footage, and that the other one-third was caused by operating 

and security costs that grew disproportionately more than square footage. 

Increases in Square 

Footage and 

Operating and 

Security Costs Have 

Driven Increases in 

the Judiciary’s Rent 

Bill from Fiscal Years 

2000 through 2005 
Page 11 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 2: Change in Judiciary Rent and Rentable Square Footage (Fiscal Years 2000 

through 2005) 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Rentable square feet

Total rent costs, adjusted for inflation

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Percentage increase

Fiscal year

27%

19%

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Page 12 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 3: The Approximate Share of Judiciary Rent Increases Attributable to Net 

Growth in Square Footage and Other Factors (Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005) 

In commenting on our draft report, AOUSC disagreed with our methods 

for attributing costs to the judiciary’s net growth in square footage. We 

believe that our methods are sound. Our analysis is based on a calculation 

of rent data trends rooted in the basic mathematical logic that a net 

increase in square footage will lead to additional rent charges associated 

with that space (see comment 4 in app. III). 

The construction of new courthouses accounts for much of the new space 

added by the judiciary in recent years. New courthouses represent about 

8.8 million rentable square feet of new space that the judiciary has taken 

occupancy of since fiscal year 1998, which represents a larger timeframe 

than our rent trends data.7

 According to judiciary officials, much of the 

judiciary’s growth and accompanying space-related needs have been the 

result of elevating workloads, such as increases experienced in civil case 

filings. For example, AOUSC said that appeals filings have increased 66 

percent, civil filings (district) have increased 29 percent, criminal filings 

 7

We use different time periods to show that the courthouse construction period extended 

beyond our trend analysis and to avoid methodological problems involving partial year 

occupancy. 

New Courthouses Have 

Added Considerable 

Amounts of Space in 

Recent Years 

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data. 

Security costs that 

exceeded net increases

in square footage

Operating costs that 

exceeded net increases

in square footage

All rent components

attributable to net increases

in square footage

Total: $210 million increase, adjusted for inflation 

Dollars in millions

$139 

$40 

$31 
Page 13 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

(district) have increased 44 percent, bankruptcy filings have increased 118 

percent, persons under supervision have increased 40 percent, total judges 

have increased 25 percent, and total court support staff has increased 45 

percent from 1990 to 2005. Accordingly, judiciary officials stated that the 

additional space the courts have added, often through construction of new 

courthouses, was essential in accommodating the creation of new 

judgeships. Furthermore, judiciary officials have said this growth has also 

resulted in the need for ancillary space for court support staff. 

Table 1 lists the names and associated rentable square feet of the 

courthouses that the judiciary has taken occupancy of since 1998. New 

courthouses do not account for all of the judiciary’s new space. The 

judiciary has added other space and, in some cases, does not return old 

courthouses to GSA for disposal. In our site visits to districts with newly 

constructed courthouses, we found that the judiciary tended to retain the 

old district courthouse, although usually for other purposes. For example, 

in Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, the bankruptcy court took over the old 

district courthouses after the district court moved into the new 

courthouse. In Seattle, Washington, and Richmond, Virginia, the appeals 

courts plan to take over the old district court after the district court moves 

to the new courthouse. Among the courthouses we visited, only in Omaha, 

Nebraska, did the federal judiciary permanently vacate the old location of 

the federal court when it moved to the newly constructed Hruska 

Courthouse. In that instance, the judiciary more than doubled its overall 

square footage when it moved out of a multiple-agency federal building 

into the new courthouse. 
Page 14 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Table 1: Newly Constructed Federal Courthouses Occupied since Fiscal Year 1998

Federal courthouse City and state 

Construction completed 

(fiscal year) 

Rentable square 

feet

Quentin N. Burdick United States Courthouse Fargo, North Dakota 1998 84,313

U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building Ft. Myers, Florida 1998 102,201

Howard H. Baker Jr. U.S. Courthouse Knoxville, Tennessee 1998 200,563

Robert C. Byrd and U.S. Courthouse Charleston, West Virginia 1998 209,808

Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse Tampa, Florida 1998 307,671

Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse Kansas City, Missouri 1998 470,718

John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse Boston, Massachusetts 1998 506,602

Robert C. Byrd Federal Building and Courthouse Beckley, West Virginia 1999 61,145

William J. Nealon U.S. Courthouse Annex Scranton, Pennsylvania 1999 65,917

Covington U.S. Courthouse Covington, Kentucky 1999 83,435

U.S. Courthouse Annex Tallahassee, Florida 1999 86,463

Jim Shaw Courthouse Lafayette, Louisiana 1999 110,199

Brownsville Federal Building U.S. Courthouse Brownsville, Texas 1999 111,222

Pete Domenici Courthouse Albuquerque, New Mexico 1999 227,801

Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse Sacramento, California 1999 348,134

Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse Santa Ana, California 1999 403,049

Roman L. Hruska U.S. Courthouse Omaha, Nebraska 2000 197,724

Lloyd D. George Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse 

Las Vegas, Nevada 2000 213,708

Evo A. DeConcini Courthouse Tucson, Arizona 2000 232,245

Alfonse M. D’amato U.S. Courthouse Central Islip, New York 2000 409,652

Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse St. Louis, Missouri 2000 611,487

James H. Quillen U.S. Federal Courthouse Greenville, Tennessee 2001 108,164

Corpus Christi Courthouse Corpus Christi, Texas 2001 129,952

Frank M. Johnson Junior Courthouse Montgomery, Alabama 2001 231,460

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse Phoenix, Arizona 2001 396,472

Nathaniel R. Jones Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse 

Youngstown, Ohio 2002 21,234

C.B. King U.S. Courthouse Albany, Georgia 2002 42,072

London Courthouse Annex London, Kentucky 2002 63,990

Hammond Courthouse Hammond, Indiana 2002 152,873

Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse Cleveland, Ohio 2002 357,278

Matthew J. Perry Jr. U.S. Courthouse Columbia, South Carolina 2003 148,189

Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse Denver, Colorado 2003 215,037

United States Courthouse Jacksonville, Florida 2003 308,247
Page 15 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Federal courthouse City and state 

Construction completed 

(fiscal year) 

Rentable square 

feet

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse Annex Wheeling, West Virginia 2004 28,936

Erie New Construction Annex Erie, Pennsylvania 2004 30,914

Laredo Federal Building U.S. Courthouse Laredo, Texas 2004 91,351

Dan M. Russell Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse 

Gulfport, Mississippi 2004 134,974

New Federal Courthouse Seattle, Washington 2004 386,281

William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman 

U.S. Courthouse 

Washington, DC 2005 267,738

U.S. Courthouse Fresno, CA 2006 274,278

Emanuel Cellar U.S. Courthouse Annex Brooklyn, NY 2006 396,410

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data. 

The judiciary is evaluating its future courthouse construction effort. 

Before it imposed its 2005 moratorium postponing new courthouse 

construction projects for 2 years, the judiciary indicated that it had 35 

additional courthouse construction projects planned for fiscal years 2005 

through 2009, estimated to cost billions of dollars. According to AOUSC, 

these projects will be subject to the judiciary’s new asset management 

planning process that will consider renovation and other ways to limit new 

construction. As of May 2006, no final decisions had been made. 

Each circuit increased its square footage from fiscal years 2000 through 

2005. However, the 8th and 9th Circuits added proportionally more square 

footage than the others, growing by 36 percent and 27 percent, 

respectively. Within the 8th Circuit, Missouri and Nebraska have nearly 

doubled their square footage from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. Fiscal 

year 2001 was the first full year of occupancy for the Eastern District of 

Missouri in the newly constructed Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse in 

St. Louis, which is the single largest federal courthouse in the nation based 

on square footage. Fiscal year 2001 was also the first year of occupancy for 

the District of Nebraska in the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Courthouse in 

Omaha, which the chief district judge said was necessary because a 

number of space and security deficiencies existed in its previous facility. 

In the 9th Circuit, the District of Arizona has experienced a 128 percent 

increase in its space during this time period, thus leading to rent bill 

increases in excess of $15 million from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. 

During this time, the district opened two new district courthouses—the 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix and the Evo A. 

DeConcini Courthouse in Tucson—and converted its old district 

Square Footage Increases 

Occurred in All Years, 

Circuits, and Courts 
Page 16 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

courthouses in Phoenix and Tucson into bankruptcy courthouses.8 The 

chief district judge indicated that these new courthouses were necessary 

due to the new judgeships and increasing caseloads in Arizona. 

Figure 4 shows that square footage and total rent increased in all circuits. 

However, the amount of increase in shell rent compared to square footage 

varied by circuit. GSA officials said much of this variation is the result of 

differing real estate trends nationwide, but we did not evaluate the 

variations. 

 8

In addition to taking occupancy of new and existing courthouses, the judiciary vacated 

some leased space. 
Page 17 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 4: Percentage Change in Square Footage and Major Rent Bill Components, by Judicial Circuit, Fiscal Years 2000 

through 2005 

Note: The Federal and District of Columbia circuits were included in the aggregate statistics but are 

not listed in the map. 

Sources: GAO analysis of GSA data and MapArt. 

9th Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+27% 

+35% 

+43% 

+20% 

+143% 

+39% 

8th Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+36% 

+17% 

+53% 

+65% 

+162% 

+27% 

7th Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+7% 

+15% 

+51% 

-55% 

+215% 

+22% 

6th Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+17% 

+11% 

+35% 

+215% 

+137% 

+34% 

1st Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+7% 

+23% 

+86% 

+72% 

+98% 

+35% 

2nd Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+22% 

+20% 

+47% 

-51% 

+97% 

+15% 

3rd Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+16% 

+23% 

+25% 

-23% 

+107% 

+19% 

4th Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+14% 

+7% 

+40% 

-3% 

+178% 

+17% 

11th Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+14% 

+7% 

+21% 

+22% 

+108% 

+21% 

5th Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+20% 

+28% 

+63% 

+54% 

+171% 

+47% 

10th Circuit 

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+11% 

+50% 

+41% 

+96% 

+81% 

+48% 

U.S. Judiciary

Shell rent 

Operating cost 

Tenant improvements

Security cost 

Square footage 

Total cost 

+19% 

+19% 

+45% 

+12% 

+134% 

+27% 

Puerto 

Rico 

Virgin

Islands

N. Mariana

Islands

AK

HI 

Guam

OR 

NV 

ID 

MT 

AZ 

CA 

Central

Eastern

Eastern

Northern

Southern

Western WA 

IN 

Western

Northern

Southern

Central

Northern

WI Eastern

Southern IL 

ME 

NH

MA

NY RI

VT 

CT Western

Northern

Eastern Southern

NJ DE

PA 

Middle Western Eastern

TX 

LA 

MS

Northern

Western

Western

Southern

Eastern

Eastern

Middle

Southern

Northern GA AL 

Northern

Middle Middle

Middle

Southern Southern

FL 

Southern

Northern Northern

ND 

SD 

NE 

MN 

Eastern

Northern

Southern

WesternAR 

MO 

Eastern

IA 

Western

WY 

UT 

NM 

CO 

KS

Eastern

OK 

Northern Western

Middle

Western

Eastern

Northern

Southern

KY Western

Eastern

TN 

Eastern

OH 

MI 

Western

MD

SC 

VA 

Middle

Western

Western

NC 

Eastern

Eastern

Northern

WV. Southern
Page 18 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

The district, bankruptcy, and appeals courts have increased their square 

footage and rent obligations to GSA from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. 

The appeals court’s space and rent have grown at a faster rate than the 

district and bankruptcy courts. We found indications from our site visits 

that this trend may continue. In Richmond, Virginia, and Seattle, 

Washington, the appeals courts are planning to greatly expand their space 

by taking over older courthouses for their exclusive use (this example is 

discussed in more detail later in this report). 

From fiscal years 2000 through 2005, the portion of the judiciary’s rent 

attributable to operating costs have increased 45 percent, primarily due to 

rising energy costs, thereby outpacing growth in square footage. This rate 

was consistent with space that other federal agencies occupy in GSA’s 

inventory. In 2005, operating costs comprised about 22 percent of the 

judiciary’s rent bill and represented a growing proportion of the rent bill in 

recent years. Industry officials acknowledged that the office building 

sector has experienced similar increases in operating costs, and we found 

that the wholesale costs of natural gas and heating oil have risen during 

this period. Operating cost growth occurred in all U.S. Circuits and, 

according to GSA officials, can be attributed to significant cost increases 

for utilities, such as heating fuels. For example, the 1st Circuit Court’s 

operating costs have increased 86 percent since fiscal year 2000. GSA 

officials said that this increase in operating costs in the 1st Circuit can be 

attributed primarily to the Moakley Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts, 

where the appraised operating costs increased at that courthouse by more 

than $2 million in fiscal year 2004 because of energy cost increases 

throughout the region. 

