FEDERAL 

COURTHOUSES

Recommended 

Construction Projects 

Should Be Evaluated 

under New CapitalPlanning Process

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2013 

GAO-13-263

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-263, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2013

FEDERAL COURTHOUSES

Recommended Construction Projects Should Be 

Evaluated under New Capital-Planning Process

Why GAO Did This Study

Rising costs and fiscal challenges have 

slowed the multibillion-dollar 

courthouse construction program of the 

judiciary and the General Services 

Administration (GSA). In 2006, the 

judiciary developed AMP to address 

increasing costs and incorporate best 

practices and has evaluated about 67

percent of its courthouses under the 

new system. As requested, GAO

assessed changes introduced with 

AMP. GAO examined: (1) the extent to 

which the AMP process aligns with 

leading practices and provides 

information needed for informed 

decision making and (2) the extent to 

which courthouse projects 

recommended for funding in fiscal 

years 2014 to 2018 were assessed 

under the AMP process. GAO 

compared the judiciary’s capitalplanning practices with leading 

practices, analyzed courthouseplanning documents, and interviewed 

officials from the judiciary and GSA. 

GAO visited three courthouses

selected because they were highly 

ranked by the judiciary for 

replacement, although observations 

from these site visits cannot be 

generalized.

What GAO Recommends

The judiciary should (1) provide more 

information to decision makers related 

to how projects qualify for new 

construction, any alternatives the 

judiciary considered, and their cost and 

(2) impose a moratorium on the 

projects currently on the judiciary’s 5-

year plan until they are evaluated 

under AMP. The judiciary partially 

agreed with the first recommendation 

and disagreed with the second 

recommendation. GAO believes that a 

moratorium would allow the judiciary to 

ensure that it makes the best 

investments in courthouse 

construction.

What GAO Found

The Asset Management Planning (AMP) process represents progress by the federal 

judiciary (judiciary) in better aligning its capital-planning process with leading capitalplanning practices, but its 5-year plan for fiscal years 2014 to 2018—the document 

the judiciary uses to request courthouse construction projects—lacks transparency 

and key information on how projects qualify for new construction, alternatives the 

judiciary considered, and their cost. For example, the plan lists costs for the next 

phase of the 12 recommended courthouse projects, which have several phases, but

does not list previous funding or ongoing annual costs for the projects. As a result, 

the plan lists about $1 billion in costs for the 12 projects, but the projects would 

actually cost the federal government an estimated $3.2 billion over the next 20 years.

Congress has appropriated a small share of the money needed for the projects, and 

most will need design changes before construction can begin. As a result, there is a 

risk that congressional funding decisions could be made without complete and 

accurate information. However, with this information, decision makers could weigh 

current-year budget decisions within the context of projects’ expected future costs, 

spur discussion and debate about actions to address them, and put the judiciary’s 

requests in context with other federal spending.

Ten of the 12 recommended projects were not evaluated under the AMP process.

Judiciary officials said that they did not want to delay the current projects or force 

them to undergo a second capital-planning process after they had already been 

approved. Two courthouse projects from a previous 5-year plan that were assessed 

under AMP were removed from the list and are now ranked behind more than 100 

other courthouse construction projects. Furthermore, 10 of the 12 recommended 

construction projects do not qualify for a new courthouse under the AMP criterion, 

which requires that new courthouses need two or more additional courtrooms. These 

conditions call into question the extent to which the projects remaining on the 5-year 

plan represent the judiciary’s most urgent projects and whether proceeding with these 

projects represents the most fiscally responsible proposal. While 10 additional AMP 

evaluations would involve some additional costs, not conducting those evaluations 

could involve spending $3.2 billion over the next 20 years on courthouses that may 

not be the most urgent projects.

The U.S. Federal Courthouse in Anniston, Alabama 

Note: This courthouse currently has one senior judge and one bankruptcy judge and 2 courtrooms. 

The judiciary recommends building a new courthouse even though the AMP process requires that 

new courthouse construction require at least 2 additional courtrooms based on the judges located 

there. View GAO-13-263. For more information, 

contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 

or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Letter 1 

Background 3

AMP Process Partially Aligns with Several Leading Practices but 

Does Not Provide Needed Information to Decision Makers 8

Most Courthouse Projects Were Not Evaluated under AMP Process 

and Do Not Meet AMP Criterion for New Construction 18

Conclusion 23

Recommendations 24

Agency Comments 25

Appendix I Objectives, Scope and Methodology 29

Appendix II Judiciary’s Courtroom-sharing Policy for New Construction 32

Appendix III Judiciary’s Asset Management Planning Process Urgency 

Evaluation Matrix for New Construction Projects 33

Appendix IV Judiciary’s New Courthouse Projects for Fiscal Years 2012 to

2016 and Fiscal Years 2014 to 2018 34

Appendix V Comments from the Federal Judiciary 35

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 58

Tables

Table 1: Judiciary’s Estimated 5-Year Plan Project and Annual Rent 

Costs in 2013 dollars 15

Table 2: Courtroom Counts in Judiciary’s 5-year Plan for 

Courthouses 20

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Figures

Figure 1: Judiciary’s Asset Management Planning Process (2008 to 

2013) 6

Figure 2: Leading Capital-planning Practices, as Outlined in OMB 

and GAO Guidance, and Extent to Which AMP Process 

Aligns with Them 9

Figure 3: Judiciary 5-year Courthouse Project Plan for Fiscal Years 

2014 to 2018, as of September 12, 2012. 13

Figure 4: Funding Status of Judiciary’s 5-Year Plan for Courthouse 

Projects, 2013. 16

Figure 5: Photographs of the U. S. Federal Courthouse in Anniston, 

Alabama. 22

Abbreviations List

AMP Asset Management Planning

AOUSC Administrative Office of the United States Courts

GSA General Services Administration

LFRP Long Range Facilities Plan

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 11, 2013

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Lou Barletta

Chairman

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Economic Development,

 Public Buildings, and Emergency Management

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jeff Denham

House of Representatives

Since the early 1990’s, the federal judiciary (judiciary) and the General 

Services Administration (GSA) have undertaken a multibillion-dollar 

federal courthouse construction program. To date this program has 

resulted in the completion of 78 new courthouses or annexes1 and 16 

projects in various stages of development. However, rising costs and 

other budget priorities have slowed the construction program. In addition, 

we found in 2010 that recent federal courthouses had been constructed 

larger than necessary because of poor planning, oversight, and inefficient 

courtroom use.2

 

1

An annex is an addition to an existing building. For the purpose of this report, projects 

that include construction of an annex are considered new courthouse projects.

Specifically, 33 federal courthouses completed from 

2000 to 2010 included 3.56 million square feet of extra space that cost an 

estimated $835 million to construct and $51 million annually to operate 

and maintain. We recommended that GSA should: (1) ensure that 

courthouses are within their authorized size or notify congressional 

committees; and that the judiciary should: (2) retain caseload projections 

2

GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom 

Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO 10-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 

2010).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

to improve the accuracy of its 10-year judge planning and (3) establish 

and use courtroom-sharing policies based on scheduling and use data. 

GSA and the judiciary agreed with the recommendations, but expressed 

concerns with GAO’s methodology and key findings. GAO believes these 

to be sound, as explained in the report. Our recommendations have not 

yet been implemented. 

In light of this program history and the federal government’s current fiscal 

challenges, you asked us to review the judiciary’s current plans for new 

courthouse construction. We examined (1) the extent to which the 

judiciary’s capital-planning process aligns with leading practices and

provides information needed for informed decision making and (2) the 

extent to which courthouse projects recommended for funding in fiscal 

years 2014 to 2018 were assessed under the judiciary’s current capitalplanning process. 

To determine the extent to which the judiciary’s capital-planning process 

aligns with leading practices and provides the information needed for 

informed decision making, we interviewed judiciary and GSA officials 

about and analyzed documentation on the judiciary’s capital-planning 

process. We then compared judiciary’s capital-planning practices with 

leading capital-planning practices from the Office of Management and 

Budget’s (OMB) Capital Programming Guide3 and GAO’s Executive 

Guide.

4

To determine the extent to which the current courthouse projects 

recommended for funding in fiscal years 2014 to 2018 were assessed 

under the judiciary’s current capital-planning process, we reviewed the 

We reviewed documentation on the status of courthouse 

construction projects and information about other federal buildings 

occupied by the judiciary. We reviewed GSA data on costs of construction 

and tenant improvements at two courthouse projects, one completed in 

2010 and one completed in 2011. We reviewed GSA’s and the judiciary’s 

estimated construction costs for proposed courthouse projects. We 

assessed the judiciary and GSA data for completeness and determined 

that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

 

3

Office of Management and Budget, Supplement to Circular No. A-11: Capital 

Programming Guide (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

4

GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32

(Washington, D.C.: December 1998). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

judiciary’s documents outlining the projects recommended for funding for 

fiscal years 2008 through 2018. We also examined judiciary documents 

regarding strategic planning, capital-planning, existing courthouse 

evaluations, ratings of existing courthouse deficiencies, numbers of

existing and projected judgeships, and policies on courtroom-sharing by 

judges. We reviewed congressional authorizations and funding 

appropriations for courthouse projects and GSA information on federal 

buildings, existing and planned federal courthouses, courthouse design, 

and federal historic properties. We interviewed judiciary and GSA officials 

in Washington, D.C., and visited federal courthouses in Anniston, 

Alabama, and Macon and Savannah, Georgia. We selected these sites 

because the courthouses were highly ranked by the judiciary for 

replacement. While our site-visit observations cannot be generalized to all 

federal courthouses, they provide insights into the physical conditions at

some historic courthouses.5

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to April 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I contains additional 

information on our scope and methodology.

 

The U.S. district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. 

There are 94 federal judicial districts—at least one for each state, the 

District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories—organized into 12 regional 

circuits. Each circuit has a court of appeals whose jurisdiction includes 

appeals from the district and bankruptcy courts6

 

5

GSA data shows 142 of the courthouses rented to judiciary are listed in or eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s listing of historic properties. Typically, 

these historical properties are at least 50 years old. The National Historic Preservation Act

of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915), as amended, requires agencies to manage 

historic properties under their control and jurisdiction in a manner that considers the 

effects of their actions on historic preservation. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. §§ 470(f), 470(h)(2). 

located within the circuit, 

6

Each district also includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of the district, except for 

three U.S. territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) where 

bankruptcy cases are heard by the district court. 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.7

Federal courthouses can house a variety of appellate, district, senior 

district, magistrate, or bankruptcy judges as well as other court and noncourt-related tenants. Prior to 2008, the judiciary did not require judges to 

share courtrooms, except in situations where the courthouse was out of 

space.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) within the 

judicial branch carries out a wide range of services for the federal 

judiciary, including capital-planning. The Judicial Conference of the 

United States (Judicial Conference) supervises the Director of the 

AOUSC and is the principal policy-making body for the federal judiciary 

and recommends national policies and legislation on all aspects of federal 

judicial administration. 

8 In 2008, the Judicial Conference adopted new policies for 

courtroom-sharing (1) between senior district judges and (2) between 

magistrate judges. In 2011, the Judicial Conference adopted a courtroomsharing policy for bankruptcy judges. These policies apply to new 

courthouse projects and existing courthouses when there is a new space 

need that cannot otherwise be accommodated. (See app. II for more 

information on judiciary’s courtroom-sharing policies.) The judiciary has 

also been studying the feasibility of an appropriate sharing policy for 

district judges in courthouses with more than 10 district judges, but has 

not yet finalized a policy and could not tell us when or if it expected to do 

so. Our 2010 report examined judiciary data on courtroom usage and 

found that there are additional opportunities for significant cost savings 

through courtroom-sharing, particularly for district judges.9

The judiciary’s previous capital-planning process, which it used from 1988 

to 2004, assessed a new courthouse project’s urgency based on four

criteria: (1) the year in which the existing courthouse was expected to run 

out of space, (2) the number and nature of security deficiencies in the 

existing courthouse, (3) the number and nature of infrastructure and 

 

 

7

There are also two trial courts (the U. S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court 

of Federal Claims) and one court of appeals (the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit) with nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of cases. 

8

Appellate judges, however, have always shared courtrooms because they sit in panels of 

three or more.

9

GAO 10-417. We recommended that the judiciary establish and use courtroom-sharing

policies based on scheduling and use data. 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

operational deficiencies in the existing courthouse, and (4) the current 

number of judges who do not have a permanent courtroom and chambers 

in the existing courthouse, plus the projected number of judges over the 

10-year planning period who will not have a courtroom and chambers. 

From fiscal years 2005 to 2006, as a cost containment initiative, the 

judiciary imposed a moratorium on new courthouse construction while it 

reevaluated its capital-planning process. 

In 2008, the judiciary began using a new capital-planning process, called 

the Asset Management Planning (AMP) process, to assess, identify, and 

rank its space needs. According to judiciary officials, the AMP process 

addresses concerns about growing costs and incorporates best practices

related to capital-planning. The AMP process includes several steps 

beginning with the completion of a district-wide Long Range Facilities 

Plan (LFRP). Collectively, the AMP process: 

• documents courthouse space conditions and district space needs 

based, in part, on the judiciary’s AMP process rules and building 

standards as specified in the U.S. Courts Design Guide;

10

• identifies space needs on a building-specific and citywide basis; and 

• develops housing strategies that can include construction of a new 

courthouse or annex and renovation projects. 

The AMP process results in an urgency score for construction or 

renovation based primarily on the current and future need for courtrooms 

and chambers and the condition assessment of the existing building (see 

app. III). The AMP process establishes criteria for qualifying for new 

courthouse construction, such as requiring that an existing courthouse 

have a chamber for each judge and needing two or more additional 

courtrooms. Judiciary officials told us that unlike the previous capitalplanning process, a new courthouse could no longer be justified as part of 

the AMP process based solely on security or operational deficiencies. 

The judiciary has chosen to improve security within existing courthouse 

rather than replace them with new courthouses. After the Judicial 

Conference identifies courthouse projects, GSA conducts feasibility 

studies to assess alternatives for meeting the judiciary’s space needs and 

recommends a preferred alternative. The judiciary adopts the GSA 

 

10Judicial Conference of the United States, U.S. Courts Design Guide 2007 (Washington, 

D.C.: 2007). The U.S. Courts Design Guide specifies the judiciary’s criteria for designing 

new court facilities and sets the space and design standards for court-related elements of 

courthouse construction.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

recommended alternative, which may differ from the alternative 

recommended in the AMP process. For example, a project may not 

qualify for new courthouse construction under the AMP process, but GSA 

may determine through its feasibility study that new construction is the 

most cost-efficient, viable solution. See figure 1 for the judiciary’s current 

process for selecting and approving new courthouse construction 

projects. 

Figure 1: Judiciary’s Asset-Management Planning Process (2008 to 2013)

Part of the judiciary’s capital-planning—both the previous and current 

processes—has been to periodically communicate its facility decisions for 

construction projects via a document known as the Five Year Courthouse 

Project Plan (5-year plan). The 5-year plan is a one-page document that 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

lists proposed projects by fiscal year and the estimated costs for various 

project phases (site acquisition, design, or construction) as approved by 

the Judicial Conference. The judiciary uses the plan to communicate its 

most urgent projects to Congress and other decision makers. Previously, 

we found that judiciary’s 5-year plans did not reflect the most urgently 

needed projects and lacked key information about the projects selected—

such as a justification for the project’s priority level.11

GSA reviews its courthouse studies with the judiciary and forwards 

approved projects for new courthouses to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review. If approved by OMB, GSA then submits 

requests to congressional authorizing committees for new courthouse 

projects in the form of detailed descriptions, or prospectuses,

 

12

Using the AMP process, the judiciary is currently evaluating all of the 446 

federal courthouses it leases from GSA. As of October 2012, the judiciary 

has conducted AMP evaluations for 298 (about 67 percent) of all federal 

courthouses. Judiciary officials told us that they do not expect to finish 

for 

authorizing acquisition of a building site, building design, and 

construction. Following congressional authorization and the appropriation 

of funds for the projects, GSA manages the site, design, and construction 

phases. After occupancy, GSA charges federal tenants, such as the 

judiciary, rent for the space they occupy and for their respective share of 

common areas, including mechanical spaces. In fiscal year 2012, the 

judiciary’s rent payments to GSA totaled over $1 billion for approximately 

42.4 million square feet of space in 779 buildings that include 446 federal 

courthouses. 

 

11GAO, Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More Informed 

Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD-97-27 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 31, 1996). In this report, we 

recommended that the judiciary take several steps to make the 5-year plan a more useful 

tool for helping Congress to better understand project priorities and individual project 

needs. The judiciary concurred with our recommendations. 

12Before Congress makes an appropriation for a proposed project, GSA submits detailed 

project descriptions called prospectuses to the Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 

authorization by these committees when the proposed construction, alteration, or 

acquisition of a building to be used as a public building exceeds a specified dollar 

threshold. For purposes of this report, we refer to these committees as “authorizing 

committees” when discussing the submission of the prospectuses and providing additional 

information relating to prospectuses to these committees. Furthermore, for purposes of 

this report, we refer to approval of these projects by these committees as “congressional 

authorization.” See 40 U.S.C. § 3307.
 

Page 8 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

evaluating all of the courthouses until October 2015 and would take 

another 18 to 24 months to complete the LRFPs, dependent upon the 

availability of funding. 

The AMP process, which the judiciary has applied to about 67 percent of 

its courthouses, represents progress by the judiciary in aligning its capitalplanning process with leading capital-planning practices, but the 

document the judiciary uses to request courthouse construction projects 

lacks transparency and key information. We have previously reported that 

prudent capital-planning can help agencies maximize limited resources

and keep capital acquisitions on budget, on schedule, and aligned with 

mission needs and goals.13 Figure 2 summarizes leading capital-planning

practices and our assessment of the extent to which the AMP process 

aligns with those practices. For our analysis of judiciary’s planning 

practices, we focused on the judiciary’s implementation of the concepts 

that underlie the planning phase of OMB and GAO guidance, including 

linking capital-planning to an agency’s strategic goals and objectives and 

developing a long-term capital investment plan.14 

 

13GAO, Budget Issues: Agency Implementation of Capital Planning Principles Is Mixed, 

GAO-04-138 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 16, 2004) and GAO, Federal Capital: Three Entities’ 

Implementation of Capital Planning Principles Is Mixed, GAO-07-274 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 23, 2007). 