Since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 

Oklahoma City and the September 11, 2001, attacks, federal agencies have 

understandably devoted significant resources and attention to the physical 

security of their real property assets. In part to account for this change, 

the security cost component of the judiciary’s rent bill payments increased 

134 percent from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. This increase greatly 

outpaced the 19 percent growth in square footage. The security 

component represents about 6 percent of the entire rent bill in fiscal year 

2005 and increased considerably in all U.S. Circuits from fiscal years 2000 

through 2005. A basic security charge is assessed for all GSA properties 

Judiciary’s Energy and 

Security Costs Increased at 

a Disproportionately 

Higher Rate Than Net 

Square Feet Added 
Page 19 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

where FPS9 provides security services. Many new courthouse construction 

projects have additional security enhancements that have led to increased 

rent bills nationwide.10 According to AOUSC, FPS has placed additional 

contract guards in all federal buildings since the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001. Security costs for private sector buildings have also 

increased during this period. The judiciary no longer pays its FPS security 

costs to GSA as part of its charges. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the 

judiciary started paying FPS security costs directly to DHS instead of 

including them in its rent payments to GSA. However, since the security 

costs still exist, and they were an important part of rent for all of the other 

years we analyzed, we included these costs as if they were still part of 

annual rent bill payments for fiscal year 2005. 

The tenant improvement component of the rent bill has increased 12 

percent nationwide since fiscal year 2000, growing at a disproportionately 

lower rate than the net amount of square footage added. Tenant 

improvements grew at a slower rate than other rent components because 

the majority of federal courthouses are not newly constructed or 

renovated, and, unlike other components, every year some tenant 

improvements are removed from the rent bill when fully amortized. In the 

2nd, 3rd, and 7th Circuits, while other rent cost components grew, the 

tenant improvement component decreased since 2000 because some 

buildings reached the end of their tenant improvement cycle. For example, 

the judiciary’s tenant improvement payments for the Connecticut 

Financial Center, which houses part of the 2nd Circuit’s Federal 

Bankruptcy Court, expired in fiscal year 2005, and the tenant improvement 

rental cost went from $44,500 in fiscal year 2003 to zero in fiscal year 2005. 

In addition, the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey, which houses the 3rd Circuit’s district 

court in that city, paid off much of its tenant improvement costs from 

fiscal years 2002 through 2005, thereby reducing its tenant improvement 

charges for that facility by more than $1.5 million since fiscal year 2001. 

 9

In March 2003, FPS, which provides security for federal facilities, was transferred from 

GSA to Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

10GSA charges for building specific capital security items through the rent bill, which are 

for security items that are typically part of the building core and shell that can include 

vehicular barriers, guard booths, blast-resistant windows, and progressive collapse 

countermeasures. 

Tenant Improvement Costs 

Have Increased at a 

Disproportionately Lower 

Rate Than Square Footage 
Page 20 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

The judiciary said that it believes fully amortized tenant improvement 

charges are not removed from its rent bill but, instead, are shifted to shell 

rent under the heading of “residual value of tenant improvements.” GSA’s 

pricing policy allows appraisers to consider the remaining value of 

amortized tenant improvements when appraising a property, but GSA 

officials said that this does not affect the appraised shell rental rate in 

most instances. Although we did not evaluate specific appraisals, our 

analysis of the rent data did not show a disproportionate increase in shell 

rent that would have been expected if GSA was generally shifting fully 

amortized tenant improvement costs to shell rent on the judiciary’s rent 

bill. Shell rent per square foot stayed constant over the five-year period 

we analyzed, after adjusting for inflation. 

Although tenant improvements increased 12 percent overall, some circuits 

experienced steep increases in tenant improvement costs because of the 

new courthouses that were constructed in recent years and the types of 

finishes the judiciary had chosen. For example, the District of Rhode 

Island experienced a 927 percent increase in its tenant improvement costs, 

which GSA attributed to the cost of finishes for major renovations of the 

district’s two primary courthouses—the Federal Building U.S. Courthouse 

and the adjacent J.O. Pastore Federal Building. District Court officials told 

us that practically every part of the building had tenant improvement 

needs. GSA officials said that both of these major renovation projects, 

chosen in lieu of new construction, led to increases in the overall quality 

of the space the district occupies and, consequently, very large increases 

in tenant improvement charges. The judiciary noted that this facility was 

renovated within Design Guide standards and within the tenant 

improvement allowance limits established by GSA. 

GSA and judiciary officials do not routinely and comprehensively analyze 

the trends in rent in a way that provides understanding and discussion of 

the factors influencing rent changes. GSA has provided the judiciary with 

what it views as options for reducing its rent obligations, including 

renegotiating leases in locations where commercial market rents have 

declined and closing underused courthouses, but the judiciary stated that 

this assistance has not been very useful in reducing long-term rent costs. 

In addition, GSA has not fully analyzed the underlying factors contributing 

to increases in the judiciary’s rent. Similarly, judiciary officials said 

resource and data limitations have inhibited the judiciary’s ability to create 

these trend data. For example, judiciary officials said they receive rent 

information at the building level, making it difficult to compile the 

information into nationwide trends. However, without this type of 

GSA and the Judiciary Do 

Not Routinely and 

Comprehensively Analyze 

Trends of Major Rent Bill 

Components Related to 

Rent Bill Growth 
Page 21 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

analysis, it is difficult for the judiciary to know how to best address largerthan-expected increases in rent or to gain a national understanding of the 

effect that local space management decisions have on rent. Our analysis of 

GSA data shows that space increases, operating cost charges, and security 

increases have driven the rent bill increases since 2000, while tenant 

improvement fees rose more slowly. This information could help the 

judiciary better understand the reasons behind its rent increases, make 

more informed space allocation decisions in the future, and identify errors 

in GSA’s billing. Furthermore, the lack of full understanding of the reasons 

for increases in the judiciary rent, in our view, contributed to growing 

hostility between the judiciary and GSA. For example, the judiciary has 

criticized courthouse rent as being a “profit center” for GSA without fully 

understanding the reasons for rent increases. Conversely, GSA’s lack of a 

full understanding of the reasons for the rent increases left it unable to 

justify them to the judiciary and other stakeholders, such as Congress. 

Structural and architectural elements, such as the need to build three 

separate circulation patterns for judges, prisoners, and the public, make 

courthouses among the most expensive federal facilities to construct in 

GSA’s inventory. The judiciary’s centralized rent payment system does not 

provide incentives for efficient space use at the circuit and district levels. 

The lack of criteria in the Design Guide for assigning courtroom and 

chamber space for appeals and senior district judges creates variation in 

the amount of space provided that also affects the amount of rent the 

judiciary pays. The judiciary noted a number of other challenges including, 

among other, the changing nature of its work and inadequate 

communication with GSA. 

To help ensure consistency, the Design Guide was first published in 1991, 

and it established the design criteria for modern courthouses by providing 

space guidelines for a federal courthouse. The guide lays out a framework 

for a complex construction project due to three different circulation 

patterns for judicial officers, federal prisoners, and the public. The 

Marshals Service requires separate circulation patterns in order to provide 

adequate security for federal courthouses. To maintain separate 

circulation patterns, courthouses need elevators leading from each 

independent circulation parking garage or building entrance to each 

independent circulation area within each floor. For example, the Design 

Guide provides for separate elevator systems (1) linking judicial officers 

to their restricted parking areas, (2) linking prisoners with the secured cell 

block and parking location, and (3) linking the public with the public 

Judiciary Faces a 

Number of Challenges 

but Could Take 

Actions to Better 

Manage Its Future 

Rent Payments 

Structural and 

Architectural Elements of 

Modern Courthouses Have 

Increased Construction 

Costs beyond the 

Commercial Market 
Page 22 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

entrance. As a result, each courthouse has four elevator systems, when 

including the need for a freight elevator system. 

In our site visits, we found that these circulation patterns do not always 

exist in the older courthouses, such as the Federal Building U.S. 

Courthouse in Providence, Rhode Island. In these older courthouses, the 

three groups access courtrooms through the same hallways, which, as 

previously noted, is considered a security deficiency by the judiciary and 

the Marshals Service. Moving into a courthouse that meets Design Guide

criteria improves security and increases the amount of space each 

courtroom requires without increasing the actual size of the courtroom. 

Figure 5 illustrates the Design Guide criteria provided for a courtroom 

and the support space associated with it, including the three circulation 

patterns, judges’ chambers, prisoner holding cells, and public hallways. 

Since the Design Guide also outlines the judiciary’s policy for providing 

one courtroom for each district judge, support spaces including chambers, 

jury rooms, holding cells, and independent hallways for judges, the public 

and prisoners, are replicated for each district judge in new courthouses. 

This policy increases the judiciary’s space requirements and, hence, its 

rent payments. 
Page 23 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 5: Sample Courtroom and Associated Support Spaces That Were Based on Design Guide Criteria 

GSA has also added architectural elements to courthouses that can 

increase square footage and, in turn, rent. GSA’s Design Excellence 

Program establishes nationwide policies and procedures for selecting the 

finest and most appropriate architects and artists for GSA buildings. The 

Jury deliberation 

room 

Break 

area

District courtroom 

Conference 

room 

Conference 

room 

Women’s

public restroom 

Men’s

public restroom 

Break 

area

Storage 

area

Law 

clerk 

Law 

clerk 

Reception area

Judge's

chamber 

Library 

Utility 

closet Storage 

Prisoner 

elevator 

Public 

elevators

Judge’s elevator 

Staff restroom 

Restricted access

Public access

Source: GAO analysis of judiciary data. 

Secure circulation

Prisoner

cell
Page 24 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

program has produced architecturally important courthouses that were 

supported by the judiciary. AOUSC said access to the federal courts is a 

core value in the American system of government and that courthouses 

are historic and important symbols of the federal government in 

communities across the country that often play a significant role in urban 

redevelopment efforts. According to judiciary and GSA officials, some of 

these architectural elements, however, can increase the size of a building 

and consequently, the rent the judiciary pays. Figure 6 illustrates how the 

public spaces within a courthouse can help maintain architectural vision 

and increase space requirements above functional needs, in turn leading to 

increased rent. 

Figure 6: The Atrium in the Sandra Day O’Conner U.S. Courthouse, Phoenix, 

Arizona 

Structural elements, including heightened security standards outlined in 

the Design Guide, also contribute to the higher costs of modern 

courthouses. Examples of these heightened security standards include exit 

controls at the building perimeter; security door hardware; bullet- and 

break-resistant glazing and physical barriers; and standard, emergency, 

and backup power sources. The judiciary noted that some of these 

Source: GAO.
Page 25 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

elements reflect governmentwide building standards, not the judiciary’s 

own standards. 

These structural and architectural elements have made federal 

courthouses some of the most expensive federal facilities that GSA 

constructs, at times increasing their price beyond what commercial 

market rates will support. While the rent GSA charges for most properties 

is based on commercial market appraisals, some properties’ construction 

costs do not garner an adequate ROI on the basis of the prevailing rates for 

high-quality office space. For these facilities, GSA applies ROI pricing that 

is based on the cost of design and construction of the building shell. 

Increasingly, GSA is using ROI pricing for its federal courthouse properties 

as compared with other federal facilities under the control of GSA. 

Currently, 28, or 72 percent, of 39 ROI properties in GSA’s inventory are 

federal courthouses (excluding border-related facilities). This includes 

several newly built courthouses in urban markets, such as Seattle, 

Washington; Denver, Colorado; and Phoenix, Arizona. GSA officials said 

that the complexity and physical requirements, mostly related to security, 

drove the costs of these facilities above the price that the commercial 

market would bear. 

In January 2005, the judiciary initiated a nationwide rent validation effort 

to ensure that GSA is accurately applying its rent pricing policy. Phase I of 

the effort involves reviewing space assignments drawings compared with 

the space occupied by the judiciary. Phase II involves the examination of 

rental rates for buildings that the judiciary occupies. The judiciary said 

that this effort has been hindered by an inability to get underlying 

documentation, such as floor plans and appraisals, from GSA in a timely 

manner. AOUSC indicated that this information is necessary to truly 

validate GSA rent bills. As part of the validation effort, the judiciary 

uncovered mistakes in GSA pricing that led to a significant decrease in 

rent for the Northern and Southern Districts of New York. According to 

the judiciary, the 9th Circuit also validates some rent information, and 

GSA has corrected mistakes in that circuit that were identified. In 

addition, the judiciary recently informally challenged $27 million in rent 

payments for several courthouses. Future discussions with GSA will be 

needed to determine whether these rent challenges represent actual rent 

errors. 