14GAO/AIMD-99-32 and OMB, Capital Programming Guide. 

AMP Process Partially 

Aligns with Several 

Leading Practices but 

Does Not Provide 

Needed Information 

to Decision Makers 

AMP Process Partially 

Aligns with Several 

Leading Practices in 

Capital Planning 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Figure 2: Leading Capital-Planning Practices, as Outlined in OMB and GAO Guidance, and Extent to Which AMP Process 

Aligns with Them
 

Page 10 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Several aspects of the AMP process partially align with leading capitalplanning practices, but none fully align and the 5-year plan only aligns to 

a limited extent—which we discuss further in this report. Here are some 

examples to illustrate partial alignment: 

• Strategic Linkage. The judiciary’s strategic plan links to its 

management of capital assets, but the AMP process does not link to 

the strategic plan. For example, the AMP process documents we 

reviewed did not explain how the process helps achieve the goals and 

objectives in the judiciary’s current strategic plan,15

 

which are 

organized around seven issues: providing justice; the effective and 

efficient management of public resources; the judiciary workforce of 

the future; harnessing technology’s potential; enhancing access to the 

judicial process; the judiciary’s relationships with the other branches 

of government; and enhancing public understanding, trust, and 

confidence. However, after our review, a judiciary official told us that 

the Long Range Facility Plans (LRFP) currently under development 

would include a reference to the strategic plan.

• Needs Assessment and Gap Identification. The AMP process has 

improved judiciary’s needs assessment and gap analysis by 

establishing a comprehensive, nationwide 328-factor study for every 

courthouse, whereas the previous process was not as comprehensive 

and only assessed courthouses when requested by a local judicial 

district.16 The AMP process evaluates the degree to which existing 

facilities support court operations by applying space functionality 

standards, security, and building condition factors. However, cost 

estimates supporting the judiciary’s needs are incomplete, as 

discussed later in this report.

• Alternatives Evaluation. The AMP process establishes a review and 

approval framework criteria for justifying new construction, whereas 

none existed in the previous process. The AMP process evaluates 

some alternatives, such as renovating existing courthouses to meet 

needs, but it is unclear if the judiciary considered other options, such 

as courtroom-sharing in the existing courthouse. Assessing a widerange of alternatives would help the judiciary ensure that it evaluated 

 

15The Judicial Conference of the United States: Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2010).

16 We did not review the appropriateness of criterion used by judiciary in its AMP process. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

other, less costly, approaches to bridging the performance gap before 

recommending new construction.

• Review and Approval Framework with Established Criteria for

Selecting Capital Investments. The AMP process includes a review 

and approval framework with criteria, such as courthouses needing 

two or more courtrooms to qualify for a new courthouse project. 

However, courtroom deficits are not apparent in most projects 

reported in the 5-year plan.

• Long-Term Capital Investment Plan. Judiciary officials with whom 

we spoke agreed that the 5-year plan is not a long-term capital 

investment plan, but it is what the judiciary uses to document its 

request for new courthouse construction to decision makers. The onepage 5-year plan document does not reflect the depth of the AMP 

process, describe all other projects that the judiciary considered, or 

indicate how the projects chosen will help fulfill the judiciary’s mission, 

goals, and objectives. 

Two courthouse projects illustrate how the AMP process has changed the 

way the judiciary evaluates its need for new courthouses. Specifically, two 

projects listed on a previous 5-year plan (covering fiscal years 2012 

through 2016) were re-evaluated under AMP—San Jose, California, and 

Greenbelt, Maryland. Both had ranked among the top 15 most urgent 

projects nationwide under the previous capital-planning process, and as 

such, the judiciary prioritized them for new construction in 2010. However, 

after the judiciary evaluated the San Jose and Greenbelt projects under 

the AMP process, their nationwide rankings fell to 117 and 139, 

respectively. Judiciary officials explained that this drop was largely 

because of the completion of additional AMP assessments, coupled with 

the reduced space needs because of courtroom-sharing. Following the 

change in rankings, GSA and the judiciary determined that judiciary’s

needs could alternatively be addressed through repair and alteration 

projects that reconfigure existing space. The judiciary added that its 

decision saved taxpayer money. As a result, at the request of the

judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States removed the two 

projects from the 5-year plan.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

The judiciary’s current 5-year plan—the end product of the judiciary’s 

capital-planning process—does not align with leading practices for a longterm capital investment plan in a number of ways. The plan does not 

provide decision makers with detailed information about proposed 

construction projects or how they were selected. The one-page document 

lists each project by city name, year, and dollar estimate for the next

phase of the project’s development as shown in figure 3. The one-page 

plan also provides the project’s urgency score from the judiciary’s capitalplanning process. However, the document does not specify whether the 

scores were developed under the old process or the AMP process. Unlike 

a long-term capital investment plan—usually the end product under 

leading capital-planning practices—the 5-year plan lacks complete cost 

and funding information, linkage to the judiciary’s strategic plan, and 

information on why projects were selected. Specifically, while 

courthouses provide facilities for the judiciary to accomplish goals set out 

in its strategic plan, such as enhancing access to the judicial process, the 

5-year plan contains no mention of the strategic plan. In addition, the 5-

year plan does not include a discussion of the AMP process and criteria; 

a schedule of when the AMP process will be completed; and details on 

the alternatives considered during the process, such as whether the 

judiciary’s courtroom-sharing policy was applied prior to requesting a new 

courthouse project. 

Current 5-Year Plan Lacks 

Transparency, and $1-

Billion Cost Estimate Is 

Not Comprehensive 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Figure 3: Judiciary’s 5-year Courthouse Project Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 to 2018, 

as of September 12, 2012

Note: The higher the “score,” the greater the space need urgency. 
 

Page 14 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

The 5-year plan is not transparent and does not provide key funding 

information, such as total estimated project costs. Specifically, it lists 

about $1.1 billion in estimated costs, which are the funds needed for that 

specific 5-year period. However, these costs only include part of the 

project phases. The estimated cost of all project phases—site acquisition, 

building design, and construction—comes to $1.6 billion in 2013 dollars.

17

In addition, while no longer included in the 5-year plan, the judiciary 

estimated that it would need to pay GSA $87 million annually in rent, or 

$1.6 billion over the next 20 years,18 to occupy these courthouses if 

constructed. Table 1 describes our analysis of judiciary’s data for the 

estimated cost of all phases and projected rent costs that total almost 

$3.2 billion. However, even though the $3.2-billion estimate provides a 

more complete presentation of the project costs, that estimate could 

change based on GSA’s redesign of projects because of changes in the 

judiciary’s needs. In addition, the $3.2-billion estimate does not include 

life-cycle costs, such as furniture and GSA disposal of existing facilities, 

which would also have to be included for the cost estimate to be 

comprehensive. GAO19 and OMB20 have established that estimates of 

life-cycle costs21 are necessary for accurate capital-planning. 

 

17Inflated to current year based upon averages of monthly indexes from U.S. Department 

of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

18GSA charges judiciary rent based upon the 20-year return on investment of the cost of 

courthouse construction. GAO analysis of rent is based on OMB published discount rate. 

OMB, 2013 Discount Rates for OMB Circular No. A-94, Memorandum M-13-04 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2013). 

19GAO, Cost Estimating And Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009); 

GAO-04-138 and GAO-07-274. 

20OMB, Capital Programming Guide. 

21OMB’s Capital Programming Guide defines the cost of a capital asset is its full life-cycle 

cost, including all direct and indirect initial costs for planning, procurement, operations, 

maintenance, and disposal. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Table 1: Judiciary’s Estimated 5-year Plan Project and Annual Rent Costs in 2013

Dollars

Proposed courthouse 

by location

 Estimated 

project costs 

($ Millions)

Estimated 

annual rent costs

($ Millions)

Mobile, AL 218.0 12.2

Nashville, TN 173.4 8.5

Savannah, GA 111.9 6.2

San Antonio, TX 123.8 9.6

Charlotte, NC 145.4 6.9

Greenville, SC 93.9 5.4

Harrisburg, PA 109.0 5.0

Norfolk, VA 125.8 6.7

Anniston, AL 26.9 1.8

Toledo, OH 124.9 5.6

Chattanooga, TN 163.6 8.0

Des Moines, IA 203.8 11.1

Total 1,620.4 87

Source: GAO analysis of GSA and federal judiciary data adjusted to current year (2013).

Note: Inflation to current year based upon averages of monthly indexes from U.S. Department of 

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. $87.0 million in annual payments over 20 years discounted at 0.8 

percent are about $1.6 billion in current (2013) dollars. 

In addition, the 5-year plan does not provide the amount of funding 

already provided for all of the projects. Since fiscal year 1995, Congress 

has appropriated about $177 million of the estimated $1.6 billion needed 

for 10 of these projects’ phases, mostly for site acquisitions and designs. 

None of the projects has begun construction, and only the Mobile project

has received any construction funding (see fig. 4). 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Figure 4: Funding Status of Judiciary’s 5-year Plan for Courthouse Projects, 2013

We found that the 5-year plan does not align with the leading practice of

considering the risks involved in acquiring new courthouses. Specifically, 

the plan does not inform stakeholders that 11 of the 12 projects require 

further design before construction can begin. According to GSA officials, 

the agency has not received funding for the design of two projects 

(Chattanooga and Des Moines). Of the remaining 10 projects that have 

design funding, 1 is in the design process and 9 are on hold. According to 

GSA officials, some of the projects on hold must be re-designed to 

accommodate policy and other requirements relating to, for example,
 

Page 17 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

changes such as courtroom-sharing and energy management.

22

In February 2012, judiciary submitted its 5-year plan to Congress and 

other decision makers. As a result, there is a risk that funding decisions 

could be made without complete and accurate information. Congress 

would benefit from having information based upon a long-term capital 

investment plan for several reasons. Specifically, transparency about 

future priorities could allow decision makers to weigh current-year budget 

decisions within the context of projects’ expected future costs. In the case 

of the judiciary, which has identified a number of future courthouse 

projects estimated to cost several billion dollars, full transparency 

regarding these future priorities may spur discussion and debate about 

actions Congress can take to address them. Additionally, transparency 

regarding future capital costs would put the judiciary’s priorities in context 

with federal spending. There is widespread agreement that the federal 

government faces formidable near- and long-term fiscal challenges. GAO 

has long stated that more transparent information and better incentives 

for budget decisions, involving both existing and proposed programs, 

For 

example, the design of the Savannah courthouse project was completed 

in 1998 and now needs extensive re-design to accommodate changes

mandated by policy shifts, including improved security and a reduction in 

the number of courtrooms needed. GSA officials said that only the design 

of the Nashville project—though oversized by one floor—is likely to 

remain largely intact because it would be more cost-effective to rent the 

additional space to other tenants than to completely re-design the project. 

 

22See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 

Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 3919 (Jan. 26, 2007) (Executive Order 13423 

was codified into law by section 746 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. No. 

111-8, 123 Stat. 524, 693)); Exec. Order No. 13514, Federal Leadership In Environmental, 

Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52117 (Oct. 8, 2009); and the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492). 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

could facilitate consideration of competing demands and help put U.S. 

finances on a more sustainable footing.23

The judiciary has not applied the AMP process to 10 of the 12 

construction projects on the current 5-year plan dated September 2012. 

These 10 projects were evaluated under the judiciary’s prior capitalplanning process and approved based on their urgency levels as 

determined under that process. Judiciary officials said that they did not 

want to delay the projects or force them to undergo a second capitalplanning process review because the judiciary had already approved the 

projects. Only 2 projects on the current 5-year plan (2014 to 2018) were 

assessed under the AMP process—Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Des 

Moines, Iowa. Judiciary officials said these projects were added to the 5-

year plan in September 2010 because they had the highest priority 

rankings of the projects that had undergone an AMP review at that time. 

Judiciary officials explained that these projects also had GSA feasibility 

studies that recommended new construction. However, the Chattanooga 

and Des Moines projects have not retained their top rankings as the 

judiciary has continued to apply the AMP process to additional 

courthouses. Specifically, judiciary documents show that more than a 

 

23GAO, U.S. Financial Condition and Fiscal Future Briefing, GAO-08-490CG, University of 

Akron: January 29, 2008; 21st Century Transformation Challenges and Opportunities, 

GAO-08-260CG (New Orleans, LA: October 30, 2007); Federal Oversight: The Need for 

Good Governance, Transparency, and Accountability, GAO-07-788CG (National 

Conference President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and Executive Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency: April 16, 2007); Enhancing Performance, Accountability, and 

Foresight, GAO-06-1118CG (Shanghai, China: September 13, 2006); 21st Century 

Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP

(Washington, D.C.: February 2005).

Most Courthouse 

Projects Were Not 

Evaluated under AMP 

Process and Do Not 

Meet AMP Criterion 

for New Construction 

Judiciary Has Not 

Evaluated Most 5-Year 

Plan Projects under the 

AMP Process
 

Page 19 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

dozen other projects not included on the 5-year plan now rank above the 

Chattanooga and Des Moines projects, six of which recommend new 

construction. For example, we visited the federal courthouse in Macon, 

Georgia, which now ranks higher than either the Chattanooga or Des 

Moines projects. The Macon courthouse suffers from numerous 

operational and security issues typical of historic courthouses, but it is not 

included on the 5-year plan. As we previously noted, the judiciary also 

applied the AMP process to 2 other projects that were included on an 

older 5-year plan (2012 to 2016)—San Jose and Greenbelt—and 

subsequently removed them after the projects received substantially 

lower priority rankings, as shown in appendix IV. 

The change in the rankings of the 4 projects calls into question the extent 

to which the projects remaining on the 5-year plan represent the 

judiciary’s most urgent projects and whether proceeding with these 

projects while hundreds of AMP reviews remain to be done represents 

the most fiscally responsible path. We recognize that conducting AMP 

reviews of the 10 projects on the 5-year plan would involve additional 

costs; however, not conducting AMP reviews on these projects could 

involve spending billions of dollars over the next 20 years on courthouses 

that may not be the most urgent projects. While the AMP process only 

partially aligns with leading practices in capital-planning, it is a significant 

improvement over the capital-planning process the judiciary used to 

choose 10 of the 12 projects on the 5-year plan. Assessing the 10 

projects with the AMP process could help ensure that projects on the 5-

year plan do, in fact, represent the judiciary’s most urgent projects. 

Ten of the 12 projects on the 5-year plan do not qualify under the AMP 

criterion for a new courthouse. The judiciary’s previous capital-planning 

process for new courthouse projects had no minimum additional 

courtroom requirement, but the AMP process stipulates that a new 

courthouse is justified when an existing courthouse has a deficit of two or 

more courtrooms based on the number of judges located there after 

applying courtroom-sharing policies. The judiciary bases its estimates for 

the number of courtrooms that it needs on the number of existing judges 

and the projected number of new judges it will have in 15 years.24

 

24

We 

GAO 10-417. We previously found that the judiciary has overestimated the number of 

judges it would have after 10 years. However, the judiciary’s estimate of the number of 

future judges for the current 5-year plan projects does not affect the number of courtrooms 

needed for those projects.

Most Projects Do Not 

Qualify for a New

Courthouse under the AMP 

Courtroom Criterion
 

Page 20 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

found that 5 of the projects on the list currently need additional 

courtrooms, and of those, only the Charlotte and Greenville projects 

would qualify under the AMP criterion because both need three additional 

courtrooms (see table 2). We did not assess if the shortage of courtrooms 

alone is the most appropriate criterion for requesting new construction 

from GSA, but the establishment of a clear criterion adds an element of 

transparency that was lacking in the judiciary’s previous capital-planning 

process. 

Table 2: Courtroom Counts in Judiciary’s 5-year Plan for Courthouses

City

Number of courtrooms by city

a In existing 

courthouses

Needed after 

judiciary’s 

courtroom-sharing 

policies applied b

Additional 

number needed 

after judiciary 

courtroomsharing policies 

applied

Mobile, AL 11 9 (2) 

Nashville, TN 12 11 (1) 

San Antonio, TX 10 9 (1) 

Anniston, AL 2 2 0 

Chattanooga, TN 6 6 0 

Norfolk, VA 9 9 0 

Savannah, GA 4 4 0 

Des Moines, IA 7 8 1 

Harrisburg, PA 6 7 1 

Toledo, OH 6 7 1 

Charlotte, NC 6 9 3 

Greenville, SC 5 c 8 3 

Source: GAO Analysis of GSA and federal judiciary data.

a

Some cities have more than one existing courthouse. 

b

Some existing courtrooms may not meet Design Guide standards for size. However, according to 

AMP guidance a disparity between space in an existing facility and the Design Guide standards is not 

justification for facility alteration and expansion.

c

The new Greenville courthouse is to consolidate the judges from courthouses in Anderson and 

Spartanburg, South Carolina.

We visited two courthouses on the current 5-year plan that were selected 

as new construction projects under the prior capital-planning process—

Savannah and Anniston built in 1899 and 1906, respectively. These 

historic courthouses qualified for new construction under the previous 

process because of space needs and security and operational 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

deficiencies because of their age, condition and building configuration. 

According to judiciary and GSA officials, neither courthouse meets Design 

Guide standards for (1) the secure circulation of prisoners, the public, and 

courthouse staff and (2) the adjacency of courtrooms and judge’s 

chambers. However, neither of these courthouses would qualify for new 

construction under the AMP criterion as both have a sufficient number of 

existing courtrooms for all the judges.25

 

25According to GSA officials, regardless of whether a project is on the 5-year plan, GSA is 

responsible for ensuring that courthouses are adequately maintained. 

Specifically, the Savannah and 

Anniston courthouses each have enough courtrooms for all assigned 

judges to have exclusive access to their own courtroom. Savannah 

currently houses one district judge, one senior district judge, one 

magistrate judge, and one bankruptcy judge. Figure 5 shows two 

courtrooms in the Anniston courthouse that currently house one senior 

district judge and one bankruptcy judge. 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Figure 5: Photographs of the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Anniston, Alabama

As discussed, the judiciary’s courtroom-sharing policies for senior district, 

magistrate, and bankruptcy judges allow it to reduce the scope of its 

courthouse projects and contributed to the cancelation of other 

courthouse projects. The judiciary has also been studying a courtroomsharing policy for district judges but has not yet finalized a policy and 

could not provide a date when and if it planned to do so. Our 2010 report 

based on judiciary data on courtroom scheduling and use showed that 

judges of all kinds, including district judges, could share courtrooms 

without delaying any scheduled events and recommended that the 

judiciary expand courtroom-sharing to more fully reflect the actual 

scheduling and use of district courtrooms.26

 

26

Specifically, judiciary data 

GAO 10-417. 