The judiciary’s rent validation effort will help the judiciary monitor GSA 

billing. However, it does not address the lack of incentives for efficient 

space management that we found in the judiciary’s process for space-use 

Judiciary’s Rent Validation 

Effort Intends to Monitor 

GSA Rent Charges but 

Does Not Include 

Incentives for Efficient 

Space Management 
Page 26 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

planning and rent payment. AOUSC pays the monthly rent bill on a 

national level without providing access to billing information to circuit and 

district officials. One AOUSC official processes the thousands of rent bills 

monthly. While the rent bills are paid at a national level, space-use 

decisions are made locally by circuit and district officials since each 

circuit judicial council has the authority to determine space needs. Some 

circuit and district officials that we visited said that this process creates no 

incentives to save or reduce space and, consequently, to lower rent 

payments. This is because the benefits of lower rent do not directly benefit 

circuits or districts that reduce their space requirements, and, conversely, 

neither the circuits nor the districts are responsible for paying the higher 

costs associated with their space-use and planning decisions. We also did 

not find a centralized oversight function for judicial space-use at the 

district or courthouse level. Consequently, the different court functions—

such as the district, bankruptcy, and appeals courts—are responsible for 

managing their own space, thus limiting opportunities for efficient space 

management overall. 

We identified a number of different examples during our site visits that 

may illustrate how the lack of incentives may be undermining efficient 

space-use and, consequently, causing increased rent payments by the 

judiciary. We found the following: 

• The judiciary builds to the 10-year need. That is, to avoid having to 

obtain new space again soon after a new project is completed, judiciary 

officials said that the judiciary plans for 10 years of excess space in 

new buildings and major renovations.11 However, building to the 10-

year need assumes that the judiciary pays for excess space for the first 

10 years of any new construction project. Because so many 

courthouses have been constructed recently, the judiciary had excess 

space in many courthouses. AOUSC officials said that having this 

excess space is preferable to buildings being full upon occupancy 

because the benefits of having the extra space available, especially if 

workload increases faster than expected, outweigh the increased shortterm rental costs. There is a risk in the 10-year plan that excess space 

could last beyond the 10-year time frame if the judiciary overestimates 

growth. For example, the Union Station Courthouse in Tacoma, 

 11According to GSA, the judiciary’s policy of planning for 10 years of excess space upon 

occupancy of new buildings and major renovations is a pilot test that GSA tentatively 

agreed to for four projects in fiscal year 2004. All prior projects were based on the 10-year 

requirement from the design year. 
Page 27 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Washington, and the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, 

Virginia, are reaching the 10-year point where they were expected to be 

completely full, but both still had unassigned chambers and 

courtrooms.12 AOUSC informed us that when this occurs, the judiciary 

seeks alternative uses for the space, such as using it for conferences or 

storage. In addition, AOUSC said that the Albert V. Bryan Courthouse 

should be full in the next few years. Figure 7 illustrates space within 

the Seattle Courthouse that is used for storage but was planned for 

conversion into a district courtroom when needed. 

 12According to AOUSC, these unassigned chambers and courtrooms are used when needed 

by nonresident judges and for other purposes, and the Albert V. Bryant Courthouse has 

reached space capacity for its district courts clerks and probation offices. 
Page 28 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 7: Storage Space in the Seattle Courthouse That Was Planned for 

Conversion into a District Courtroom 

• Some courtrooms were built in excess of size standards. Two districts 

we visited (Nebraska and Western Washington) chose to add features 

to the bankruptcy and magistrate courtrooms, such as making them 

larger or adding holding cells, in exchange for building fewer 

courtrooms than allotted. Judiciary officials said that these districts 

reduced the number of courtrooms they were allotted to offset the 

larger size. While official deviations from the Design Guide require 

approval by the appropriate circuit council and can yield a more 

flexible courthouse, they also may result in additional enhanced space 

and costs. 

• Numerous courtrooms and chambers were reserved for visiting 

judges.13 Districts often assign courtrooms and chambers for visiting 

 13The judiciary defines visiting judges as those judges who travel to a different courthouse 

location to provide temporary assistance to help meet its caseload needs. 

Source: GAO.
Page 29 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

judges. It is common judicial practice for judges to travel outside their 

resident courthouse for limited periods. During those times, they need 

chambers and courtrooms to perform their work responsibilities. 

However, according to district court officials, reserving courtrooms 

and chambers for visiting judges means that they are not used by the 

judiciary when visiting judges do not need them. Since the judiciary 

does not currently track courtroom usage statistics,14 it is not possible 

to determine how often visiting judges make use of the courtrooms and 

chambers, but on each of our visits, the visiting chambers were not 

being used. The judiciary said it intends, over time, to assign these 

courtrooms to resident judges when a judicial vacancy is filled or a new 

judgeship is created. AOUSC officials said that the absence of new 

judgeships and rise in caseload in some areas of the country have made 

visiting judges one of the most successful and immediate ways to 

handle the workload. Furthermore, AOUSC said that visiting judge 

assignments have been helpful to courts where criminal caseloads are 

increasing, where a court might be inundated with a temporary spike in 

caseload, in courts where there has been a lag in filling a judicial 

vancancy, or where a judge has been on extended leave due to illness. 

Figure 8 shows unassigned judges’ chambers in the Arizona district that 

are used when needed by visiting judges. 

 14We have done previous work on this issue. See GAO, Courthouse Construction: Better 

Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance Facility Planning and Decisionmaking, 

GAO/GGD-97-39 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1997). 
Page 30 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 8: Unassigned Chamber Suites Used by Visiting Judges in the Arizona District 

• A number of space saving opportunities were not fully realized. During 

our visits, centralized libraries were either closed or unused. In most 

cases, this was because judicial officers are increasingly turning to 

electronic sources and research and keeping the limited number of 

books they need in their chambers. However, since the Design Guide

provides space for law libraries, the districts we visited all had them. 

For example, when planning the new courthouse in Seattle, 

Washington, the judiciary decided to reduce the size of the law library 

by half, but instead of reducing the district’s space requirements by that 

amount, the district used the extra space to create a large conference 

center for the use of the courthouse’s tenants. Also, after the court 

switched from court reporters to electronic recording, the extra space 

that had been allocated for court reporters was reallocated to the 

bankruptcy judge chamber suites, increasing their size above Design 

Guide standards. District officials in Seattle said that this was not 

Source: GAO.
Page 31 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

considered a departure from the Design Guide because it did not 

increase the overall square footage of the building.15 The AOUSC said 

that the provision for library space in the Design Guide will be 

considered at the Judicial Conference’s September 2006 meeting. 

• Special proceedings courtrooms were not routinely assigned to a 

specific judge. The Design Guide provides for a special proceedings 

courtroom in district courthouses that is larger than the other district 

courtrooms. These special proceedings courtrooms tended to also have 

architectural elements or finishes that made them more aesthetically 

pleasing than the other courtrooms in a courthouse. Instead of 

assigning these courtrooms to an individual judge, several of the 

districts we visited said that they preferred to only use special 

proceedings courtrooms for special events, such as multidefendant 

trials, highly visible trials, or naturalization ceremonies. The Design 

Guide indicates that a special proceedings courtroom must be assigned 

for daily use and large, multiparty trials, and the guide encourages 

flexible use of the courtroom. Although AOUSC said that the judiciary 

intends to assign the courtrooms to judges, in practice, only two 

courthouses of the seven we visited that had special proceedings 

courtrooms, had assigned them to a judge. Figure 9 illustrates the 

special proceedings courtroom in the Sandra Day O’Conner U.S. 

Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, which is not assigned to an individual 

judge. 

 15GSA said that it would consider the provision of space not in the approved request as a 

departure from the Design Guide, even though it did not increase the overall square 

footage of the building. 
Page 32 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 9: Special Proceedings Courtroom in the Sandra Day O’Conner U.S. 

Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona 

Source: GAO.
Page 33 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

• Not all courtrooms were being used. At the Edward A. Garmatz Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse in Baltimore, Maryland, four magistrate 

courtrooms were being used to store excess furniture. The district 

chose not to use these courtrooms because they did not meet Design 

Guide standards for square footage.16 Judiciary officials said that the 

magistrate judge hearing-room size poses security concerns due to the 

lack of separation between individuals in custody, the victims, law 

enforcement officers, judges, and the lawyers. However, the size of 

courtrooms is not listed as a security risk factor for increasing the 

priority for having a new courthouse built. The judiciary used the lack 

of magistrate courtrooms in the courthouse to increase its priority for 

having a new courthouse built in Baltimore. This goes against Design 

Guide instructions, which indicate the following: “Differences between 

space in the existing facility and the criteria in the Design Guide are 

not justification for facility alteration and expansion.” 

• Judges had exclusive access to facilities in multiple buildings. For 

example, a bankruptcy judge with a full courtroom and chamber suite 

in the Union Station Courthouse in Tacoma, Washington, also 

maintained an exclusive courtroom and chamber suite about 30 miles 

away in Seattle, Washington. As a result, the judge occupied about 

8,000 square feet of space, not including the jury rooms, holding cells 

(Tacoma), and separate circulation patterns. In commenting on this 

report, AOUSC said that the next bankruptcy judge assigned in Western 

Washington will reside in Tacoma, although AOUSC did not say 

whether the current judge would no longer travel. As another example, 

an appeals judge who had been assigned space in the new Albert V. 

Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, chose to stay in leased 

space 18 miles away in McLean, Virginia. In addition to the about 

$272,000 it paid in 2005 for the 4,600 square feet in the Westpark 

Corporate Center in McLean, the judiciary pays for a 4,300 square foot 

chamber in the federal courthouse in Alexandria. While the chamber 

was vacant during our visit, the judiciary said that the chamber suite is 

now used as a conference room, a meeting place for the bar 

association, and file storage. 

Some circuit and district officials said that they would consider different 

choices if they had incentives to better utilize space, but determining what 

those differences would be or how they would ultimately affect the 

 16The Edward A. Garmatz Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Baltimore, Maryland, 

was built before the first Design Guide was published. 
Page 34 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

judiciary’s rent bill is difficult to determine. Our financial management 

work has shown that implementing effective acquisition decisions relies 

on empowering stakeholders and holding them accountable for 

coordinating, integrating, and implementing acquisition decisions.17 It does 

not appear that accountability for the cost of acquiring courthouses and 

other facilities from GSA rests with circuit- and district-based officials, 

such as judges and key staff. In our visits to court locations, we discussed 

with judiciary officials a number of possible changes to incentives. 

Judiciary officials said, for example, that the judiciary could charge rent to 

the circuits that make space decisions. This approach would provide 

greater accountability for, and understanding of, the consequences of local 

space-use decisions. According to AOUSC, in March 2006 the Judicial 

Conference approved a plan to establish budget caps for the judiciary’s 

space and facilities program as part of its budget check process. This 

action may help the judiciary manage its space but could face 

implementation challenges. In addition, AOUSC said that not all of its 

space use decisions are within its control. For example, AOUSC said that it 

faces challenges in what space within specially built courthouses it can 

return to GSA for security reasons. Consequently, the judiciary may be 

forced to retain space they do not need within the context of a larger 

courthouse. 

The Design Guide establishes the standards for most aspects of federal 

courthouses; however, it lacks firm criteria for assigning courtroom and 

chamber space for appeals and senior district judges. The Design Guide

suggests one courtroom be provided per district judge because district 

hearings have one presiding judge. Since appeals judges sit in panels of 

three or more, the one judge per courtroom criteria does not apply. 

However, the Design Guide does not set different criteria for the number 

of chambers/courtrooms per appeals judge. The absence of criteria could 

lead to variation in the number of courtrooms that appeals courts are 

provided and this hinders more efficient space management. Data 

provided by the judiciary show that the number of courtrooms per 

appellate court judge varies by circuit. Since 2000, the appeals court has 

increased its rent costs and the square footage it occupies faster than the 

district and bankruptcy courts. Additionally, this lack of criteria appears to 

 17GAO, Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal Agencies, 

GAO-05-218G (Washington, D.C.: September 2005). 

Judiciary Lacks Space 

Allocation Criteria for 

Appeals Courts and Senior 

District Judges 
Page 35 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

increase the number of courtrooms for appeals court judges, thereby 

potentially increasing the rent costs. 

In two districts we visited, the appeals courts were taking over the old 

district courthouses after the district court moved into a new building. 

Appeals courts are suitable for older courthouses because of their 

differing security requirements, but there are no criteria for the number of 

courtrooms for the appeals court or courtroom usage data. Furthermore, 

while certain appeals courts are required by law to have regular sessions 

at more than one location,18 it is unclear whether their caseload is 

sufficient to justify their own courthouses. Appeals judges sit in panels 

and do the bulk of their work outside of the courtroom. When the new 

district courthouse in Richmond, Virginia, which is currently under 

construction, opens, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will take over 

exclusive use of the courthouse that currently houses all district, 

bankruptcy, and appeals courtrooms in that city. However, according to 

judiciary officials, the 4th Circuit holds court in Richmond only 9 weeks a 

year. Similarly, when the new courthouse in Seattle, Washington, opened 

in 2004, the district court and appeals courts moved out of the old 

building, the Nakamura Courthouse. After a $53 million renovation of the 

Nakamura Courthouse, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals plans to reoccupy 

most of the building, although it already has 9th Circuit Appeals 

Courthouses in Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; and Pasadena, 

California. In addition, court records showed that the 9th Circuit had used 

only one courtroom for 1 week each month in Seattle over the last 3 years, 

with one exception. Moving into the Nakamura Courthouse will quadruple 

the number of courtrooms and chambers that the appeals court will 

occupy in Seattle. Circuit and district officials with space management 

responsibilities said that national criteria for managing appeals space 

would help encourage efficient space use, improve on current space use, 

and limit the overall space appeals courts occupy. 