Potential Policy for 

District Judges to Share 

Courtrooms Could Further 

Reduce the Need for 

Future Courtrooms 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

showed that three district judges could share two courtrooms or a district 

judge and a senior district judge could share one courtroom. If district 

judges shared courtrooms in this way, the judiciary would have a 

sufficient number of courtrooms in all of the 12 proposed projects in the 5-

year plan, based on the AMP criterion. 

In responding to our recommendation, the judiciary stated that our 2010 

report oversimplified the complex task of courtroom-sharing by assuming 

that judicial proceedings were more certain and predicable than they are. 

We addressed the uncertainty of courtroom scheduling by (1) accounting 

for unused scheduled time as if the courtroom were actually used and (2) 

providing additional unscheduled time in courtrooms. Since potential 

courtroom-sharing among district judges could reduce the need for 

additional courtroom space and the AMP criterion for qualifying for new 

courthouse construction, it is important for the judiciary to finalize its 

position and policy on courtroom-sharing, as we previously 

recommended. 

With the development and implementation of the AMP process, the 

judiciary’s capital-planning efforts partially align with several leading 

practices. The AMP process has the potential to provide a wealth of 

information on the judiciary’s existing facilities and assess and rank the 

need for new construction based on measurable criteria. However, the 5-

year plan submitted for approval of several billion-dollars worth of 

projects—a one-page list of projects with limited and incomplete 

information—does not support the judiciary’s request for courthouse 

construction projects. For example, the AMP process introduces a 

criterion for when new construction is warranted—when two or more 

courtrooms are needed—but the 5-year plan does not show how this 

criterion applies to the recommended projects. Furthermore, the 5-year 

plan has underestimated total costs of these projects by about $2 billion 

because it does not include all project phases and because the judiciary 

no longer includes its rent costs on the 5-year plan. Additionally, 

construction has not begun on any of the 12 courthouse projects on the 5-

year plan and most need to be redesigned to meet current standards. 

Given the fiscal environment, the judiciary and the Congress would 

benefit from more detailed information about courthouse projects and 

their estimated costs than judiciary currently provides. Such information

would enable judiciary and Congress to better evaluate the full range of 

real property priorities over the next few years and, should fiscal 

constraints so dictate, identify which should take precedence over the 

Conclusion 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

others. In short, greater transparency would allow for more informed 

decision making among competing priorities. 

Current fiscal challenges also require that the federal government focus 

on essential projects. While the judiciary has made significant strides in 

improving its capital-planning process, most of the 12 projects listed on 

the 5-year plan are products of its former process. It is possible that some 

of the 12 projects do not reflect the most urgent capital investment needs 

of the judiciary under its current criteria. Two projects on a previous 5-

year plan that were assessed under the AMP process were removed from 

the list and now rank well down on the judiciary’s list of priorities, but the 

judiciary has not applied the AMP process to 10 courthouses on the 

current 5-year plan dated September 2012. Furthermore, 10 of the 12 

projects on the current 5-year plan do not require a sufficient number of 

courtrooms to qualify for new construction under the AMP courtroom 

criterion. In addition, there is no evidence that the judiciary considered 

how it could meet the need for courtrooms without new construction if 

district judges shared courtrooms. Although there would be some 

incremental costs involved with an additional 10 AMP reviews, those 

costs appear justified given the billions involved in moving forward with 

the construction of those 10 courthouses. Similar to the 2-year 

moratorium the judiciary placed on courthouse construction while it 

developed the AMP process, it is not too late to apply the AMP process to 

the 5-year plan projects and possibly save taxpayers from funding 

construction of projects that might not represent the judiciary’s highest 

priorities under current criteria. It is critical that the judiciary accurately 

determine its most urgent projects because of the taxpayer cost and the 

years of work involved in designing and constructing new courthouses.

To further improve the judiciary’s capital-planning process, enhance 

transparency of that process, and allow for more informed decision

making related to the federal judiciary’s real property priorities, we 

recommend that the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States, take the 

following two actions: 

1. Better align the AMP process with leading practices for capitalplanning. This should include linking the AMP process to the 

judiciary’s strategic plan and developing and sharing with decision 

makers a long-term capital investment plan. In the meantime, future 5-

year plans should provide comprehensive information on new 

courthouse projects, including: 

Recommendations 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

a) a summary of why each project qualifies for new construction and 

is more urgent than other projects, including information about 

how the AMP process and other judiciary criteria for new 

courthouse construction were applied to the project;

b) complete cost estimates of each project; and

c) the alternatives to a new project that were considered, including 

courtroom-sharing, and why alternatives were deemed insufficient.

2. Impose a moratorium on projects on the current 5-year plan until AMP

evaluations are completed for them and then request feasibility 

studies for courthouse projects with the highest urgency scores that 

qualify for new construction under the AMP process. 

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

review and comment. GSA and AOUSC provided technical comments 

that we incorporated as appropriate. Additionally, AOUSC provided 

written comments in which it agreed with our recommendation to link the 

AMP process to the judiciary’s strategic plan. However, AOUSC raised a 

number of concerns that the subpoints related to our first 

recommendation on improving capital planning would duplicate other 

judiciary or GSA documents. Furthermore, AOUSC disagreed with our 

recommendation to place a moratorium on the projects in the 5-year plan 

until it could perform AMP evaluations of those projects because it would 

take years and not change the result. We continue to believe that our 

recommendation is sound because the projects included on the 5-year 

plan were evaluated under the judiciary’s previous capital planning 

process and evidence suggested they no longer represent the judiciary’s 

highest priorities. Specifically, two projects on a previous 5-year plan that 

were assessed under the AMP process were removed from the list and 

now rank well down the judiciary’s list of priorities. In addition, 10 of the 

12 projects on the current 5-year plan do not qualify for new construction 

under the AMP process. In response to AOUSC’s comments, we made 

some technical clarifications where noted, none of which materially 

affected our findings, conclusions, or recommendations. AOUSC’s 

complete comments are contained in appendix V, along with our 

response to specific issues raised.

In commenting on a draft of our report, AOUSC said it would take steps to 

address our first recommendation to link the AMP process to the

judiciary’s strategic plan, but cited concerns about our presentation of 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 26 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

information, accuracy of data, and the subpoints of the first 

recommendation. Specifically, AOUSC disputed our characterization of 

the judiciary’s role in the capital-planning process for new courthouses 

and the information provided to Congress to justify new courthouses. 

According to AOUSC, Congress receives extensive, detailed information 

on new courthouse projects from GSA, and our recommendation for the 

judiciary to provide more comprehensive information on courthouse 

projects in 5-year plans would duplicate the GSA’s work. AOUSC also 

disputed our presentation of the AMP process, stating that GAO did not 

consider all documents when making our conclusions. AOUSC disagreed 

with our recommendation for a moratorium on all projects currently on the

5-year plan because completing AMP evaluations for those projects 

would unnecessarily delay the projects and exacerbate existing security 

and structural issues with the existing courthouses. In AOUSC’s view, 

AMP evaluations for these courthouses would take years and not alter the 

justification for new construction projects. AOUSC further disputed the 

data we used to support our conclusions about the projects on the 5-year 

plan and our explanation of the data’s source. AOUSC also questioned 

our characterization of the judiciary’s actions in response to

recommendations in a prior GAO report.

We believe our findings, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations are 

well supported. GAO adheres to generally accepted government auditing 

standards, which ensure the accuracy and relevance of the facts within 

this report. These standards include a layered approach to fact validation 

that includes supervisory review of all work papers, independent 

verification of the facts within the report, and the judiciary’s review of the 

facts prior to our release of the draft report for agency comment. To the 

extent that the judiciary is questioning any facts, the judiciary had multiple 

opportunities provide supporting documentation to substantiate its view. 

We believe that our description of the roles and responsibilities of the 

judiciary and the GSA in the capital-planning process for new 

courthouses is correct and appropriate. In reaching our conclusions about 

the information provided to Congress, we relied on documents we 

received from the judiciary and GSA. We continue to believe that by 

implementing our recommendation about providing additional information 

to Congress, the judiciary would improve the completeness and

transparency of the information that Congress needs to justify and 

authorize funding of new courthouse projects. We will review AOUSC’s 

steps, once finalized, to address our recommendation that the AMP 

process be linked to the judiciary’s strategic plan. We continue to believe 

that any steps that AOUSC takes should be aligned with leading 

practices, including presentation of total project cost estimates and 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

alternatives considered, such as greater courtroom sharing in existing 

courthouses.

With regard to our recommended moratorium on projects on the current 

5-year plan, we note that the AMP process represents progress by the 

judiciary in better aligning its capital-planning process with leading 

practices. Consequently, we believe that it would be worthwhile to use 

this improved process to ensure that all courthouse construction 

proposals remain the judiciary’s top priorities and qualify for new 

construction under the AMP process. The San Jose and Greenbelt

projects were approved as among the highest priorities for new 

construction under the old process but, after being evaluated under the 

AMP process, now rank far lower on the judiciary’s list of priorities—117th

and 139th, respectively. We also noted that regardless of whether a 

project is on the 5-year plan, GSA is responsible for ensuring that 

courthouses are adequately maintained. We relied on data provided by 

the judiciary and the GSA to support our analysis of whether the projects 

on the 5-year plan would qualify under the AMP process, and stand by 

our conclusions. We used the most current and complete data provided 

by the judiciary to evaluate the cost of these projects. We will review 

information provided by the judiciary and determine whether to close the 

recommendation from our 2010 report at the appropriate time. In 

response to AOUSC’s comments, we clarified the report and added detail 

to our methodology in appendix I as appropriate.

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 of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees, Director of the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts, the Administrator of GSA and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

If you or your staffs have any questions on this report, please contact me 

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

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. Contact information and key contributors to the report 

are listed in appendix VI. 

Mark L. Goldstein

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

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

This report addresses the following objectives: 

• To what extent does the judiciary’s capital-planning process align with 

leading practices and provide the information needed for informed 

decision making? 

• To what extent were the courthouse projects recommended for 

funding in fiscal years 2014 to 2018 assessed under the judiciary’s

current capital-planning process? 

To evaluate the judiciary’s capital-planning process, we collected 

information on leading capital-planning practices from the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Capital Programming Guide1 and 

GAO’s Executive Guide2 and compared this information with the AMP 

process contained in the judiciary’s Long Range Facility Plans, Facility 

Benefit Assessments, Citywide Benefit Assessments, Urgency

Evaluations, 5-year plans and Strategic Plan. We did not review the 

appropriateness of criteria used by judiciary in its AMP process. We 

reviewed documentation on the status of courthouse construction projects 

and information about other federal buildings occupied by the judiciary. 

We reviewed GSA data on actual costs of construction and tenant 

improvements at two courthouse projects (Las Cruces, NM and Ft. 

Pierce, FL) one completed in 2010 and one completed in 2011; and GSA 

and judiciary estimated costs of construction for the courthouse projects 

on the most recent 5-year plan, covering fiscal years 2014 to 2018. To 

determine if life-cycle cost estimates were provided in the 5-year plan, we 

assessed the judiciary data against GAO’s Cost Estimating and 

Assessment Guide.

3 To determine the current dollar value of the 

judiciary’s estimate of courthouse projects’ rents, we calculated the 

present value of the estimated project cost based upon averages of 

monthly indexes from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, and rent based upon 20 year OMB published discount rate for 

analyses.4

 

1

Office of Management and Budget, Supplement to Circular No. A-11: 

In addition, we interviewed judiciary officials on the AMP 

Capital 

Programming Guide (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

2

GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32

(Washington, D.C.: December 1998). 

3

GAO, Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

process and its alignment with leading capital-planning practices. To 

analyze judiciary’s capital-planning process, we reviewed our previous 

reports on capital-planning across the federal government,5 including the 

efforts by the judiciary6 and the Department of Veterans Affairs7

To assess recent courthouse projects recommended for funding under 

the judiciary’s current capital-planning process, we reviewed the 

judiciary’s documents detailing the projects recommended for funding for 

fiscal years 2009 through 2018, called 5-year plans, and other documents 

on: congressional authorizations and funding appropriations for 

courthouse projects; judiciary information on courts and courthouses; and 

GSA information on federal buildings, existing and planned federal 

courthouses, courthouse design, and federal historic property. We 

interviewed judiciary and GSA officials in Washington, D.C., and federal 

courthouses we selected in Anniston, AL; Macon, GA; and Savannah, 

GA. To observe existing courthouses, we selected Anniston and 

Savannah because they were evaluated under judiciary’s old capitalplanning process and are on the most recent 5-year plan, covering fiscal 

years 2014 to 2018. We selected Macon because it was highly ranked 

under the judiciary’s new capital-planning process and is in close 

proximity to Anniston and Savannah. While our observations cannot be 

generalized to all federal courthouses, they provide keen insights into 

physical conditions at old historic courthouses. We reviewed 

documentation provided by the judiciary on strategic planning, capitalplanning, existing courthouse evaluations, the rating and ranking of 

existing courthouse deficiencies, existing and future judgeships, and 

courtroom-sharing by judges. To determine the extent that courthouse 

projects on the 5-year plan reflect future judges needed and courtroomsharing, we compared the judiciary’s planned occupancy information to 

to 

communicate its urgent housing needs to Congress.

 

4

Office of Management and Budget, 2013 Discount Rates for OMB Circular No. A-94, 

Memorandum M-13-04 (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 24, 2013).

5

GAO, Budget Issues: Agency Implementation of Capital Planning Principles Is Mixed, 

GAO-04-138 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 16, 2004) and GAO, Federal Capital: Three Entities’ 

Implementation of Capital Planning Principles Is Mixed, GAO-07-274 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 23, 2007). 

6

GAO, Courthouse Construction: Improved 5-Year Plan Could Promote More Informed 

Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD-97-27 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 31, 1996). 

7

GAO, VA Real Property: Realignment Progressing, but Greater Transparency about 

Future Priorities Is Needed, GAO-11-197 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2011). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

the judiciary’s own guidance, our previous work on judiciary’s courtroomsharing,8 and a recently proposed bill from the 112th Congress that would 

have required GSA to design courthouses with more courtroom-sharing.

9

We conducted this performance audit from March 2012 to April 2013 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We determined the number of courtrooms in the existing courthouses and 

compared them to the number of courtrooms needed in the new 

courthouses using the judiciary’s courtroom-sharing policy. We also 

applied judiciary’s courtroom-sharing policy for new courthouses to 

existing courthouses. We reviewed documentation provided by GSA on 

the status of courthouse construction; the status of courthouse projects 

on the two most recent 5-year plans; and federal buildings and

courthouses occupied by the judiciary. We reviewed the judiciary’s and 

GSA’s data for completeness and determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

 

8

GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom 

Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO 10-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 

2010).

9

See, Public Buildings Reform Act of 2012, H.R. 6430, § 202, 112th Cong. (2012). 
Appendix II: Judiciary’s Courtroom-Sharing 

Policy for New Construction

Page 32 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Senior District Judgesa Magistrate Judgesb Bankruptcy Judges

Senior 

District Judges

c

Courtrooms

allocated

Magistrate 

Judges

Courtrooms 

allocated

Bankruptcy

Judges

Courtrooms 

allocated

1 1 1 1 1 1 

2 1 2 2 2 2 

3 2 3 2 3 2 

4 2 4 3 4 3 

5 3 5 3 5 3 

6 3 6 4 6 4 

7 4 7 4 7 4 

8 4 8 5 8 5 

9 5 9 5 9 5 

10 5 10 6 10 6 

Source: federal judiciary. 

Note: Each active District Judge is allocated one dedicated courtroom (not shown in chart). 

a

According to judiciary documents, Senior District Judge courtrooms must comply with the conference 

report to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115) 

guidance on the allocation of courtrooms for senior judges, which states “With any funds in the Act 

that are used for new United States courthouse construction, the conferees advise GSA to consider 

projects for which the design provides courtroom space for senior judges for up to 10 years from 

eligibility for senior status, not to exceed one courtroom for every two senior judges.”

 bIn courthouses with one or two Magistrate Judges, one courtroom will be provided for each judge. In 

courthouses with three or more Magistrate Judges, one courtroom will be provided for every two 

magistrate judges, rounding down when there is an odd number of judges. In addition, one courtroom 

will be provided for magistrate judge criminal duty proceedings. 

c

Appendix II: Judiciary’s Courtroom-Sharing 

Policy for New Construction

In court facilities with one or two Bankruptcy Judges, one courtroom will be provided for each 

Bankruptcy Judge. In court facilities with three or more bankruptcy judges, one courtroom will be 

provided for every two bankruptcy judges, rounding down when there is an odd number of judges. In 

addition, one courtroom will be provided for emergency matters, such as Chapter 11 first-day 

hearings.
Appendix III: Judiciary’s Asset-Management 

Planning Process Urgency-Evaluation Matrix 

for New Construction Projects

Page 33 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Criteria (weight) Categories (weight) Description

Courtrooms needed 

by judge type (20%)

Current additional 

courtrooms needed 

(15%)

Courtrooms needed today. Data separated by judge type and weights assigned (district 

judges 100%, senior district judges 75%, magistrate judges 50% or bankruptcy judges 

50%). Courtroom-sharing per Judicial Conference policy. 

Future additional 

courtrooms needed 

(5%)

Courtrooms needed within 15 years. Data separated by judge type and weights assigned 

(district judges 100%, senior district judges 75%, magistrate judges 50% or bankruptcy 

judges 50%). Courtroom-sharing per Judicial Conference policy.

Chambers needed 

by judge type (30%)

Current additional 

chambers needed 

(22.5%)

Chambers needed today. Data separated by judge type and weights assigned (district 

judges 100%, senior district judges 75%, magistrate judges 50% or bankruptcy judges 

50%). Courtroom-sharing per Judicial Conference policy. 