The Design Guide suggests that circuits and districts consider courtroom 

sharing for senior district judges, but it has not established national 

criteria for when or how that sharing should occur. When a judge turns 65 

 18For example, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals is required to hold regular court sessions at 

Richmond, Virginia, and Asheville, North Carolina. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is 

required to hold regular sessions in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California; Seattle, 

Washington; and Portland, Oregon. However, the statue does not specify how much space 

the courts should occupy at any of these locations. For example, according to judiciary 

data, the 4th Circuit Court does not have a courtroom in Asheville. 
Page 36 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

and has at least 15 years of service, the judge is eligible to retire. Instead of 

immediately retiring, judges may continue to hear cases as senior district 

judges, although at a reduced caseload, and some senior district judges 

hear few, if any, cases. About 15 percent of the federal court’s caseload 

has been handled by senior district judges. The lack of firm Design Guide

criteria for assigning senior district judges space gives circuit and district 

officials discretion in implementing a specific courtroom-sharing policy 

among senior district judges and discourages uniform practice. In the 

districts we visited, senior district judges usually retained exclusive use of 

a courtroom and chamber suites. Figure 10 illustrates a courtroom in the 

Union Station Courthouse in Tacoma, Washington, that is assigned 

exclusively to an active senior district judge. Senior district judges with 

little or no caseload share courtrooms in some districts. A circuit official 

and a chief district judge said that national criteria, such as caseload 

requirements for maintaining an exclusive courtroom or any courtroom, 

could provide leverage with district judges and court staff in reducing the 

space requirements for senior district judges. 
Page 37 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Figure 10: Senior District Judge Courtroom in the Union Station Courthouse in 

Tacoma, Washington 

Source: GAO.
Page 38 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

In commenting on our draft report, AOUSC provided a list of additional 

challenges that it believes the judiciary faces. Some of the challenges 

related to ongoing disagreements with GSA, which we did not evaluate for 

this report. These included rent estimates from GSA that the judiciary 

believes are not timely; weak communication, according to AOUSC, from 

GSA regional offices to determine the cost implications of potential 

projects; problems the judiciary believes GSA has with keeping projects on 

schedule; GSA rent pricing practices for court space; and, according to 

AOUSC, GSA’s inconsistent execution of current policies. AOUSC cited 

other challenges which are addressed in our report, including increases in 

workload and staff, the requirements of modern courthouses, statutorily 

designated places of holding court, and security requirements. AOUSC 

identified challenges of aging facilities, which is a challenge agencies face 

governmentwide, and the benefits from GSA backfilling old courthouses 

with court functions. We agree that helping GSA address the challenges of 

vacant GSA buildings is beneficial to FBF, but that this can have negative 

consequences for tenants. Lastly, AOUSC stated that inconsistent streams 

of funding for courthouse projects are a challenge. In June 2005, we 

testified19 that federal agencies’ rent payments provided a relatively stable, 

predictable source of revenue for FBF but that this revenue has not been 

sufficient to finance both growing capital investment needs and the cost of 

leased space. 

Neither the judiciary nor GSA had routinely and comprehensively analyzed 

rent trends to fully understand that the judiciary’s growing rent costs were 

primarily due to increases in the amount of space the judiciary occupies, 

together with rising operating and security costs. Without accurate data on 

the costs of rent components (e.g., shell rent, operations, and tenant 

improvements) maintained over time, the judiciary cannot identify, 

monitor, and respond to trends in rent costs. Similarly, without tracking its 

use of space over time—both overall (rentable square footage) and by 

function (district, appeals, and bankruptcy) and level (circuit and 

district)—the judiciary cannot identify and address trends affecting its 

rent costs. Obtaining and analyzing information on rent costs and space 

use would give the judiciary a better understanding of the reasons for rent 

increases and help guide its decisions about space use, especially as the 

judiciary plans to continue to expand into more new courthouses after the 

 19GAO-05-838T. 

Additional Challenges 

Identified by the Judiciary 

Conclusions 
Page 39 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

judiciary’s moratorium on new construction expires at the end of fiscal 

year 2006. 

To some extent, the judiciary’s space uses are mandated, and some 

associated rent costs are beyond the judiciary’s control (e.g., complying 

with security requirements and paying for energy costs). However, the 

judiciary has discretion and could reduce its space use and rent costs 

through better tracking and management of rent costs. The judiciary’s rent 

validation effort is intended to monitor GSA rent charges, but it does not 

address the growth in square footage that is a key driver in the rent 

increases. Without incentives for efficient space management, firm criteria 

for assigning space for appeals and senior district judges, and space 

allocation standards that are based on use, the judiciary often appeared to 

rent as much space as it is allocated in its Design Guide, without fully 

considering the impact of its space management decisions on rent costs. 

As a result, the appeals courts’ portion of the judiciary’s square footage 

and rent bill is growing, and exclusive courtroom space is provided for 

senior district judges with limited caseloads. Additionally, our 

observations of space use in selected courthouses, while not generalizable 

to all courthouses, suggest that some of the judiciary’s space allocation 

standards, such as those for law libraries and court reporting, may not be 

consistent with current use due, for example, to advancements in 

technology. 

To help the federal judiciary better understand and manage rent costs, we 

make the following five recommendations for steps that the judiciary 

should take: 

1. Work with GSA to track rent and square footage trend data on an 

annual basis for the following factors: 

• rent component (shell rent, operations, tenant improvements, and 

other costs) and security (paid to the Department of Homeland 

Security); 

• judicial function (district, appeals, and bankruptcy); 

• rentable square footage; and 

• geographic location (circuit and district levels). 

This data will allow the judiciary to create a better national understanding 

of the effect that local space management decisions have on rent and to 

identify any mistakes in GSA data. 

Recommendations 
Page 40 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

2. Work with the Judicial Conference of the United States to improve the 

way it manages its space and associated rent costs. 

a. Create incentives for districts/circuits to manage space more 

efficiently. These incentives could take several forms, such as a 

pilot project that that charges rent to circuits and/or districts to 

encourage more efficient space use. 

b. Revise the Design Guide to (1) establish criteria for the number of 

appeals courtrooms and chambers, (2) establish criteria for the 

space allocated for senior district judges, and (3) make additional 

improvements to space allocation standards related to 

technological advancements (e.g., libraries, court reporter space, 

and staff efficiency due to technology) and decrease requirements 

where appropriate. 

We provided a draft of this report to GSA and AOUSC for review and 

comment and received written comments from both. GSA agreed with the 

thrust of the report and concurred with our recommendations, but 

expressed one concern. GSA felt it was more aware of the reasons for rent 

increases than our draft portrayed. GSA’s complete comments are 

contained in appendix II. AOUSC strongly disagreed with several of the 

findings and conclusions in the draft report, but indicated that it was 

already implementing actions related to our recommendations. AOUSC’s 

extensive comments are contained in appendix III, along with specific 

GAO comments on issues AOUSC raised and facts it questioned about, 

among other things, our methodology and approaches. In response to 

AOUSC’s comments, we made numerous additions to the report to provide 

context from the judiciary’s perspective, and made some minor 

corrections that did not impact our findings, conclusions, or 

recommendations. 

GSA agreed with the thrust of the report and concurred with our 

recommendations. GSA stated it has the programs and systems in place to 

assist AOUSC in tracking rent and square footage data and revising the 

Design Guide. To support the judiciary in managing its space 

requirements, it will be important for GSA to cooperate and assist the 

judiciary, including being responsive to reasonable requests for rentrelated information. Regarding our conclusion that neither the judiciary 

nor GSA conducted an analysis to fully understand the factors 

contributing to judiciary’s growing rent costs, GSA stated that both GSA 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

GSA Comments 
Page 41 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

and the judiciary were aware that increases in the amount of space 

occupied and increases in security countermeasures comprised the 

primary reasons for judiciary’s rent increases, and requested that we 

revise the report accordingly. While we acknowledge that GSA performed 

limited analyses of the judiciary’s rent data, we continue to believe, as 

stated in our report, that GSA and the judiciary did not conduct routine 

and comprehensive examinations of trend data for the various 

components of the rent charges. The effect of this was that GSA and the 

judiciary were not fully aware of the impact that certain rent components 

had on rent bill increases the judiciary was experiencing. As an example, 

until we did our analysis of trends by rental component, GSA and AOUSC 

were not fully aware of the extent to which operating costs, driven in part 

by spikes in energy costs, were partially driving rent increases. 

AOUSC strongly disagreed with the draft report’s findings and overall 

conclusions. However, AOUSC said that it has actions underway that 

relate to our recommendations but provided no details or timelines 

regarding implementation of these actions. AOUSC expressed concerns 

regarding the scope and methodology of our analysis, as well as our 

presentation of appropriate context. AOUSC said that GAO did not 

address important aspects of GSA rent-charging practices, such as 

identifying GSA rent billing errors. AOUSC also disagreed with the draft 

report’s methodology and subsequent findings related to rent payment 

trends, citing our analysis of a positive correlation between the increase in 

space and increase in rent. Moreover, AOUSC stated that the draft report 

did not provide proper context to understand the judiciary’s increasing 

space needs and rent costs, including an expansion in workload, security 

requirements, and challenges obtaining data from GSA. AOUSC also 

challenged several of the statements and facts in the report pertaining to 

individual court locations and discussions we held with judiciary officials 

in the cities we visited. 

We disagree with AOUSC’s assessment of our report and believe our 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations are well supported. 

Moreover, we believe that AOUSC’s concerns about the scope of our 

research stem from a misunderstanding of the purpose of our review. 

While we had several discussions during the course of the review to clarify 

the scope of our work, AOUSC continued to assert that addressing the 

judiciary’s request for rent relief should be the central purpose of the 

review. Our review was never intended to examine the judiciary’s request 

for rent relief, but rather to identify recent trends in the judiciary’s rent 

payments and square footage occupied and challenges that the judiciary 

AOUSC Comments 
Page 42 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

faces in managing its rent costs. AOUSC contends that we began our 

analysis with a preconceived conclusion about rent relief and that this 

affected the methodological approach we took. In previous reports we 

have expressed the view that exemptions on rental payments undermine 

the FBF, an intragovernmental revolving fund that was established, in part, 

to make federal tenants, including the federal judiciary, directly 

accountable for the space they occupy. 20 This position had no bearing on 

our ability to independently evaluate trends in rental payments and related 

challenges. Our methodological approach allowed us to identify the 

primary factors influencing the judiciary’s rent bill increases, which 

include square footage, operating costs, and security charges. This data 

can help all stakeholders better understand the reasons behind the 

judiciary’s rent bill increases, make more informed space allocation 

decisions in the future, and—as our report states—help address AOUSC’s 

concerns with identifying errors in GSA’s rent billing. We also believe this 

review can act as a starting point for future research, which could include 

some of the analyses suggested by AOUSC, such as evaluating rent 

increases by building age. However, we continue to believe that it was 

necessary to conduct an initial factual analysis to determine the factors 

driving rent increases that focused on the basic components of rent—shell 

rent, operational costs, security, and tenant improvements. 

We also disagree with AOUSC’s assertion that our report does not provide 

proper context within the scope of our objectives. As discussed earlier, 

while we added context from the judiciary’s perspective on the basis of 

AOUSC’s comments, the draft report AOUSC reviewed already contained 

information that AOUSC asserted it was lacking. For example, it contained 

references to the judiciary’s workload including increases in civil case 

filings and security requirements for such items as building circulation. We 

added additional context as a result of AOUSC’s comments and believe 

our report provides a fair and balanced portrayal of the challenges facing 

the judiciary within the bounds of our study objectives. 

In commenting on our recommendations, AOUSC said the 

recommendations reflect areas they are already addressing, but have little 

bearing on the issue of rental charges. We disagree that our 

recommendations related to trend analysis, space allocation criteria, and 

incentives for managing costs have little bearing on increasing rental 

 20We addressed this issue in our June 2005 testimony at a congressional hearing that 

examined the judiciary’s request for rent relief. See GAO-05-838T. 
Page 43 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

changes. We continue to believe the findings and recommendations in our 

report can help the judiciary better understand and manage rent costs. 

AOUSC also noted that effective implementation of some of our 

recommendations will require more timely and accurate data gathering 

from GSA. We concur and as stated in our first recommendation, we 

believe that AOUSC should work with GSA to track rent and square 

footage data on an annual basis to allow the judiciary to create a better 

national understanding of the effect of local space management decisions 

and identify any mistakes in GSA data, and that, in doing so, GSA’s 

cooperation with the judiciary’s reasonable requests for rent data would 

be helpful. In addition, although AOUSC indicated that it is in the process 

of updating its Design Guide to address libraries and other issues, it does 

not believe that additional criteria are necessary for the appeals court or 

senior district judges. We believe these recommendations have merit 

because the appeals courts’ portion of the judiciary’s square footage and 

rent bill is growing, and exclusive courtroom space is provided for senior 

district judges with limited caseloads. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of GSA 

and the Director of AOUSC. Copies will also be made available to other 

interested parties on request. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. GAO staff who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Mark L. Goldstein 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 44 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Our objectives were to identify (1) recent trends in the judiciary’s rent 

payments and square footage occupied and (2) challenges that the 

judiciary faces in managing its rent costs. To address these objectives, we 

reviewed General Services Administration (GSA) rent data, laws relevant 

to GSA, the regulation related to the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), and 

judiciary planning and budget documents; interviewed GSA and judiciary 

officials; and conducted audit site visits at six United States District Courts 

located across the country. We assessed the reliability of rent data 

provided by GSA’s Public Building Service by (1) reviewing GSA annual 

financial audits, (2) interviewing knowledgeable officials about these data, 

and (3) reviewing an independent third-party rent bill validation effort. We 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable and valid for the 

purposes of this report. 

To identify trends in judiciary’s rent payments, we examined GSA’s billing 

information and its primary rent database, the System for Tracking and 

Administering Real Property, to analyze nationwide judiciary rent 

expenditure data from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. We chose fiscal year 

2000 as a starting point for our analysis to coincide with GSA’s 

introduction of a new rent pricing policy, which provided numeric 

breakouts for each of the various rent bill components (e.g., shell, 

operating costs, and tenant improvements). Additionally, we chose fiscal 

year 2005 as an ending point since this was the last full year of GSAgenerated rent data. We reviewed GSA’s information on the judiciary’s 

Agency/Bureau Code designations to provide information related to the 

various court functions (e.g., U.S. Circuit, District, and Bankruptcy) and 

their space allocations. We removed the effect of inflation on the rent data 

by using the Gross Domestic Product price index (2005 dollars). Generally, 

this index is preferred as a general price index because its coverage is 

broader than the Consumer Price Index. 

For our purposes, we used rentable square footage because that is the 

metric GSA uses to bill tenant agencies, including the judiciary. GSA 

calculates rentable square feet by measuring building space, including 

courthouses, in terms of usable and common spaces, based on the 

Building Owners and Managers Association’s market-based definitions of 

those terms. For example, lobbies and public restrooms are considered 

common space. GSA converts usable space into rentable square feet by 

multiplying the usable space by the building’s rentable/usable factor, 

which distributes common space proportionally among tenants in a given 

building. We adjusted the rentable square footage for the number of 

months a facility was occupied during a given fiscal year to avoid 

distortions in rentable square footage statistics due to partial year 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 45 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

occupancy in certain courthouses. We also reviewed relevant GSA 

documents, such as the GSA’s Desk Pricing Guide, for additional 

information on GSA’s rent pricing policy and the cost components that 

comprise rent payments. 

To identify challenges that the judiciary faces in managing its rent costs, 

we visited federal courthouses in the following districts: Arizona, Eastern 

Virginia, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Western Washington. We 

selected Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Western Washington 

because they were in districts that experienced large overall rent increases 

from fiscal years 2000 through 2005, were geographically dispersed, and 

may have been more likely to have challenges in managing rent costs. We 

also visited Maryland and Eastern Virginia court facilities because they 

contained a new courthouse, a renovated courthouse, and a courthouse 

that was targeted for replacement. During our site visits, we interviewed 

GSA officials in the regions, as well as other facilities experts, to discuss 

rent cost increases. The findings from these courthouse visits cannot be 

generalized to the population of federal courthouses nationwide. We also 

interviewed district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges; clerks; circuit 

executives; and other representatives from U.S. circuit and district courts 

with authority over space and facilities. We interviewed judiciary officials 

associated with the rent bill payment process, including Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts officials. We also reviewed the 

judiciary’s U.S. Courts Design Guide to determine space allocations for 

the different court components, including chambers, courtrooms, and 

ancillary space for U.S. appeals, district, and bankruptcy courts. 
Appendix II: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 46 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Appendix II: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 
Appendix II: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Page 47 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 48 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 2. 

See comment 1. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 49 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 50 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 3. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 51 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 5. 

See comment 4. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 52 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 11. 

See comment 10. 

See comment 9. 

See comment 8. 

See comment 6. 

See comment 7. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 53 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 16. 

See comment 15. 

See comment 14. 

See comment 13. 

See comment 12. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 54 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 20. 

See comment 19. 

See comment 18. 

See comment 17. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 55 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 23. 

See comment 22. 

See comment 21. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 56 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 25. 

See comment 24. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 57 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 28. 

See comment 27. 

See comment 26. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 58 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 30. 

See comment 29. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 59 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 33. 

See comment 32. 

See comment 31. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 60 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 34. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 61 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 37. 

See comment 36. 

See comment 35. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 62 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 38. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 63 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 41. 

See comment 40. 

See comment 39. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 64 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 46. 

See comment 45. 

See comment 44. 

See comment 43. 

See comment 42. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 65 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 48. 

See comment 47. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 66 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 51. 

See comment 50. 

See comment 49. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 67 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 55. 

See comment 54. 

See comment 53. 

See comment 52. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 68 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 57. 

See comment 56. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 69 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 60. 

See comment 59. 

See comment 58. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 70 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 61. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 71 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 63. 

See comment 62. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 72 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 65. 

See comment 64. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 73 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 67. 

See comment 66. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 74 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 75 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 69. 

See comment 68. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 76 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 71. 

See comment 70. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 77 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 78 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 79 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 74. 

See comment 73. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 80 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

See comment 75. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 81 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

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

U.S. Courts letter dated June 6, 2006. 

1. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) said that the draft 

report is about the federal judiciary’s request for rent relief from the GSA. 

This is not the case. Addressing the judiciary’s request for rent relief was 

not one of the objectives of this review. Our objectives were to determine 

the recent trends in the judiciary’s rent payments and square footage 

occupied and challenges that the judiciary faces in managing its rent costs. 

AOUSC’s misinterpretation of the scope of our work is, in our view, at the 

root of its criticisms of the study’s design and methods. Regarding the 

judiciary’s request for rent relief, exemptions on rental payments 

undermine the FBF, an intragovernmental revolving fund that was 

established, in part, to make federal tenants, including the federal 

judiciary, directly accountable for the space they occupy. In fact, we 

addressed this issue in our June 2005 testimony at a congressional hearing 

that examined the judiciary’s request for rent relief.1

2. AOUSC listed seven factors summarizing its need for an adjustment to 

its rent. The judiciary’s request for a rent adjustment is outside the scope 

of this review (see comment 1). However, the report does indicate that the 

judiciary has experienced problems with obtaining underlying 

documentation for rent charges from GSA and is informally challenging a 

number of its rent bills. AOUSC states that rent increases outpacing its 

appropriations has created a funding crisis. AOUSC does not effectively 

explain why the judiciary should obtain space and services from GSA at a 

reduced rate. The judiciary’s rental agreements with GSA are interagency 

agreements the judiciary is expected to fulfill like other GSA tenants. If the 

judiciary believes specific charges are inappropriate, informal and formal 

appeals can be made to GSA. 

3. AOUSC’s analysis of direct appropriations for FBF projects is incorrect. 

AOUSC suggested that courthouses are funded through direct 

appropriations. AOUSC further asserted that Office of Management and 

Budget and GSA officials have said that courthouse projects are funded 

through direct appropriations and not from FBF revenue. In all but 4 years 

between 1990 and 2006, Congress appropriated additional funds for FBF. 

This additional funding was not tied directly to any particular project or 

 1

GAO-05-838T. 

GAO Comments 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 82 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

types of projects. The statutory language relating to the direct 

appropriations states that additional amounts are being deposited into 

FBF for the purposes of the fund. Courthouse projects have been funded 

through FBF, whether or not there were additional appropriations made to 

the FBF. We have called this misinterpretation to the judiciary’s attention 

on several occasions, including at the June 2005 hearing on rent relief and 

in related questions for the record that we provided to the subcommittee.2

4. AOUSC said that we made an inferential leap to conclude that space 

growth caused $139 million of the rent increase. We disagree with 

AOUSC’s comment and strongly believe that AOUSC mischaracterized our 

analysis as being inferential. In fact, this analysis is based on calculations 

of rent data trends rooted in basic mathematical logic. More specifically, 

our analysis is based on the logical conclusion that a net increase in square 

footage will lead to additional rent charges associated with that space, and 

the judiciary acknowledges a positive correlation between square footage 

and rent as “common sense.” In estimating the amount of rent to attribute 

to the judiciary’s increase in square footage, we separated the rent into its 

base components (shell rent, tenant improvements, security, operating, 

and remaining costs). 

• Shell rent increased proportionally with the increase in net square 

footage from fiscal year 2000 through 2005. In other words, the dollars 

per square foot that the judiciary pays in shell rent did not change after 

accounting for inflation. Shell rent is based on the appraised dollars per 

square foot multiplied by the number of square feet in a building. On 

the aggregate level, the dollars per square foot remained constant at 

about $15 in real terms, meaning that the growth in square footage 

alone caused shell rent to increase. Based on this formula, we can 

estimate in the aggregate that the judiciary’s 19 percent net increase in 

square footage can be attributed to the $94 million increase in shell rent 

from fiscal year 2000 through 2005. Any influence of other outside 

factors, such as real estate rates, would be expressed in the dollars per 

square foot variable that remained constant. 

• Tenant improvements and the remaining costs also increased by 12 and 

10 percent, respectively from fiscal year 2000 through 2005—rates 

slower than the growth in square footage. Although the tenant 

improvement costs increased, the dollar per square foot rate that the 

 2

GAO, Questions for the Record: Hearing on the Judiciary’s Ability to Pay for Current 

and Future Space Needs, GAO-05-941R (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2005). 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 83 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

judiciary pays nationwide for tenant improvements actually decreased 

in real terms since fiscal year 2000. Tenant improvement costs 

increased at a slower rate because they amortize after 25 years and are 

removed from the rent bill once fully amortized, and a number of 

judiciary facilities are amortizing their tenant improvements. There 

were a number of courthouse renovations, which included increases in 

tenant improvement costs, but did not increase the judiciary’s overall 

square footage. However, the slower growth in tenant improvements 

shows that these were more than compensated for by the amortization 

of tenant improvements in older facilities. In other words, if the 

judiciary would not have expanded its space, tenant improvement costs 

would have fallen rather than risen. Consequently, we attributed the 

$11 million increase in tenant improvements and the remaining costs to 

the net increase in square footage occupied by the judiciary. 

• Security and operating costs increased at 134 percent and 45 percent, 

respectively—faster rates than the increase in square footage. Given 

the 19 percent increase in square footage, we attributed a 19 percent 

increase in security and operating costs to the net increase in the 

square footage occupied by the judiciary because the net new space 

must be protected, heated, and cleaned. As a result, $29 million of the 

increase in operating costs and $5 million of the increase in security 

costs are associated with the judiciary’s growth in square footage. 

However, since the actual increases in security and operating costs 

exceeded the growth in square footage, it is clear that the growth in 

square footage does not explain all of the increases in security and 

operating costs. We attributed the remaining $40 million increase in 

operating costs and $31 million increase in security costs to the 

disproportionately high increases in those components from fiscal year 

2000 through 2005. Security increased because of the increased focus 

on security since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and 

operating costs increased due to recent increases in energy costs. 

5. AOUSC conducted a space versus growth analysis of its own. However, 

AOUSC’s analysis uses different rent data and time periods, which greatly 

limits its analytical value as a comparison to our methodology’s results. 

• Different data. Our data are exactly what GSA billed the judiciary by 

rent component for every building the judiciary occupied for fiscal 

years 2000 through 2005. AOUSC’s data are different in a number of 

important ways. First, the AOUSC’s table only expresses rent in gross 

terms, making it impossible to analyze how the different rent 

components changed. Second, based on the note in the table, AOUSC’s 

rent and square footage statistics do not appear to include the 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 84 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

bankruptcy court, which represents 17 percent of all square footage in 

the federal judiciary as of fiscal year 2005. Third, the note in the table 

also indicates that the rent statistics represent the judiciary’s Judicial 

Services Salaries and Expense account. It is unclear if it is a rent line 

item within the account or other expenses. 