Future additional 

chambers needed 

(7.5%)

Chambers needed within 15 years. Data separated by judge type and weights assigned 

(district judges 100%, senior district judges 75%, magistrate judges 50% or bankruptcy 

judges 50%). Courtroom-sharing per Judicial Conference policy.

Facility benefit 

assessment (40%)

Citywide benefit 

assessment result 

(40%)

In cities where courtrooms and chambers are located in multiple facilities, a citywide

benefit assessment is produced. This incorporates the individual Facility Benefit 

Assessment for each facility; the type, a mix of facility ownership; and fragmentation of 

the court operations on a citywide basis. In cities with a single courthouse, the Facility 

Benefit Assessment is the same as the citywide assessment and covers 328 items in four 

main categories: building conditions (30%); space functionality (30%); security (25%); 

and space standards (15%).

Caseload growth 

(10%)

Civil filings historic 

(3%) 

Average annual change in the number of civil filings (1997-2011). 

Civil filings projected 

(1%)

Projected average annual change in the number of civil filings (2012-2026). 

Criminal defendants 

historic (4.5%)

Average annual change in the number of number of criminal defendants (1997-2011). 

Criminal defendants 

projected (1.5%) 

Projected average annual change in the number of criminal defendants (2012-2026). 

Source: federal judiciary. 

Appendix III: Judiciary’s Asset-Management 

Planning Process Urgency-Evaluation Matrix 

for New Construction Projects
Appendix IV: Judiciary’s New Courthouse 

Projects for Fiscal Years 2012 to 2016 and 

Fiscal Years 2014 to 2018

Page 34 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

City

New asset-management planning process Old capital-planning process 

Urgency 

evaluation

Citywide

assessment a Facility benefit assessment b Old score b

Fiscal year 2012 

– 2016 5-year

plan c

Fiscal year 

2014 – 2018 5-

year plan d

Los Angeles, CA

d

85  X 

Mobile, AL 59.8  

Nashville, TN 67.3  

Savannah, GA 61.3  

San Jose, CA 13.2 84.7 84.7 54.5  X 

San Antonio, TX 61.3  

Charlotte, NC 58.5  

Greenville, SC 58.1  

Harrisburg, PA 56.8  

Norfolk, VA 57.4  

Anniston, AL 43.1 44.8e 57.1  

Toledo, OH 54.4  

Greenbelt, MD 7.6 90.4 90.4 53.8  X 

Chattanooga, TN 37.3 62.5 See notee  

Des Moines, IA 35.3 53.4 See notee  

Source: federal judiciary 

a

The higher the urgency evaluation rating, the worse the existing facility (or facilities within a city). 

b

The higher the resulting facility benefit assessment (FBA) (or citywide assessment) rating, the better 

the existing facility (or facilities within a city). A rating of 100 represents an ideal courthouse, 80-100 is 

a good courthouse, and below 60 is a poor courthouse. In cities where courtrooms and chambers are 

located in multiple facilities, a citywide benefit assessment is produced. This incorporates the 

individual FBA for the individual facility; the type, a mix of facility ownership; and fragmentation of the 

court operations on a citywide basis. In cities with a single courthouse, the FBA is the same for the 

citywide assessment. The FBA covers four main categories of building conditions (30%); space 

functionality (30%); security (25%); and space standards (15%). 

c

The higher the “score,” the greater the space need urgency.

d

Included =; not Included =X. 

e

More than one building assessed. 

Appendix IV: Judiciary’s New Courthouse 

Projects for Fiscal Years 2012 to 2016 and 

Fiscal Years 2014 to 2018
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 35 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

Page numbers in draft 

report may differ from 

those in this report.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 36 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 37 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 3.

See comment 4.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 38 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 5.

See comment 6.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 39 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 7.

See comment 8.

See comment 9.

See comment 10.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 40 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 11.

See comment 12.

See comment 13.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 41 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 14.

See comment 15.

See comment 16.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 42 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 17.

See comment 18.

See comment 19.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 43 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 44 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 20.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 45 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 21.

Note: Enclosure 1 to the 

AOUSC’s letter.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 46 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 22.

See comment 23.

See comment 24.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 47 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 25.

See comment 26.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 48 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 49 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 27.

Note: Photos included in 

Enclosure 1 to the 

AOUSC’s letter.

See comment 27.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 50 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 51 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

See comment 28.

Note: Revised table 

included in enclosure 

2 to AOUSC’s letter.
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 52 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

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

States Courts (AOUSC) letter dated March 29, 2013.

1. AOUSC stated that we failed to understand the purpose of the 5-year plan, 

indicating that it is not a long-term capital investment plan. The draft report

that we provided to AOUSC for comment indicates that the 5-year plan is not 

a long-term capital investment plan. However, the 5-year plan represents the 

only document that communicates the judiciary’s recommendations related to 

new courthouse projects to Congress and other stakeholders. Since it is 

important for stakeholders to understand the context for new courthouse 

projects, we continue to believe that the judiciary should improve the

completeness and transparency of the information the judiciary uses to justify 

these projects.

2. AOUSC stated that funding for the projects totaled $188.29 million, but did 

not provide any supporting information for this amount. We used General 

Services Administration (GSA) data to determine the amount of funding

appropriated for the projects on the 5-year plan, which we state to be $177 

million in our report.

3. AOUSC stated that GSA already provides sufficient information to Congress 

on the judiciary’s behalf for courthouse projects. While GSA provides 

information to congressional committees when seeking authorization for new 

courthouse projects, by that time, the judiciary has already recommended the 

projects for new construction. The 5-year plan represents the only document 

that communicates the judiciary’s recommendations for new construction, 

and it is incomplete and lacks transparency. For example, the 5-year plan 

underestimates the total costs of these projects by about $2 billion because it 

does not include all project phases and because the judiciary no longer 

includes its rent costs on the 5-year plan.

4. AOUSC was critical of our conclusion that the AMP process does not link to 

the judiciary’s strategic plan. According to AOUSC, the template for future 

Long-Range Facilities Plans will clearly illustrate how the AMP process 

supports and links to the judiciary’s strategic plan. We continue to welcome 

improvements to the judiciary’s approach to strategic planning for courthouse 

construction. We will assess these changes when they are implemented, as 

part of our recommendation follow-up process. 

5. AOUSC noted that, with respect to our recommendation, imposing a 

moratorium and reviewing the projects on the 5-year plan under the AMP 

process would create a delay of up to 6 years and that 10 of the 12 projects 

have been on the 5-year plan since 1999 or earlier. AOUSC states in its 

response that the previous capital-planning process was “stringent,” and as a 

result should be respected for its policy and budgetary implications. We have 

previously found deficiencies in the judiciary’s previous capital planning 

GAO Comments
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 53 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

process, including that the judiciary tends to overstate the number of judges 

that will be located in a courthouse after 10 years. Our draft report noted that 

the AMP process represents progress by the judiciary in better aligning its 

capital-planning process with leading practices. When the judiciary applied 

the AMP process to two projects on a previous 5-year plan—San Jose, 

California, and Greenbelt, Maryland—neither project ranked among the

judiciary’s revised priorities for new construction, indeed, they ranked 117th

and 139th, respectively. In addition, only two projects in the current 5-year 

plan qualify for new construction under the judiciary’s AMP process. Shifting 

courthouse priorities demonstrate a process that is not yet finalized. Given 

the federal government’s current budgetary condition, the judiciary should 

assure the Congress through its planning process that the courthouses 

prioritized for construction funding truly represent its most urgent needs. 

Otherwise, the government stands to potentially spend billions of dollars on 

courthouse construction that does not meet the judiciary’s most urgent needs. 

Assessing all courthouses under the AMP process, given the problems of the 

previous process, would help assure the judiciary and the Congress that the

highest priority courthouses are selected and that the government is 

effectively spending construction funds.

6. AOUSC stated that the declining conditions in existing courthouses on the 5-

year plan place judges, staff, and the public in harm’s way. Our work over a 

number of years has shown that many federal buildings face deteriorated 

conditions, a reason that federal property was included on GAO’s High Risk 

List. The courts are not alone in this regard. Our draft report noted that GSA 

is responsible for ensuring that courthouses are adequately maintained. As a 

result, GSA addresses building maintenance issues regardless of the status 

of the courthouse construction program. In addition, we note that the criteria 

the judiciary uses to select new courthouse construction projects are its own. 

The AMP process established that space shortages, not facility condition, are 

the only criteria for requesting new courthouse construction. 

7. AOUSC noted the security concerns at existing courthouses we visited that

we did not independently evaluate. For additional context, we added to the 

report references to the judiciary’s approach to improve security within 

existing courthouses rather than replace them with new courthouses. The 

judiciary’s AMP process criteria are consistent with this approach, as facility 

security deficiencies under the AMP process are no longer a justification for 

new courthouse construction.

8. AOUSC attached a letter from Chief Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the 

Southern District of Georgia, which we have printed in this report on pages 47 

to 54. We address Judge Wood’s comments separately (see comments 21-

27). 
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 54 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

9. AOUSC stated table 2 included incorrect information and provided revisions 

to the table. We stand by the information provided in our report, which was 

provided by the GSA and the judiciary and was reviewed consistent with our 

internal controls under generally accepted government auditing standards. 

The AOUSC’s most recent numbers relate only to one courthouse in each 

city, but our numbers represent all the judiciary’s courtrooms in each city for 

which we used judiciary and GSA data. We revised our final report to clarify 

that the number of courtrooms in table 2 were for cities, some of which have 

more than one existing courthouse. For example, in Chattanooga, 

Tennessee, the AOUSC revised our number of courtrooms from six to four 

possibly because there are only four courtrooms in the Joel W. Solomon 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse from which the judiciary is 

seeking to relocate district and magistrate judge’s chambers and courtrooms. 

However, there are six courtrooms in Chattanooga because the bankruptcy

judges’ chambers and courtrooms are located in a leased former post 

office/customs house. 

10. AOUSC stated that the criteria of needing two or more courtrooms in order to 

recommend constructing a new courthouse pertains to the housing strategy 

recommendations contained in a district’s Long Range Facilities Plan, and 

that the next step is the completion of a GSA feasibility study. However, 

AOUSC is describing the new AMP process. The fact remains that most 

projects on the current 5-year plan were selected based on their evaluation 

under the judiciary’s previous capital-planning process, which did not include 

the courtroom shortage criteria. As a result, those courthouses slated for new 

construction under the old process and those selected under the new process 

are not comparable and do not represent the judiciary’s highest priorities. 

11. AOUSC noted that when projects on the 5-year plan have a shortfall of one 

courtroom as opposed to two, the GSA feasibility study concluded that new 

courthouse construction was recommended. Our draft report observed that 

although a project may not qualify for new courthouse construction under the 

AMP process, GSA may determine through a feasibility study that new 

construction is the most cost-efficient, viable solution despite the fact the 

courthouse in question did not rise to the top in the selection process. 

12. According to AOUSC, two projects were removed from the 5-year plan 

because their space needs had changed and not because their rankings 

dropped. Our draft report correctly stated that reduced space needs 

contributed to the removal of these projects from the 5-year plan. 

13. AOUSC questioned if we reviewed any of the Long Range Facility Plans 

produced as part of the AMP process and the previous capital planning 

process. We reviewed these judiciary documents and have revised the 

description of our methodology discussed in appendix I to include the names 

of the documents related to the judiciary’s capital-planning process that we 
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 55 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

reviewed while developing this report. Specifically, we added the Long Range 

Facility Plans, Facility Benefit Assessments, Citywide Benefit Assessments, 

Urgency Evaluations, and the 5-year plan.

14. AOUSC stated that our assessment that the AMP process partially aligns with 

the leading capital practice related to “needs assessment and gap 

identification” was a gross error. According to AOUSC, it is not the judiciary’s 

role to generate cost estimates, and they believe that our partially aligns 

assessment is too low. While GSA is responsible for estimating the costs of 

courthouse projects, we continue to believe that the judiciary’s capitalplanning process partially—not fully—aligns with this leading practice. GAO 

and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance has established that 

estimates of life-cycle costs are necessary for accurate capital planning. The 

judiciary’s 5-year plan lists GSA estimated costs, but they are incomplete. 

Specifically, the cost estimates do not include all project phases—site 

acquisition, building design, and construction. In addition, the judiciary no 

longer includes the estimated cost of rent in its 5-year plan even though they 

have estimated costs for all project phases and rent. We believe this 

omission denies stakeholders and congressional decision makers complete 

information on judiciary construction-program costs. In addition, our draft 

report notes that these estimates are not life-cycle costs, which would also 

have to be included for the cost estimate to be comprehensive. 

15. AOUSC disagreed with our assessment that the AMP process partially aligns 

with the leading capital practices related to “alternatives evaluation” because 

the judiciary does evaluate options with an emphasis on the least costly 

option. AOUSC also indicated that we did not consider Long Range Facility 

Plans in making this determination. We did consider Long Range Facility 

Plans, and continue to believe that the judiciary’s capital-planning process 

partially aligns with this leading practice. GAO and OMB guidance 

established that leading organizations carefully consider a wide range of 

alternatives. Our draft report noted that the AMP process evaluates some 

alternatives, such as renovating existing courthouses to meet needs, but the 

judiciary provided no evidence that it considered other viable options, such as 

courtroom sharing in existing courthouses, even though courtroom sharing is 

required in new courthouses. 

16. AOUSC disagreed with our assessment that the AMP process partially aligns 

with the leading capital practices related to establishing a “review and 

approval framework with established criteria for selecting capital investments” 

because our draft report indicated that the judiciary has established such a 

framework. We continue to believe that the judiciary’s capital-planning 

process partially aligns with this leading practice because while we were able 

to discern that there are review and approval criteria in the AMP process, we 

found no evidence that the judiciary’s current 5-year plan applies those
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 56 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

criteria. Specifically, the judiciary established the criterion that courthouses 

need to have a shortage of two or more courtrooms to qualify for a new 

courthouse construction project. However, 10 of the 12 projects 

recommended for new construction on the 5-year plan do not qualify under 

this criterion. 

17. AOUSC stated that we used incorrect and inflated estimates for project costs. 

We sought to provide total project cost estimates for each project on the 5-

year plan. Our draft report uses estimates that the judiciary provided for total 

project costs and rent, which we adjusted for inflation to the current fiscal 

year. In response to our statement of facts, AOUSC provided a revised table

(reprinted on p. 51 of this report). However, the data in the table that AOUSC 

provided were incomplete and they did not include supporting documentation. 

Consequently, we continue to use the most current, complete estimates of 

the total project costs and rent available. 

18. AOUSC stated that the estimates of total project costs were provided to them 

by GSA. We added GSA to the source of table 1.

19. AOUSC stated that the judiciary has implemented changes to address 

recommendations from our 2010 report (GAO-10-417). GAO has a process 

for following up and closing previous recommendations. We have not yet 

assessed the extent to which the judiciary’s actions have fulfilled the 

recommendations from our 2010 report. We will, however, consider this and 

all other information from the judiciary when we determine whether to close 

the recommendations from our 2010 report. We plan to examine this 

recommendation in the summer of 2013.

20. According to AOUSC, the projects on the 5-year plan are fully justified under 

its previous “stringent” process that preceded the AMP process. However, as 

we have previously noted, the former process had shortcomings and in our 

opinion does not represent a process that the Congress should rely upon for 

making capital budget decisions. The new AMP process will, when complete, 

likely provide Congress with greater assurance that the judiciary’s 

construction priorities represent the highest priority needs. We addressed the 

difference in funding for the projects on the current 5-year plan in comment 2.

21. Judge Wood stated that the number of judges in Savannah may change. For 

each project, we used data provided by AOUSC. However, in our 2010 report 

(GAO-10-417), we found that the judiciary often overestimated the number of 

future judges it would have in planning for new courthouses. 

22. According to Judge Wood, it is inappropriate to subject the Savannah 

courthouse to the AMP process when over $6 million has already been spent 

on design services. We found, and the AOUSC agreed, in comments to our 

draft report, that the Savannah courthouse has four courtrooms and four 

judges. Consequently, it does not qualify for new construction under the AMP 
Appendix V: Comments from the Federal 

Judiciary

Page 57 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

criterion. In addition, according to GSA, the original courthouse design from 

1998, to which Judge Wood refers, is old and outdated. As a result, if the 

project moves forward, the government would need to spend additional 

money to redesign a new courthouse for Savannah. 

23. Judge Wood noted the poor condition of the existing Savannah courthouse 

and the need for a repair and alterations project to address deferred 

maintenance issues. We toured this courthouse and noted many of the same 

deficiencies. Our draft report noted that regardless of whether a project is on 

the 5-year plan, GSA is responsible for ensuring that courthouses are 

adequately maintained. In addition, as the current plan for the Savannah 

project is to continue to use the existing courthouse and build an annex, 

deferred maintenance in the existing courthouse would still need to be 

addressed if the plan moved forward.

24. Judge Wood noted that the existing Savannah Courthouse was built in 1899 

and has several deficiencies to Design Guide standards. Our draft report 

noted that some existing courtrooms may not meet Design Guide standards 

for size. However, as we also note, according to AMP guidance, a disparity 

between space in an existing facility and the Design Guide standards is not 

justification for facility alteration and expansion.

25. Judge Wood noted several security concerns in the existing Savannah 

Courthouse. See comment 7.

26. Judge Wood noted that the Savannah Courthouse project preceded the AMP 

process and the courthouse needs an additional courtroom and judge’s 

chamber. We address the judiciary’s previous capital planning process and

judge and courtroom counts in Savannah in comments 20 and 21, 

respectively. 

27. Judge Wood attached photos documenting some of the building condition 

problems at the Savannah Courthouse, and those are reprinted on pages 49 

and 50. See comment 23.

28. AOUSC provided changes to the courtroom numbers in table 2 from our draft 

report. As we explained in comment 9, we changed the table to make clear 

that the courtroom count refers to the number of courtrooms citywide, not just 

in one courthouse.
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 58 GAO-13-263 Federal Courthouses

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

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

Director; George Depaoli; Colin Fallon; Geoffrey Hamilton; James 

Leonard; Faye Morrison; and Sara Ann Moessbauer made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(543300)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.