• Different years. We chose fiscal year 2000 as a starting point to 

coincide with GSA’s introduction of a new rent pricing policy, which 

provided numeric breakouts for each of the various rent bill 

components (e.g., shell, operating costs, tenant improvements, etc.). 

Prior to that year, it is impossible to break out these components, 

which allow an understanding of the reasons behind rent increases. 

However, AOUSC chose some dates in their analysis that preceded this 

change in GSA’s rent pricing policy, which limits the information’s 

usefulness. We chose fiscal year 2005 as an ending point because it was 

the last full year of GSA rent billing data, but AOUSC chose fiscal year 

2006 as the end date for each set of figures. Since fiscal year 2006 does 

not end until September, we chose not to estimate square footage and 

rent statistics for fiscal year 2006. Consequently, we chose the longest 

time frame for which to measure trends in the different rent 

components. Our conclusions apply only to our time frame and should 

not be considered predictive in nature. 

6. AOUSC also said that we should have analyzed other independent 

variables, such as movement in the real estate market. The aggregate 

impact of those other variable are captured in the dollars per square foot 

variable for shell rent that remained constant in real terms from fiscal year 

2000 through 2005. For example, if rising real estate rates would have been 

a large nationwide factor it would have been reflected in rising dollars per 

square foot rate for shell rent. Other variables are important for 

understanding the change in rent at the building level, but at the aggregate 

level, the effect of these variables offset each other. This point is 

illustrated by the circuit based analysis in figure 4; even though rent and 

square footage increased proportionally at the aggregate nationwide level, 

the rates of growth observed at the disaggregate circuit levels varied. 

7. AOUSC said that the report’s primary focus on rent cost increases in 

recent years is only a fraction of the whole rent picture because rent for 

existing courthouses constitutes the majority of the judiciary’s rental 

costs. Although our report discusses the addition of new space as one 

factor driving rent increases, our aggregate trend data and data at the 

individual circuit level include rental payments on existing space. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 85 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

8. AOUSC said that our report provides no context for why the judiciary 

has needed more space. Our report provides context for why the judiciary 

has added square footage in a number of places. For example, the draft 

report we sent to AOUSC for comment contained the following context: 

According to judiciary officials, much of the judiciary’s growth and accompanying spacerelated needs have been the result of elevating workloads, such as increases experienced in 

civil case filings. Accordingly, judiciary officials stated that the additional space the courts 

have added, often through construction of new courthouses, was essential in 

accommodating the creation of new judgeships. Further, more judiciary officials have said 

this growth has also resulted in the need for ancillary space for court support staff. 

In addition, we have added information to the report about the judiciary’s 

increasing workload, such as the workload statistics that AOUSC included 

on page 14 of its comment letter. 

9. AOUSC said that it is mystifying how better data analysis could enable 

the judiciary to better manage its rent increases. Obtaining and analyzing 

information on rent costs and space use would give the judiciary a better 

understanding of the reasons for rent increases and help guide its 

decisions about space use, especially as the judiciary plans to continue to 

expand into more new courthouses after its moratorium expires. As 

discussed in our report, until our review, both GSA and the judiciary were 

not fully aware of the extent to which energy and security costs had 

affected rent increases. We believe analyzing cost data to better manage 

those costs is a basic managerial principle in government and business. 

10. AOUSC said that the implication that it had larger than expected 

increases in rent is inaccurate and insulting. As discussed in the report, it 

is useful, for purposes of comparison, to consider that percentage 

increases in rent would occur proportionally with percentage increases in 

net space added. In other words, holding all factors constant, a net 

increase in space of 19 percent would logically be accompanied by a 19 

percent increase in rent. As our data showed, rent costs increased 27 

percent. We did not intend to insult AOUSC; we meant that some rent 

components increased more than expected given a 19 percent increase in 

square footage. AOUSC made reference again to its lack of appropriations 

to pay its rent bill. As mentioned earlier, AOUSC does not effectively 

explain in its comments why the judiciary’s should obtain space and 

services from GSA at a reduced rate. In the appropriations process, 

congressional subcommittees conduct hearings at which federal officials 

provide detailed justifications for their funding requests. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 86 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

11. AOUSC said that our report assumed that public officials need 

financial incentives to exercise responsible stewardship. We 

recommended creating incentives for districts/circuits to manage space 

more efficiently. One such incentive is linking dollars to space usage. 

During our review, circuit and district officials with space management 

responsibility essentially agreed and said that they would consider 

different choices if they had incentives to better utilize space. In addition, 

the FBF itself is based on holding federal agencies accountable for the 

space they occupy. 

12. AOUSC said that our report pays inordinate attention to the current 

assignment of chambers and courtrooms and draws unfounded 

conclusions about them. Our report does not generalize our site visit 

findings to all courthouses nationwide, as noted in the report. However, 

we use the findings from those case studies to illustrate how a lack of 

incentives may lead to less than efficient space use in these locations. 

13. AOUSC said that the team neither spoke with an appellate judge nor 

asked the judiciary about the appellate courtroom usage practice or needs. 

In several locations, we met with circuit level officials with responsibility 

over space use decisions for the appeals courts in their circuits and 

requested information about the appellate courts’ need for space. In 

addition, we reviewed the long-range facility plans, which include 

information on the appellate courts’ need for space. We also interviewed 

numerous district, senior district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. 

14. AOUSC stated that we began our analysis with a preconceived 

conclusion about rent relief and that this affected the methodological 

approach we took. In previous reports we have expressed the view that 

exemptions on rental payments undermine the FBF, an intragovernmental 

revolving fund that was established, in part, to make federal tenants, 

including the federal judiciary, directly accountable for the space they 

occupy. 3

 This position had no bearing on our ability to independently 

evaluate trends in rental payments and related challenges. Our 

methodological approach allowed us to identify the primary factors 

influencing the judiciary’s rent bill increases, which include square 

footage, operating costs, and security charges. These data can help all 

stakeholders better understand the reasons behind the judiciary’s rent bill 

increases, make more informed space allocation decisions in the future, 

 3 GAO-05-838T. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 87 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

and—as our report states—help address AOUSC’s concerns with 

identifying errors in GSA’s rent billing. 

15. AOUSC said that we chose not to address fundamental issues regarding 

the appropriateness of GSA’s rent pricing policy for courthouses, whether 

these policies were implemented properly, the impact of rising rental costs 

on the judiciary’s ability to fund other essential needs, or mission-based 

reasons why the judiciary has and will need additional facilities. These 

were not the objectives of this review (see comment 1). However, the 

report does include context on why the judiciary believes it needed 

additional courthouses (see comment 8). 

16. AOUSC said that our report portrays the judiciary as being wrong and 

being GSA as right. As an example, AOUSC asserts that we only focused 

on incentives for the judiciary to control costs and not GSA. We disagree 

that our report portrays any entity as right or wrong. We were not asked to 

review the appropriateness of GSA’s rent pricing policies, incentive 

structure, or other challenges facing GSA. 

17. AOUSC said that our support for GSA’s ability to charge rent for 

donated property, which is not in the report but was discussed at meetings 

with AOUSC officials, illustrated deferential treatment to GSA. We 

disagree. GSA is authorized to charge rent on a donated parking lot. 

Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3175, the Administrator of General Services is 

authorized to accept, on behalf of the federal government, gifts of real 

property. The Administrator is further authorized pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 

586 to set rates for the space and services that GSA provides to federal 

agencies, and in doing so, shall approximate commercial charges for 

comparable space and services. We have stated that agency appropriations 

are available for charges attributable to employee parking spaces that are 

included as part of GSA’s charges for space and services that it provides to 

agencies. (See in the Matter of Parking Fees and Charges for General 

Services Administration, B-177610, 55 Comp. Gen. 897 (1976).) While we 

did not review whether the $11,000 that GSA charged the judiciary for 

parking in Providence, Rhode Island, was reasonable, GSA was acting 

within its authority when it accepted the property and charged 

approximate commercial rates for the parking spaces. 

18. AOUSC said our report suggests that the judiciary’s rent problems may 

be due to unnecessary growth in space. We disagree. We make no value 

judgment on whether the growth was necessary or not. However, given its 

rent problems, the judiciary’s efforts to justify its additional space and 

validate GSA rent charges are prudent. In addition, AOUSC also said that 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 88 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

GAO sought very little information about the judiciary and ignored 

pertinent facts provided by judiciary officials. We disagree. We conducted 

numerous interviews with judiciary officials to obtain information about 

the judiciary and many of the facts that the judiciary provided were 

outside the scope of our review. 

19. AOUSC questioned our use of site visits as a methodological tool. We 

often use site visits to illustrate findings and in the case of this report, did 

not generalize those findings to the larger population (see comment 12). 

We selected Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Western Washington 

because they were in districts that experienced large overall rent increases 

from fiscal year 2000 through 2005, were geographically dispersed, and 

may have been more likely to have challenges in managing rent costs. We 

chose fiscal year 2000 as a starting point for our analysis to coincide with 

GSA’s introduction of a new rent pricing policy, which provided numeric 

breakouts for each of the various rent bill components (e.g., shell, 

operating costs, tenant improvements, etc.) and fiscal year 2005 as an 

ending point because it was the last full year of rent billing data. 

20. AOUSC said that our report characterized the space associated with 

visiting judges as unused. This comment was not a complete 

characterization of these issues in our draft report. Our draft report stated 

that these courtrooms and chambers are not used when a visiting judge is 

not present. We have clarified the report to allow for the possibility of 

nonjudicial uses of visiting courtrooms and chambers. 

21. AOUSC questioned our understanding of visiting judge policies and 

practices and said that we never asked about visiting judge courtroom and 

chamber usage. However, on October 25, 2005, we asked for all courtroom 

usage data compiled by the judiciary, but AOUSC officials said that the 

judiciary does not track courtroom usage at any level. We also reviewed 

The Use of Visiting Judges in Federal District Courts: A Guide for 

Judges and Court Personnel, published by the Federal Judicial Center, the 

research arm of the federal judiciary. 

22. AOUSC said that we mislabeled six photographs of empty courtrooms 

and chambers as being in Phoenix, Arizona. We clarified the caption to 

state that the photographs were taken in courthouse locations within the 

District of Arizona. Regarding the courtroom in Phoenix that AOUSC said 

was used on 103 days or nearly half of all business days. We have 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 89 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

concluded in a past report that usage rates this low indicate that greater 

use of courtroom sharing could be considered.4

 We discussed the use of 

courtrooms and chambers with court officials during our site visits, and 

we requested courtroom usage data nationwide. AOUSC officials said they 

do not track courtroom usage at any level and added that any tracking 

mechanism would under value courtrooms, which are absolutely essential 

to the judicial process. 

23. AOUSC questioned our decision to visit districts where rent costs have 

increased and said that the report contained no information on why the 

district needed new facilities. First, our report methodology clearly 

indicates that we chose the U.S. Districts of Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode 

Island, and Western Washington because their rent costs were rising and 

they were geographically diverse, but we also visited Eastern Virginia and 

Maryland because they contained a new courthouse, a renovated 

courthouse, and a courthouse that was targeted for replacement. Second, 

our report addresses why the judiciary believes it needed new facilities 

(see comment 8). 

24. AOUSC said that GAO did not validate the rental charges for 

courthouses, as it said we would. Although validating GSA rent charges 

was not part of our objectives (see comment 1), we did interview GSA 

officials at each of our site visits. In those interviews, we discussed how 

GSA calculates rental charges, including reviewing floor plans, occupancy 

agreements, and rent bills. In addition, our report correctly describes 

Rhode Island’s disputed rent bill as informal in that the judiciary has not 

pursued an official challenge under policies prescribed by GSA. 

25. AOUSC’s subtitle said we inaccurately assessed judicial chambers and 

courtroom space, but AOUSC does not raise any factual inaccuracies in 

the body of its comments. Instead, AOUSC said that the issue of how 

chambers and courtrooms are assigned has little significance to rent. Our 

draft report addressed how courtrooms and chambers are assigned to 

illustrate the challenges that the judiciary faces in managing its rent costs. 

For example, we noted that special proceedings courtrooms are not 

routinely assigned to a district judge, as an illustration of how a lack of 

incentives may be undermining efficient space use and consequently 

causing increased rent payments by the judiciary. In addition, we noted 

 4

GAO-97-39 and GAO, Courthouse Construction: Sufficient Data and Analysis Would 

Help Resolve the Courtroom-Sharing Issue, GAO-01-70 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2000). 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 90 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

that the judiciary said that it intends, over time, to assign courtrooms 

reserved for visiting judges to resident judges when a judicial vacancy is 

filled or a new judgeship is created. Regarding AOUSC’s criticism of some 

of our observations of how space is used as “snapshots” that are not 

useful; we agree that courthouses are built for the long-term and that 

complex factors are involved. However, the judiciary is experiencing 

significant growth in rent costs in locations where it is paying for space 

that is not used regularly or sometimes not at all. This demonstrates one of 

the challenges facing the judiciary that we describe in our report. While 

the judiciary has identified a long-term need for space that is currently 

underutilized, it is unclear whether the judiciary has determined if there 

are opportunities for better utilization in the short-term. 

26. AOUSC said that our report included no information on new 

judgeships in the Districts we visited and lists the District of Arizona as an 

example. The draft report AOUSC reviewed included information on the 

creation of new judgeships, and the report now includes the District of 

Arizona as an example. The Chief Judge within the District of Arizona said 

that these new courthouses were necessary due to new judgeships and 

increasing caseloads. AOUSC asserted that limiting our analysis to square 

footage figures suggests that the construction of courthouses is unrelated 

to definable needs. As discussed in comment 8, our report discusses the 

judiciary’s increased caseload in the context of space needs. 

27. AOUSC questioned our use of testimonial evidence obtained during 

site visits and our refusal to release names of officials associated with 

specific testimonial evidence. We generally do not identify individuals by 

name in our audit reports for several reasons, one of which is to avoid 

adversely affecting those individuals. For similar reasons, during the 

auditing process, we have found that we are better able to obtain 

information from officials in circumstances in which they do not feel 

intimidated or pressured. Thus, we avoid identifying officials by name so 

they can speak freely without concern that their statements will be held 

against them. In addition, our processes and procedures for collecting 

testimonial evidence provide assurance that such statements, when used 

in a report, are heard by more than one analyst, accurately described, and 

corroborated by multiple sources. AOUSC and a district judge made a 

formal request for revealing the identities of the individuals whom we 

interviewed, which we declined for these reasons. 

28. The questions AOUSC raises, including whether methods used for 

determining commercially equivalent rental charges are appropriate for 

courthouses and whether GSA’s bills are accurate, were never objectives 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 91 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

of this review. AOUSC also suggests that we did not address how GSA 

calculates rent in the draft report. We addressed this issue in the 

background section of our report. At the beginning of our review, we 

identified a descriptive objective related to how GSA calculates rent. This 

was never intended to be an evaluative objective, and as such, we included 

the information in the background section of this report. It is common in 

our audits that background or descriptive information collected be 

conveyed in this manner. 

29. AOUSC said that we chose to ignore judiciary officials’ concerns about 

a GSA rent billing and bonus program. Neither of these issues were within 

the objectives of this study (see comment 1). Our report says that the 

judiciary has identified errors. In addition, we discussed the issue of GSA 

billing errors with an official in GSA’s Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG). This official said that OIG has begun work looking into GSA rent 

billing errors in response to AOUSC’s concerns. We agreed to discuss our 

findings with OIG staff after the completion of our review. 

30. AOUSC said that we amended our report to reflect new information 

regarding AOUSC’s identification of billing errors. We have added 

information to our report regarding AOUSC’s challenges to GSA rent bills. 

31. AOUSC said that the draft report did not address or identify that the 

judiciary has found it challenging to obtain GSA’s back-up documentation 

regarding rent charges. We have added the following information on 

judiciary’s rent validation effort to our report: 

The judiciary said that this [rent validation] effort has been hindered by an inability to get 

underlying documentation, such as floor plans and appraisals, from GSA in a timely 

manner. AOUSC indicated that this information is necessary to truly validate GSA rent bills. 

32. AOUSC noted that we described the basic components of rental 

charges but suggests that we examine the rental charges in a number of 

other ways, including the rent trends over the life of buildings and the 

effect of real estate trends on rent. The trend data we developed represent 

a first step in understanding judiciary’s rental payments to GSA and can 

serve as a basis for questions and inquiries by GSA and the judiciary. 

33. AOUSC said that the study does not say whether GSA’s appraisal-based 

pricing approach is appropriate for courthouses. Examining the 

appropriateness of GSA’s rent pricing policy was not part of this study (see 

comment 1). 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 92 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

34. AOUSC said that the study does not assess GSA’s return on investment 

pricing policy and raises a number of concerns with the GSA policy. 

Evaluating the relative merits of GSA’s different methods for rent pricing 

was not one of the objectives of this study (see comment 1). 

35. AOUSC questioned our knowledge of the federal courts. Over the past 

20 years, we have compiled a large body of work on federal courthouse 

construction and federal real property. Our work on courthouse 

construction has focused primarily on construction costs, planning, and 

courtroom sharing (see Related GAO Products at the end of this report). In 

addition, we have a large body of work on the federal courts’ missionrelated activities, such as caseload management and sentencing. 

36. AOUSC said that it is essential to provide information about the 

judiciary’s growth and cited a number of statistics related to filings, 

judges, and staff. Our report provides context for why the judiciary has 

added square footage in a number of places, including the growth statistics 

listed here (see comment 8). 

37. AOUSC cited additional contextual issues missing from the report 

including the fact that access to the federal courts is a core value in the 

American system of government, and that courthouses are historic and 

important symbols of the federal government in communities across the 

country and often play a significant role in redevelopment efforts. We 

added context to the report to reflect this comment. 

38. AOUSC says that the GAO did not include information in the report 

about the need to build courthouses that can accommodate future 

expansion and that it makes no sense to have a courthouse full upon 

occupancy. However, our draft report discussed as a challenge that the 

judiciary builds to the 10-year need to accommodate future expansion, and 

this can lead to larger rent payments in the short term. We added context 

to the report to reflect AOUSC’s view on this issue. 

39. AOUSC attributes a quote “inefficient space use” that is not in the draft 

report. 

40. AOUSC said that our draft report indicated that the Alexandria, 

Virginia, Courthouse “should” be full. We have clarified the report to state 

that the Albert V. Bryan Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia is reaching the 

10-year point where it is expected to be completely full but that we found 

that there were unassigned chambers and courtrooms. In addition, we 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 93 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

noted in the report that AOUSC said that the courthouse in Alexandria 

should be full in the next few years. 

41. AOUSC said that the report unfairly criticizes the judiciary for 

increasing courtroom flexibility in exchange for building fewer 

courtrooms than were allotted. Our report says that this approach can 

create a more flexible courthouse and that the judiciary expanded the 

courtrooms in exchange for building fewer courtrooms than allotted. 

However, it is important to note that any benefits of this policy would only 

be realized in the future if the Districts can effectively implement a policy 

of courtroom sharing that does not presently exist. 

42. AOUSC said that we did not include information on the challenges 

associated with changes in real estate market dynamics. The challenge to 

which the judiciary refers is an inherent part of the FBF. Rent payments by 

law must approximate commercial rates; and GSA, through FBF, 

encourages federal agencies to be accountable for the space they use by 

requiring them to budget and pay for their own space requirements. A 

committee report accompanying the enactment of FBF noted that because 

each agency would have to budget for its space needs, doing so would 

promote more efficient and economical use of space by government 

agencies. However, this approach may not work as intended with the 

judiciary unless the incentives are in place at the point where space use 

decisions are made. We found that the judiciary lacks incentives at the 

circuit and district levels for efficient space use and management. In 

addition, AOUSC said that it faces challenges in what space within 

specially built courthouses it can return to GSA for security reasons. We 

added context to the report to reflect this point. 

43. AOUSC said that the draft report did not include information on the 

challenges associated with obtaining underlying documentation in support 

of GSA’s rent bills. We added context to our report indicating that the 

judiciary has experienced problems with obtaining underlying 

documentation for rent charges from GSA. 

44. AOUSC said that the draft report did not include information on the 

challenges involving space implications of technology. However, our draft 

report included a section indicating that the Design Guide criteria does 

not keep up with technological changes, and we recommended that 

AOUSC update its criteria, accordingly. In addition, AOUSC cites the fact 

that the Seattle court reduced its library by half the size, as an example of 

implications of technology. However, it is important to note that instead of 

reducing the size of the courthouse by this amount, the district chose to 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 94 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

create a large conference center with the extra space. AOUSC also 

indicated that the Judicial Conference will review library space standards 

in September of 2006, which is a positive step. 

45. AOUSC said that our draft report mischaracterizes what transpired in 

Seattle, with regard to court reporter space. We disagree. Although we 

were unable to verify when these decisions were made, our report reflects 

the statements made by circuit and district officials on our visit, and we 

found that the bankruptcy chambers in the Seattle courthouse exceed 

Design Guide standards. AOUSC also said that it is not always practical to 

return space in an existing courthouse to GSA. We added context to the 

report to reflect this point, and we believe that this makes the decisions 

made during courthouse design even more critical. 

46. AOUSC said that it will update the Design Guide to reflect the impact 

of electronic filing on storage requirements in the clerks’ office, which we 

view as a positive step that is in line with our recommendations. 

47. AOUSC indicates that the four magistrate courtrooms in the Baltimore 

courthouse are an inadequate size that creates security concerns. We have 

added additional context in the draft on this matter. However, the size of 

courtrooms is not listed as a security risk factor for increasing the priority 

for having a new courthouse built. In addition, it is important to note that 

the judiciary used the lack of magistrate courtrooms in the courthouse to 

increase its priority for having a new courthouse built in Baltimore. This 

goes against Design Guide instructions, which indicate the following: 

“Differences between space in the existing facility and the criteria in the 

Design Guide are not justification for facility alteration and expansion.” 

48. AOUSC said that a number of challenges were not addressed in the 

report, including workload, security, and statutorily designated places of 

holding court. AOUSC also listed a number of challenges, including 

problems with the funding stream for courthouse construction projects, 

communication from GSA regional offices to determine the cost 

implications of potential projects, and GSA keeping projects on schedule. 

Our draft report addressed a number of these challenges, and we have 

listed AOUSC’s views of these challenges in the body of this report. 

49. AOUSC incorrectly interprets our draft report as stating that we use 

the word “inefficient.” The word “inefficient” did not appear in the draft 

report. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 95 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

50. AOUSC indicates that we make an incorrect statement about a 

bankruptcy judge that travels between Tacoma and Seattle, Washington. 

We continue to believe our statement that a bankruptcy judge in the 

Western District of Washington maintains an exclusive courtroom and 

chambers in two separate locations, within a 30-mile radius, is factual and 

accurate. First, this is the way judiciary officials conveyed his status in 

interviews. Second, the Web site for the Bankruptcy Court for the Western 

District of Washington lists different chambers, courtrooms, and staff 

contacts for the bankruptcy judge in Seattle and Tacoma. 

51. AOUSC notes that both courtrooms used by the bankruptcy judge, who 

travels between Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, do not have holding 

cells. We clarified the report to note that the Tacoma courthouse has 

holding cells, which exceed Design Guide standards for bankruptcy 

courtrooms, but the bankruptcy courtrooms in Seattle do not. 

52. AOUSC said that our highlights page incorrectly states that an appeals 

court judge had designated chamber space in Alexandria as well as 

McLean, Virginia. We believe that the word “designated” is appropriate 

because the appeals court judge occupied that space at one point, 

according to a judiciary official, before choosing to move to leased space 

in McLean, Virginia. Thus, it is correct to state that this judge had 

designated space in the building. The space was vacant during the time of 

our visit. We note in our report that the judiciary now uses this space for a 

variety of other purposes. However, it is not clear that it needed to use the 

space designated for the appeals judge for these purposes since the 

courthouse is not currently fully occupied. Specifically, the judiciary said 

that the Alexandria courthouse currently has 9 judges for 14 courtrooms in 

addition to excess space in its secure parking lot. 

53. AOUSC said that we make several inappropriate statements about 

tenant improvements in the draft report. AOUSC said that it is 

inappropriate to refer to tenant improvements as “finishes.” We feel that 

referring to tenant improvements as finishes is appropriate because GSA 

defines tenant improvements as the improvements that take the space 

from shell to finished condition. AOUSC said that the report links “steep 

increases in cost to the types of finishes.” We believe that this is a 

mischaracterization of the text in the draft report. We link the increases in 

tenant improvement costs to the new courthouses constructed in recent 

years and the types of finishes the judiciary has chosen. We clarified the 

report to indicate that there are tenant improvement finishes in addition to 

wood finishes. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 96 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

54. AOUSC said that we need to add context to the finding that tenant 

improvement costs in the District of Rhode Island increased 927 percent, 

but we believe our draft report addressed these issues. Our report states: 

The District of Rhode Island experienced a 927 percent increase in its tenant improvement 

costs, which GSA attributed to the cost of finishes for major renovations of the district’s 

two primary courthouses—the Federal Building U.S. Courthouse and the adjacent J.O. 

Pastore Federal Building. District court officials told us that practically every part of the 

building had tenant improvement needs. GSA officials said that both of these major 

renovation projects, chosen in lieu of new construction, led to increases in the overall 

quality of the space the district occupies and, consequently, very large increases in tenant 

improvement charges. The judiciary noted that this facility was renovated within Design 

Guide standards and within the tenant improvement allowance limits established by GSA. 

55. AOUSC suggested that we change the word “architectural” to 

“structural” in our references to the security based elements of 

courthouses. We accepted this suggestion, and changed our report, 

accordingly. 

56. AOUSC said that the draft includes misleading information about 

security needs and secure circulation patterns. We disagree with this 

statement. Our draft report included context that the judiciary suggests. 

For example, the draft report stated: 

The Marshals Service requires separate circulation patterns in order to provide adequate 

security for federal courthouses. To maintain separate circulation patterns courthouses 

need elevators leading from each independent circulation parking garage or building 

entrance to each independent circulation area within each floor. For example, the Design 

Guide provides for separate elevator systems (1) linking judicial officers to their restricted 

parking areas, (2) linking prisoners with the secured cell block and parking location, and 

(3) linking the public with the public entrance. 

AOUSC also again questioned our expertise, which we addressed in 

comment 35. 

57. AOUSC said that figure 5 in the draft report labeled “Sample 

Courtroom and Associated Support Spaces That Were Based on Design 

Guide Criteria” is inaccurate. We developed this figure because the Design 

Guide depiction of a district sized courtroom is not drawn to scale. In 

addition, our sample courtroom graphic is based on the floor plan of an 

actual courtroom that was built to Design Guide standards. The AOUSC 

also states that we imply that every courtroom has a separate set of 

elevators. We have clarified the report to reflect that independent 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 97 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

hallways, rather than a separate set of elevators, are replicated for each 

district judge. The point remains that modern courtrooms include more 

than just the actual courtroom and that a policy which provides one 

courtroom per district judge in new courthouses also must provide all the 

support spaces as well. 

58. AOUSC said that our draft report implies that the judiciary uses a one 

courtroom per judge criteria for the appeals court and says that this is not 

true. We disagree that our draft report makes this implication. Our report 

states that the absence of criteria could lead to variation in the number of 

courtrooms that appeals courts are provided. Data from the judiciary 

shows that the number of courtrooms per appeals court judge varies by 

circuit. For example, the 3rd Circuit has two appeals courtrooms for 22 

circuit judges while the 8th Circuit has nine appeals courtrooms for 21 

judges. 

59. AOUSC said that our linkage between the lack of criteria for the 

number of appeals courtrooms and a possible increase in rent is 

conjecture. We believe there is evidence to support a logical link between 

criteria for the number of appeals courtrooms and chambers and the 

judiciary’s ability to limit growth and consequently rent. Specifically, since 

fiscal year 2000, the appeals court has increased its share of rent costs and 

the square footage it occupies faster than the district and bankruptcy 

courts. Criteria on the number of courtrooms and chambers assigned to 

the appeals court may help stem this growth. 

60. In responding to our first recommendation, AOUSC said that the 

specific types of data we recommend tracking would not be useful for 

program planning, management or budgeting. We disagree. Without 

accurate data on the costs of rent components (e.g., shell rent, operations, 

and tenant improvements) maintained over time, the judiciary cannot 

identify, monitor, and respond to trends in rent costs. Similarly, without 

tracking its use of space over time—both overall (rentable square footage) 

and by function (district, appeals, and bankruptcy) and level (circuit and 

district)—the judiciary cannot identify and address trends affecting its 

rent costs. Obtaining and analyzing information on rent costs and space 

use would give the judiciary a better understanding of the reasons for rent 

increases and help guide its decisions about space use, especially as the 

judiciary plans to continue to expand into more new courthouses after its 

moratorium expires at the end of fiscal year 2006. As previously mentioned 

(see comment 9), until our review, both GSA and the judiciary were not 

fully aware of the extent to which energy and security costs had driven 

rent increases. We believe that the benefits of analyzing cost data to better 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 98 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

manage those costs is a basic managerial principle in government and 

business. 

61. AOUSC said that we should recommend that GSA provide all data that 

will help the judiciary to identify mistakes in rent bills. We agree that data 

accuracy and accountability are important and recommended that the 

judiciary work with GSA on tracking changes in rent. We discussed the 

issue of GSA billing errors with an official in GSA’s Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG). This official said that OIG has begun work looking into 

GSA rent billing errors in response to AOUSC’s concerns. We agreed to 

discuss our findings with OIG staff after the completion of our review. 

62. AOUSC said that it is possible that some of the growth in the appeals 

courts square footage may be attributed to library space, previously 

assigned to the district courts. AOUSC raised this issue for the first time in 

these official comments. Consequently, we did not formally evaluate the 

coding of judiciary space at that level, and it is not clear from the AOUSC’s 

statement when the recoding occurred or how much space was affected. 

However, we still believe that establishing criteria for the number of 

appeals courtrooms and chambers is needed in order to better control the 

amount of space allocated to them. 

63. AOUSC said that it is integral to an understanding of square footage 

growth that we explain there are many factors outside the judiciary’s 

control that drive the courts’ space needs. Our draft report addressed 

workload issues, as does our final report. See comment 8. 

64. AOUSC indicates that accurate data is important, and we agree. We 

noted in the draft report that one of the ways trend data can be useful is in 

identifying rent billing errors. 

65. In responding to our second recommendation regarding incentives for 

efficient space management, AOUSC says that the recommendation is 

based on the false premise that space decisions are within the control of 

the local districts and circuits. We disagree. While the law specifies some 

of the locations where the judiciary holds regular sessions of court, the 

amount of space occupied at each location is within the judiciary’s 

discretion. According to AOUSC, Congress has recognized the importance 

of local decision making on space matters by providing circuit judicial 

councils—the entity that has first-hand knowledge of local caseload and 

other trends important to the judiciary’s space needs—with the statutory 

authority to determine the need for space accommodations. AOUSC also 

states that one could argue that there is no need for the Tacoma facility 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 99 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

because there is a large facility in Seattle and notes that Congress chooses 

some of the locations at which the judiciary operates, however, our draft 

report does not address the relative merits of locating the court in Tacoma 

but only the challenges associated with using it efficiently. 

66. AOUSC said that the report should recognize that there are interests 

outside the judiciary that can influence space decisions. We believe that 

the draft report did this. For example, the conclusion section of the draft 

report stated that “to some extent, the judiciary’s space uses are 

mandated, and some associated rent costs are beyond the judiciary’s 

control.” In addition, we have added information on other challenges 

identified by the judiciary that either related to ongoing disagreements 

with GSA that we did not evaluate or are addressed in our report in other 

places. 

67. AOUSC said that it is working to create incentives by establishing 

budget caps for space rental costs. This concept was approved on March 

14, 2006, and many of the details have yet to be determined. This action 

has the potential to be an effective tool in space management. As AOUSC 

points out, it faces serious implementation challenges. We agree. 

68. AOUSC said that GAO had committed to deleting the recommendation 

that the judiciary should establish a policy for senior district judges’ 

courtrooms. We disagree. AOUSC officials pointed out in a meeting that 

we have acknowledged in the past that the judiciary has a policy 

encouraging courtroom sharing among senior district judges. Our 

recommendation would enhance this policy by providing specific criteria 

on when such sharing could take place. We agreed in a discussion of this 

issue with AOUSC to consider whether the judiciary’s existing policy, 

which only encourages sharing, addressed this issue. We concluded that 

the policy of granting flexibility to the circuits and districts regarding 

senior district judges does not represent nationwide criteria for when and 

how courtroom sharing for senior district judges should occur. 

69. AOUSC said that the appeals courtrooms are not a significant part of 

the judiciary’s space inventory and that we do not have sufficient 

knowledge to make such a recommendation. We believe that the appeals 

court is a significant part of judiciary’s space inventory. Specifically, our 

report found that in fiscal year 2005, the court of appeals represented 11 

percent of the judiciary’s overall square footage, or 4.4 million square feet, 

which includes courtrooms, chambers, and support space. We also found 

that the appellate courts’ share of square footage occupied by the judiciary 

had grown between fiscal years 2000 and 2005. And, as discussed in 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 100 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

comment 13, AOUSC said that the team neither spoke with an appellate 

judge nor asked the judiciary about the appellate courtrooms usage 

practice or needs. In several locations, we met with Circuit level officials 

with responsibility over space-use decisions for the appeals courts in their 

circuits and obtained information about the appellate courts’ need for 

space. In addition, we reviewed the long-range facility plans, which 

include information on the appellate courts’ need for space. We also 

interviewed numerous district, senior district, bankruptcy, and magistrate 

judges. 

70. AOUSC said that the judiciary is committed to updating its space 

standards on a regular basis. We support this effort. 

71. AOUSC said that backfilling old courthouses can have benefits to FBF. 

We agree that vacant buildings of which GSA cannot dispose creates a 

drain on FBF, and we have added context to the report to reflect that. 

72. AOUSC said that a problem with the draft report is that it does not 

contain a fair, objective, and thoughtful assessment of the judiciary’s 

request for rent relief. An assessment of the judiciary’s request for rent 

relief was not one of the objectives of this study (see comment 1). We have 

provided additional contextual information on the growth in the judiciary’s 

workload to our report. 

73. In a letter enclosed in AOUSC’s comments, the Chief Judge of the U.S. 

District Court of Maryland said that the four magistrate courtrooms in the 

Edward A. Garmatz Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse were ill-suited 

to handle the drug and gun cases that characterize a big-city federal 

docket. We added context to the report indicating that judiciary officials 

said that the magistrate judge hearing-room size poses security concerns 

because of the lack of separation between individuals in custody, the 

victims, law enforcement officers, judges, and the lawyers (see comment 

47). 

74. The Chief Judge said that he did not know how we concluded that the 

lack of courtrooms in the Baltimore Courthouse were used to increase its 

priority for having a new courthouse built in Baltimore. We obtained the 

project scoring worksheet for Baltimore that indicated that four 

magistrate judges are “impacted,” meaning that they do not have 

courtrooms. Each impacted judge increases a district’s urgency score for 

justifying a new courthouse. Four magistrate judges are impacted because 

the district has chosen to use four magistrate courtrooms for storage. This 

appears inconsistent with the Design Guide, which states, “Differences 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Page 101 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

between space in the existing facility and the criteria in the Design Guide

are not justification for facility alteration and expansion.” 

75. The Chief Judge said that our draft report portrays the court’s space 

decisions as irrational and arbitrary and that we did not study the type of 

proceedings that magistrate judges handle. We disagree that our report 

portrays the judiciary in this way. Our report states that the district chose 

not to use the courtrooms because they do not meet Design Guide

standards, and we have added that the judiciary believes they pose 

security concerns (see comment 43). However, the size of courtrooms is 

not listed as a security risk factor for increasing the priority for having a 

new courthouse built. In addition, as part of our review, we reviewed the 

role of magistrate judges and interviewed numerous judges, district clerks 

of court, and circuit officials that were knowledgeable of the role of 

magistrate judges. 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 102 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Mark Goldstein (202) 512-2834 

In addition to the individual named above, Keith Cunningham, Randy 

DeLeon, Bess Eisenstadt, Brandon Haller, Grant Mallie, Susan MichalSmith, Joshua Ormond, Elizabeth Repko, David Sausville, and Gary Stofko 

made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 103 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Questions for the Record: Hearing on the Judiciary’s Ability to Pay for 

Current and Future Space Needs, GAO-05-941R. Washington, D.C.: July 

27, 2005. 

Courthouse Construction: Overview of Previous and Ongoing Work, 

GAO-05-838T. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005. 

Courthouse Construction: Information on Project Cost and Size Changes 

Would Help to Enhance Oversight, GAO-05-673. Washington, D.C.: June 

30, 2005. 

L.A. Federal Courthouse Project: Current Proposal Addresses Space 

Needs, but Some Security and Operational Concerns Would Remain, 

GAO-05-158. Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2004. 

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

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

Federal Judiciary Space: Update on Improvement of the Long-Range 

Planning Process, GAO-01-308R. Washington, D.C.: January 25, 2001. 

Courthouse Construction: Sufficient Data and Analysis Would Help 

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

December 14, 2000. 

General Services Administration: Comparison of Space Acquisition 

Alternatives—Leasing to Lease-Purchase and Leasing to Construction, 

GAO/GGD-99-49R. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 1999. 

Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Could Enhance Facility 

Planning and Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD-97-39. Washington, D.C.: May 

19, 1997. 

Courthouse Construction: Information on the Use of District 

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

May 19, 1997. 

Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More 

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

31, 1996. 

Related GAO Products 
Related GAO Products 

Page 104 GAO-06-613 Federal Courthouses 

Federal Courthouse Construction: More Disciplined Approach Would 

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

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

General Services Administration: Opportunities for Cost Savings in the 

Public Buildings Area, GAO/T-GGD-95-149. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 

1995. 

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

1994. 

Federal Buildings Fund Limitations, GAO/GGD-93-34R. Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 5, 1993. 

Federal Office Space: Increased Ownership Would Result in Significant 

Savings, GAO/GGD-90-11. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 1989. 

(543132) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER