ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Process Handbook

June 2023
ii

This page left intentionally blank.
iii

Contents ......................................................................iii

Tables .........................................................................vii

Figures ......................................................................viii

List of Abbreviations ...................................................ix

Glossary ......................................................................xi

1. Introduction to the Asset Management Planning

(AMP) Process .........................................................1

1.1 Handbook Purpose ...........................................1

1.2 AMP Process History and Background.............1

1.3 Authorities and Responsibilities ......................1

1.3.1 JCUS.......................................................2

1.3.2 JCUS Committee.....................................2

1.3.3 Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts ....................................................2

1.3.4 Stakeholders and Participants ...............3

1.4 Governing Standards .......................................4

1.4.1 Judiciary Policies ...................................4

1.4.2 USCDG....................................................4

1.4.3 AMP Business Rules..............................4

1.4.4 Other Related Policies and Initiatives ...5

1.5 AMP Process Goals, Outcomes, and 

Deliverables ......................................................6

Contents
iv

2. LRFPs .......................................................................7

2.1 Introduction ......................................................7

2.1.1 Purpose ..................................................7

2.1.2 Participants and Stakeholders ...............7

2.1.3 Selection of Locations and Frequency of 

Updates ..................................................7

2.1.4 LRFP Process Summary Flowchart .......8

2.2 Preparing for Your LRFP Site Visit ................. 10

2.2.1 Purpose of the LRFP Site Visit ............ 10

2.2.2 Participants in the On-Site Planning 

Sessions ............................................... 10

2.2.3 Overview of the Court’s Role................ 10

2.2.4 Before Your Site Visit .......................... 10

2.2.5 Data Collection .................................... 11

2.2.6 Planning Handbook ............................. 11

2.2.7 Pre-Site Visit Video/Teleconference ..... 12

2.3 Building Your LRFP: On-Site Planning Sessions 

and Beyond..................................................... 12

2.3.1 What to Expect During the Site Visit .... 12

2.3.2 LRFP Development and Stakeholder 

Involvement .......................................... 14

2.3.3 Assessing How Well a Building Performs: 

Courthouse FBAs ................................. 14

2.3.4 Housing Strategy Development ............ 14

2.3.5 The Court’s Housing Strategy Working 

Session: Building Consensus .............. 15

2.3.6 Full Draft LRFP Court Review .............. 15

2.3.7 Concluding the Process: LRFP Approval15

2.4 FBA Development ........................................... 16
v

3. UE Ratings and the UE Results List ....................... 17

3.1 Purpose of UE Ratings, Rankings, and the UE 

Results List..................................................... 17

3.2 UE Rating Methodology .................................. 17

3.3 UE Model Data Sources .................................. 19

3.4 Participants and the Process ......................... 20

4. AMP Process Follow-on Programs and Processes . 21

4.1 Circuit Advanced Planning Program (CAPP) .. 21

4.1.1 How the CAPP Can Help Your Court ..... 21

4.1.2 Participants and Stakeholders ............. 21

4.1.3 Developing the CAPP Document .......... 21

4.2 The CPP and Identification of Potential New 

Courthouse Construction Projects ................. 22

4.2.1 The Role of LRFPs and the UE ............. 22

4.2.2 GSA Phase I Feasibility Studies .......... 22

4.2.3 The CPP List ......................................... 24

4.3 Lifecycle of a Courthouse Construction Project: 

From Funding Request to Ribbon Cutting ...... 27

4.3.1 Courthouse Project Funding ............... 27

4.3.2 Courthouse Construction Project 

Development and Execution ................. 28

5. Frequently Asked Questions .................................. 31

5.1 AMP ................................................................ 31

5.2 LRFPs ............................................................. 31

5.3 FBA ................................................................. 33

5.4 UE ................................................................... 33

5.5 GSA Feasibility Studies .................................. 34

5.6 Courthouse Projects Priorities (CPP) List ...... 35
vi

6. Appendices ............................................................. 37

6.1 AMP Business Rules.......................................37

6.2 CRB Business Rules.......................................45

6.3 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities 

Checklists.......................................................83

6.4 AMP A1: Current FBAs Page Examples ..........99

6.5 Current FBA Results List...............................123

6.6 Current UE Results List .................................131

6.7 Current Judiciary CPP List ............................145
vii

Table 1.1: AMP Process Key Stakeholders ...................3

Table 2.1: LRFP Process Participants ..........................8

Checklist 6.3.1: Initiate LRFP Assessment .................85

Checklist 6.3.2: Data Requested from Stakeholders by 

LRFP Program Manager ..........................................86

Checklist 6.3.3: Develop LRFP Planning Handbook and 

Plan Site Visit ........................................................87

Checklist 6.3.4: Complete District LRFP On-Site 

Planning Sessions and FBAs..................................88

Checklist 6.3.5: Complete Circuit LRFP On-Site 

Planning Sessions and FBAs..................................89

Checklist 6.3.6: Develop District or Circuit LRFP.......90

Checklist 6.3.7: Produce UE Results List ...................91

Checklist 6.3.8: Identify Potential New Courthouse 

Construction Projects.............................................92

Checklist 6.3.9: The Judiciary’s CPP List...................94

Checklist 6.3.10: GSA Phase II Feasibility Study .......95

Checklist 6.3.11: Project Development, Funding, and 

Execution ................................................................96

Checklist 6.3.12: Project Funding...............................97

Checklist 6.3.13: Develop CAPP .................................98

Tables
viii

Figure 2.1: LRFP Process Flow Chart...........................9

Figure 3.1: UE Model Data Sources ............................ 19

Figures
ix

List of Abbreviations

Acronym/Abbreviation Defnition

A/E Architecture/Engineering

ACE Assistant Circuit Executive for Space and Facilities

AMP Asset Management Planning

AOUSC Administrative Ofce of the U.S. Courts

BAP Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

BAT Building Assessment Tool

CAPP Circuit Advanced Planning Program

CDO Community Defender Organization

CE Circuit Executive

CPM Critical Path Method

CPP Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities

CRB Circuit Rent Budget

CSP Capital Security Program

EOUSA Executive Ofce for the U.S. Attorneys

EOUST Executive Ofce for U.S. Trustees

FBA Facility Beneft Assessment

FBF Federal Buildings Fund

FPDO Federal Public Defender Organization

FPM Facilities Program Manager

FSO AOUSC Facilities and Security Ofce

GAO Government Accountability Ofce

GSA General Services Administration

IWI Integrated Workplace Initiative

JCUS Judicial Conference of the United States

JIFMS Judiciary Integrated Financial Management System

LRFP Long-Range Facilities Plan

NTP Notice to Proceed

OLA AOUSC Ofce of Legislative Afairs
x

Acronym/Abbreviation Defnition

OMB Ofce of Management and Budget

PBS GSA Public Buildings Service

PDS Prospectus Development Study

PMD AOUSC Procurement Management Division

POR Program of Requirements

R&A Repair and Alteration

RFP Request for Proposal

SFD AOUSC/FSO Space and Facilities Division

SOW Statement of Work

UE Urgency Evaluation

USAO U.S. Attorney’s Ofce

USCDG U.S. Courts Design Guide

USMS U.S. Marshals Service

UST Ofce of the U.S. Trustee
xi

Term Defnition

Addition/Annex Strategy One of the four types of preliminary 

recommended housing strategies that can 

be identifed in an AMP process LRFP to 

address a facility’s current and future space 

needs. This strategy entails enlarging an 

existing court-occupied building with an 

addition or annex. The strategy may also 

require one or more interim renovation 

projects prior to construction of the addition 

or annex.

Administrative Ofce of the 

U.S. Courts (AOUSC)

The Judicial Branch’s central support 

entity that provides a wide range 

of administrative, legal, fnancial, 

management, program, and information 

technology services to the federal courts.

AnyCourt An automated space programming tool based on the USCDG that 

generates a program of requirements (POR) by calculating the usable 

square feet of space needed to satisfy the housing needs and operational 

requirements of new courthouses, annexes, and additions 10 and 30 years 

into the future from the assumed year of design.

Asset Management Planning 

(AMP)

The Judiciary’s comprehensive approach to facility planning that integrates 

cost-containment, space needs, and courthouse functionality. It considers 

the pros and cons of specifc space strategies and identifes a preliminary 

recommended housing strategy to meet the Judiciary’s current and future 

operational needs in each court location.

Bankruptcy Administrator Congress established the bankruptcy administrator program as part of 

the Judiciary in 1986. Bankruptcy administrator ofces are unique to the 

six judicial districts of Alabama and North Carolina. They oversee the 

administration of bankruptcy cases, maintain a panel of private trustees, 

and monitor the transactions and conduct of parties in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 

(BAP)

In most circuits, an appeal of a ruling by a bankruptcy judge may be taken 

to the district court. Five Courts of Appeals (the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, 

and Tenth Circuits), however, have established a Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel to hear appeals directly from their bankruptcy court. BAPs consist of 

three bankruptcy judges from the districts within each circuit. The judges 

sit for multi-year terms as determined and fxed by the respective circuit 

judicia council.

Bankruptcy Court A specialized federal court that is a unit of the U.S. district court in which 

bankruptcy matters under the Federal Bankruptcy Act are conducted.

Glossary
xii

Term Defnition

Building Assessment Tool 

(BAT)

(formerly known as Physical 

Condition Survey)

A strategic GSA planning tool used to assess and analyze the reinvestment 

requirements of the GSA-owned real property portfolio. The BAT is 

the computer application by which GSA can periodically inspect and 

electronically document building conditions. The BAT identifes building 

liabilities that are later used for developing multi-year plans for repair and 

alteration projects. It also consolidates and prioritizes building defciencies 

through survey inspections that help in identifying deferred maintenance 

costs. GSA identifes and tracks the overall condition of its inventory through 

internal BATs and external studies such as building engineering reports and 

feasibility studies. In general, the BAT is updated every other year. However, 

it can be updated more or less frequently based on various factors. 

Building Engineering Report 

(BER)

A report developed by GSA for existing buildings to establish future building 

repair needs. The report is part of a rolling fve-year community planning 

efort. Community Plans are established by each GSA regional ofce to 

identify a preferred course to meet future federal space needs in all major 

metropolitan areas.

Capital Security Program 

(CSP)

This program is designed to ameliorate security defciencies in courthouses 

where physical renovations are feasible, and the construction of a new 

courthouse is unlikely or unneeded for the foreseeable future. The program 

was frst funded in FY 2012, when Congress designated $20 million 

from GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund to address security defciencies in 

federal courthouses. Improvements include projects such as building 

secure or restricted corridors, adding or reconfguring elevators, enclosing 

prisoner drop-of areas to create sallyports, creating visual barriers, and 

reconfguring security screening areas.

Circuit Advanced Planning 

Program (CAPP)

A collaborative, voluntary program lead by SFD and GSA involving 

stakeholders from the USMS, circuit, and courts to develop a fve-year road 

map of Judiciary, GSA, and USMS project needs for all courthouse within a 

given circuit.

Circuit Rent Budget Program 

(CRB) 

A cost containment tool that improves the Judiciary’s ability to control 

space cost and growth. Circuit judicial councils are given authority and 

responsibility for determining how a portion of the budget resources 

reserved for rent are to be expended. The CRB consists of three funding 

components: Component A, Component B, and Component C. Component 

A is the rent cost of space the circuit currently occupies. Component 

B is a project-based budget increment which funds rent and/or tenant 

improvement costs for specifc Conference-approved major projects (i.e., 

new federal courthouse construction, leased courthouses, and major 

building modernizations). Component B also funds the rent and/or tenant 

improvement costs for new chambers and courtrooms, as approved by the 

Space and Facilities Committee, for additional judgeships, judges taking 

senior status, or replacement judges. The Judiciary pays for rent increases 

and alteration costs for use of the space. Component C constitutes each 

circuit’s discretionary portion of the rent budget, allowing each circuit 

judicial council to address other space needs outside of those covered by 

Component B.
xiii

Term Defnition

Community Defender 

Organization (CDO)

A non-proft defense counsel organization incorporated under state laws 

and funded through grants from the federal Judiciary. CDOs provide legal 

representation to defendants who have been charged criminally and are 

unable to pay for an attorney.

Courthouse Project Priorities

List (CPP)

Court of Appeals (COA)

The CPP is the Judiciary’s list of courthouse construction funding priorities 

as approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The CPP is 

developed using the results of the AMP process.

The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of 

which has a U.S. Court of Appeals (COA). A COA hears appeals from the 

district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of 

federal administrative agencies. In addition, the COA for the Federal Circuit 

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

those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International 

Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.

Court Security Ofcers (CSOs) Security professionals funded by the Judiciary and managed by the USMS 

who protect the Judiciary, court participants, and visitors in court facilities 

nationwide.

Courthouse A court-occupied facility that houses one or more courtrooms, including 

those where there are no resident judges.

Courtroom Utilization Study 

Matrix

A housing plan prepared in conjunction with an AnyCourt that documents 

the current and future building location of all judges in a city. The number 

and type of current and future courtrooms allocated to all judges, as well as 

the number of current and future chambers, are displayed.

District Courts The trial courts of the federal court system. Within limits set by Congress 

and the Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all 

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

Facility Beneft Assessment 

(FBA)

An AMP process assessment conducted by the Judiciary to determine 

how well an existing courthouse supports (e.g., benefts) the needs and 

operations of the court. The FBA consists of a standardized set of factors 

used as a checklist by an LRFP contractor’s architects to rate space during 

a tour of each courthouse. Tours occur as part of the district or circuit’s 

LRFP on-site planning session. The FBA covers four main weighted 

categories (building condition, space functionality, security, and space 

standards). The criterion and their weights were developed by a nationwide 

working group composed of space professionals and court managers.

Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) The primary fund established for fnancial administration of PBS activities. 

PBS provides workplaces for federal agencies and their employees. The 

FBF is primarily supported by rent paid to GSA from other federal entities.

Federal Public Defender 

Organization (FPDO)

A federal agency that operates under the judicial branch of the federal 

government. The FPDO provides legal representation to defendants who 

have been charged criminally and who are unable to pay for an attorney.
xiv

Term Defnition

Government Accountability 

Ofce (GAO)

An independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. The GAO 

is the U.S. government’s audit institution and is part of the legislative 

branch. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO examines how 

taxpayer dollars are spent and provides Congress and federal agencies with 

objective, reliable information to help the government save money and work 

more efciently.

General Services 

Administration (GSA)

The federal agency that is the government’s “landlord,” meeting the ofce 

and other space requirements of the federal workforce. The PBS branch of 

GSA is involved in space acquisition through new construction or leasing 

and lifecycle asset management of the acquired space. PBS is the largest 

public real estate entity in the country.

Housing Strategy A sequence of space-related projects developed to address short- and longterm space needs, maximize the use of existing facilities, and support cost 

containment. One or more strategies for each court location are identifed 

and evaluated within the Long-Range Facilities Plan (LRFP). Housing 

strategies within the court’s existing footprint are explored before those in 

expansion space are considered.

Independent Government Cost 

Estimate (IGCE)

The government’s estimate of the resources and projected cost a contractor 

would incur in performance of a task.

Integrated Workplace Initiative 

(IWI)

A program administered by the AOUSC, the purpose of which is to reduce 

the Judiciary’s real estate footprint and create a more efcient workplace 

environment by capitalizing on technologies that provide fexibility 

with regard to where and when traditionally workplace-based jobs are 

performed. The initiative focuses primarily on ofce space.

Judicial Conference of the 

United States (JCUS)

The JCUS is the national policy-making body for the federal courts. 

Long-Range Facilities Plan 

(LRFP)

A report that assesses the existing condition of each court facility and 

projects the space needs of court components for a defned planning 

period, typically 15 years into the future. The AOUSC began using LRFPs 

in 1988 to identify space needs and plan for future growth. LRFPs are 

prepared and periodically updated for each of the 94 district courts and 

12 regional circuits.

New Courthouse Strategy An LRFP housing strategy for a court location that addresses future 

Judiciary space needs by way of construction of a new courthouse that is 

not attached to an existing court-occupied building. This strategy may also 

require interim renovation projects prior to delivery of the new courthouse 

to accommodate the Judiciary’s short-term needs during the feasibility 

study, funding, design, site acquisition, and construction stages of the 

new building.

Non-Resident Courthouse A courthouse that does not have a full-time resident district, senior district, 

magistrate, bankruptcy, circuit, or senior circuit judge located in the facility.
xv

Term Defnition

Ofce of the United States 

Trustee (UST)

A component of the Department of Justice responsible for overseeing the 

administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees in every judicial 

district except for the six located in North Carolina and Alabama, which 

instead have a Bankruptcy Administrator. 

Prospectus-level Project A project reaching a monetary threshold value that is adjusted annually to 

refect the percentage increase or decrease in construction costs during the 

prior calendar year. GSA utilizes multiple data sources to make an informed 

determination on the setting of the prospectus threshold. According to 40 

USC § 3307, no appropriation shall be made to construct, alter, or lease a 

building which involves an expenditure exceeding a particular threshold if 

such construction, alteration, or lease has not been approved by resolutions 

adopted by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Congress).

Renovation Strategy An LRFP housing strategy for a court location that addresses future 

Judiciary space needs through renovation projects within an existing courtoccupied building. This strategy may include relocation of court-related and 

non-court related agencies (potentially involving forced moves) and court 

components until only the district court and USMS remain in the building.

Right Fit Program This program helps courts implement IWI concepts and reduce space 

across the Judiciary. The Right Fit Program encompasses court units 

releasing unused space, renovation projects incorporating IWI concepts, 

and “right-sizing” space to align with the U.S. Courts Design Guide.

Sallyport A secure enclosed area where in custody defendants and inmates enter and 

exit transport vehicles.

Space and Security Advisory 

Council

Advises the Administrative Ofce on the needs and views of the Judiciary 

on crosscutting plans, innovations, projects, policies, and procedures in 

the areas of courthouse facilities and security. In addition, when necessary, 

council members may be asked to provide input on issues relating to other 

program areas.

Usable Square Feet (USF) USF is the basis upon which the Judiciary pays rent and develops the 

AnyCourt POR. The area within a building assigned to a specifc tenant. 

The USF of a single organization is the footprint of that organization on the 

foor plan of the building. USF excludes building infrastructure spaces such 

as mechanical rooms, building common area, circulation, and public toilets 

but does include columns and other structural elements located within a 

court unit’s space. In addition, the total USF of a court unit includes any joint 

use spaces.
xvi

Term Defnition

U.S. Attorney’s Ofce (USAO) The U.S. Attorney’s Ofce (USAO) serves as the nation’s principal 

litigators within the U.S. Department of Justice under the direction of 

the U.S. Attorney General. There is one presidentially-appointed U.S. 

Attorney assigned to each of the 94 judicial districts except for Guam and 

the Northern Mariana Islands, where a single U.S. Attorney serves both 

districts. Each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement ofcer 

within his or her particular jurisdiction.

U.S. Courts Design Guide 

(USCDG)

The JCUS-approved design standards for federal courthouses.

U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) The nation’s oldest law enforcement agency that is part of the U.S. 

Department of Justice and serves as the enforcement arm of the federal 

courts. USMS duties include apprehension of federal fugitives, protection 

of the federal Judiciary, operation of the Witness Security Program, 

transportation of federal prisoners, and seizure of property acquired through 

illegal activity. There is one presidentially-appointed U.S. Marshal assigned 

to each of the 94 judicial districts along with a staf responsible for carrying 

out USMS judicial support activities.

U.S. Ofce of Management and 

Budget (OMB)

The federal entity charged with assisting the President in overseeing 

preparation of the federal budget and supervising its administration in 

executive branch agencies.

Urgency Evaluation (UE) An annual evaluation process that determines which courthouses 

throughout the nation have the most urgent space needs based on 

chambers needs, courtroom needs, FBA results, and projected caseload 

growth. The criterion and their weights were developed by a nationwide 

working group composed of space professionals and court managers.
1

1Introduction to the 

Asset Management 

Planning (AMP) Process 

As a comprehensive planning approach that incorporates 

rigorous facility assessments and consistently applied 

standards and guidelines to evaluate space needs in 

federal courthouses throughout the nation, the AMP 

supports the Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary, 

addresses cost-containment concerns, captures lessons 

learned from past planning eforts, and incorporates 

applicable industry standards and best practices. The 

objective is to help the Judiciary achieve the best value 

per dollar for courthouse projects in both the short- and 

long-term.

1.3 Authorities and Responsibilities

The Committee has oversight of the Judiciary’s longrange facilities planning process. The AOUSC’s Facilities 

and Security Ofce (FSO), FSO’s Space and Facilities 

Division (SFD), and SFD’s Long-Range Planning 

Team are responsible for its implementation. FSO’s 

Security and Facilities Policy Staf provides support for 

this work. Additional details on authorities, roles, and 

responsibilities follow.

1.1 Handbook Purpose

The purpose of this handbook is to document and 

communicate the Judiciary’s AMP process and related 

activities to internal and external stakeholders. Topics 

addressed include:

• the development of Long-Range Facilities Plans

(LRFPs), Facility Beneft Assessments (FBAs), and

Urgency Evaluation (UE) scores,

• the Circuit Advanced Planning Program (CAPP),

• the Judiciary’s Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP)

list,

• General Services Administration (GSA) Phase I and

Phase II feasibility studies,

• AnyCourt programs of requirements (PORs), and

• the life cycle of a courthouse project from funding

through construction.

1.2 AMP Process History and 

Background

Since 1988, the Administrative Ofce of the U.S. Courts 

(AOUSC) has maintained a long-range facilities planning 

program to identify space needs and plan for future growth 

in the Judiciary. In March 2006, the program entered a new 

phase when the Judicial Conference of the United States 

(JCUS) approved the concept of AMP to enhance the 

Judiciary’s previous long-range facilities planning process 

and to provide a new, objective methodology for scoring 

and placing courthouse projects on a fve-year courthouse 

project plan (JCUS-MAR 2006, p. 25). In March 2008, the 

JCUS approved the key features of the AMP methodology 

and delegated to its Committee on Space and Facilities 

(Committee) the authority to establish and amend a set of 

business rules governing the AMP process. (JCUS-Mar 

2008, p. 26). 
2

1.3.1 JCUS

In 1922, Congress created the Conference of Senior 

Circuit Judges to serve as the principal policy-making 

body concerned with the administration of the United 

States Courts. In 1948, Congress enacted Section 331 of 

Title 28, United States Code, changing the name to JCUS. 

The Chief Justice of the United States is the presiding 

ofcer of JCUS. Membership is comprised of the chief 

judge of each judicial circuit, the chief judge of the Court 

of International Trade, and a district judge from each 

regional judicial circuit.

1.3.2 JCUS COMMITTEE

The JCUS Committee has jurisdiction to review, 

monitor, and propose to the JCUS policies regarding the 

Judiciary’s space and facilities requirements and to make 

recommendations for changes as appropriate. Its specifc 

jurisdiction includes the following:

• Oversee long-range planning for court facilities,

including facilities for additional judgeships

recommended by JCUS,

• Review the provision of design, construction, and

maintenance services for court facilities by the GSA

and make recommendations for changes, where

deemed advisable,

• Serve as a liaison between GSA, the United States

Marshals Service (USMS), the Department of

Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and

the federal courts on space and facilities matters,

• Propose adequate funding and resources to

support the Judiciary’s space and facilities program,

including education and training, taking into account

the overall fscal situation of the Judiciary, and

Oversee the budget and other cost-containment initiatives 

involving the space and facilities program.

1.3.3 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. 

COURTS 

Per AOUSC policies, FSO is responsible for the 

management, oversight, and support of:

• Security,

• Emergency preparedness,

• Space and facilities programs, and

• Various administrative services within the Thurgood

Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, courts, other

Judiciary ofces, and the AOUSC.

Within FSO, there are several divisions and stafs. FSO’s 

SFD is responsible for carrying out the AOUSC director’s 

statutory responsibility to provide accommodations to the 

Judiciary and to assist the courts in meeting their space 

needs (consistent with 28 U.S.C. §§ 604(a)(12) and 462(b) 

& (f)). SFD’s specifc responsibilities include the following:

• Implement conference policies regarding space and

facilities and related programs,

• Develop and communicate program policies and

guidance on space and facilities for the Judiciary

and respond to inquiries from the courts, AOUSC,

Congress, and others,

• Assist the courts in translating space requirements

into specifc prospectus projects consistent with

long-range facilities plans,

• Review GSA feasibility studies on proposed new

courthouses and prospectus-level repair and

alteration projects, and

• Develop requirements and review and oversee the

planning, design, and construction phases of new

prospectus-level courthouses and major repair and

alteration projects.

To coordinate the Judiciary’s long-range facilities 

planning, SFD’s Long-Range Planning Team has 

responsibility for the following:

• Develop annual personnel and caseload forecasts

for use and reference in the LRFPs,

• Develop Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and

AnyCourt documents,

• Develop and maintain the AMP database,

• Develop district and circuit LRFPs,

• Conduct FBAs,

• Update the UE Results List,

• Manage the development of the CPP list,

• Conduct special planning studies,

• Coordinate Phase I and Phase II GSA feasibility

studies, and
3

• Work with FSO/SFD/PMB facilities program

managers (FPMs), FSO/Security and Facilities

Policy Staf, assistant circuit executives for space

and facilities (ACEs), court unit executives,

representatives from the USMS, USAO, UST, and

GSA in the execution of the AMP process.

TABLE 1.1: AMP PROCESS KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Internal To Judiciary

AOUSC Court

• Director’s Ofce

• FSO

» Space and Facilities Division

− Long-Range Planning Team

− Program Management Branch

» Judiciary Security Division

− Physical Security Branch

» Security and Facilities Policy Staf

• Other AOUSC Departments

» Judiciary Data and Analysis Ofce (JDAO)

• JCUS

» Committee

− Subcommittee on Space Planning

• Space and Security Advisory Council

• Federal Courts

External To Judiciary

Court Related Agencies Non-Court-Related Agencies

• Department of Justice

» U.S. Attorney’s Ofce (USAO)

» USMS

» Ofce of the U.S. Trustee (UST)

• Congress

• Ofce of Management and Budget

• GSA

• Department of Homeland Security

» Federal Protective Service (FPS)

1.3.4 STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTICIPANTS

The AMP process is collaborative. The list of stakeholders 

is broad, roles are varied, and involvement is extensive. 

Refer to Table 1.1 for a complete list of AMP key process 

stakeholders. In addition to the key stakeholders, 

contractors are engaged to help develop and produce such 

deliverables as LRFPs, facility beneft assessments, and 

forecasting models. The actual roles and responsibilities of 

key stakeholders and participants are described in detail in 

Chapters 1 through 4. 
4

1.4 Governing Standards 

The AMP process and development of LRFPs are 

conducted in compliance with and in consideration of 

several guidance documents, rules, policies, and initiatives 

that have been approved by JCUS and/or its committees 

and updated as required. These include the Guide to 

Judiciary Policy, U.S. Courts Design Guide (USCDG), AMP 

Business Rules, and other related policies and initiatives 

discussed below.

1.4.1 JUDICIARY POLICIES

The AMP and long-range facilities planning process is 

addressed in Judiciary policies as described below:

(a) The acquisition and management of space requires a

series of specifc actions, multiple levels of authorities

and approvals, and funding through specifc budgetary

mechanisms.

(b) Rent is a signifcant part of the Judiciary’s salaries and

expenses budget.

(c) To maximize its value to the government, the Judiciary

promotes maximum utilization of federal Judiciary

workspace, consistent with mission requirements.

Refer to: 41 CFR 102-79.10.

(d) JCUS has approved and endorsed a number of costcontainment initiatives related to space acquisition and

space management. In September 2004, it approved

a cost-containment strategy recommended by its

Executive Committee that identifed three major factors

that drive the acquisition and cost of new space:

(1) the long-range facilities planning process, which

continues to identify new requirements, primarily

for additional courtrooms, chambers and capital

security program projects;

(2) USCDG requirements, which defne space

standards, fnishes, and performance guidelines;

and

(3) budgetary controls in the facilities planning and

acquisition processes.

(e) Cost containment in these three areas (refer to:

Cost-Containment Strategy for the Federal Judiciary:

2005 and Beyond) has been addressed through:

(1) an AMP process, which was adopted by the

Judicial Conference in 2008;

(2) the USCDG and later JCUS actions that establish

space policies and allotments, and address

exceptions to space policies and square footage

allotments;

(3) the Circuit Rent Budget (CRB) program, which

was developed to control the rate of growth of rent

costs for space; and

(4) national “No Net New” space reduction policies,

adopted to reduce and manage the Judiciary’s

overall space footprint and rental costs.

1.4.2 USCDG

The USCDG contains the Federal Judiciary’s 

requirements for the design, construction, and renovation 

of court facilities and is intended for use by judges, 

planners, architects, engineers, GSA personnel, and 

court administrators who are involved in federal court 

construction projects.

The USCDG is both a design and fnancial commitment 

document. The JCUS’s space-rental budget correlates 

to the design standards contained in the USCDG. The 

USCDG lists and describes major spaces and spatial 

groupings located within federal courthouses. The number 

of major space groupings required for a particular court 

building is not determined by this document, rather they 

are determined by the POR developed and submitted 

by the Judiciary. Individual project circumstances and 

requirements dictate which of the major space groupings 

should be included in a building program.

1.4.3 AMP BUSINESS RULES

When the JCUS adopted the AMP process, the AMP 

Business Rules were developed to guide the process and 

provide a framework to identify planning alternatives and 

housing strategies that optimize existing court facilities, 

support operational needs, and ensure cost efciency 

and efectiveness. The rules also specifcally address the 

application of space standards, planning assumptions, and 

parameters for determining if and when a potential housing 

strategy will be recommended to progress to the next 

stage of the planning process.

The AMP process and original AMP Business Rules were 

approved by JCUS in March 2008 (JCUS – MAR 2008, 

p. 26). They have been coordinated with the USCDG

and the CRB Business Rules. The rules have since been

revised to incorporate new policies, including the sharing
5

of courtrooms by senior district judges, magistrate judges, 

and bankruptcy judges. 

The AMP Business Rules are organized into two sections: 

Planning Assumptions and Housing Strategies.

1) The Planning Assumptions section addresses general

guidelines, courthouse functional relationships, and

chambers, courtroom, and trial preparation space

allocations. They provide a framework to document

eligibility for space based on judge type and location

and are used for long-range facilities planning within

the AMP process.

2) The Housing Strategies section consists of general

guidelines and a hierarchy of solutions to address

space defciencies, improve building functionality,

and address operational requirements over a 15-year

planning timeframe. This includes identifcation of

projects to address existing and future needs related

to JCUS recommended and approved judgeships,

projected judgeships, court personnel stafng, and

judges taking senior status.

A copy of the current AMP Business Rules and CRB 

Business Rules can be found in Appendix 6.1 AMP 

Business Rules and Appendix 6.2 CRB Business Rules

Appendix 6.2 CRB Business Rules.

1.4.4 OTHER RELATED POLICIES AND 

INITIATIVES

Since 2013, the JCUS has approved several important 

space reduction and space efciency policies and 

initiatives. These policies and initiatives address space 

sharing, consolidation, and reduction. They are considered 

when developing the LRFP recommended preliminary 

housing strategies to help ensure cost-efective and 

space-efcient solutions. The policies and initiatives are 

described in the following sections.

1.4.4.1 National Three Percent Space Reduction Target

In 2013, the Judiciary set a three percent national space 

reduction target to be met by the end of FY 2018. This 

target was prorated among the circuits based upon the 

square footage occupied by each, taking into consideration 

the amount of square footage allotted to the circuit under 

the current version of the USCDG. The target excludes 

new courthouse construction, renovation, and alteration 

projects approved by Congress. It is also contingent upon 

the Judiciary having access to funding to analyze, design, 

and implement space reductions. The baseline for this 

policy is the square footage of space holdings within each 

circuit as of the beginning of FY 2013 (JCUS-SEP 2013, 

p. 32).

1.4.4.2 No Net New Policy

The Judiciary has a No Net New policy that requires any 

increase in square footage within a circuit to be ofset by 

an equivalent reduction in square footage identifed within 

the same fscal year. The No Net New policy excludes new 

courthouse construction, renovation, or alteration projects 

approved by Congress. The baseline for this policy is the 

square footage of space holdings within each circuit as of 

the beginning of FY 2013 (JCUS-SEP 2013, p. 32; JCUSSEP 2014, p. 29).

Although the space reduction program concluded at the 

end of FY 2018, the No Net New policy remains in efect. 

Courts face new challenges as they continue operating 

within their reduced space footprints. As workforces 

expand, judges take senior status, and new judges 

are confrmed, courts need to utilize their space more 

efciently and fnd creative ways to work within existing 

space inventories. These issues are considered in the 

recommended preliminary housing strategies of each 

LRFP.

1.4.4.3 Banking Policy

As an incentive to reduce space to the greatest extent 

possible, the space banking policy allows a circuit to 

“bank” space released in excess of its target for use in 

fscal years beyond 2018 to ofset acquisition of new space 

in compliance with the No Net New policy (JCUS-MAR 

2016, pp. 24-25).

1.4.4.4 Circuit Space and Rent Management Plans

To implement the space reduction policies, each circuit 

judicial council is required to formulate (pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §332(e)(5)) and update twice a year, a space 

and rent management plan articulating how the space 

reduction policies will be implemented (JCUS-SEP 2013, 

p. 32).

1.4.4.5 IWI and Alternative Workplace Strategies

The Integrated Workplace Initiative (IWI) capitalizes on 

technology and mobile working to reduce the Judiciary’s 

real estate footprint while creating a better and more 

efcient workplace environment implementing fexible, 

open plan ofce concepts and collaborative spaces. The 
6

USCDG, Chapter 18, Alternative Workplace Strategies 

(AWS), identifes work modes, mobility strategies, and 

workspace setting standards that incorporate IWI concepts 

and provide examples of workspace confgurations. 

Projects incorporating IWI and AWS strategies can 

also be designed so that future increases in staf are 

accommodated by increased mobility rather than space 

expansion. These types of projects are expected to 

continue to be signifcant components of the Judiciary's 

space management and efciency eforts.

1.5 AMP Process Goals, Outcomes, 

and Deliverables

AMP process outcomes and deliverables are guided by 

the goals of the AMP process. Those goals are to (1) 

identify and document court space needs using objective 

and consistently applied standards and guidelines; (2) 

develop preliminary housing solutions for each courthouse; 

and (3) determine the relative urgency of space needs 

on a nationwide basis. The AMP Business Rules and 

USCDG provide standards and guidelines to ensure the 

methodology is consistently applied nationwide. 

AMP process outcomes consist of three main deliverables: 

a district-wide or circuit- wide LRFP with recommended 

preliminary housing strategies for each courthouse, an 

FBA score for each courthouse, and a UE ranking for 

each city.

Recommendations from the LRFPs, including the 

recommended preliminary housing strategies, are then 

used to help identify and prioritize potential projects 

submitted for the Judiciary’s CRB Program, the joint 

Judiciary/GSA Capital Security Program (CSP), the 

Judiciary No Net New space efciency initiative, and 

the Judiciary’s CPP. Many courts also often fnd the 

deliverables are a helpful planning resource in terms 

of the information they contain on staf and caseload 

projections, planned GSA projects, and near- and 

long-term housing strategies.
7

2LRFPs

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of an LRFP is to identify and analyze court 

facility needs and provide near-term and 15-year strategies 

to address those needs. LRFPs are completed for each 

district and each circuit nationwide. 

LRFPs include a comprehensive overview of the 

district, including facility location maps and building 

summaries, court operational and caseload trends, 

historic and projected caseload and personnel fgures, 

and divisional space needs summaries. The plans also 

provide courtroom inventories, chambers inventories, 

site plans, stacking diagrams, foor plans, building 

condition summaries, and a list of GSA-identifed projects. 

The results include an FBA rating, and recommended 

preliminary housing strategy for each courthouse in the 

district or circuit being assessed, along with a timeline for 

when those strategies may be needed.

2.1.2 PARTICIPANTS AND STAKEHOLDERS

Participants in the LRFP development process include the 

AOUSC Planning Team, District or Circuit Planning Team, 

and specifc court- and non-court-related agencies. 

As a consensus-based process, the court plays a 

particularly active role in developing its district or circuit 

LRFP from beginning to end. Table 2.1: LRFP Process 

Participants provides details on the make-up of the LRFP 

stakeholder team. Additional staf and subject matter 

experts from each of these organizations may also 

participate in the process as needed.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders refer to Checklist 6.1 in Appendix 6.3.

2.1.3 SELECTION OF LOCATIONS AND 

FREQUENCY OF UPDATES

LRFPs are typically updated every fve to ten years.

Each year, the Long-Range Planning Team chief requests 

that ACEs and AOUSC PMB FPMs review a list of districts 

and circuits that potentially require an LRFP update. The 

ACEs and FPMs then submit their priorities for LRFP 

updates to the Long-Range Planning Team chief. Districts 

and circuits are selected and prioritized for an LRFP 

update based on the following potential scenarios:

• A new courthouse has been constructed or 

otherwise added to the inventory since the last LRFP 

was completed,

• A courthouse has changed from non-resident to 

resident (or vice versa),

• The current LRFP is more than fve years old,

• A major IWI or other type of space reduction project 

has been completed or is nearing completion,

• A CSP project has been completed or is nearing 

completion,

• The number and/or location of judgeships has 

changed or is expected to change, thus impacting 

space needs and potentially the last LRFP's 

recommended housing strategies,

• Since the previous LRFP was completed, a major 

change in building condition, court operations, 

etc., has occurred that potentially afects space 

needs, and
8

• An upcoming potential sale, expiring lease, or other

real property action may result in the loss of an

existing courthouse.

Long-Range Planning Team stafng and funding 

availability are also considered in determining the number 

of districts or circuits that can undergo an LRFP update in 

a given year.

TABLE 2.1: LRFP PROCESS PARTICIPANTS

DISTRICT LRFP

AOUSC Planning Team Court Planning Team Court Related Agencies Non-Court-Related Agency

• LRFP Program Manager

• FPM

• Physical Security

Specialist

• LRFP Contractor

(Facilitator, Analyst, and

Architect)

• ACE

• GSA Regional Ofce

Representative

• Clerk of the District Court

• Clerk of the Bankruptcy

Court

• Chief Probation Ofcer

• Chief Pretrial Services

Ofcer (if applicable)

• FPD or CD

• Bankruptcy Administrator

(if applicable)

• Satellite Circuit Librarian

• Local Chief of the USMS

• Local U.S. Attorney

• Local U.S. Trustee

• Local GSA Representative

• USMS Headquarters

• Executive Ofce for the

U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)

• Executive Ofce for U.S.

Trustees (EOUST)

• GSA Central Ofce

CIRCUIT LRFP

AOUSC Planning Team Court Planning Team Court Related Agencies Non-Court-Related Agency

• LRFP Program Manager

• FPM

• Physical Security

Specialist

• LRFP Contractor

(Facilitator, Analyst, and

Architect)

• ACE

• GSA Regional Ofce

Representative

• Circuit Executive

• ACE

• Circuit Mediator

• Clerk of the Court of

Appeals

• Chief Staf Attorney

• BAP Clerk (if applicable)

• Circuit Librarian

• Local GSA Representative

• USMS Headquarters • GSA

2.1.4 LRFP PROCESS SUMMARY 

FLOWCHART

The fow chart that follows (Figure 2.1) summarizes 

the AMP process and related follow-on processes. 

Subsequent chapters in this handbook provide details 

on each step of the process, as well as stakeholder roles 

and responsibilities.
9

FIGURE 2.1: LRFP PROCESS FLOW CHART

Input into GSA Capital Planning Process, Judiciary CRB,

CSP, or No Net New Program

GSA Phase I Feasibility Study

Federal Judiciary CPP List (Part II)

GSA Phase II Feasibility Study

Federal Judiciary CPP List (Part I)

GSA Capital Planning Process

Draft preliminary LRFP and housing strategy for each courthouse

Housing Strategy Working Session with court

Final preliminary housing strategies and draft LRFP

UE ranking for each city

LRFP Recommended Preliminary Housing 

Strategy: New Construction, Annex, or Addition 

LRFP Recommended Preliminary Housing 

Strategy: Renovation

LRFP 

Development

Final LRFP and Chief Judge Approval

Caseload, personnel, and space data; 

input from court unit managers, 

subject matter experts, and judges

FBAs, floor plans, courtroom / 

chambers inventories, and GSA real 

property information

Conduct on-site planning sessions

Identify district to undergo development of a new LRFP 

and schedule site visit

Develop Planning Handbook and deliver to court

Conduct pre-site visit video / teleconference

LRFP Pre-Site Visit 

Activities

LRFP Site Visit 

Activities

Needs Assessment Physical Assessment

Renovation (Prospectus or Non-Prospectus) 
10

2.2 Preparing for Your LRFP Site 

Visit

After it is determined which districts and circuits will 

undergo an LRFP update, a program manager from the 

Long-Range Planning Team is assigned to oversee each 

plan’s development. The LRFP program manager will also 

identify potential dates for the LRFP site visit. These dates 

are coordinated with the AOUSC Planning Team and the 

District/Circuit Planning Team and adjusted as needed 

based on feedback from key participants. The following 

sections provide additional details on preparing and 

participating in the LRFP site visit.

2.2.1 PURPOSE OF THE LRFP SITE VISIT 

The LRFP site visit entails three to fve days of on-site 

planning sessions. The planning sessions cover two key 

areas: 

1) a needs assessment that consists of group and

individual sessions designed to gather input from court

components and related agencies on operations,

workload, judgeships, personnel, and space; and

2) a physical assessment that includes comprehensive

tours of court-occupied space and GSA general

building space in all courthouses.

The purpose of the tours is to evaluate how well each 

courthouse meets the court’s needs and to collect 

information necessary to complete an FBA and develop 

preliminary housing strategies.

Typically, planning sessions are held at the court’s 

headquarters location. In cases where planning sessions 

cannot be held on-site due to travel restrictions, safety, 

or emergency situations, virtual planning sessions will 

be conducted using available collaboration tools. While 

planning sessions may be held virtually, the physical 

assessments must be conducted on-site. Physical 

assessments will be conducted as soon as possible 

before, during, or after the planning sessions are held.

2.2.2 PARTICIPANTS IN THE ON-SITE 

PLANNING SESSIONS

Members of the AOUSC Planning Team and District/

Circuit Planning Team participate in the planning sessions. 

Additional representatives from the court, court-related 

agencies, and non-court-related agencies may also 

participate. Refer to Table 2.1 for a full list of participants.

2.2.3 OVERVIEW OF THE COURT’S ROLE

The court plays an active role in the LRFP process. Before 

the LRFP site visit, the clerk of the district court (or in 

the case of a circuit LRFP, the ACE or clerk of the court 

of appeals) coordinates the planning session schedule 

for their respective district/circuit with the LRFP program 

manager and District or Circuit Planning Team.

During the LRFP site visit, the respective District or Circuit 

Planning Team participate in the on-site planning sessions 

to discuss caseload, personnel, and space issues. The 

court, USMS staf, and GSA building managers also assist 

by providing the LRFP contract architect(s) with access to 

all courthouses for the purpose of conducting the FBAs. 

Members of the AOUSC Planning Team may also tour 

some or all courthouses to gain additional insight and 

understanding of current and future space needs and 

security issues in a particular location.

For a district LRFP, the circuit is also involved. Specifcally, 

the ACE actively participates in the planning sessions, 

housing strategy draft review and teleconference, and 

LRFP review process. Court of appeals space within the 

district’s courthouses, including circuit judges’ chambers, 

satellite circuit libraries, and courtrooms, are assessed as 

part of the FBA.

Finally, the chief judge will receive a fnal draft to review 

and approve. After notifcation of the chief judge’s 

approval, printed copies of the fnal LRFP are sent to the 

clerk of the district court (for district LRFPs), ACE (for 

both district and circuit LRFPs), and GSA Regional Client 

Executive or Planning Manager. For district LRFPs, the 

clerk of the district court is provided additional printed 

copies of the fnal LRFP for distribution. For circuit LRFPs, 

the ACE or clerk of the court of appeals is provided 

additional printed copies of the fnal LRFP for distribution. 

The clerk and ACE also receive an electronic version of 

the fnal LRFP. 

2.2.4 BEFORE YOUR SITE VISIT

Long-Range Planning Team staf initiate the planning 

and coordination of the on-site planning sessions by frst 

identifying and notifying the AOUSC Planning Team. A 

draft site visit schedule is submitted to the clerk of court 

(district or circuit) for approval. The clerk of court (district 

or circuit) coordinates with their planning team. The 

LRFP program manager also shares the site visit date 

with headquarters representatives from GSA, USMS, 
11

USAO, and UST. For a complete list of site visit document 

recipients refer to Checklist 6.3.1.

The task order selection process begins when Long-Range 

Planning Team staf defne and prepare a requirements 

package. The package includes a statement of work (SOW), 

independent government cost estimate (IGCE), funded 

requisition, and a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) report. 

After the TEP convenes, discussions are held with at least 

three potential architecture/engineering (A/E) contractors 

under the Indefnite Delivery/Indefnite Quantity (IDIQ) 

contracting mechanism. After discussions, the TEP 

completes its report and recommendation and sends 

the requirements package to the AOUSC Procurement 

Management Division (PMD). PMD then forwards the 

SOW in a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the TEPrecommended LRFP contractor.

The contractor submits its response to PMD. The project’s 

Contracting Ofcer’s Technical Representative (COTR) 

evaluates the proposal based on the contractor’s capacity 

to perform, consistency of the proposed project schedule 

with the SOW and the Judiciary’s needs, and consistency 

and completeness of the proposed labor hour and pricing 

information relative to the IGCE. If needed, PMD will 

negotiate with the contractor. The COTR then provides 

its recommendation for award to PMD based on the 

contractor’s fnal proposal and PMD fnalizes the award.

2.2.5 DATA COLLECTION

In advance of the LRFP site visit, the LRFP Team staf 

gather data for the selected LRFP contractor to develop 

a planning handbook. Data contained in the planning 

handbook are largely provided by the AOUSC. 

Another preliminary step in preparing for site visits is the 

collection of GSA data. The Long-Range Planning Team 

staf contact the appropriate GSA regional ofce to obtain 

facility data including foor plans for each courthouse 

to be assessed during the site visit, foor plans of each 

leased ofce building, site plans, housing plans, Building 

Assessment Tool (BAT) reports, historic structure reports, 

and lists of ongoing or planned GSA projects.

For each district or circuit scheduled for an LRFP update, 

Long-Range Planning Team staf also contact the USMS 

headquarters and the EOUSA to obtain their personnel 

and space information. The information provided includes 

stafng data, building location data, and usable square 

footage of agency-occupied space at each courthouse 

location.

Once the data are received, the information is fled 

electronically for use by the LRFP program manager 

and contractor to prepare for the respective site visit and 

develop the LRFP planning handbook.

For a checklist of data requested from stakeholders refer 

to Checklist 6.3.2.

2.2.6 PLANNING HANDBOOK

The planning handbook is a working document used 

to guide discussion during the LRFP on-site planning 

sessions. The handbook contains caseload, personnel, 

and space data from these sources: 

• Caseload data comes from the Judicial Business 

of the United States Courts, Annual Report of the 

Director; the AOUSC Probation and Pretrial Services 

Ofce; and the AOUSC JDAO,

• AOUSC personnel data comes from www.uscourts.

gov and AOUSC payroll records,

• Related agency personnel data comes from the UST 

Program website, the headquarters of the USMS, 

and the AOUSC Judiciary Security Division,

• Local U.S. Attorney’s Ofce stafng data is collected 

during the planning sessions,

• All space data comes from GSA’s client billing 

records, and

• The preliminary caseload and personnel forecasts 

are provided by JDAO.

During the on-site planning sessions, the District or Circuit 

Planning Team are encouraged to provide their insight and 

knowledge to help tailor the preliminary projections so they 

refect each court’s unique circumstances. This information 

is later used in the development of the LRFP, particularly 

for the recommended preliminary housing strategies. 

The planning handbook is developed by the selected 

LRFP contractor who researches and compiles data 

related to district geography, population, employment, 

historic and projected personnel and caseload, and 

current space. The planning handbook also contains 

a site visit schedule and sample questions that will be 

posed to the District or Circuit Planning Team during 

the on-site planning sessions. On-site planning session 
12

participants need not prepare written responses to the 

sample questions; however, it is helpful to read through the 

questions and be prepared with the requested information. 

After the LRFP program manager has reviewed and 

approved the planning handbook, copies are printed 

and distributed by the contractor to the LRFP program 

manager, ACE, and the clerk of court (district court or court 

of appeals) for further distribution to their planning team. 

The LRFP program manager distributes printed copies to 

the FPM and physical security specialist. 

In addition to the printed copies, an electronic version 

of the planning handbook is sent by the LRFP program 

manager to the AOUSC Planning Team and the clerk of 

court (district court or court of appeals) for distribution to 

their planning team. The LRFP program manager also 

sends the electronic version of the planning handbook to 

representatives from GSA, USMS, EOUSA, and EOUST 

(district LRFPs only). This is completed approximately one 

to two weeks in advance of the on-site planning sessions 

and in preparation for the next step in the process – the 

pre-site visit video/teleconference.

2.2.7 PRE-SITE VISIT VIDEO/

TELECONFERENCE

After the planning handbook has been developed and 

distributed, the next step in developing the LRFP is to 

conduct the pre-site visit video/teleconference.

The pre-site visit video/teleconference is held one to two 

weeks before the LRFP site visit. The goals of the video/

teleconference are to acquaint the District or Circuit 

Planning Team with the AOUSC Planning Team, review the 

planning handbook, and confrm the site visit schedule and 

logistics. 

This video/teleconference is scheduled and coordinated 

by the LRFP program manager with input from the clerk of 

court. The LRFP program manager will contact the clerk of 

the district court (or in the case of a circuit LRFP the ACE 

or clerk of the court of appeals) to determine the best time 

and date for meeting and then follow up with invitations 

and video/teleconference information. 

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders to develop the LRFP planning handbook and 

plan the site visit refer to Checklist 6.3.3.

2.3 Building Your LRFP: On-Site 

Planning Sessions and Beyond

2.3.1 WHAT TO EXPECT DURING THE SITE 

VISIT

The three-to-fve-day site visit covers two key areas:

• The frst is the needs assessment. This consists of 

group and individual stakeholder sessions designed 

to gather input from court components and related 

agencies on operations, caseload, judgeships, 

personnel, and space. 

• The second key area is completion of the physical 

assessment. The physical assessment evaluates 

how well each courthouse meets court needs. To 

do this, the LRFP contract architect conducts a 

comprehensive tour of each courthouse and its 

court-occupied space, USMS space, and GSA 

common areas. 

During the tours, the architect takes photographs and 

collects information needed to complete the AMP 

FBA checklist and help develop potential preliminary 

housing strategies. Additional details on both the needs 

assessment and physical assessment are provided in the 

following sections.

2.3.1.1 District LRFP Needs Assessment Planning 

Sessions

The series of meetings that comprise the district LRFP 

needs assessment planning sessions are facilitated by 

the LRFP contractor or LRFP program manager on the 

AOUSC Planning Team. Participants in the planning 

sessions include the District Planning Team. The planning 

sessions are usually conducted and attended in person 

at the district headquarters location. Under special 

circumstances (e.g., travel restrictions due to pandemic) 

the planning sessions may be held virtually. 

The objectives of the district planning sessions are to: 

• Validate past and current caseload and stafng 

numbers, 

• Verify current space occupancy,

• Discuss operational policies and preferences, both 

circuit-wide and at each divisional location,
13

• Gather information and perspectives from court and 

court-related agency managers regarding trends and 

projections for operations, caseload, personnel, and 

space, and 

• Identify and document space concerns, ongoing 

and planned space projects, and future needs for 

expansion, consolidation, and/or space reduction. 

Insight gained from these discussions helps inform 

existing and future facility needs, as well as the potential 

preliminary housing strategies that will be included in the 

LRFP.

2.3.1.2 Circuit LRFP Needs Assessment Planning 

Sessions

The circuit LRFP needs assessment planning sessions 

consist of a series of meetings conducted by the AOUSC 

Planning Team. Participants in the planning sessions 

include the Circuit Planning Team. The planning sessions 

are usually conducted in person at the circuit headquarters 

location. Under special circumstances (e.g., travel 

restrictions due to pandemic), the planning sessions may 

be held virtually.

Like the district planning sessions, the objectives of the 

circuit planning sessions are to: 

• Validate past and current workload and stafng 

numbers,

• Verify current space occupancy,

• Discuss operational policies and preferences circuitwide,

• Gather information and perspectives from court and 

court-related agency managers regarding trends and 

projections for operations, caseload, personnel, and 

space, and 

• Identify and document space concerns, ongoing 

and planned space projects, and future needs for 

expansion, consolidation, and/or space reduction. 

Insight gained from these discussions helps inform 

existing and future facility needs, as well as the potential 

preliminary housing strategies that will be developed and 

included in the LRFP.

2.3.1.3 District and Circuit Physical Assessment 

Courthouse Tours and Evaluations

Either the week before, during, or after the planning 

sessions, the LRFP contractor architect(s) travels 

throughout the district (or circuit) to assess court-occupied 

space, USMS space, and GSA general building space in 

all resident facilities containing at least one courtroom. 

The tours typically take three to fve days in total, 

depending on the number of courthouses and/or city 

locations. The assessment is a high-level interior and 

exterior evaluation of the building from an operational 

perspective, based upon the USCDG. A standardized set 

of 328 weighted factors that comprise the FBA checklist 

is used during the assessment to determine how well the 

facility functions for the courts. In this way, the assets and 

defciencies of courthouse spaces are objectively identifed 

and consistently documented for each courthouse across 

the Judiciary. During their tours, the architects also: 

• Discuss space issues with court staf, building 

management personnel (can be GSA staf, 

court representatives, or building maintenance 

contractors; whoever can detail building systems 

issues and projects), local USMS staf, and local 

GSA representatives,

• Photograph, verify and document the existing 

facilities in terms of space sizes, adjacencies, 

functions, circulation paths, security, and building 

systems in accordance with USCDG standards,

• Gather information on building defciencies afecting 

operations, security, and building condition,

• Identify underutilized, poorly confgured, or unused 

space within court component spaces in the facility, 

and

• Gather any other information needed to develop an 

FBA rating and a preliminary housing strategy.

For additional information on FBAs and how they are 

calculated, refer to Section 2.4 of this handbook.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders to complete a district LRFP on-site planning 

session and the FBA refer to Checklist 6.3.4.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders to complete a circuit LRFP on-site planning 

session and the FBA refer to Checklist 6.3.5.
14

2.3.2 LRFP DEVELOPMENT AND 

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

After the site visit, the LRFP program manager collaborates 

with the LRFP contractor and District or Circuit Planning 

Team to develop the LRFP. The LRFP development phases 

are the same for district and circuit courts: 

• Develop and review LRFP Preliminary and First 

Drafts,

• Develop and review FBAs,

• Conduct Housing Strategy Working Session,

• Develop LRFP Full and Pre-Final Drafts, and

• Develop Final LRFP.

At a minimum, the contractor develops fve drafts of the 

LRFP and one draft of the FBAs. In addition to an in-depth 

review of each draft by the LRFP program manager, the 

District or Circuit Planning Team, ACE, and FPM are asked 

to provide comments and feedback at three key milestones 

during the process. These milestones and the roles of 

the stakeholder teams are described in more detail in the 

following sections. 

2.3.2.1 LRFP Drafts

After the site visit, the LRFP contractor prepares and 

submits the preliminary draft of the LRFP to the AOUSC. 

The preliminary draft includes the data and information 

gathered during the site visit, as well as AMP background, 

historical and projected caseload and personnel data, and 

facility information. This preliminary draft goes through an 

internal AOUSC review process to ensure all information is 

accurately documented. Any comments are incorporated 

into the frst draft LRFP by the LRFP contractor.

Once the frst draft is deemed complete, the LRFP 

program manager electronically sends a copy to the clerk 

of court, ACE, and FPM. The clerk of court distributes 

the draft to the other members of the District or Circuit 

Planning Team for review. The clerk of court compiles 

all their respective planning team comments and returns 

those to the LRFP program manager. The ACE and FPM 

also provide comments directly to the LRFP program 

manager. Reviewers have approximately fve weeks to 

provide comments.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders to develop a district or circuit LRFP refer to 

Checklist 6.3.6.

2.3.3 ASSESSING HOW WELL A BUILDING 

PERFORMS: COURTHOUSE FBAS

Using the data, notes, and photographs obtained from 

the on-site contract architect physical assessment 

courthouse tours and the on-site planning sessions, a set 

of FBA ratings called the AMP A-1 is developed for each 

courthouse. An FBA is an assessment of a courthouse to 

help determine how well the facility supports the needs 

and operations of the court. 

The FBA consists of a standardized set of factors used as 

a checklist by the LRFP contractor’s architect(s) to rate 

space based on a tour of each courthouse. Tours occur as 

part of the district or circuit’s LRFP site visit. The outcome 

of the FBA is the calculation of an overall FBA rating, 

along with ratings for each of the following categories: 

building condition, space functionality, security, and space 

standards. Further information on the FBA process can be 

found in Section 2.4.

2.3.4 HOUSING STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

Projected space needs for the 15-year AMP planning 

period (divided into fve-year increments) are generated 

by applying the AMP Business Rules to the existing courtoccupied space and determining any additional space 

needed for projected judgeships and personnel. Once 

these space needs are identifed, preliminary conceptual 

housing strategies are developed by the LRFP contractor. 

The preliminary housing strategies are designed to:

1) address existing major operational defciencies,

2) accommodate projected growth in judgeships and 

personnel, and

3) acknowledge the Judiciary’s No Net New policy and 

ongoing space efciency eforts.

The preliminary housing strategies do not identify buildingspecifc GSA projects or project costs and are only 

intended as a starting point for future strategy discussions.

Per the AMP Business Rules, there are three housing 

strategy categories: 

• renovation (R), 

• addition/annex to a federally owned facility (A), and

• new courthouse (N). 
15

A renovation strategy within the court’s existing footprint is 

considered frst. Annex or new construction strategies are 

only developed if a renovation strategy cannot adequately 

meet the court’s 15-year space needs or if renovation is 

not likely to be the most cost-efective option. The goal of 

the housing strategies is to address space needs using 

the most cost-efective and space-efcient approach. 

Space sharing, consolidation, and reduction opportunities 

are considered during the development of every housing 

strategy.

The LRFP preliminary housing strategy proposed for 

each courthouse is potentially just one of many possible 

viable solutions. Other possible options to meet current 

and future space needs may be explored in subsequent 

project-specifc planning stages as needed.

After the LRFP contractor develops a draft preliminary 

housing strategy for each courthouse, this information is 

summarized in a draft housing strategy working session 

handout. A meeting with the LRFP program manager, 

FPM, and ACE is held to discuss the preliminary housing 

strategies. After the handout is fnalized, the LRFP 

program manager sends it to the clerk of court (who 

may disseminate the handout to their planning team as 

desired), ACE, and FPM to be used as a discussion guide 

during the next step in the process – the housing strategy 

working session. 

2.3.5 THE COURT’S HOUSING STRATEGY 

WORKING SESSION: BUILDING CONSENSUS

The housing strategy working session is a discussion 

scheduled by the LRFP program manager to determine the 

feasibility of the proposed housing strategies. Participants 

include the LRFP program manager, ACE, FPM, clerk of 

court, District or Circuit Planning Team (as applicable), 

and LRFP contractor. Based on feedback received from 

the clerk of court (and their respective planning team if 

applicable) during the teleconference, the recommended 

housing strategies are refned and revised as needed. 

The housing strategies are then incorporated into the next 

submittal of the full draft LRFP.

2.3.6 FULL DRAFT LRFP COURT REVIEW 

The next submittal in the process is the full draft LRFP. 

This submittal incorporates stakeholder comments from 

the frst draft and adds the completed FBA scores (if not 

included in frst draft) and fnal housing strategies. In 

addition, a geographic overview of the district, caseload 

analysis, and information on economic, crime, and justice 

system trends within the district or circuit are provided. 

The full draft LRFP frst goes through an internal AOUSC 

Planning Team review process to ensure all content is 

accurate and complete. The full draft is then submitted 

to the clerk of court (district or court of appeals) for their 

planning team review. The court has approximately fve 

weeks to review the full draft and provide comments. Once 

fnal comments are returned from the clerk of court to the 

LRFP program manager, they are reviewed for compliance 

with the AMP Business Rules and USCDG. The comments 

are incorporated as appropriate, with the LRFP program 

manager contacting the District or Circuit Planning Team to 

discuss or explain comments that were not incorporated. 

The resulting draft is submitted back to the clerk of court 

for distribution to their planning team as the pre-fnal LRFP. 

2.3.7 CONCLUDING THE PROCESS: LRFP 

APPROVAL

When the pre-fnal LRFP is sent to the clerk of court by the 

LRFP program manager, it is accompanied by a request to 

the chief district judge (district LRFPs) or chief circuit judge 

(circuit LRFPs) for approval. 

Per the AMP Business Rules, the chief judge has 90 days 

to provide comments, request additional review time, or 

approve the LRFP. If the chief judge neither approves, 

appeals, or requests an extension of time to consider the 

plan, within 90 days from the time the plan is sent to the 

district and circuit, the plan will be considered approved and 

fnal, as is. Approval is required in the form of a letter signed 

by the chief judge on his/her letterhead, addressed to the 

LRFP program manager. Once the letter is received by the 

LRFP program manager or the 90-day rule takes efect, the 

LRFP is considered fnal and then prepared for distribution.

2.3.7.1 LRFP Distribution

Following approval of the LRFP, the LRFP program 

manager directs the contractor to coordinate the printing 

of copies and electronic media containing the LRFP 

and supporting fles (photos, FBA, chief judge approval 

letter). These copies are distributed by the contractor to 

the AOUSC, ACE, and clerk of court (district or court of 

appeals). The clerk of court then distributes copies to 

their planning team. The LRFP program manager also 

sends a PDF version to the clerk of court, District or Circuit 

Planning Team, and regional and central ofce GSA, 

USMS, USAO, and UST representatives.
16

2.4 FBA Development

In cities where courtrooms and chambers are located in 

multiple facilities, the city-wide beneft assessment score 

is calculated separately from the FBA score. The citywide beneft assessment score incorporates and assigns 

weights to the individual FBAs for each facility, the type 

and mix of facility ownership (i.e., federally owned, leased 

or postal), and the fragmentation of court operations 

among multiple buildings. An example of the AMP A-1 and 

city-wide beneft assessment scoring tables are included in 

Appendix 6.4 AMP A1: Current FBAs Page Examples.

The factors that make up the FBA checklist are grouped 

into four weighted categories:

• Building Condition (30%) – considers the condition 

of general building (15%) and Judiciary tenant 

space (15%), including the condition of building 

systems (e.g., plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, 

etc.), common areas, lobbies, elevators, stairwells, 

and exterior on-site spaces (e.g., plaza, walkways, 

parking, etc.),

• Space Functionality (30%) – documents the 

extent to which space supports the operational 

requirements of the judges and staf present in the 

courthouse, including space adjacencies, layout, 

accessibility, and circulation,

• Security (25%) – assesses the presence of physical 

security features in the facility, such as secure and 

restricted circulation patterns, prisoner holding cells, 

sallyports, and break-resistant glazing, and

• Space Standards (15%) – looks at the degree 

to which the courthouse conforms with USCDG

standards for space size and proportions (e.g., 

courtrooms, chambers, jury facilities, etc.).

Within the four categories, the factors associated with 

each court component are weighted as follows. If a 

particular court component is not present in the courthouse 

being assess, the weight of those factors is mathematically 

reassigned to court components that are present:

• District Court (34.1%)

• Court of Appeals (15.4%)

• Pretrial Services (14.2%)

• Bankruptcy Court (13.5%)

• Probation Ofce (12.3%)

• Federal Public Defender (6.0%)

• Bankruptcy Administrator (4.5%)

The higher the resulting FBA (or city-wide beneft 

assessment) rating, the more the existing courthouse (or 

aggregate of facilities within a city) meets the operational 

needs of the court. In general, a rating of 100 represents 

an ideal courthouse, a rating of 80-99 represents a good 

courthouse, a rating of 70 to 79 represents an adequately 

functioning courthouse, a rating of 60 to 69 represents a 

marginal courthouse, and a rating below 60 represents a 

poor courthouse. Likewise, a rating of 100 in any of the 

four main criteria (building condition, space functionality, 

security, or space standards) or two sub-criterion (general 

building and Judiciary tenant space) represents an ideal 

courthouse for that criterion. Although any one number 

cannot capture all nuances of each building’s suitability 

for court operations, the FBA process provides the 

Judiciary with a means to objectively assess each existing 

courthouse nationwide.

The FBA assessments are conducted during the 

development of a district or circuit’s LRFP. Thus, when 

new FBA assessments are completed as part of an LRFP 

update, the FBA results can change. FBA results are also 

updated upon completion of a CSP project.

FBA rating results for a specifc courthouse can be found 

in each district and circuit LRFP. Before the FBA rating 

is calculated, the draft FBA checklist goes through an 

internal AOUSC review process to ensure that the data are 

accurately documented. The LRFP program manager then 

sends a copy of the draft FBA checklist to the clerk of court 

(district or court of appeals). If the clerk of court provides 

comments on the FBA checklist, they are incorporated as 

appropriate. The draft FBA checklist is sent to an AOUSC 

contractor who scores the FBA. Once the LRFP program 

manager receives the scored FBA, it is sent to the LRFP 

contractor for incorporation into the frst or second draft of 

the LRFP (time dependent).
17

3UE Ratings and 

the UE Results List

3.1 Purpose of UE Ratings, 

Rankings, and the UE Results List

The purpose of UE ratings and the UE Results List is to 

identify and document which courthouses throughout the 

nation have the most urgent space needs regardless of 

the size of the courthouse or type of LRFP recommended 

preliminary housing solution. A UE ranking is the order 

in which a courthouse falls on the UE Results List in 

relation to other courthouses nationwide. The ratings and 

rankings are used to help identify and prioritize projects 

recommended for the CRB Program, CSP, No Net New 

space efciency initiative, and CPP list for new courthouse 

and courthouse annex construction. 

3.2 UE Rating Methodology

 The UE Model consists of four weighted main criteria 

and several sub-criteria. The four main criteria and their 

weights are:

• FBA Results/City-Wide Beneft Assessment Score - 

40%

• Current and Future Chambers Needs - 30%

• Current and Future Courtroom Needs - 20%

• Past and Future Average Annual Criminal Defendant 

Caseload Growth and Civil Caseload Growth - 10%

All courthouses on the UE Results List receive a UE rating 

that is updated annually to refect evolving courtroom 

and chambers needs and updates in projected caseload 

growth since the previous year’s list. As of January 2022, 

a total of 452 courthouses have been assessed under the 

AMP process. The AMP process assesses courthouses 

using a set of standardized factors to generate an FBA 

score for each courthouse. Courthouses that have not 

been assessed are not included in the counts. As part of 

the annual update, courthouses may be removed or added 

to the UE Results List for various specifc reasons. Since 

2011, a total of 245 courthouses have been added and 80 

courthouses have been removed. 

The annual update includes both resident and non-resident 

courthouses. All courthouses are evaluated using the 

same criteria and compiled into a single ranked list. 

Non-resident courthouses are included in the UE to ensure 

their condition and needs are documented, tracked, and 

receive the appropriate attention. This frame of reference 

helps inform and facilitate holistic decision-making as 

it pertains to the potential retention or closure of nonresident courthouses, as well as the potential transition 

of a non-resident courthouse to a resident courthouse. It 

also highlights broader trends in terms of building condition 

and security issues across the entire stock of non-resident 

courthouses that may spur analysis and solutions to 

resolve such issues.

A UE rating of "Not Assessed" indicates a location which 

was not assessed as part of the AMP process. These 

locations do not have an FBA rating, space needs, or any 

associated civil or criminal defendant flings, and therefore 

do not receive a UE rating. These locations are included in 

the UE Results List for completeness of the data set. 

The UE is a comparative analysis, meaning that each 

location’s rank is established relative to all other locations. 

The rank order of locations can change from year to year. 

Rank order changes occur as new locations are added to 
18

the list, some locations are removed from the list, and data 

are updated annually for all locations. The relative scores 

on each of the four criteria determine the rank order for 

each location. As such, the rank order of any given location 

is sensitive to the amount of “credit” (i.e., proportion of the 

UE model weight) that location receives for each of the 

four criteria. Locations that receive the most credit across 

all four criteria are ranked highest.

From this perspective, it becomes helpful to identify for 

each criterion a point above which all locations receive 

“full credit” in the model. The reason is that each year, a 

relatively small handful of locations exhibit data values for 

one or more criteria that are best described as “outliers.” 

These values are often temporary. For example, a court 

that manages a multi-district litigation case may exhibit an 

extremely high volume of civil case flings for two or three 

years. Within the UE model, this location would not only 

receive full credit for the civil caseload-related criteria, but 

the outlier value would be so high in relation to all other 

locations that it would commensurately reduce the credit 

available for all other locations in the comparative analysis. 

Left unchecked, outlier values for all criteria within the UE 

model have the potential to skew the overall rankings by 

elevating a few locations relative to all others.

To avoid skewing the results in this manner, the UE model 

is implemented each year using “caps” for the criteria. 

For each criterion, a cap is established above which all 

locations receive full credit for that criterion. In this way, 

any locations with outlier values still receive full credit 

within the model, but the overall rankings are not skewed 

by outliers. In other words, caps are used to manage the 

disproportionate infuence that outlier values have on both 

the individual criteria ratings and the overall UE ratings. 

While their application can alter the raw results, they in 

turn reduce the instances where locations have UE ratings 

driven solely by outlier values for one or more of the 

criteria.

To determine the cap for each criterion, natural breaks 

in the data were identifed by a panel of subject matter 

experts and statisticians through a combination of 

quantitative and qualitative evaluation. All locations with 

values at or above the cap for each criterion receive full 

credit for that criterion. All other locations receive credit in 

relation to the cap value and receive a percentage of the 

UE model’s weight for that criterion.
19

3.3 UE Model Data Sources

The data used to calculate the UE rating is derived from 

each circuit or district’s LRFP. Every year the chambers 

and courtroom data, as well as caseload growth statistics, 

are reviewed and updated for all courthouses in the 

UE Results List. The following diagram illustrates the 

full model, including both the four main criteria, their 

sub-criteria, and the weights for each: 

FIGURE 3.1: UE MODEL DATA SOURCES
20

3.4 Participants and the Process

Participants in the UE rating and UE Results List update 

process include staf from the AOUSC and circuits and 

the AOUSC’s UE contractor. The process also sometimes 

necessitates direct interaction between the AOUSC and 

court staf to validate data. There are fve steps in the 

process:

1) UE Data Update

• Staf from the Long-Range Planning Team are 

responsible for updating the data used to calculate 

the UE results. This work occurs throughout the year 

with the most concentrated efort taking place in 

November, December, and January. 

• To update these data, Long-Range Planning 

Team staf rely on such sources as FBA results 

and courtroom and chambers counts from the 

most recent LRFPs; judge data from payroll 

records; current JCUS judgeship approvals and 

recommendations; Component B projects approved 

annually by the Space and Facilities Committee; 

and results from the Long-Range Planning Team’s 

annual caseload and personnel forecasting task. 

• As needed, the Long-Range Planning Team will also 

consult with FPMs, the respective circuit ACE, and 

even court staf familiar with courthouse stafng, 

housing, and facility needs.

2) Draft UE Results List and Initial Internal Review 

• The UE contractor uses Expert Choice software to 

process the updated data and generate a draft UE 

results list. 

• The draft list goes through a rigorous internal 

AOUSC review process to ensure all data 

are consistently and accurately documented. 

Long-Range Planning Team staf and the UE 

contractor revise the draft UE results as needed 

based on the review team’s input.

3) Draft UE Results List Circuit Review 

• In addition to the AOUSC and contractor review 

team quality control, Long-Range Planning Team 

staf meet with each ACE and the corresponding 

FPM to review the revised draft UE results list. 

• These meetings provide an opportunity for the 

ACEs and FPMs to review the draft UE results for 

each court location in their respective circuit, as 

well provide additional information and updates, as 

needed.

4) Final Draft UE Results List 

• Long-Range Planning Team staf and the UE 

contractor revise the draft UE results list as needed 

based on input from the discussions with the ACEs 

and FPMs. 

• The fnal draft UE results list is then reviewed 

internally within the FSO and shared with the Ofce 

of Legislative Afairs (OLA). 

5) Final UE Results List 

• The draft UE results list is reviewed once more 

by Long-Range Planning Team staf and the UE 

contractor. 

• It is then fnalized by the Long-Range Planning Team 

UE program manager and Team chief. 

The fnal UE Results List is published in February by SFD. 

The results are sent from the SFD Chief to the Committee, 

CEs, and ACEs. The fnal UE Results List is also uploaded 

to the JNet where it can be accessed by everyone within 

the Judiciary.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders to produce the UE Results List refer to 

Checklist 6.3.7.
21

4AMP Process Follow-on 

Programs and Processes

The AMP process and the resulting data and analysis 

are the foundation of the Judiciary’s space and facilities 

program. This information also helps inform related 

follow-on programs and processes administered by the 

Judiciary and partner agencies such as GSA and the 

USMS. The following section presents information on 

these programs and processes, including the collaborative 

GSA/AOUSC Circuit Advanced Planning Program (CAPP), 

the CPP list, development of GSA Phase I and Phase II 

feasibility studies, Judiciary AnyCourt PORs, and lifecycle 

management of courthouse construction projects from 

funding through construction.

4.1 Circuit Advanced Planning 

Program (CAPP)

4.1.1 HOW THE CAPP CAN HELP YOUR 

COURT

The purpose of the CAPP is to provide a forum where 

key partner agencies meet and discuss their major facility 

project initiatives, priorities, and challenges for a Judicial 

Circuit. The end result is a fully coordinated circuit-wide 

strategic space and facilities project plan (CAPP Plan) 

that includes building-by-building court facility space 

summaries, needs summaries, and annualized fve-year 

project lists with cost estimates by district.

4.1.2 PARTICIPANTS AND STAKEHOLDERS

The CAPP is a collaborative efort lead by the AOUSC and 

GSA. Program participants also include the circuits, courts, 

USMS, and FPS. 

4.1.3 DEVELOPING THE CAPP DOCUMENT

The CAPP process begins with the identifcation and 

scheduling of a circuit’s CAPP meeting. The primary goal 

of the CAPP meeting is to develop a fve-year, circuit-wide 

strategic plan of space and facilities program priorities and 

project needs. This multi-day space planning meeting is 

hosted by the circuit and facilitated by the AOUSC 

and GSA. 

Invitees include the circuit’s chief district judges, chair 

of the circuit’s Space and Facilities Committee (or 

equivalent), CE, ACE, AOUSC SFD staf, GSA national 

and regional client executives, and national and local staf 

from the USMS and FPS. Input is gathered, district-bydistrict for each courthouse, and then validated against the 

AMP data documented in each district’s LRFP. 

4.1.3.1 What to Expect During the CAPP Meetings

During the CAPP meetings, the districts are provided 

an opportunity to communicate their priorities to the 

circuit, AOUSC, and GSA as a means to document their 

upcoming project and funding needs. Based on the 

district’s responses and projected growth, potential No Net 

New projects are identifed, along with highlighting judicial 

vacancies that would result in chambers renovations to be 

funded either locally or by the circuit. GSA’s investment in, 

and future plans for, court facilities is also reviewed.

The multi-day planning meeting begins with a half day 

of high-level discussions, including an overview of the 

circuit’s space portfolio, the Judiciary’s AMP process and 

outcomes, and a discussion of nationwide building and 

space-related challenges faced by the Judiciary, GSA, 

USMS, and FPS. Over the following one to two days, 

attendees participate in a series of working sessions to 

review projected GSA, USMS, FPS, and court facility 

projects, fve-year housing requirements, and the 
22

challenges those requirements could present for each 

courthouse in each district in the circuit.

4.1.3.2 What to Expect After the CAPP Meetings

Following the circuit CAPP meetings, the CAPP plan 

is developed by the AOUSC and GSA, reviewed by 

all stakeholders, including the courts, and fnalized by 

the AOUSC and GSA. The document is to be used for 

planning and reference purposes only, as projects included 

in the plan are subject to availability of funds and can be 

pushed out to future fscal years based on this and other 

priorities. Due to the changing nature of space, facilities, 

funding, and priorities, the plan is revisited every two 

years.

4.2 The CPP and Identification 

of Potential New Courthouse 

Construction Projects

4.2.1 THE ROLE OF LRFPS AND THE UE

LRFPs and UE ratings and rankings assist the JCUS 

in objectively identifying the potential need for new 

courthouse construction, selecting GSA Phase I feasibility 

study candidates, selecting GSA Phase II feasibility 

study candidates, and determining the placement and 

prioritization of projects in Part II of the CPP list. 

The frst prerequisite for placement of a location on the 

CPP is a completed, approved LRFP that documents the 

current and projected space needs of each court location 

in the district/circuit. The second prerequisite is completion 

of a GSA Phase I feasibility study. 

4.2.2 GSA PHASE I FEASIBILITY STUDIES 

4.2.2.1 Purpose

GSA Phase I feasibility studies are completed to further 

evaluate the potential need for a new courthouse or 

annex/addition as identifed in the project location’s 

LRFP preliminary housing strategy recommendation. 

The studies are developed by GSA staf. They include an 

overview of existing conditions, review of Judiciary and 

GSA portfolio goals, and identifcation and comparison 

of potential housing alternatives. Each viable housing 

alternative is further evaluated based upon its advantages 

and disadvantages. Neither a preferred alternative nor cost 

estimates are included in these studies.

4.2.2.2 Request Process

If a court wishes to pursue a potential new courthouse or 

annex/addition construction project, following completion 

of the LRFP and based on the LRFP’s preliminary housing 

strategy and UE rating, a district court may request a GSA 

Phase I feasibility study through its circuit judicial council. 

After the circuit judicial council approves the request, a 

letter is sent from the circuit to the SFO chief requesting 

JCUS consideration and approval of initiating a GSA 

Phase I feasibility study for the location. 

The Committee and Subcommittee review circuit requests 

for GSA Phase I feasibility studies during their spring and 

fall sessions. The Subcommittee’s recommendation is 

sent to the full Committee for review at its next subsequent 

session (typically June and December). If the Committee 

approves the request, its recommendation is forwarded to 

the JCUS for review and approval at the next subsequent 

Conference session (either March or September).

4.2.2.3 Courtroom Utilization Study Matrices and 

AnyCourt PORs

If the JCUS approves the recommendation for a GSA 

Phase I feasibility study, GSA is notifed and the LongRange Planning Team develops a draft Courtroom 

Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt POR for both the 

district and circuit’s review and written approval. 

At its March 2022 session, JCUS “approved a policy 

requiring the circuit judicial council and the chief judge 

of the appropriate district court to certify, as part of 

their approval of an AnyCourt POR and the associated 

courtroom and chambers utilization matrix for new 

courthouse construction projects, their commitment to any 

necessary relocation of judges and/or closure of facilities 

associated with the planned project, subject to exemptions 

due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the court’s 

control. The certifcation should confrm that:

1) any facility to be closed in conjunction with the 

occupancy of the new space will also be deemed to 

be no longer necessary consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 

462(b) following the opening of the new courthouse,

2) identify the number and type of judges to be housed 

in the new facility as a result of the consolidation or 

relocation of court operations, and

3) be provided to and acknowledged by all judges in the 

afected district, as well as any later confrmed judge 

in the district at the time the judge’s duty station is 

established.” (JCUS-MAR 2022, p. 26)
23

This certifcation or recertifcation is required each time an 

AnyCourt POR is developed for transmittal to GSA, which 

typically includes:

• before the onset of a GSA Phase I feasibility study,

• before the onset of a GSA Phase II feasibility study, 

and

• before transmission of an AnyCourt post project 

design.

The Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt POR 

development, review, and approval process are described 

in the following paragraphs.

4.2.2.4 Courtroom Utilization Matrix and AnyCourt Review 

and Approval Process

After a request is received, the Long-Range Planning 

Team develops the initial draft Courtroom Utilization Study 

matrix. The initial draft Courtroom Utilization Study matrix 

is reviewed by AOUSC SFD staf (the assigned LRFP 

Program Manager and FPM). The matrix is transmitted to 

the Clerk of the District Court along with a routing slip and 

instruction letter to obtain signatures from judges impacted 

by the move (signature confrms commitment with intent 

to move) and signatures from other judges in the district 

(signature confrms acknowledgement). 

An AnyCourt POR is developed and a draft package 

containing the Courtroom Utilization Study matrix, 

AnyCourt POR, and commitment with intent to move and 

acknowledgement routing form are transmitted to the Clerk 

of the District Court along with a courtesy copy to the ACE 

and GSA’s Courthouse Programs Management Division. 

Including GSA in the initial review of the Courtroom 

Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt POR before circuit 

judicial council approval has been proven valuable to all 

parties involved and has assisted in eliminating delays 

in providing the necessary materials required for GSA to 

move forward with feasibility studies in a timely manner. 

A conference call is held with the district court and the 

ACE to discuss the draft projected ten-year and thirty-year 

Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt POR. A 

second call is then held with GSA’s Courthouse Programs 

Management Division, as needed. 

The Long-Range Planning Team is responsible for 

incorporating all revisions and ensuring the fnal circuit 

judicial council approved matrix and AnyCourt POR are 

transmitted to GSA to inform development of the GSA 

Phase I feasibility study. The Courtroom Utilization Study 

matrix and AnyCourt POR are revised as needed based on 

the conference calls and re-submitted to the district court 

and circuit executive’s ofce for fnal review and approval. 

Approval letters from the chief district judge and the circuit 

judicial council to the AOUSC are required. After the 

approval letters are received from the district court and 

circuit judicial council, the approved Courtroom Utilization 

Study matrix and AnyCourt are ofcially transmitted to 

the GSA Administrator, PBS Commissioner, and regional 

CE, accompanied by a cover letter from the FSO chief 

requesting that the GSA Phase I feasibility study be 

initiated. 

After receipt of a request from the AOUSC, GSA initiates 

and manages the process to complete a GSA Phase I 

feasibility study. 

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested 

from stakeholders to identify potential new courthouse 

construction projects refer to Checklist 6.3.8.

4.2.2.5 Developing the GSA Phase I Feasibility Study

After receipt of a request from the AOUSC, GSA initiates 

and manages the development of GSA Phase I feasibility 

studies. The process takes approximately 10-12 months 

to complete. The frst step is to gather requirements. The 

GSA team reaches out to stakeholder agencies, including 

the court, AOUSC, USMS, USAO, UST, and potential noncourt related courthouse tenants, to solicit their space and 

parking needs. 

After that, GSA begins to evaluate existing conditions 

by gathering current building documentation, such as 

maps, foor plans, site plans, GSA building evaluation 

reports, prior feasibility studies, and historic preservation 

reports. GSA also consults the most recent LRFP and 

evaluates the impact of ongoing and planned capital 

improvement projects, foodplain maps, seismic data, local 

zoning and master planning, wind loads, special weather 

considerations, and the area’s real estate market.

Upon completion of requirements gathering and the initial 

evaluation of existing conditions, GSA, in coordination with 

AOUSC SFD staf, works with the court and stakeholder 

agencies to schedule and hold a project kick-of meeting. 

The kick-of is typically held at the project location and 

includes a series of meetings and tours to further evaluate 

building condition and space utilization, as well solicit input 

and feedback from the court. 
24

developed using the results of the AMP process. The CPP

is divided into two parts:

• When a location is in Part I of the CPP, it means 

the location is a Judiciary courthouse construction 

funding priority for the fscal year represented in the 

most recently approved CPP. 

• When a location is in Part II of the CPP, it means 

that location is in line as an out-year courthouse 

construction priority.

The CPP is sent to GSA, the Ofce of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and Congress to promote awareness of the 

Judiciary’s courthouse construction needs and priorities. 

GSA uses it to guide their annual budget request as it 

relates to new courthouse construction.

4.2.3.2 Organization of the CPP: Part I vs. Part II

Part I lists the projects for which the Judiciary will request 

federal funding in its annual budget submission. The 

priority order of all projects in Part I is frozen until a project 

has been fully funded, at which point the funded project is 

removed from Part I. 

Each year, all projects in Part II of the CPP—whether a 

project was on the previous year’s CPP or is appearing for 

the frst time—are ranked in priority based on each project’s 

updated UE rating. When a project is added to the CPP, 

Part I, it is placed at the bottom of that section’s list.

As projects in Part I are fully funded and removed from 

Part I of the CPP, the project(s) in Part II that are ranked 

highest at that time may potentially move to Part I. For a 

project to move up to Part I, there must be a completed 

GSA Phase II feasibility study. 

Upon completion of the GSA Phase II feasibility study, 

the location is moved to Part I the next time the CPP is 

reviewed and approved by the Committee. Until a project 

is moved to Part I, its UE score is refreshed each year, and 

its place in the prioritization of Part II projects may change. 

In addition, as new projects are added to Part II based 

upon their UE rating, the priority order of the existing 

projects may change.

4.2.3.3 Adding New Locations to the CPP

Before a location can be added to the CPP, an LRFP must 

be completed under the AMP process, including review 

and approval by the chief district or circuit judge. A citywide UE rating is also calculated and documented for 

Approximately three to four months after the on-site kickof, GSA completes its concept development. This phase 

of the project includes development of alternatives and 

leasing, backfll, disposal, and new construction options, 

schematic planning diagrams, documentation of each 

scheme with site and housing plans, and a preliminary 

comparative analysis of each option’s advantages and 

disadvantages. 

The resulting draft document undergoes an internal 

headquarters level stakeholder review. After all resulting 

comments are addressed, GSA schedules and leads a 

meeting to present the concepts to the entire stakeholder 

group, including the court and court-related agencies. 

Following the presentation, stakeholders are provided an 

opportunity to follow up with written comments on the draft 

concepts. 

After reconciliation of those comments, GSA works to 

fnalize schematic diagrams (blocking and stacking), 

site plans, housing plans, and a comparative analysis of 

the remaining viable options. During this phase of study 

development, GSA also creates a general schedule 

showing the potential timing of a project funding request, 

timeline for design development, and duration and phasing 

of construction.

A second internal headquarters level stakeholder review 

is conducted, followed by a fnal presentation of viable 

alternatives to the court and court-related stakeholders. 

A copy of the fnal draft report is sent to stakeholders 

for review and comment. After all comments have been 

appropriately addressed and/or reconciled, the GSA Phase 

I feasibility study is fnalized, published, and distributed to 

the stakeholder team. 

4.2.2.6 After the Study Is Done

If the completed GSA Phase I feasibility study validates 

the potential need for a new courthouse or annex/addition, 

and the court and circuit judicial council both approve the 

study, the circuit judicial council may send a letter to the 

FSO chief requesting that the location be considered for 

inclusion in Part II of the CPP. The CPP, and the process 

for adding a courthouse to the CPP list, is described in 

Section 4.2.3.

4.2.3 THE CPP LIST

4.2.3.1 Purpose of the CPP

The CPP is the Judiciary’s list of courthouse construction 

funding priorities as approved by the JCUS. The CPP is 
25

each location addressed in the LRFP. In addition, a GSA 

Phase I feasibility study must be completed, reviewed, and 

approved by the district and circuit. After all three of these 

prerequisites are met, the circuit judicial council may then 

send a letter to the Committee on Space and Facilities 

requesting that the location be considered for inclusion on 

the CPP. 

An agenda item is sent to the Subcommittee; if they agree 

with the conclusions of the GSA Phase I feasibility study, 

it may recommend the location be added to the CPP and 

the recommendation is sent to the Committee for review 

and approval. The Committee’s recommendation is sent 

to the JCUS for fnal review and approval. The Committee 

considers such requests at its June session.

If the JCUS approves the recommendation to add the 

location to the CPP, the project is added to Part II in order 

of its UE ranking. The JCUS considers requests to add 

new locations to the CPP at its September session.

4.2.3.4 Prioritization of Projects on the CPP

Part I of the CPP consists of the Judiciary’s highest 

courthouse construction funding priorities for the budget 

year. These projects are prioritized in the order they were 

added to Part I. Part II of the CPP identifes out-year 

courthouse construction priorities. They are prioritized 

annually based on the most recent UE rating.

4.2.3.5 Moving Projects from Part II to Part I of the CPP

As projects in Part I are fully funded and removed from 

Part I of the CPP, the Committee identifes locations in 

Part II of the CPP that are to undergo completion of a GSA 

Phase II feasibility study. Upon completion of the GSA 

Phase II feasibility study, the location will move up to Part I 

of the CPP the next time the JCUS reviews and approves 

an annual CPP. Completion of a GSA Phase II feasibility 

study is a pre-requisite to a project being placed in Part I of 

the CPP.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders for the Judiciary’s CPP list refer to Checklist 

6.3.9.

4.2.3.6 GSA Phase II Feasibility Studies: Purpose

A GSA Phase II feasibility study is developed by a contract 

A/E frm under the direction of GSA and involves a more 

detailed analysis of options and potential special project 

requirements, selection of a preferred alternative, and 

development of benchmark cost estimates that include 

costs associated with design and construction, life cycle, 

site acquisition, building disposal, and tenant moves, as 

applicable. A high-level project delivery schedule is also 

developed to identify critical events (i.e., environmental 

compliance, site acquisition, swing space needs, lease 

terminations/relocations, etc.) for all stages of the project.

4.2.3.7 GSA Phase II Feasibility Studies: Timing and 

Selection Process

After a project’s inclusion in Part II of the CPP and based 

on input from AOUSC staf in coordination with GSA, the 

Committee determines the appropriate time to request a 

GSA Phase II feasibility study. A Phase II study is generally 

initiated once a project is within three years of expected 

funding and has moved toward the top of Part II of the 

CPP. Such determination can be made by the Committee 

at either its June or December session.

4.2.3.8 GSA Phase II Feasibility Studies: Participants and 

Stakeholders

The GSA Phase II feasibility study process is a 

collaborative efort lead by GSA and their contractor team. 

The studies are developed in close coordination with the 

court, circuit, AOUSC, and court-related stakeholders (e.g., 

the USMS, USAO, and FPS).

4.2.3.9 Developing the GSA Phase II Feasibility Study

After receipt of a request from the AOUSC, GSA initiates 

and manages the development of GSA Phase II feasibility 

studies. The process takes approximately 12 months to 

complete. 

The frst step is requirements gathering. As part of 

this efort, the GSA team reaches out to stakeholder 

agencies, including the court, AOUSC, USMS, USAO, 

UST, and potential non-court related courthouse tenants, 

to solicit their space and parking needs. The AOUSC, 

in coordination with the court and circuit, updates the 

previous AnyCourt POR that was used to guide the GSA 

Phase I feasibility study. Like the original AnyCourt used 

for the GSA Phase I feasibility study, the updated version 

must also be formally reviewed and approved by the court 

and circuit. 

After receipt of stakeholder agency space requirements, 

GSA evaluates existing conditions by gathering current 

building documentation such as maps, foor plans, site 

plans, GSA building evaluation reports, prior feasibility 

studies, and historic preservation reports. 
26

The most recent LRFP and the GSA Phase I feasibility 

study are also consulted and the impact of ongoing and 

planned capital improvement projects, foodplain maps, 

seismic data, local zoning and master planning, wind 

loads, special weather considerations, and the area’s real 

estate market are evaluated.

Upon completion of requirements gathering and the initial 

evaluation of existing conditions, GSA, in coordination with 

AOUSC SFD staf, work with the court and stakeholder 

agencies to schedule and hold a project kick-of meeting. 

The kick-of is typically held at the project location and 

lasts approximately three days. During this time a series 

of meetings and tours are scheduled to further evaluate 

building condition and space utilization, as well solicit input 

and feedback from the court. The contractor conducts 

in-depth feld investigations and assesses existing 

courthouse conditions, including structural, heating, 

ventilation, air conditioning, electrical, roofng, plumbing, 

building envelope, life safety, and communications 

systems.

Approximately three months after the on-site kick-of, 

GSA’s contractor completes its submittal of possible 

housing alternatives and concepts. These alternatives 

typically include leasing, backfll, disposal, and new 

construction scenarios, schematic planning diagrams, 

documentation of each scheme with site and housing 

plans, and a preliminary comparative analysis of each 

option’s advantages and disadvantages. 

The resulting draft document undergoes an internal GSA 

central and regional ofce stakeholder review and after all 

resulting comments are addressed, GSA schedules and 

leads a virtual workshop to present the concepts to the 

entire stakeholder group, including the court and courtrelated agencies. 

Following the presentation of possible housing 

alternatives, stakeholders are provided an opportunity to 

follow-up with written comments on the draft concepts. 

After reconciliation of those comments, GSA’s contractor 

moves from the possible alternatives phase to identifying 

a minimum of three viable alternatives. For each viable 

alternative, GSA will provide projected housing plans by 

building, an implementation and delivery strategy with 

phasing timeline, and identifcation of advantages and 

disadvantages of each alternative.

A second review and comment workshop is held with 

stakeholders and subsequently, the contractor further 

develops the viable alternatives to include a submittal that 

delineates the signifcant characteristics, strengths, and 

weaknesses of each alternative and a description of why 

particular possible alternatives were rejected or selected 

for further analysis. 

At the conclusion of the comparative analysis, the GSA 

contractor provides a recommended preferred alternative, 

documenting the factors that justify the recommendation, 

including why and how it best meets GSA, court, and other 

stakeholder needs. It is then the responsibility of GSA, with 

input from the stakeholder group, to select the preferred 

alternative.

After selection of the preferred alternative the next 

step toward completion of the study is development 

of the preferred alternative. This will be documented 

in the form of a report describing the characteristics 

of the preferred alternative and a written summary 

that concisely documents the decisions, explains the 

fndings, and provides justifcation for proceeding with the 

preferred alternative. The summary shall also include any 

anticipated design issues, a project schedule, funding 

sources and budget schedule, and customer assignment 

drawings. After resolving GSA and stakeholder responses 

to this report, the contractor prepares and submits the fnal 

study for distribution to stakeholder agencies.

4.2.3.10 Next Steps After Phase II Study 

Completion

Upon completion of the GSA Phase II feasibility study for 

a given location, and if new construction is selected as the 

preferred alternative, the location will be “automatically” 

elevated to Part I of the CPP and placed behind any other 

locations already in Part I. This action occurs when the 

next annual CPP update is reviewed by the JCUS Space 

and Facilities Committee and subsequently approved 

by the JCUS. A request from the respective court and/or 

circuit is not required in order for this action to occur.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders for a GSA Phase II feasibility study refer to 

Checklist 6.3.10.
27

4.3 Lifecycle of a Courthouse 

Construction Project: From Funding 

Request to Ribbon Cutting

4.3.1 COURTHOUSE PROJECT FUNDING

4.3.1.1 Judiciary and GSA Roles and Responsibilities

The next step after a location moves to Part I of the CPP

is funding. Requests for project funding are made through 

GSA. The GSA’s PBS formulates its annual budget 

beginning 18 or more months prior to the start of the 

budget year. In the spring, the PBS headquarters asks 

all PBS regions to propose new construction, acquisition, 

and prospectus-level repair and alteration (R&A) projects 

needed in each region and provide detailed justifcations. 

The proposed budget builds on projects requested in the 

current year or previous years’ budgets. PBS’ priorities for 

new projects change from year to year. 

After GSA reviews the budget request, it is included with 

the rest of the agency’s programs in GSA’s annual budget 

submission to OMB during the fall season. The budget 

goes through an OMB examination process that evaluates 

it against Administration and spending priorities. After 

Thanksgiving, OMB “passes back” its recommendations 

and GSA has an opportunity to appeal. Final decisions on 

the budget are made by the end of the calendar year. The 

budget is typically fnalized by OMB and GSA in January 

and by law is submitted to Congress on the frst Monday in 

February.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders for project development, funding, and 

execution refer to Checklist 6.3.11.

4.3.1.2 Where Congress Comes In: Authorizations and 

Appropriations

Congressional review of GSA’s budget request involves 

two congressional authorizing committees: the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works. The authorizing committees review and approve 

GSA’s prospectuses for leases, R&A projects, and new 

construction and acquisition projects. Committee approvals 

are in the form of committee resolutions.

GSA must receive authorization from the authorizing 

committees of Congress before proceeding with any repair 

and alteration, construction, or acquisition projects that 

exceed the annual prospectus funding level or any lease 

that exceeds the annual prospectus funding level. 

To receive authorization for projects or leases, GSA 

is required to submit a prospectus to the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency 

Management Subcommittee; and the Senate Committee 

on Environment and Public Works’ Transportation and 

Infrastructure Subcommittee. The prospectus describes 

the project or lease, including the location, size, estimated 

cost, and plan of agency tenants to be housed. Each 

subcommittee approves the prospectus with a committee 

resolution. No further act of Congress is necessary other 

than appropriation of funds. While prospectuses can be 

authorized before funds are requested, appropriations are 

generally not available to be spent until the projects have 

been authorized.

The appropriation itself typically begins with the full 

appropriations committee allocating funds to each of their 

subcommittees. Then, the appropriations subcommittees 

(Financial Services and General Government in both the 

House and Senate) will draft an appropriations bill. These 

bills may or may not fund all the projects requested by 

GSA or even provide authority to GSA to spend all the 

funds available to GSA from agency rent payments.

After Congress and the President enact appropriations for 

the Federal Buildings Fund and GSA submits a spending 

plan to Congress, GSA initiates its process to spend the 

appropriations. 

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders for project funding refer to Checklist 6.3.12.

4.3.1.3 Process Flowchart and Timeline

GSA headquarters and regional staf support and guide 

other GSA ofces in the assessment of federal facility 

needs and project development and execution. These 

preliminary steps, including site selection, prospectus 

development, and obtaining congressional authorization 

and funding, can span several years. Once a repair, 

alteration, or new construction project is authorized and 

funded, it is assigned to a project manager in the GSA 

region. The project manager assembles a project team 

composed of an A/E, a construction manager, GSA client/

tenant groups, property development professionals, and 

other program ofces. 
28

This project management by GSA ends only after all 

needs of the new tenants have been met and the facility 

is occupied and functioning. Throughout the project, the 

court works with the GSA project manager as well as the 

ACE and FPM as needed. The level of efort for the circuit 

depends on the respective court. The USMS has primary 

responsibility for the security of the Federal Judiciary and 

thus participates throughout the duration of the project. 

Understanding the lifecycle of a project is key to successful 

project management. Projects in federal buildings, 

including courthouses, follow a standard course from start 

to fnish. GSA project management is generally divided in 

two phases: project development and project execution. 

This project life cycle process is used for all projects. 

The following is a step-by-step outline of the project 

management process:

Project Development

1) Community Plan and Building Evaluation – defne 

client/tenant space requirements

• Obtain BAT, if required, and determine whether new 

construction or modernization projects are required

• Conduct preliminary life cycle/space delivery 

analysis

2) Site Selection – conduct preliminary site evaluation

• Perform preliminary environmental impact 

assessment(s)

• Select preferred site (R&A projects do not require a 

site selection as the building is already identifed)

3) Prospectus Development Study (PDS) – defne project 

scope/implementation plan/budget

• Develop the prospectus (GSA regions) and review 

the regional submission (GSA headquarters)

• Evaluate tenant and GSA portfolio needs to 

determine appropriate housing strategy (new 

construction, R&A, lease, acquisition)

• Develop preliminary concept design

• Prepare project management plan

• Evaluate projects and place them in preliminary 

priority order within GSA’s Five-Year Capital Plan

4) Approval and Funding – Submit PDS to GSA 

headquarters for budget request (GSA Regions). 

During this stage, many projects are reviewed at GSA 

headquarters and only a portion ultimately make the 

budget. Projects are prioritized based on several GSA 

criteria.

• Identify project budget through feasibility studies and 

cost estimates

• Select project

• Prepare prospectus for congressional submittal

• Submit budget request to OMB for consideration. 

OMB passes back GSA's budget request for 

inclusion into the overall President's Budget.

• Brief GSA's oversight and appropriations committees 

on the entire capital program

• Obtain congressional approval of the prospectus and 

appropriation of funds

4.3.2 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION 

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTION

1) Pre-Design Activity/Finalize Environmental Impact 

Assessment

• Acquire site

• Update project management plan

• Advertise for A/E, construction management, and 

other professional services (if required)

• Select professional A/E services consultants using 

Design Excellence (if appropriate), negotiate fees

• Begin design work

2) Design, Review, and Approval

• Hold charrette with the AOUSC and court after 

receiving congressional funding. A charrette is a 

collaborative planning process involving project 

stakeholders, the purpose of which is to resolve 

conficts and map solutions.

• Perform value engineering

• Conduct GSA owner's review with client/tenants
29

• Conduct code/standards/constructability review

• Develop preliminary scope, project duration, and 

initial cost estimate(s) such as base building, exterior 

materials, fnishes, furniture and equipment, signage, 

artwork, interior plantings, security systems, acoustic 

planning, clock and clock systems, audiovisual, 

telecommunications, master antenna/TV, satellite 

downlink, and computer equipment.

» Reserve one-half of one percent of the 

estimated construction cost of each new federal 

building to commission GSA “Art in Architecture” 

Program artists. These artworks enhance 

the civic meaning of federal architecture and 

showcase the vibrancy of American visual arts. 

Together, the art and architecture of federal 

buildings create a lasting cultural legacy for the 

people of the United States. GSA reserves onehalf of one percent of the estimated construction 

cost of each new federal building to commission 

project artists.

• Provide design services (including services for 

fnishes, security systems, furniture, information 

technology, swing space, move coordination, etc.) if 

needed from an A/E frm. GSA contracts with several 

companies to provide these services.

» Issue a Reimbursable Work Authorization 

(RWA) for design services only or for design and 

construction services based on Summary Cost 

Estimate (SCE) (performed by tenant).

» Develop construction documents at 35%, 65%, 

95%, and 100% phases (A/E frm works with the 

tenant and GSA).

» Include 100% design documents in the 

procurement package used to obtain 

construction proposals.

• Finalize and present design concept for new 

buildings to GSA headquarters for approval

• Prepare fnal construction document

• Verify that project estimate is within budget

3) Pre-Construction Activity

• Complete swing space relocations of existing 

tenants (if required)

• Obtain Congressional construction authorization and 

appropriations (if not previously obtained)

• Prepare site (demolition/clearing) (if required)

• Advertise for construction

• Award construction contract(s)

4) Construction

• Obtain security clearances for general contractor 

employees and sub-contractors

• Issue a Notice to Proceed, which sets the clock on 

the time allowed for completion of the project

• Approve submittals, order materials, and begin 

preliminary construction

» Construct building and site improvements

» Arrange for utilities and other primary services

» Control cost growth

» Provide integrated occupancy services 

(telecommunications, furniture, moves)

• Obtain from general contractor a Gantt or Critical 

Path Method (CPM) schedule detailing each step of 

construction after NTP, per the contract requirements

• Hold regular meetings and inspections throughout 

the construction phase so all parties are informed of 

construction progress

• Identify a date for “substantial completion”. Schedule 

a fnal walk-through when the majority of the work is 

completed and the agency can begin occupying the 

space.

» Prepare for occupancy

» Arrange for building turnover to property 

manager

5) Closeout – review completed work and identify any 

remaining “punch list” items to be completed:

• Conduct a fnal walk-through of the project, identify 

“punch list” items and schedule for completion

• Schedule and complete stakeholders training on 

newly installed technology and systems
30

• Acknowledge tenant acceptance of the completed 

work and turn over the space for occupancy

• Conduct a post-construction review to help improve 

project management and success of future projects

• Perform a contractor evaluation (performed by 

project manager)

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders for project development, funding, and 

execution refer to Checklist 6.3.11.

For a checklist of tasks and deliverables requested from 

stakeholders for developing the CAPP refer to Checklist 

6.3.13.
31

5.2 LRFPs

1. What is the purpose of an LRFP?

The purpose of an LRFP is to identify and analyze court 

facility needs and provide near-term and 15-year strategies 

to address those needs. LRFPs are completed for each 

district and circuit nationwide.

2. What type of information is in an LRFP?

LRFPs include a comprehensive overview of the 

district, including facility location maps and building 

summaries, court operational and caseload trends, 

historic and projected caseload and personnel fgures, 

and divisional space needs summaries. The plans also 

provide courtroom inventories, chambers inventories, site 

plans, stacking diagrams, foor plans, building systems 

summaries, and a list of GSA-identifed projects. The 

result is an FBA and recommended preliminary housing 

strategy for each courthouse in the district or circuit being 

assessed, along with a timeline for when those strategies 

may be needed.

3. How often are LRFPs updated?

The LRFPs are typically updated every fve to ten years.

4. What is the purpose of an LRFP site visit?

The LRFP site visit entails 3-5 days of on-site planning 

sessions. The planning sessions cover two key areas:

1) a needs assessment that consists of group and 

individual sessions designed to gather input from court 

components and related agencies on operations, 

workload, judgeships, personnel, and space; and

2) a physical assessment that includes comprehensive 

tours of court-occupied space USMS space, and GSA 

general building space in all courthouses.

The purpose of the tours is to evaluate how well each 

courthouse meets the court’s needs and to collect 

information necessary to complete an FBA and develop 

the LRFP preliminary housing strategies.

5. Who participates in an LRFP site visit?

Participants in the site visit include the AOUSC Planning 

Team, court executives from all court components, USMS, 

USAO, UST, GSA, AOUSC, and LRFP contractor. The 

AOUSC Planning Team is made up of the LRFP program 

manager, FPM, physical security specialist, LRFP 

contractor (facilitator, analyst, and architect), ACE, and 

GSA regional ofce representative.

The court plays an active role in the LRFP process. For 

district LRFPs, the District Planning Team is made up 

of the clerk of the district court, clerk of the bankruptcy 

court, chief probation ofcer, chief pretrial services ofcer 

(if applicable), FPD or community defender, bankruptcy 

administrator (if applicable), satellite circuit librarian, local 

chief of the USMS, local U.S. Attorney, local U.S. Trustee, 

and local GSA representative. For circuit LRFPs, the 

5Frequently Asked 

Questions

5.1 AMP

Where can I get information on the AMP process?

The AMP Process Handbook describes the AMP 

process. For inquiries or more information on the AMP 

process, contact the Long-Range Planning Team chief at 

(202) 502-1184.
32

Circuit Planning Team is made up of the CE, ACE, circuit 

mediator, clerk of the court of appeals, chief staf attorney, 

BAP clerk (if applicable), circuit librarian, and local GSA 

representative.

6. What activities are involved in an LRFP site visit?

The three-to-fve-day site visit covers two key areas. The 

frst is the needs assessment. This consists of group 

and individual stakeholder sessions designed to gather 

input from court components and related agencies on 

operations, caseload, judgeships, personnel, and space. 

The second key area is completion of the physical 

assessment. The physical assessment evaluates how 

well each courthouse meets court needs. To do this, the 

LRFP contract architect conducts a comprehensive tour 

of each courthouse and its court-occupied space, USMS 

space, and GSA common use space. During the tours, 

the architect collects information needed to complete the 

AMP FBA checklist and help develop potential preliminary 

housing strategies.

7. What is the court’s role in the development of an 

LRFP?

The court plays an active role in the LRFP process. Before 

the LRFP site visit, the clerk of the district court (or in the 

case of a circuit LRFP, the ACE or clerk of the court of 

appeals) coordinates the planning session schedule for 

their respective court with the LRFP project manager and 

District or Circuit Planning Team.

During the LRFP site visit, the District and Circuit Planning 

Teams participate in the on-site planning sessions to 

discuss caseload, personnel, and space issues. The court, 

USMS staf, and GSA building managers also assist by 

providing the LRFP contractor architect(s) with access to 

all courthouses for the purpose of conducting the FBAs. 

Members of the AOUSC Planning Team may also tour 

some or all courthouses to gain additional insight and 

understanding of current and future space needs and 

security issues in a particular location.

For a district LRFP, the circuit is also involved. Specifcally, 

the ACE actively participates in the planning sessions, 

housing strategy initial review and teleconference, and 

LRFP review process. Court of appeals space within the 

district’s courthouses, including circuit judges’ chambers, 

satellite circuit libraries, and courtrooms, are also 

assessed as part of the FBA.

Finally, the chief judge will receive a fnal draft to review 

and approve. After notifcation of the chief judge’s 

approval, printed hardcopies of the fnal LRFP are sent to 

the clerk of the district court (for district LRFPs), ACE (for 

both district and circuit LRFPs), and GSA regional client 

executive or planning manager. For district LRFPs, the 

clerk of the district court is provided additional hardcopies 

of the fnal LRFP for distribution. For circuit LRFPs, the 

ACE or clerk of the court of appeals is provided additional 

hardcopies of the fnal LRFP for distribution. The clerk or 

ACE also receives an electronic version of the fnal LRFP. 

8. How can I request an update of my district or 

circuit’s LRFP?

Each year, the Long-Range Planning Team chief issues a 

call to the ACEs and FPMs to review a list of districts and 

circuits that potentially require an LRFP update. The ACEs 

and FPMs then submit their priorities for LRFP updates to 

the Long-Range Planning Team chief. Districts and circuits 

are selected and prioritized for an LRFP update based on 

the following potential scenarios:

• A new courthouse has been constructed or 

otherwise added to the inventory since the last LRFP 

was completed

• A courthouse has changed from non-resident to 

resident (or vice versa)

• The current LRFP is more than fve years old

• A major IWI or other type of space reduction project 

has been completed or is nearing completion

• A CSP project has been completed or is nearing 

completion

• The number and/or location of judgeships has 

changed or is expected to change, thus impacting 

space needs and potentially the last LRFP's 

recommended housing strategies

• Since the previous LRFP was completed, a major 

change in building condition, court operations, etc., 

has occurred that potentially afects space needs

• An upcoming potential sale, expiring lease, or other 

real property action may result in the loss of an 

existing courthouse

Long-Range Planning Team stafng availability and 

funding for new LRFPs are also considered in determining 

the number of districts or circuits that can undergo an 

LRFP update in a given year.
33

9. Where can I fnd a copy of a particular district’s or

circuit’s completed LRFP?

Contact the respective AOUSC FPM, ACE, CE, or clerk of 

the District Court.

5.3 FBA

1. What is an FBA?

An FBA is an assessment of a courthouse to help 

determine how well the facility supports the needs 

and operations of the court. The FBA consists of a 

standardized set of factors used as a checklist by the 

LRFP contractor’s architect(s) to rate space based on a 

tour of each courthouse. Tours occur as part of the district 

or circuit’s LRFP site visit. The outcome of the FBA is the 

calculation of an overall FBA rating, along with ratings for 

each of the following categories: building condition, space 

functionality, security, and space standards.

2. Where can I fnd information on the FBA results for

a specifc courthouse?

FBA results for a specifc courthouse can be found in 

each district and circuit LRFP. In addition, completed FBA 

assessment checklists are sent to the respective clerk of 

the court or CE for their review and records.

3. Does the order of courthouses on the FBA results

list change from year to year?

The FBA assessments are conducted during the 

development of a district or circuit’s LRFP. Thus, when 

new FBA assessments are completed as part of the LRFP 

update, or an FBA result is updated upon completion of a 

CSP project, the FBA results list can change. 

5.4 UE

1. What is the UE?

The UE is an annual evaluation process that determines 

which courthouses throughout the nation have the most 

urgent space needs based on chambers needs, courtroom 

needs, FBA results, and projected caseload growth.

2. What is the UE results list and how is it used?

The purpose of UE ratings and the UE Results List is to 

identify and document which courthouses throughout the 

nation have the most urgent space needs regardless of 

the size of the courthouse or type of LRFP recommended 

preliminary housing solution. The ratings are used to help 

identify and prioritize projects recommended for the CRB 

Program, CSP, No Net New space efciency initiative, 

and CPP list for new courthouse and courthouse annex 

construction. Each year, typically in February, the ratings 

are published in the UE Results List.

3. What is a UE and what information is used to

calculate it?

UE ratings are calculated at the city level and include all 

courthouses in a given city. The scoring is scaled from 0 

to 100 – the higher the score, the greater the urgency of 

need. The methodology is based on the AMP Business 

Rules, including a planning timeframe of 15 years and 

application of the JCUS courtroom sharing policies.

The UE Model consists of four weighted main criteria 

and several sub-criteria. The four main criteria and their 

weights are:

• FBA Results/City-Wide Beneft Assessment Score -

40%

• Current and Future Chambers Needs - 30%

• Current and Future Courtroom Needs - 20%

• Past and Future Average Annual Criminal Defendant

Caseload Growth and Civil Caseload Growth - 10%

4. What is a UE ranking?

A UE ranking is the order in which a courthouse falls 

on the UE Results List in relation to other courthouses 

nationwide.

5. How often is the UE Results List updated and what

specifc information is updated?

The UE Results List is updated annually with data current 

as of December 31.

Annually, courthouse-by-courthouse, judgeships, 

chambers needs, courtroom needs, and projected 

caseload growth are updated in the AMP database and 

used in the UE rating process.
34

The fnal UE Results List is published in February by SFD. 

The results are delivered from the SFD chief to the CEs 

and ACEs, with copies sent to the Committee.

6. How does a courthouse’s ranking on the UE Results

List relate to the CPP and getting a new courthouse?

The annually updated UE ratings and rankings assist 

the JCUS in objectively determining the placement and 

prioritization of projects in Part II of the CPP list. When 

project locations are added to the CPP, Part II, they are 

prioritized in order of UE rating.

7. Where can I fnd information on the UE results for a

specifc courthouse?

The UE Results List is posted on JNet where it can be 

accessed by everyone within the Judiciary. In addition, it is 

separately provided to all CEs, clerks of court, and ACEs 

via a memo from the SFD chief. The Committee is also 

copied on the memo.

5.5 GSA Feasibility Studies

1. I understand there are two types of GSA feasibility

studies. What are those and how are they utilized?

The frst type is called a GSA Phase I feasibility study; the 

second type is a GSA Phase II feasibility study.

A GSA Phase I feasibility study is developed to validate 

the potential need for a new courthouse or annex/addition 

as identifed in the location’s LRFP preliminary housing 

strategy recommendation. The study is developed by 

in-house GSA staf and focuses on identifying potential 

viable housing alternatives. Completion and approval of 

a GSA Phase I feasibility study is one of the prerequisites 

to a location being considered for placement on the 

Judiciary’s CPP.

A GSA Phase II feasibility study is generally initiated as 

a project moves up in priority in Part II of the CPP. GSA 

Phase II feasibility studies are developed by an A/E frm 

under the direction of GSA in coordination with the court, 

circuit, AOUSC and USMS. They involve a more detailed 

analysis of requirement options, selection of a preferred 

alternative, and development of detailed cost estimates 

that include life-cycle cost analysis, site acquisition and 

building disposal costs, and tenant move costs. A draft 

project delivery schedule is also developed to identify 

critical events (environmental compliance, site acquisition, 

swing space needs, lease terminations/relocations, etc.) 

for all stages of the project. Completion of a GSA Phase II 

feasibility study is a pre-requisite to a project being placed 

in Part I of the CPP.

2. Under what circumstances might a district request a

GSA Phase I feasibility study?

A GSA Phase I feasibility study may be requested when:

1) the preliminary housing strategy recommended in

the district or circuit’s LRFP states a new courthouse

or annex/addition is needed to address space

requirements; and

2) the district’s LRFP has been approved by the chief

district judge.

3. Does my district need a completed and approved

LRFP to request a GSA Phase I feasibility study?

Per the AMP Business Rules, the Committee on Space 

and Facilities will only consider locations for a GSA Phase 

I feasibility study if:

(a) the chief judge has approved the respective LRFP in

writing, and;

(b) the respective circuit judicial council or designee has

agreed that a GSA Phase I feasibility study is needed.
35

5.6 Courthouse Projects Priorities

(CPP) List

1. How does a courthouse location get on the CPP

list?

Before a location can be added to the CPP, an LRFP must 

be completed under the AMP process, including review 

and approval by the chief district or circuit judge. A UE 

rating is also calculated and documented for each citywide location addressed in the LRFP. In addition, a GSA 

Phase I feasibility study must be completed, reviewed, 

and approved by the district and circuit. Then, the circuit 

judicial council may send a letter to the AOUSC requesting 

that the JCUS consider and approve the location for 

inclusion on the CPP. 

If the Committee and Subcommittee agree with the 

conclusions of the GSA Phase I feasibility study, it may 

recommend the location be added to the CPP and the 

recommendation is sent to the Committee for review and 

approval. The Committee’s recommendation is sent to 

the JCUS for fnal review and approval. The Committee 

considers such requests at its June session.

If the JCUS approves the recommendation to add the 

location to the CPP, the project is added to the list. The 

JCUS considers requests at its September session.

2. What does it mean to be on the CPP?

The CPP is divided into two parts. When a location is in 

Part II of the CPP, it means that a location is in line as an 

out-year courthouse construction priority. When a location 

is in Part I of the CPP, it means a location is a Judiciary 

courthouse construction funding priority.

3.How often is the CPP reviewed and updated?

The CPP is reviewed one time per year – by the 

Committee at its June session and the JCUS at its 

September session.

4. Who receives copies of the approved CPP and how

do they use it?

The CPP is sent to GSA, OMB, and Congress to promote 

awareness of the Judiciary’s courthouse construction 

needs and priorities. GSA uses it to guide their annual 

budget request to Congress as it relates to new 

courthouse construction.

5. What is the diference between Part I and Part II of

the CPP?

Part I of the CPP lists the projects for which the 

Judiciary will request federal funding in its annual 

budget submission. Part II of the CPP identifes out-year 

courthouse construction priorities. 

6. Who approves the CPP?

JCUS upon recommendation by the Committee.

7. How does a project move from Part II to Part I of the

CPP?

As projects in Part I are fully funded and removed from 

Part I of the CPP, locations in Part II of the CPP are 

identifed by the Space and Facilities Committee for 

completion of a GSA Phase II feasibility study. Upon 

completion of the Phase II study, the location will move up 

to Part I of the CPP the next time the JCUS reviews and 

approves an annual CPP.
36

This page left intentionally blank.
37

6Appendices

6.1 AMP Business Rules

The current version of the AMP Business Rules can be 

located on JNet.
This page left intentionally blank.

38
Asset Management Planning (AMP) Business Rules Revised: December 2022

I. Background

In March 2006, the Judicial Conference of the United States (Conference) adopted the concept of Asset 

Management Planning (AMP) as an objective, long-range facilities planning process (JCUS – MAR 06, p. 25). 

The AMP Business Rules were developed to guide this process, providing a framework to identify planning 

alternatives and housing strategies that optimize existing court facilities, support operational needs, and ensure 

cost efficiency and effectiveness. The rules also specifically address the application of space standards, planning 

assumptions, and parameters for determining if and when a potential housing strategy will be recommended for 

progression to the next stage of the planning process, i.e., a prospectus-level GSA feasibility study or a below 

prospectus-level project.

The AMP process and original AMP Business Rules were approved by the Conference in March 2008 (JCUS 

– MAR 08, p. 26). They have been coordinated with the U.S. Courts Design Guide (USCDG) and the Circuit 

Rent Budget (CRB) Business Rules. The rules have since been revised to incorporate new policies,1 including 

senior district judge, magistrate judge, and bankruptcy judge courtroom sharing.

The AMP Business Rules are organized into two sections: Planning Assumptions and Housing Strategies.

• The Planning Assumptions section addresses general guidelines, courthouse functional relationships, 

and chambers, courtroom, and trial preparation space allocations. They provide a framework to 

document eligibility for space based on type and location of judge and are used for long-range 

facilities planning within the AMP process.

• The Housing Strategies section consists of general guidelines and a hierarchy of solutions to address 

space deficiencies, improve building functionality, and address operational requirements over the 15-

year planning timeframe. This includes identification of projects to address existing and future needs 

related to Conference recommended and approved judgeships, projected judgeships, court personnel 

staffing, and judges taking senior status.

II. Planning Assumptions

A. General Guidelines

1. For planning purposes, current Conference policy affecting space and facilities is used unless 

otherwise noted.

2. The planning timeframe for AMP purposes is 15 years into the future.

3. It is assumed that district and circuit judges will elect senior status upon eligibility.

4. The assumed retirement age (for planning purposes) for circuit and district judges is 85.

5. If a court plans to move into new space or space renovated through a prospectus-level project, 

space allocations shall be per the AMP Business Rules, the USCDG, and all other applicable 

Judicial Conference policies.

6. Requests for the replacement of an existing non-resident courthouse, including the proposed type of 

replacement courtroom, will be evaluated based upon the Criteria to be Used to Justify Replacement 

Space for Non-Resident Courthouses approved by the Conference in March 2019 (JCUS-MAR 19, p. 

31). The court, through its respective circuit judicial council or designee, must submit such requests for 

consideration by the Conference Committee on Space and Facilities. Space allocations shall be per the 

AMP Business Rules, the USCDG, and all other applicable Conference policies.

1 The Conference Committee on Space and Facilities oversees the AMP process. The Committee has been delegated 

authority by the Conference to review and approve updates to the AMP Business Rules (JCUS – MAR 08, p. 26).
AMP Business Rules

2 

7. If chief judge action either approving or appealing a Long-Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) or requesting a

reasonable extension of time to consider the plan, is not received within 90 days from the time the plan

is sent to the district and circuit, the plan will be considered approved and final.

8. The Conference Committee on Space and Facilities will only consider locations for a Phase 1 feasibility

study if:

a. the chief judge has approved the respective LRFP in writing, and;

b. the court, through its respective circuit judicial council or designee, has approved and submitted a

written request for a Phase I feasibility study.

B. Courthouse Functional Relationships

1. Proposed housing strategies must, at a minimum, maintain current functionality of the

courthouse, including secured/restricted circulation.

2. The district court, bankruptcy court, and probation office may be located in separate facilities.

3. District courts, including courtrooms, chambers, clerk’s office space, and the associated U.S.

Marshals Service space, should not be split and located in multiple facilities (unless by court policy).

4. Bankruptcy courts, including courtrooms, chambers, and clerk’s office space, should not be split

and located in multiple facilities (unless by court policy).

5. Court of appeals headquarters, including courtrooms, chambers, clerk’s office space, and circuit

executive office space, should not be split and located in multiple facilities (unless by court policy).

6. Effective scheduling of proceedings should occur in non-resident (visiting) courthouses to maximize

the use of the facility and minimize space requirements. Space sharing among court components is

encouraged, and projects that support such arrangements will be considered and recommended, as

appropriate.

C. Chambers Allocation

1. Each active district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judge is allocated one dedicated chambers at

his/her resident location.

2. Each roving judge is allocated one dedicated chambers at his/her resident location and one

dedicated visiting judges’ chambers at his/her non-resident location.

3. Each active2 senior district judge is allocated one dedicated chambers in his/her resident location from

the date of senior status eligibility until the age of 85, the assumed age of retirement for planning

purposes.

4. Recalled magistrate and bankruptcy judges are not allocated a dedicated chambers.

5. Part-time magistrate judges are not allocated a dedicated chambers.

6. The provision of a visiting judges’ chambers for district, senior district, magistrate, and bankruptcy

judges is predicated upon the caseload and operations of the court, with a maximum of one visiting

judges’ chambers allocated per courthouse, whether resident or non-resident.

7. Approved replacement non-resident courthouses are allocated one visiting judges’ chambers.

8. Each circuit judge is allocated one dedicated chambers at his/her resident location in either a

courthouse or leased space.

9. Each senior circuit judge is allocated one dedicated chambers at his/her resident location in either a

courthouse or leased space from the date of senior status eligibility until the age of 85, the assumed age

of retirement.

10. For circuit headquarters, the total chambers allocation in the circuit headquarters is a combination of

resident and non-resident chambers. Each resident circuit judge is allocated one dedicated resident

chambers and each non-resident circuit judge is allocated one non-resident chambers, with the total

number of resident and non-resident chambers for circuit judges equaling the number of authorized

circuit judgeships. In addition, each resident senior circuit judge is allocated one dedicated resident

chambers and every two non-resident senior circuit judges are allocated one non-resident chambers. If

2 An active senior district judge carries a caseload. An inactive senior district judge does not hear cases.
AMP Business Rules

3

the number of non-resident senior circuit judges is uneven, the number of allocated non-resident 

chambers is rounded up (e.g., seven non-resident senior circuit judges are allocated four non-resident 

chambers). 

11. For non-headquarters circuit locations where circuit judges sit en banc, the total chambers allocation in 

that location is a combination of resident and non-resident chambers. Each resident circuit judge in that 

location is allocated one dedicated resident chambers, and each non-resident circuit judge is allocated 

one non-resident chambers, with the total number of resident and non-resident chambers for circuit 

judges equaling the number of circuit judges that sit en banc at that location, plus the number of nonresident chambers needed for active and senior non-resident judges who sit concurrently on panel 

proceedings. In addition, each resident senior circuit judge in that location is allocated one dedicated 

resident chambers. 

12. For circuit locations where circuit judges hold only three-judge panel proceedings, the total number of 

chambers in that location is a combination of resident and non-resident chambers equaling the number of 

judges that meet at one time in that location. Each resident circuit judge and senior circuit judge in that 

location is allocated one dedicated resident chambers, and non-resident circuit and senior circuit judges 

are allocated non-resident chambers so that the total number of resident and non-resident chambers 

provided equals the number of judges that meet at one time in that location. For example, if one resident 

circuit judge and a rotation of five non-resident circuit or senior circuit judges meet quarterly for a week 

to hold proceedings with two concurrent panels in a location, a total of six chambers – one resident and 

five non-resident – should be provided in that location.

13. Generally, a space is classified as a judge’s chambers, as opposed to an office, if it has a private

restroom.

14. New courthouse construction projects will be designed to provide chambers for the existing circuit, 

district, bankruptcy, magistrate judges (including vacant judgeship positions), and senior judges, as well 

as those judges who will be eligible for senior status within the 10-year planning period for the project 

consistent with Conference policy and congressional direction (JCUS – SEPT 11, p. 36).

D. Courtroom Allocation

1. Each active district judge is allocated one dedicated courtroom.

2. Each roving district judge is allocated one dedicated courtroom at his/her resident location. At 

other locations, a dedicated courtroom is not allocated.

3. Active senior district judges are allocated courtrooms per the table below.

4. Magistrate judges are allocated courtrooms per the table below.

5. Part-time magistrate judges are not allocated a dedicated courtroom.

6. Recalled magistrate judges are not allocated a dedicated courtroom.

7. Bankruptcy judges are allocated courtrooms per the table below.

8. Recalled bankruptcy judges are not allocated a dedicated courtroom.

9. Visiting judges are not allocated a dedicated courtroom.

10. Approved replacement non-resident courthouses are allocated one courtroom. The courtroom type (i.e., 

district, magistrate, or bankruptcy judge) shall be determined at the time the replacement courthouse is 

approved by the Conference Committee on Space and Facilities based upon recent, current, and future 

projected usage to meet the specific needs of the court and maximize the utilization of the courtroom.

11. Circuit headquarters locations are allocated a maximum of one en banc and two panel courtrooms.

12. Circuit non-headquarters locations are not allocated a dedicated courtroom.

13. A multi-party courtroom is considered available for allocation as a dedicated courtroom.

14. En banc and panel courtrooms outside a circuit headquarters location are considered available 

for temporary and long-term use by the district and bankruptcy courts.

15. Generally, a space is classified as a courtroom as opposed to a hearing room if the following all apply: 

there is a permanent, fixed bench (applies to district, multi-party, magistrate judge, and bankruptcy 

courtrooms); there is a jury box (applies to district, multi-party, and magistrate judge courtrooms); and, 

the room is 1,200 USF orlarger.

16. New courthouse construction projects will be designed to provide courtrooms for the existing district, 
AMP Business Rules

4

bankruptcy, magistrate judges (including vacant judgeship positions), and senior judges, as well as 

those judges who will be eligible for senior status within the 10-year planning period for the project 

consistent with Conference policy and congressional direction (JCUS – SEPT 11, p. 36).

Table: Courtroom Sharing Policy

Senior District Judges (SDJs) Magistrate Judges (MJs) Bankruptcy Judges (BJs)

Number of 

SDJs

Number of 

Courtrooms Allocated

Number 

of MJs

Number of 

Courtrooms Allocated

Number of 

BJs

Number of 

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: Vol.16, Ch. 2, § 230 of the Guide to Judiciary Policy

E. Trial Preparation Suite Allocation

1. When needed, the Federal Defender is allocated a 450 USF trial preparation suite.

2. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is allocated a 2,000 USF trial preparation suite, unless advised otherwise.

III. Housing Strategies

A. General Guidelines

1. Housing strategies for individual buildings and cities are developed to maximize cost containment and 

judiciary savings. Housing strategies are identified to address space deficiencies, increase 

functionality, and meet operational requirements for judges and personnel over the AMP planning 

period (15 years).

2. The housing strategies assess how to best meet the short- and long-term needs of the court while 

maximizing the use of existing facilities and preserving efficient operations. Housing strategies within 

the court’s existing footprint are explored first and before housing strategies in expansion space are 

considered. Any new space acquisition must comply with the judiciary’s No Net New policy and all 

related circuit space management policies.

3. Evaluation of housing strategies occurs in sequential order: Renovation (R); Addition/Annex (A); New 

Courthouse (N). Once a potential strategy (generally the least costly) that meets both current and 

projected space needs is identified, additional alternatives are not explored. For example, if a

Renovation (R) strategy addresses space needs, the Addition/Annex (A) and New Courthouse (N) 

options are not evaluated.

4. A disparity between space in an existing facility and the USCDG standards is not justification for facility 

alteration and/or expansion. In such cases, alternatives to expansion are investigated before acquisition 

of additional space is considered a potential solution.

5. Each court-occupied facility is evaluated individually. Housing strategies are then developed for 

each court facility. If there are multiple court facilities in one city, city-wide strategies are

developed.

6. In some cases, district-wide scenarios may be developed and assessed. Examples include situations 

when:

a. caseload has significantly shifted in terms of number or type from one location to another;

b. non-resident or small courthouses might be closed if the caseload (and judges) can be 
AMP Business Rules

5

relocated elsewhere in the district;

c. two or more courthouses might be consolidated into one courthouse at a single location;

d. there is the potential to establish a new court location; and/or

e. a significant number of unassigned courtrooms and chambers are available in one or more cities 

within normal commuting distance.

7. Each circuit headquarters, and other facilities containing circuit courtrooms, is evaluated individually.

8. In circuits with courtrooms in more than one location, circuit-wide strategies are developed and 

assessed, as needed.

9. Under no circumstance will the New Courthouse strategy be recommended when:

a. all current and future space needs can be met in an existing facility;

b. all current and future chambers and courtroom needs can be met in an existing facility with 

the exception of one courtroom; or

c. all current and future chambers and courtrooms needs can be met by utilizing existing 

available courtrooms and chambers located within normal commuting distance.

B. Categories of Housing Strategies

There are three housing strategy categories with a total of eight subcategories. The categories and 

subcategories are defined as follows:

1. Renovation (R) - Repair and alteration (R&A) within an existing facility; this option includes lease 

options for relocated agencies:

R-1 All court components and court-related agencies remain in the facility; non-court-related agencies

are force moved, as required.

R-2 All court components remain in the facility; relocate court-related agencies and provide 

trial preparation suites, as required.

R-3 Relocate court components, as required, until only the district court and associated U.S. 

Marshals Service space remain in the facility.

2. Addition/Annex (A) - Major expansion of an existing federally-owned facility; this category does 

not apply to leased facilities, including USPS-owned facilities:

A-1 Project confined to the existing site.

A-2 Project located on an acquired site(s).

3. New Courthouse (N) - Construction of a new courthouse facility:

N-1 New courthouse including all court components.

N-2 New courthouse with backfill of the existing courthouse by one or more court components 

(e.g., bankruptcy court and circuit judges’ chambers).

N-3 New courthouse with one or more court components (e.g., bankruptcy court) located in leased space.
This page left intentionally blank.

44
6.2 CRB Business Rules

The current version of the CRB Business Rules can be 

located on JNet.

45
This page left intentionally blank.

46
CIRCUIT RENT BUDGET PROGRAM MANUAL

A Reference Guide for Employees of the Judiciary

Approved by the Space and Facilities Committee of the Judicial Conference 

Dec 4, 2008 

 Updated September 30, 2019 

1 

Table of Contents 

I Background and Introduction 

1.1 Pre-CRB rent cost containment measures

1.2 Budget Cap concept established

1.3 Executive Committee Direction

1.4 Judicial Conference sets 4.9% cap on annual rent growth

1.5 Working Group chartered

1.6 JCUS approves CRB

1.7 Federal Budgeting Terminology 

1.8 Purpose, Organization and Use of this Manual

1.9 Applying CRB to Common Types of Space Actions [Chart]

II CRB Policy Guidance

2.1 General Description of the Allocation Method 

2.1.2 The Three Funding Increments

2.1.3 The 11 Business Rules

2. 2 Component A The Base: Current Rental Costs

2.3 Component B Conference and Committee-Approved Projects

2.4 Contingency Reserve

2.5 Component C Circuit Council Discretionary Funds 

2.6 Overall Funds Management of the Three Rent Components 
2 

I. Background and Introduction

1.1 Pre-CRB rent cost containment measures. The Circuit Rent Budget (CRB) initiative is 

a program developed by the Judiciary to control the rate of growth in the rental cost of 

space. Since the early 1990’s, the rental cost of space to the Judiciary had been growing 

at a rate in excess of the rate of growth in the Judiciary’s general appropriations. This 

disproportion is roughly coincident with the start of a major new courthouse construction 

effort launched by GSA, at the prompting of the Judiciary, and with the support of 

Congress, to address numerous overcrowded and outmoded court facilities across the 

country. Various cost containment measures were enacted to slow the rate of growth, as 

catalogued below: 

• Moratorium on new courthouse construction (3/2004 -3/2006)

• Moratorium on small space projects (i.e., below prospectus actions) (9/2004-9/2006)

• Interim budget check process (6/2006 -9/2007)

• U.S. Courts Design Guide reductions in space standards (2007)

• Review of GSA rent bills for accuracy (2006 onward)

• Request to GSA for a partial rent exemption (2005)

1.2 Budget Cap Concept established. While most of these measures either provided interim 

relief, or set the stage for future cost savings, the Judiciary was still faced with the prospect of 

having rent payments to GSA absorb an increasing share of the Salaries and Expenses account. 

Accordingly, at the prompting of the Budget Committee, in 2006, the Judicial Conference 

(JCUS) approved the concept of budget caps on rents as part of the Judiciary’s overall cost 

containment efforts.

1.3 Executive Committee Direction. In further support of and guidance for the rent 

management initiative, the Executive Committee, in a Memorandum of Action dated March 13, 

2006, noted that:

“Committee members acknowledged concerns that space moratoriums, budget checks 

and similar policies have tended to centralize decision-making in this [space] 

area...implementation of budget caps on space rental costs would have the effect of 

restoring to the circuits and individual courts substantial authority to determine their own 

space needs and priorities.” 

1.4 Judicial Conference sets 4.9% cap on annual rent growth. The Executive Committee 

directed the Administrative Office “to move expeditiously in developing...budget caps” to 

control the growth of rental payments to GSA. At its September 2006, meeting, the Judicial 

Conference adopted a 4.9% average annual growth cap on rental payments to GSA through fiscal 

year 2016. This multiyear cap provides that, while in any individual year, the growth in space 

rents may be more or less than 4.9%, over the entire governance period, the average growth per 

year, for all years combined, cannot exceed 4.9%. 
3 

0F

1.5 Working Group Chartered. Director Duff formally chartered a working group in the 

fall of calendar year 2006, with the primary objective of developing a method by which rent caps 

could be established in a fashion that complied with Executive Committee direction to 

decentralize decision-making and restore “substantial authority” to the circuit judicial councils to 

establish their own space priorities. The working group, comprised of both court and AO 

employees, was commissioned to develop an allotment model that was 1) comprehensive, 2) 

needs-based and forward-looking, 3) able to provide incentives for efficient space use, and 4) fair 

and equitable to all circuits. (See Appendix A for Rent Cap Working Group Charter.) The 

working group’s efforts culminated in the development of a concept paper that defined the key 

elements of the Circuit Rent Budget program.

1.6 JCUS approves CRB. In June, 2007, the Space and Facilities Committee approved the 

CRB concept paper. On recommendation by the Space and Facilities Committee, the Judicial 

Conference in September 2007: 

a. Adopted a rent allotment methodology consisting of three components (A, B

and C).

b. Delegated to the Committee on Space and Facilities the authority to establish

and amend business rules that would govern the rent allotment methodology

approved by the Judicial Conference.

c. Agreed that all newly constructed courthouses or annexes, build-to-suit lease

projects, requests for General Services Administration feasibility studies, and

prospectus-level repair and alteration projects 1 must have the approval of the

Committee and Conference as Component B projects.

d. Agreed that requests for Component B funding for necessary chambers and

courtrooms for judges taking senior status, replacement judges, and new

(additional) judgeships must have the approval of the Committee.

e. Agreed that non-prospectus projects that will utilize Component C funds are

not subject to Committee and Conference approval unless the circuit judicial

council’s space action involves an exception to U.S. Courts Design Guide

standards. [see Appendix B]

1.7 Federal Budgeting Terminology 

In the interest of technical accuracy with respect to federal budgeting terms, since the GSA rent 

bill continues to be paid centrally by the Administrative Office, funding for the rent components 

1 In the body of the Committee’s report to the Conference, “prospectus-level repair and alteration projects” are 

defined as major building modernization projects, involving the replacement or updating of building core and shell 

elements, and not merely tenant alterations. The point of the distinction is that a tenant alteration project by itself, 

e.g., construction of a chambers suite and/or a courtroom within an existing building, does not require Conference

approval, but rather only Committee approval, even if the project is prospectus level.
4 

is allocated rather than allotted to the circuits. An allocation connotes the setting-aside of funds 

for a particular use or uses; an allotment connotes the actual transfer of funds from one 

organization to another. Thus, rent funds for the three components are allocated to each circuit; 

they are not allotted to each circuit as part of a circuit’s decentralized funding.

1.8 Purpose, Organization and Use of this Manual

This manual is intended as a guide to assist all levels of court personnel (judges, circuit 

executives, assistant circuit executives for space, court unit executives and their deputies, budget 

analysts, and others) as well as staff in the Administrative Office, whose work in any way 

involves requesting or managing a space action, to be able to determine the appropriate treatment 

of the space action under the CRB program. 

The manual is divided into two principal sections: a policy guidance section which sets forth the 

11 formal business rules as well as other policy matters, with detailed guidance for each policy; 

and a procedural guidance section [under development] that outlines the specific steps that need 

to be followed and the forms to be used: by court personnel in initiating and administering 

projects, by AO personnel in processing actions, and by judges, both on circuit judicial councils 

and the Space and Facilities Committee of the Judicial Conference, in deciding whether or not to 

approve specific projects. 

The chart on the next page is intended to serve as a quick guide to orient all users as to which 

CRB Rent Component, and which business rules are applicable to the most common types of 

space actions. While the chart identifies the business rules that are most likely in play for a 

specific space action, the reader is encouraged to go to the appropriate sections of the Manual 

and read each applicable business rule in full and all the accompanying clarifying guidance to 

ensure complete capture of the policy as it may apply to the particular instance.

The balance of the policy guidance portion of this manual is organized around the three CRB 

funding components and their attendant business rules.
5 

1.9 Applying CRB to Common Types of Space Actions 

Space Action Type Funding 

Component

Applicable 

Business

Rules

Comments Approvals Needed

New resident chambers for a new 

judgeship, new replacement judge, or

new senior judge.

B #2, #3a, #4,

#6,

Circuit Council; 

S&F Committee

New visiting chambers suite C #2, #8, #11, Circuit Council

New appellate non-resident chambers 

suite at circuit headquarters

B or C #2, #3a, #4,

#6

Not currently 

addressed in policy; 

S&F Committee will 

entertain project 

requests on a case-bycase basis.

Circuit Council; S&F 

Committee if 

submitted for B 

funding

Refurbishment of existing chambers 

suite, or courtroom. (No square 

footage change; rather, updating of 

space finishes.)

Not funded 

under CRB

Refurbishment to be 

funded from either: 

Alterations BOC 

2515, Cyclical 

Maintenance BOC

2510, or other 

decentralized funds

Funds managers for 

the funding source

Courtroom for new judgeship, new 

replacement judge or new senior judge

B or C #2, #3b, #4,

#6

Courtrooms to be 

approved by S&F 

Committee on a caseby-case basis

Circuit Council; S&F 

Committee

Expanding an existing courtroom, or 

building a new courtroom, for a sitting

judge

C #2, #8, #11 Circuit Council

New grand jury suite(s) C #2, #8, #11 Circuit Council

New or expanded space for clerk,

pretrial, probation, circuit library, or 

circuit executive’s office

C #2, #8, #11

Circuit Council

New federally-constructed courthouse 

or annex, lease-construct courthouse,

or prospectus-level building 

modernization.

B #2, #5, #6,

#7,

S&F Committee; 

Judicial Conference

Replacement space for expiring lease A #6 Component A for 

replacement square 

footage only; 

expansion square 

footage funded by C, 

unless entire project 

approved by S&F

Committee as 

Component B.

No approval required 

for replacement 

square footage; 

expansion space 

requires circuit 

council approval, and 

S&F Committee if B 

funding sought.

Replacement space for non-resident 

courthouses

A or B #3c Component A for 

replacement square 

footage of office 

space; courtroom 

and visiting 

chambers space 

funded by 

Component B.

Circuit council and 

S&F Committee 

approval required.
6 

Space Action Type Funding Component Applicable

Business Rules

Comments Approvals Needed

Parking C Generally additional 

parking is C, but 

limited to employees 

entitled to parking 

per Judiciary’s 

policy; parking for 

new judgeships and 

replacement judgesis 

funded by 

Component B. 

Parking for 

employees not 

covered by 

Judiciary’s parking

policy is courtreimbursed parking.
7 

II. Policy Guidance

2.1 General Description of the Allocation Method

2.1.1 The CRB method for allocating the Judiciary’s rent funds to circuits is a distribution 

model that combines some elements of decentralized decision-making, with a central-planning 

and budgeting element for major projects, and certain chambers and courtroom projects. In 

essence, CRB allocates sufficient rent funds to circuits to cover both existing space assignments 

as well as space growth, with space growth limited through centralized approval of certain kinds 

of projects, and by a formulaic distribution to individual circuits of authority to add to the rental 

base. The allocation for each circuit consists of three funding increments. A set of 11 business 

rules governs how the three increments are determined and how the rent funds can be used. 

2.1.2 The three funding increments are:

● Component A: Funds for Current Space

● Rent funding is provided for the existing space inventory, including inflationary

increases.

● Component B: Project-Specific Funding

● Major projects (i.e., new courthouses, annexes, modernizations, and leaseconstruct courthouses) approved by both the Space and Facilities Committee and

the Judicial Conference, and;

● Chambers and courtrooms for senior/replacement judges and new judgeships,

approved by the S&F Committee.

● Component C: Circuit Discretionary Funding

● Funding distributed to circuit councils by formula for sub-prospectus space

acquisitions and alteration projects.

2.1.3 The Business Rules

For ease of quick reference, the 11 Business Rules are synopsized below, in order. The Business 

Rules appear in full within the body of the subsections dealing with the three funding 

components, because each business rule relates principally to only one funding component, but 

more importantly because, in these sections, additional clarifying guidance is provided for each 

business rule. This clarifying guidance is critical to a full understanding of how the business 

rules operate. Readers are encouraged to examine the clarifying guidance in detail whenever 

there is a question as to how a business rule applies to a particular space project or problem. 

Business Rule #1. 

CRB business rule number one was replaced in September 2012 to allow that an allotment be 

provided to any court that releases space, subject to funding availability. The allotment funding will 

be equal to the actual annual net rental savings and available for use for the remainder of the fiscal 

year in which the allotment is provided plus two full fiscal years after the initial allotment. See: 
8 

Change to Circuit Rent Budget Program memorandum, dated August 6, 2015. The space release 

allotment will be provided to the chief judge of any district court, bankruptcy court, or court of 

appeals, on behalf of a court unit that releases space accepted by GSA as marketable. 

The original rule provided that the rent savings related to released space accrued to the circuit 

judicial council for use in acquiring additional space. 

Business Rule #2. Rent associated with new courthouses sized to the U.S. Courts Design Guide 

(AnyCourt model) will be covered by Component B funding. 

For any Component B project, if the circuit judicial council chooses either to exceed the 

square footage amount determined by the AnyCourt model, or exceed the tenant finish 

standards established by the U.S. Courts Design Guide, the circuit council must:

• Fund the additional cost (rent and/or lump sum tenant improvements) out of its

Component C allotment.

• Moreover, if the change constitutes an “exception” to the Design Guide (See

Appendix B), then Judicial Conference approval must first be secured, even if

Component C funding is available.

Business Rule #3. 

#3a. For chambers, no Component B funding if: 

• The number of existing chambers exceeds the number of authorized

judgeships plus seniors.

• Appropriately sized chambers space is available within a normal

commuting distance of the location of the proposed chambers project.

#3b. For courtrooms, no Component B funding if: 

• The number of appropriately sized courtrooms exceeds the number of

authorized judgeships, adjusted for Judicial Conference-approved

courtroom sharing policies including one courtroom for every two senior

judges.

• The courtroom shortage problem is of 5 years or less duration.

#3c. For existing non-resident courthouse locations in need of replacement space, 

Component B funding may be provided for the build-out of one courtroom and one 

visiting chambers, both sized according to the standards in the most current version of 

the U.S. Courts Design Guide at the time the Committee on Space and Facilities 

approves the request, absent exigent circumstances that warrant above-standard 

accommodations requiring prior Judicial Conference approval. The type of courtroom 

to be funded must be in accordance with the AMP Business Rules and Judicial 

Conference policy. 
9 

Business Rule #4. For chambers that meet Business Rule #3a, and courtrooms that both meet 

Business Rule #3b and are approved by the Space and Facilities Committee: 

• For construction within the court’s existing space envelope, Component B tenant

improvement allowance is set by cost estimate, developed by the circuit, approved

by the Rent Management Subcommittee.

• For projects entailing expansion space, Component B budget is set to fund the

best value solution, after a cost study of alternative strategies. Best value analysis

is prepared by the circuit, approved by the Rent Management Subcommittee.

Business Rule #5. For prospectus-level repair and alteration projects that will affect rent:

• Project must first be approved by the Space and Facilities Committee, including

feasibility studies.

• Tenant improvement allowances to be financed through higher rent payments will

be set in accordance with GSA cost benchmarks.

Business Rule #6. For all Component B projects, if rent costs escalate for reasons other than 

scope or program additions, then the increased rent or lump sum tenant improvement costs will 

be covered by the Component B contingency reserve, up to 10% of the original cost projection. 

If the 10% contingency reserve is exhausted, the circuit can:

• Apply to the Rent Management Subcommittee for additional funding, or if the space

program remains unchanged, inquire of the AO as to availability of additional

contingency funds. (See 2.3.8 for more detail)

• Fund additional rental/lump sum costs from Component C.

• Re-scope the project (without deleting program).

Business Rule #7. Accounting for Double Occupancy Costs in the Event of Moves. For 

Component B projects entailing a physical move, additional rent will also be accorded to circuits 

to account for the need to pay rent at both the existing location and the new location while 

personal property moves occur. The amount of time overlap will be established by relocation 

benchmarks. 

For court-caused delay in the design and construction of the new space, or in the move process, 

that results in a period of double rent beyond the benchmark, the circuit is liable for the rental 

amount for the more expensive of the two locations, for the time in excess of the move 

performance benchmark. Circuits can cover this cost by drawing upon its Component C 

allocation or other available discretionary funds. The circuit may apply to the Space and 

Facilities Committee for funding relief.

Business Rule #8. Component C can be used for space expansion, provided that the annual 

value of the circuit’s total expansion space actions does not exceed: a) the funds available in 

Component C for the current year, as well as b) the sum of the circuit’s pro-rata share of one half 

of one percent (.5%) of the total rent bill for the current year, plus the circuit’s projected share of 

the next year, plus any unused “roll-into-A” authority carried over from the prior year.
10 

Business Rule #9. At the end of each fiscal year, additional space acquired with a circuit’s 

Component C allocation becomes part of the Component A base, up to each circuit’s share of the 

national total set-aside for Component C space growth. The national total set aside is pre-set as

1⁄2 of 1 percent of the total Judiciary rent bill. 

Business Rule #10. If a circuit does not, in a given fiscal year, use its full pro-rata share of the 

national Component C rent set-aside for space growth, it may carry forward the unused authority 

for one year. The unused authority from the prior year can be combined with the circuit’s pro 

rata share of the national rent set-aside for the current fiscal year, thus enabling the acquisition 

of, potentially, a larger block of expansion space. All space acquisitions, however, must accord 

with the AnyCourt model in terms of square footage requirements.

Business Rule #11: Using Component C for lump sum funding. 

Component C rent funds can be used in the form of a lump sum payment under four 

circumstances:

a.) to fund lump sum tenant improvement cost overruns on Component B projects, as well as to 

fund lump sum costs associated with a chambers or courtroom project as long as that project 

would qualify for Component B funding. 

b.) to fund lump sum tenant improvement costs above the GSA general allowance for the 

circuit’s own expansion projects, 

c.) to fund lump sum tenant improvements associated with a re-stacking or consolidation project 

which will result in an overall reduction in rent; for example, through release of space or 

avoidance of expansion space, within generally no more than a 5 year “pay-back” period,

d.) to fund lump sum repairs and replacements of tenant equipment and fixtures, exclusive of tenant 

finishes, not to exceed in aggregate 50% of a circuit’s Component C allocation, or 

e.) to provide metering (sub-meters and related costs) for existing court 24/7 air conditioned spaces, 

such as server rooms and A/V closets, where practical. More than one meter may be required 

depending on how the spaces are wired. Also see page 28.
11 

2.2 Component A. The Base: Current Rental Costs

2.2.1 Component A allocates to each circuit sufficient rent funding to cover the cost of the 

circuit’s existing space inventory, without any change in square footage amounts or service 

levels. Cost growth that is the consequence of inflation is included in this component. Inflation, 

in this context, is defined as increases in rental costs that occur during the budget year for a space 

inventory that is unchanged in terms of both square footage and levels of service. Inflation 

covers rate changes for shell rent, operating costs, basic security, parking, and joint use space 

charges. Changes that fall outside of the definition of inflation are not covered by Component A, 

and are chargeable against a circuit’s Component C account, or, in the case of specific 

Committee-approved projects, the B account, as explained below. Examples of changes that fall 

outside the definition of inflation include: 

• the addition of usable area to a space assignment.

• a new space assignment. (One that is other than a replacement, at the same square

footage, for an existing space assignment.)

• rent charges to amortize the cost, funded by GSA, of new tenant alterations (postinitial occupancy space changes) in existing space.

• the upgrading of any building service, such as a change from evening to daytime

cleaning, or the extension of building operating hours, for which there is a change

in the rental cost.

2.2.2 The Component A budget amount for each circuit is set to correspond exactly to the rent 

costs associated with each circuit’s existing space inventory. Component A budgets are based 

initially upon GSA’s annual Rent Estimate (RentEst). Each circuit’s Component A allocation 

will be monitored and adjusted throughout the budget year to account for inflation-related 

changes that were not foreseen by the RentEst. The monitoring and adjusting tasks will be 

performed by the AO. With the approval of the Space and Facilities Committee, the AO will 

determine and hold a certain amount of the annual rent budget in a contingency reserve to cover 

the risk that additional or higher charges materialize in Component A than those forecast by 

RentEst.

2.2.3 Component A –related events which the Contingency Reserve must be sized to cover 

include the following possible events:

1. The rental rate associated with a replacement lease action (i.e., GSA competes the

space requirement housed in an expiring lease) comes in higher than GSA’s estimate

contained in the RentEst projection.

2. The annual operating cost escalation in a given lease is higher than GSA’s RentEst

projection.

3. The annual increase in GSA’s joint use charges in federally owned space is higher

than GSA’s RentEst projection.
12 

The Contingency Reserve is discussed in detail in Section 2.4 below. 

2.2.4 Changes in GSA rent charges (whether up or down) as a consequence of structural 

revisions in GSA’s rent pricing policy, or as a consequence of rent appeals and other rent 

validation-related activity, will be accompanied by commensurate changes in Component A 

allocations. In other words, for the existing space inventory, any rent savings or additional rent 

obligations, that come about through changes in GSA pricing policy or through the Judiciary’s 

initiative to validate GSA rent charges, are managed at the national level; additional costs are 

funded out of the central contingency reserve, and any savings grow the contingency reserve. 

Savings due to GSA rent policy changes or space re-measurement do not accrue automatically 

and directly to the circuit occupying the space to which the savings apply. Conversely, circuits 

are not individually at risk for any increases in rent due to space measurement validation. To 

the degree to which there are aggregate net savings from these activities, and to the degree to 

which the Judiciary can retain such savings in the Salaries and Expenses account, the savings 

create additional budget authority to be distributed in a subsequent budget year as either 

Components B or C, as discussed below. 

2.2.5 For replacement lease situations (a replacement lease action is a GSA procurement, 

typically conducted near the expiration of the term of a current lease, to provide for the 

continuing housing of that space requirement) in the event that GSA’s escalation estimate 

provided through the RentEst proves to be either too low or too high, the AO will adjust the 

circuit’s Component A allocation to match the actual lease cost—as long as the square footage 

amount does not change. At the time the new lease commences, regardless of whether the new 

lease is in a new location or a succeeding lease in the old location, Component A will be adjusted 

to cover the cost for an amount of space equal to the Judiciary’s assigned space under the 

expiring lease. Rental costs associated with any expansion space will need to be covered by the 

circuit’s Component C funding, unless the expansion space is specifically approved as a 

Component B project. Component A funding also covers the rental cost associated with the 

repayment of tenant improvement allowances funded by a lessor and amortized in the rent, when 

such allowances are in accord with US Courts Design Guide standards. 

2.2.6 The Contingency Reserve/Component A is not the source of funds to cover the cost to 

alter, repair, replace or upgrade Judiciary tenant improvements. Fixtures, finishes, and equipment 

within tenanted space may need periodic repair, updating, or replacement. Cyclical maintenance 

funds and tenant alteration funds are provided annually by formula to circuits and/or court units 

to defray the cost of altering, repairing, upgrading or replacing these items. Further, it is also 

permissible for a circuit to tap its Component C allocation to fund the repair and replacement of 

tenant fixtures and equipment. Component A is intended to cover the cost of tenant 

improvements installed at the time of initial occupancy, whether those costs are paid lump sum 

or amortized in the rent over a period of years. Thereafter, the cost to maintain, replace or 

update those tenant improvements is the funding responsibility of the circuit and/or court unit, 

through reliance upon the Cyclical Maintenance formulaic allotment, the alterations allotment, 

or, for repairs and replacements of tenant fixtures and equipment, Component C. Most tenant
13 

improvements are theoretically subject to wear out over time, but as a practical matter, the most 

common elements that will require repair, updating or replacement are as follows:

• Carpeting

• Paint/Wall coverings

• Equipment and finishes in judges’ secure elevators

• Faucets/sinks/appliances and fixtures in galleys and private bathrooms

• Specialty light fixtures and dimmer switches (building standard ceiling

lighting is part of building shell)

• Locks and door hardware

• Drapes and blinds

• Package air conditioning units (those not part of base building)

In the case of leased space, at the occasion of a lease renewal or a succeeding lease, new carpet 

and painting may be funded by the lessor and recovered through rent as part of Component A. 

2.2.7 There is one business rule associated with Component A.

Business Rule #1: 

CRB business rule number one was replaced in September 2012 to allow that an allotment be 

provided to any court that releases space, subject to funding availability. The allotment funding will 

be equal to the actual annual net rental savings and available for use for the remainder of the fiscal 

year in which the allotment is provided plus two full fiscal years after the initial allotment.

The space release allotment will be provided to the chief judge of any district court, bankruptcy 

court, or court of appeals, on behalf of a court unit that releases space accepted by GSA as 

marketable. Courts may not receive an allotment for space release in addition to funding for costs 

associated with a project that would be paid for with space reduction funds. 

The Committee on Space and Facilities (Committee) recommended, at its September 2014 meeting, 

that the Judicial Conference formally sanction the Committee’s recommendation of the following 

approach to allotments for space release: 

• Allotments are based on availability of funds in the annual financial plan

• Allotments are made on a first-come, first-served basis

• If a court receives an allotment to fund all or part of the project costs, those funds are deducted

from the space release allotment amount. These costs include, for example, tenant alterations,

(construction), scanning files, furniture and related costs.

• If there are insufficient funds, the AO will distribute allotments over $100,000 on a phased basis

and the Committee will address requests for allotments in excess of $1 million on a case-by-case

basis.

The funds will be allotted after receipt of a written acknowledgment from GSA confirming a date 

certain when the rent billing for the released space will cease. The court would then use those funds 

to: (1) fund requirements related to space relinquishment, such as tenant alterations or furniture; or 

(2) fund other activities or items necessary for its operations. The new rule was effective October 1,

2012.
14 

The original rule (no longer permissible) provided that the rent savings related to released space 

accrued to the circuit judicial council for use in acquiring additional space. The credit, or “chit,” to 

the circuit applies to space released before October 1, 2012. Please see the Addendum to the CRB 

manual, dated January 4, 2016. http://jnet.ao.dcn/sites/default/files/pdf/CRBAddendum_Jan_2016.pdf

COMPONENT A SUMMARY CHART

Includes:

At Beginning of FY AT End of FY Consisting of: Not Automatically

Part of “A”

All existing space in 

base.

Inflation on Base 1.Shell Rate changes.

2.Operating expense

increases.

3. Joint Use charge

changes.

4. Bldg-specific

amortized capital

charges.

5. Lease

renewals/replacements.

B project rents As B projects come 

onto the rent bill. 

Adjustments for 

expiration of TI 

amortization periods 

New amortized TIs 

unless part of 

Circuit’s “roll-intoA”

“Roll into A” 

portion of Circuits’ 

C expansions 

Collectively not to 

exceed 1⁄2% of total 

rent base per year.

Any circuit’s 

expansion in excess

of its “roll-into-A” 

authority 

Allotment for space 

relinquishment 

Annualized actual rent 

savings resulting from 

the space 

relinquishment, less 

any project funds that 

may have been 

provided for the space 

reduction project. 
15 

2.3 Component B. Conference and Committee-Approved Projects

2.3.1 This component is the project-based budget increment. It sets aside, for each circuit, 

sufficient funds to cover rent for specific Conference-approved major projects (i.e., new federal 

courthouse construction, leased courthouses, and major building modernizations). Additionally, 

subject to the business rules, it sets aside funds to cover rent and/or tenant improvement costs, 

for new chambers and courtrooms, as approved by the Space and Facilities Committee, for 

additional judgeships, for judges taking senior status, or for replacement judges. At the end of 

each budget year, the Component B projects that have come on line during that year are added to 

the base and become part of Component A for the next budget year. For all succeeding budget 

years in which the space is retained, this remains a part of Component A rent. In accordance 

with the Judicial Conference’s approval of the Space and Facilities Committee’s July 2007 

report, Committee approval alone is required for Component B chambers and courtroom 

projects, even if these projects are prospectus-level.

2.3.2. The rent and/or tenant improvement lump sum amounts that are set aside for Component 

B projects are governed by business rules 2 through 7. 

Business Rule #2. For new courthouses, the rent amount in Component B is set to cover only 

the square footage as established by the AnyCourt model. The AnyCourt model translates the 

U.S. Courts Design Guide standards into specific usable square footage space requirements. 

The rent associated with the new courthouse sized to the AnyCourt model will be covered by 

Component B funding. 

If, for any Component B project, the circuit council chooses either to exceed the square 

footage amount determined by the AnyCourt model, or exceed the tenant finish standards 

established by the US Courts Design Guide, the circuit council must fund the additional cost 

(rent and/or lump sum tenant improvements) out of its Component C allotment. Moreover, if 

the change constitutes an “exception” to the Design Guide (See Appendix B), then Judicial 

Conference approval must first be secured, even if Component C funding is available. 

2.3.3. Additional guidance concerning Business Rule #2. 

1. New courthouses, whether constructed by GSA or leased, are based upon district LongRange Facilities Plans. In order for any prospectus-level courthouse project (e.g., new

courthouse, annex, modernization) or any lease-construct project to become eligible for

coverage by Component B funding, it must first be approved by the circuit council.

Moreover, the district’s Long-Range Facilities Plan, which, through the Asset

Management Planning process, identifies the most cost-effective project solutions for the

district’s space needs, must support the project before the Space and Facilities Committee

will take up the project for consideration and funding.

2. For all major projects (i.e., a new federally owned courthouse, annex, modernization, or

a lease-construct courthouse) approval by the Committee and the Conference will come

with a specific rent limit for the space program (i.e., housing plan) proposed. The space
16 

program identifies the court units and their sizes that are to be housed through the new 

action, and specifically identifies the numbers of chambers and courtrooms and their 

types. After approval by the Conference, if a circuit council later wishes to change (i.e., 

add, reduce or delete) elements of the program, the Space and Facilities Committee has 

the right to re-examine the approved Component B project’s rent amount, and to decide 

whether to adjust the amount commensurate with the program change. Program 

additions (i.e., additions of court units, or additions in the number of staff or judges) for 

major projects must be approved by the Conference rather than the Committee alone. 

Business Rule #3.a. For chambers needed to accommodate new judgeships and judges 

taking senior status or replacement judges, no Component B funding will be provided to 

build-out, construct or lease a new chambers if: 

• The number of appropriately sized existing chambers exceeds the number of

authorized judgeships, plus senior judges at that location, or

• Appropriately sized chambers space is available within a normal commuting distance

of the court location for which a new chambers project is proposed.

2.3.4. Additional guidance concerning Business Rule #3a. 

1. Rent associated with one additional parking space is also included within the Component

B funding for an approved chambers project.

2. Component B funding is for resident chambers; visiting/non-resident chambers are not

candidate projects for Component B funding, with the exception of non-resident

appellate chambers, at a circuit’s headquarters location only, and only with the following

stipulations:

a. The number of unassigned resident chambers plus all non-resident chambers, does

not exceed the number of non-resident active circuit judges, plus one half the

number of non-resident senior circuit judges. (Circuits may use Component C to

fund both rent and tenant alterations for additional non-resident chambers.)

b. The Component B funding will be for a non-resident chambers suite sized to the

2007 U.S. Courts Design Guide (i.e., 602 net square feet) unless the 1997 Design

Guide is applicable for the building, in which case the 1997 standard (900 net

square feet) will be funded by Component B.

c. All other guidance pertaining to Rule #3a is observed.

3. An existing vacant chambers that is not “appropriately sized” but which could be

rendered so with alterations, could be a viable candidate project for Component B

funding. In such a case, the Component B funding would be set as a tenant improvement

funding amount, and additional rent if expansion space is involved, necessary to alter the

existing vacant chambers to size it for the intended judgeship use.

4. Refurbishment of an existing, appropriately sized vacant chambers may be paid for by

either cyclical maintenance funding (BOC 2510); alterations funding (BOC 2515); or

unobligated decentralized funds, if available, and with the permission of the local
17 

approving authority. Rent funds (Components B or C) are not available for the purpose 

of refurbishment.

5. Recalled bankruptcy and magistrate judges are not included within the meaning of the

phrase “authorized judgeships, plus senior judges.”

6. This business rule establishes that there is a specific event which triggers a Component B

chambers project: a new judge is appointed, either as a replacement for a judge taking

senior status, or to fill a newly established judgeship position created by an Act of

Congress, or to fill a judgeship vacancy. In some cases, the chambers project may

actually be for the senior judge, and the replacement takes the senior judge’s former

chambers. Nonetheless, in each case, there is a new/additional judge to be housed. (Note:

The only other instance that a Component B chambers project will be considered is for

replacement space for an existing non-resident courthouse.

7. In terms of available chambers, consideration is to be given, where practicable, to all

available chambers, not merely to those assigned to the court unit from which the need

for a new chambers suite arises. For instance, if there is a need for a chambers for a

senior/replacement district judge, and there are two bankruptcy or magistrate chambers

that are vacant and not likely to be needed within the foreseeable future, then

consideration should be given to using or altering one of the vacant chambers rather than

annexing additional space to build a new chambers.

8. In terms of sizing the new chambers, if the practice in the local court is to house the

courtroom deputy in chambers space rather than in the clerk’s office, then the size of the

district judge chambers may be expanded by 150 usable square feet to accommodate the

courtroom deputy.

9. Component B funding is for permanent chambers space. The S&F Committee will

approve the use of Component B funds for a temporary chambers suite in either leased or

government-owned space only if the circumstances are extraordinary and the circuit has

no practical means or budget resources to cover the cost of provisional accommodations

for the judge.

10. In the event that the Component B chambers request is in a location where there is a fullsized chambers assigned to a senior district judge who is not certified for space and staff,

then if the new chambers request is approved for B funding by the S&F Committee, the

approval is for a visiting judge chambers rather than a full-sized chambers.

Business Rule #3.b. For courtrooms needed to accommodate new judgeships and judges 

taking senior status or replacement judges, the following rules apply: 

1. Component B funding will not be provided to build-out, construct or lease a new

courtroom, if the number of appropriately-sized courtrooms at that location exceeds the

number of authorized judgeships, adjusted for Judicial Conference-approved courtroom

sharing policies including one courtroom for every two senior judges.

2. All funding for Component B courtrooms (whether in the form of additional rent,

or tenant improvement funds) must be approved by the Space and Facilities Committee

on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, requests to the Committee are reviewed for

conformity with the following threshold test: the duration of the courtroom shortage

problem to be remedied must exceed the minimum threshold of 5 years. In determining
18 

whether the five year threshold is met, the Space and Facilities Committee relies upon 

the Judiciary’s space planning assumption that judges will cease hearing cases upon 

reaching the age of 85. Since some judges do, in fact, continue to hear cases beyond the 

age of 85, the Committee will take note of actual circumstances rather than rely upon the 

planning assumption, for those senior judges who have passed the age of 85 and continue 

to hear cases, when reviewing specific courtroom requests.

Business Rule #3.c. Notwithstanding Business Rules #3a and #3b, Component B funding may be used to 

construct a courtroom and a visiting chambers in replacement space for an existing non-resident courthouse 

location with the following stipulations: 

1. Component B funding may be provided for only one courtroom and one visiting chambers, sized

according to the U.S. Courts Design Guide at the time the request is considered by the Space and

Facilities Committee, even if the current non-resident location for which replacement space is sought

has a larger-than-standard courtroom or visiting chambers, or more than one courtroom and chambers.

Exigent circumstances that warrant the build-out of an above-standard-sized courtroom or visiting

chambers would be an exception to the U.S. Courts Design Guide, which also requires Judicial

Conference approval. The type of courtroom (i.e., district, bankruptcy, or magistrate) for which funding

is requested must be in compliance with the AMP Business Rules and Judicial Conference policy.

2. Component B funding for one courtroom and one visiting chambers will only be provided upon request

from the affected district or circuit to the Space and Facilities Committee after the Committee has

determined that a bona fide need exists for replacement non-resident space, based upon the Criteria to be

Used to Justify Replacement Space for Non-Resident Courthouses approved by the Judicial Conference

at its March 2019 session (JCUS-MAR 19, p. 31).

Business Rule 4. For all additional chambers that meet the business rules identified in 3a, and 

for all additional courtrooms that both meet the business rules identified in 3b and are approved 

by the Space and Facilities Committee, the Component B rent set aside will be set as follows: 

1. For all courtrooms and chambers that are to be constructed within the court’s existing

space envelope and funded lump sum in whole or part by the Judiciary, (rather than

financed by GSA) the tenant improvement allowance will be set in accordance with a

construction cost estimate developed by the circuit, and approved by the Rent

Management Subcommittee of the Space and Facilities Committee.

2. For courtrooms and chambers that require expanding beyond the Judiciary’s existing

space envelope, possibly entailing forced moves of other agencies, new leases, or new

construction of any kind, then each circuit needs to undertake the following tasks:

• Identify the alternative strategies that can meet the space need,

• Prepare cost estimates and a 10 year present value analysis for all viable

strategies,

• Evaluate the strategies in terms of both cost and benefits, and

• Identify the best-value programmatic solution.
19 

2.3.5. Additional guidance relative to Business Rule #4. 

1. Cost-estimation and scope development funding assistance for the circuits will be

available from the AO subject to annual funding availability. These funds are provided

via Budget Object Class 2559 and cannot be reprogrammed for other uses. The funds can

be given to GSA via Reimbursable Work Authorizations (RWAs) to enable GSA to task

Architectural/Engineering consultants to prepare estimates.

2. AO Space and Facilities Division staff and consultants will be available to help with

identification of space strategies, cost estimation, and evaluating benefits.

3. Component B funding, as approved first by the Rent Management Subcommittee, and

then by the full Space and Facilities Committee, may take the form of either or both

additional rent and lump sum tenant improvement funding.

4. The Rent Management Subcommittee has discretion to approve a tenant improvement

allowance that differs from the estimate submitted by the circuit, based upon construction

cost benchmarks, other information available to the Subcommittee, or due to limited availability

of funds.

5. For judges taking senior status, the following conventions apply:

a. Planning for additional chambers and courtrooms can begin not earlier than 2

years prior to the date a judge becomes eligible for senior status for nonprospectus projects, and not earlier than 3 years prior for prospectus-level

projects.

b. The assumed accession date for a replacement judge is one year following the

date the senior becomes eligible for senior status.

6. There are two classes of potential seniors:

a. those who will become eligible within the next two years (three years for

prospectus-level projects). If a Component B project is for a judge in this

group, there is no requirement that the judge in question declare his/her

intention of taking senior status, but the Component B project submission

to the Space and Facilities Committee must include the name of the judge

for whom, or for whose replacement, the chambers/courtroom is planned.

b. those who are already eligible but who have not yet taken senior status. If

a Component B project is for a judge in this group who has not yet

declared his/her intention of taking senior status, submission of a

chambers and/or courtroom project should accord with the circuit

council’s planning assumptions regarding the judge in question.

Business Rule #5. For GSA prospectus-level repair and alteration projects (i.e., building 

modernizations) that entail either new tenant alterations for the courts or increases in court space 

assignments which will increase Judiciary rental costs, each project must be approved by the 

circuit judicial council, the Space and Facilities (S&F) Committee, and the Judicial Conference. 
20 

Moreover, for those modernization projects approved by both the council and the S&F 

Committee, the tenant improvement allowances to be accorded to the court units will be capped 

at the amounts established by GSA, based upon the GSA construction cost study which estimates 

the cost to create functional space in accordance with the standards established in the U.S. Courts 

Design Guide. The Component B rent for that circuit may be increased by an amount equal to 

the annual charge which amortizes that tenant allowance amount over the amortization term. The 

amortization term is typically 20 years for courtrooms and chambers, and 10 years for officetype space.

2.3.7. Additional guidance relative to business rule #5. 

1. Modernization projects undertaken by GSA are not, in and of themselves, subject to

approval or disapproval by the Space and Facilities Committee or the Judicial

Conference. Committee/Conference approval for modernization projects relates solely to the

matter of whether the circuit is attempting to use the occasion of GSA’s pursuit of a prospectuslevel building modernization project, to have GSA fund alterations in existing court space, or

tenant improvements in new, expansion space for the courts. In either case, since these tenant

improvement costs would be amortized in the rent, and any additional space would also increase

the rent, and because prospectus-level building modernizations are Component B projects by

definition, the rent impact associated with these tenant improvements/additional space must have

Committee and Conference approval.

2. In the case of a modernization project, the Committee will look to GSA’s cost estimate in

setting the Component B project allowance rather than to the circuit, because it is GSA

that will seek the funding for the project, and it is the GSA funding that will eventually

translate into an increased rental cost.

3. The Committee has discretion, for Component B coverage, not to approve the project, or

to approve a tenant improvement allowance amount below the amount to be provided by

GSA. If the circuit wishes to avail itself of additional tenant improvements beyond what

the Committee/Conference approves, the annual rental increase (i.e., the amortization

charge) associated with the tenant improvements funded by GSA above the amount

approved by the Committee, is charged against the circuit’s Component C fund.

4. New chambers and/or courtroom projects for senior/replacement judges and new

judgeship positions, do not, by themselves, constitute a building “modernization,” and

therefore do not require Judicial Conference approval, even if the project cost exceeds the

prospectus threshold. Only if the courtroom/chambers project is timed to coincide with a

GSA modernization project is it necessary to secure JCUS approval.

Business Rule #6. For all Component B projects, if the rental cost of the project escalates 

for reasons other than scope or program additions, then the increased rental cost will be 

covered by Component B up to 10% of the original rental cost projection. For purposes of 

covering price escalation/cost overruns on these projects, a 10% contingency amount will be 

set aside for each Component B project. 

Once the 10% project contingency is exhausted, circuit councils generally have three options: 

1. fund the additional rental cost out of the circuit’s Component C allocation (discussed

below),
21 

2. apply to the Space and Facilities Committee to secure Component B rent funding in

excess of the project contingency, or

3. examine ways to reduce project scope, without reducing the space program. (Space

program deletions may entail commensurate reductions in project funding. See 2.3.10. #4

below for a more thorough explanation of the distinction between scope and program

deletions.)

2.3.8. To facilitate timely action on projects that may exceed the 10% cost contingency, the 

Space and Facilities Committee has delegated to the AO the authority to provide additional funds 

above the 10% contingency for already-approved Component B projects when: 

a) the space program (i.e., housing plan) of the Component B project remains

constant;

b) sufficient rent and/or lump sum tenant improvement funds are available

within the rent budget cap and the Salaries and Expenses Financial Plan

approved by the Executive Committee; and

c) the increased project cost has the consent of either the Chair of the Space

and Facilities Committee, the Chair of the Rent Management

Subcommittee, or his/her designee.

2.3.9 The Space and Facilities Committee has also delegated to the AO the authority to provide 

up to an additional 10% in cost for projects which were approved under interim budget check 

procedures that have since been identified as qualifying for Component B coverage, as well as 

for all projects which pre-date interim budget check that have since been identified as qualifying 

for Component B coverage. This delegation is contingent upon each project meeting the same 

three conditions identified under paragraph 2.3.8. 

2.3.10. Additional guidance relative to business rule #6. 

1. The 10% contingency is applied to both the rent and the tenant improvement lump

sum amount, if specific Component B limits are imposed on both rent and lump sum

payments. In some cases, the Component B project entails no space expansion, but

rather new tenant improvements to existing space. In such cases, the 10%

contingency applies only to the cost of the tenant improvements.

2. If GSA has agreed to fund all or part of the tenant improvement costs, then there will

be an increased rental cost in the form of an amortization charge for the capital which

GSA funded. If the Component B project is approved for an increased rent associated

with the amortization of GSA- funded tenant improvements, then that increased rent is

also subject to the 10% contingency.

3. Whatever assumptions in terms of amortization durations (10 years vs 20 years) that

are in place when the B project request is made, these assumptions must then hold for

the project through execution. Accordingly, it is not permissible to submit a project

for Component B funding with a rent increase premised upon a 10 year amortization

of the tenant improvements, and then, if the project goes over budget, attempt to lower

the annual rental payment by increasing the amortization term from 10 to 20 years.
22 

This clearly would be a circumvention of the Space and Facilities Committee’s rent 

management intent.

4. The second of the three options mentioned in Business Rule #6 available to the circuit

in the event that a project exceeds the Component B approved budget by more than

10%, legitimates scope (e.g., square footage or finish level) reductions but not

program (i.e., housing plan) reductions. By way of example, what is meant here is

that it is not acceptable, in trying to reduce the project cost of a new facility, to decide

to leave a court unit (e.g., probation) in its present location, when the intent was to

house it along with other court units in the new facility. This course of action is not

acceptable because, when the project was approved, it was with the understanding that the

space the probation office currently occupies would be relinquished. Deleting program from a

project, when the program has to be satisfied somewhere else, is not an overall savings to the

Judiciary. On the other hand, what is meant by a reduction in scope, is that the same space

program (i.e., court unit or units) is still to be housed, but with reduced square footage

allowances or finished standards, vis-à-vis those specified in the U.S. Courts Design Guide. A

reduction in scope means the same program requirement is met, but in a smaller amount of

space, or less expensive space.

Although scope reductions raise the issue of controversial precedent with GSA and

Congress, in the interests of overall rent cost containment, the Space and Facilities

Committee accepts that this is a legitimate exercise of circuit council discretion,

serving the larger interests of the Judiciary’s management of rent.

5. Prospectus-level projects that require re-authorization or additional authorization by

Congress as a consequence of scope or project cost changes must come back to the

Space and Facilities Committee for re-approval. If projects, including new

courthouses on the Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan, were not obliged to come back

to the S&F Committee for re-certification of funding, the Committee would lose

control of the aggregate rent budget, which could result in exceeding the 4.9% overall

rent cap.

6. In the event of a cost-overrun in excess of the 10% contingency amount on a project

which originally required Judicial Conference approval (i.e., a new courthouse, annex,

lease construct project, or building modernization) and the cost overrun in excess of

the 10% contingency does not necessitate GSA to seek additional authorization or reauthorization from Congress, then the project will require only Committee and not

Judicial Conference approval for increases above the 10% contingency.

7. If the rental cost is expected to escalate for combined reasons, that is, due both to

scope growth as well as to inflationary price increases beyond the control of the

Judiciary, then the project will need to be scrutinized to determine what part of the

expected increase in rental cost can be applied against the contingency and what part

would need to be covered by Component C.

Business Rule #7: Accounting for Double Occupancy Costs in the Event of Moves. For 

Component B projects entailing a physical move, additional rent will also be accorded to 

circuits to account for the need to pay rent at both the existing location and the new location 

while personal property moves occur. Relocation benchmarks will be applied to provide a 

reasonable period of time (typically 60,000 square feet per weekend) for moving office 

furniture, files and equipment. 
23 

Relocation benchmarks are not intended, however, to cover court-caused delays in the design 

and construction process which translate into accelerated and/or double rent charges for court 

space. This entails paying rent both for the current location as well as for the new courthouse, 

which is not yet ready for occupancy because of court-caused delay, or which is indeed 

ready, but the court has failed to occupy expeditiously. 

In the event of court-caused double rent, the circuit will need to draw upon Component C or 

other discretionary funds to cover the rental amount for the more expensive of the two 

locations, beyond the time allotted by the move performance benchmark. The circuit may 

apply to the Space and Facilities Committee to request that double rent costs be covered by 

the centrally-managed contingency fund in addition to or in lieu of tapping the circuit’s 

Component C funds. 

2.3.11 Additional guidance relative to business rule #7. 

1. While the business rule addresses Component B projects specifically, there is risk of

double rent in the case of Component C projects as well. In cases in which a Component

C project entails a move, any period of overlapping rent is chargeable to a circuit’s

Component C account. For C projects, there is no Component B-funded move

benchmark period, but circuit councils may find it useful to establish an expectation for

an expeditious move schedule to minimize the time during which GSA is charging rent

for two locations for the same office.

2. A period of double rent, or overlapping occupancy associated with a physical move at the

expiration of a lease, is neither a Component B nor a Component C expense, but rather

must be covered by the central Contingency Reserve, since it relates to the replacement

of existing Component A space.

2.4. Contingency Reserve

The centrally-managed contingency reserve amount needed to provide for unforeseen 

additional rental costs for Component A and to fund the 10% contingency for all Component 

B projects, must be sized to cover the following possible adverse outcomes: 

1. Higher-than-expected operating cost escalations for leases, and higher than expected

costs for lease renewals, succeeding leases or replacement leases.

2. Unplanned increases in GSA joint-use space assignments.

3. Unplanned building-specific amortized capital security charges for “mandatory”

security enhancements, approved by the Court Security Office.

4. Cost-overruns on all Component B projects (for which there will be, at least initially, a

stock contingency of 10%. The percentage for the contingency may be revised over

time if empiric evidence supports a lower or higher rate.)

5. Double rent costs for cases of protracted delay, attributed by GSA to the Judiciary, in

the delivery of Component B projects.

6. A period of double rent for the occupancy term overlap between a lease expiration and

the commencement of a new lease in a new location, providing time for the physical

move between locations.
24 

Conversely, in addition to the budget amount set aside for the contingency reserve, there are two 

ways in which the reserve may grow:

1. As a consequence of schedule slippage, due to GSA or its contractors’ actions

or to force majeure, on the delivery of Component B projects.

2. When succeeding or replacement lease actions are less costly than GSA’s

projection in the RentEst.

2.5 Component C Circuit Council Discretionary Funds

2.5.1 Component C consists of the balance of the national rent budget, after accounting 

for Components A and B and the contingency reserve.

2.5.2 Component C funds constitute a discretionary account for use by circuit councils 

to address space needs that are not expected to be met by a major project or by the projectspecific funding associated with the accession of a new judgeship/senior/replacement judge 

(for which Component B funding is set aside). Component C funds are fenced funds, 

meaning that they are not available to be reprogrammed and spent on other than real estaterelated expenses (rent, tenant alterations or certain cyclical maintenance items).

2.5.3 Component C is envisioned to have four principal uses: 1.) to fund tenant 

improvements in alteration projects leading to space expansion, or to space reconfiguration 

which enables avoidance of space growth, 2.) to fund rent for expansion space ; 3) to defray 

additional tenant improvement costs stemming from Component B projects which exceed 

Circuit construction cost estimates or GSA benchmarks, for protracted double-rent periods 

when there is court-caused delay on a major project, or for courtroom and chambers projects 

as long as they would qualify for Component B funding, and 4.) to pay for the repair and 

replacement of tenant fixtures and equipment, including sub-meters.

2.5.4 Component C funds are divided on the basis of each circuit’s percentage share of 

the national total of all staffing needs run through the AnyCourt model, and adjusted for 

average cost of space by district. Mechanically, the process works as follows: every year (or 

every other year) using current on-board staffing, an AnyCourt model is run for each court 

location in the country. The total of all the AnyCourt models represents the amount of space 

that the Judiciary would need to construct in a (purely theoretical) “start-over” scenario. 

Next, each district’s AnyCourt square footage total is multiplied by the average cost of space 

in that district. The districts are summed by circuit, and then nationally. Each circuit’s pro 

rata share of the national AnyCourt total, translated into rent, determines what percentage 

share each circuit receives of Component C funds. The following chart illustrates what, in 

terms of percentage of the total of the AnyCourt rent (third column from the right) each 

circuit received in FY2008, as its Component C allocation in the pilot year.
25 

2.5.5. This constitutes an equitable way to distribute Component C for several reasons, but the 

chief argument is that, because the AnyCourt translates Design Guide standards into space area 

needs, it is the only normative means to measure relative space need between circuits.

Business Rule # 8. A circuit’s Component C annual rent allocation can be used for space 

expansion, provided that the annualized total cost of the circuit’s expansion space actions 

does not exceed: a) the funds available in Component C for the current year, as well as b) 

the sum of the circuit’s pro rata share of one half of one percent (.5%) of the total rent bill for 

the current year, plus the circuit’s projected share for the next year. The circuit’s pro rata 

share of one half of one percent is also known as its “roll-into-Component A-authority.” 

Business Rule #8 restated: A circuit’s ability to expand, using Component C funding, is 

limited to its current year roll-into-A-authority, plus next year’s roll-into-A-authority, plus, if 

applicable, any prior year unused roll-into-A authority, provided, too, that it has sufficient 

funds available in its current year Component C account to cover the full (annualized) cost of 

the expansion space.

2.5.6. The calculation of the annualized value of rent for the expansion space is necessary to 

ensure that circuits do not enter into long term space arrangements based only upon partial year 

rent effects. In other words, while expansion space brought into the Judiciary’s portfolio might 

only have a partial year rent impact in the first year of occupancy (if rent start occurs any time 

after October 1) nonetheless, the circuit must be able to demonstrate that it could fund a full 

year’s worth of rental costs for the expansion space out of its Component C allocation for that 

budget year.
26 

Business Rule #9. At the end of each fiscal year, additional space acquired with a circuit’s 

Component C allocation becomes part of the Component A base, up to each circuit’s share of the 

national total set-aside for Component C space growth. The national total set aside is pre-set as

1⁄2 of 1 percent of the total Judiciary rent bill. Each circuit’s share of this 1⁄2 of 1 percent is set as 

the same percentage that each circuit receives of Component C funds generally.

Business Rule #10. If a circuit does not, in a given fiscal year, use its full pro-rata share of the 

national Component C rent set-aside for space growth, it may carry forward the unspent balance 

for one year. The unspent balance from the prior year can be combined with the circuit’s pro 

rata share of the national rent set-aside for the current fiscal year, thus enabling the acquisition 

of, potentially, a larger block of expansion space. All space acquisitions, however, must accord 

with the AnyCourt model in terms of square footage requirements.
27 

Component C Spending Scenarios 

The following table of simplified scenarios depicts how the “roll-into-A,” and carry-over of 

“roll-into-A” authorities work, for a hypothetical case in which the circuit’s Component C 

allocation is $1 million; with $250,000 annual “roll-into-A” authority. 

Scenario Treatment

#1. Circuit acquires space with an 

annualized rent value of $150,000. 

End of Year (EOY): The $150,000 of rental 

costs is rolled into the A base; circuit 

carries forward $100,000 of unused rollinto-A authority into year 2. For Yr 2, 

circuit’s roll-into-A authority is $350,000 

($100,000 of carry-over, plus a new

$250,000.) 

#2. Circuit acquires space with an 

annualized rental value of $400,000. 

EOY 1: $250,000 of rental cost is rolled 

into A. Beginning Year 2, circuit’s 

Component C funding is debited by 

$150,000 (the rental cost of space acquired 

in the prior year that was in excess of its 

Year 1 roll-into-A authority.) 

#3. Circuit acquires no expansion space in 

the first year; instead, expends entire 

Component C budget on lump sum tenant 

alterations in space reconfiguration

projects.

EOY 1: Circuit carries forward into year 2 

the full $250,000 roll-into-A authority, 

even though Component C funds were 

exhausted in the prior year. 

#4. Year 1: Circuit acquires no expansion 

space; Year 2: circuit acquires space with 

an annualized rent value of $700,000. 

EOY 1: Circuit carries forward into year 2 

the full unused $250,000 roll-into-A 

authority; Year 2: circuit’s authority to 

expand [per Business Rule #8, this is

different from its accrued roll-into-A 

authority] is $750,000: the sum of Yr 1’s 

unused roll-into-A authority, plus Yr 2’s 

roll-into-A authority, plus—in accordance 

with Business Rule #8—the roll-into-A 

authority guaranteed for Yr 3. EOY Yr 2: 

$500,000 is rolled into A. Beginning Yr 3, 

circuit’s Component C funding is debited 

by $200,000 (the rental cost of space 

acquired in Yr 2 that was in excess of its 

then aggregate roll-into-A authority.) 
28 

Business Rule #11: Uses of Component C Funding 

Component C rent funds may be used for lump sum tenant alterations or for certain repair and 

replacement (cyclical maintenance) work under these five circumstances:

a.) to fund lump sum tenant improvement cost overruns on Component B projects, as 

well as to fund chambers and courtroom projects as long as they would qualify for 

Component B funding, 

b.) to fund lump sum tenant improvement costs above the GSA general allowance for 

the circuit’s own expansion projects, 

c.) to fund lump sum tenant improvements associated with a re-stacking or 

consolidation project which will result in an overall reduction in rent, for example, 

through release of space or avoidance of expansion space, within generally no more 

than a 5 year “pay-back” period,

d.) to fund lump sum repairs and replacements (cyclical maintenance) of tenant 

equipment and fixtures, exclusive of tenant finishes, 

or 

e.) to provide metering (sub-meters and related costs) for existing court 24/7 air 

conditioned spaces, such as server rooms and A/V closets, where practical. More 

than one meter may be required depending on how the spaces are wired. Also see 

page 11. The AO should be contacted to determine whether installing electrical 

meter(s) is viable before proceeding. Frequently, court IT equipment is wired from a 

single point, the UPS, but the associated air conditioning equipment for the space is 

not. Providing two meters may still cost less than the annual savings from using meter 

readings instead of a GSA estimate. Sub-metering can produce substantial savings in 

overtime utility estimates, especially for server rooms. Component C projects do not 

require AO or Committee approval; the contact with the AO would be to provide 

assistance and input into the development of the project, not approval. 

Items d) and e) are not to exceed in aggregate 50% of a circuit’s Component C 

allocation. 
29 

Example: If a clerk’s office picked up additional staffing due to workload increases, and the 

clerk’s current space is 2,000 square feet less than what the US Courts Design Guide 

indicates is warranted, and if, further, it were possible to reconfigure the clerk’s existing 

space in such a way as to avoid acquiring the additional 2,000 square feet, then the project to 

reconfigure the space would qualify for Component C funding if the cost of altering the 

existing space were less than the cost of renting 2,000 square feet of additional space for the 

next 5 years. It is important, when the cost comparison is conducted, to include the cost of 

alterations to the new/expansion space in addition to the fully-serviced shell rent. In many 

instances, the cost of the tenant work to the new space, in addition to the additional rent on 

the extra 2,000 square feet, will exceed the cost to reconfigure the existing space to make it 

more efficient.

2.5.7 Relative to Business Rule #11b, “expansion” is defined with respect to an individual 

court unit’s space assignment in a given location, rather than to the Judiciary’s entire 

assigned space at that location. Accordingly, it is possible for one court unit to expand into 

space already assigned to another court unit, without increasing the Judiciary’s overall space 

holdings. For purposes of this Business Rule, the amount of space assigned to any given 

court unit is established by the GSA Client Billing Record (CBR) for that court unit. Each 

court unit is assigned a unique Agency/Bureau (A/B) Code. If a circuit is increasing the total 

amount of space assigned under a particular A/B code, even though the overall amount of 

space assigned to the Judiciary does not increase, that project can nonetheless qualify for 

Component C funding under Business Rule #11b. In short, expansion is measured at the 

A/B Code level.

2.5.8 Relative to Business Rule #11c, a circuit can use Component C funds for an alteration 

project that would lead to more efficient utilization of existing space, resulting in the 

surrender of space to GSA, or avoidance of space growth for expanding needs (benchmarked 

to AnyCourt space standards). The consequent rent reduction or rent cost-avoidance should, 

within no more than five years, exceed the capital cost of the tenant alteration expenditure. 

2.5.9 A useful way to determine whether a project qualifies for Component C funding under 

the 5 year pay-back provision of rule #11c is to determine whether, but for the restacking 

project, the court unit would need to expand. This entails determining how much space the 

court unit is currently assigned, and how much space the court unit would be assigned, given 

current staffing, per the U.S. Courts Design Guide. If the amount of space currently assigned 

to the court unit is below the Design Guide space allocation, the difference in square footage 

identifies the potential space savings to be used in the comparison of costs between 

restacking and expansion. In other words, the annual rental value of the expansion space 

foregone is a direct savings of the reconfiguration project, and can be used when calculating 

whether the 5 year payback provision has been met.
30 

2.5.10 In federal budgeting parlance, rent payments to GSA are classified as object class 

2310. While it is possible to use funds appropriated for rent to pay instead for tenant 

improvements, the funds must nonetheless first be reprogrammed to a different object class. 

Budget object class, 2511, was established to denote funds used for rent management 

alterations—to be distinguished from object class 2515, which is used for other tenant 

alterations and space changes. All Component C funds that circuits wish to use for tenant 

alterations will need to be reprogrammed from object class 2310 to 2511. Component C 

funds that are used for lump sum repairs and replacements (cyclical maintenance) of tenant 

equipment and fixtures, exclusive of tenant finishes, need to be reprogrammed to object class 

2510. 

2.5.11 For purposes of converting rent funds into lump sum tenant alterations or lump 

sum repairs and replacement funds, Component C allotments can be rolled over once, from 

one fiscal year into the next fiscal year. Unspent Component C funds, if not obligated before 

the end of the second year, become lapsed funds and are no longer available to the circuit.

2.5.12 While discretion is lodged with circuit councils to choose how Component C 

funds are expended, circuits are encouraged to consider the following in making allocation 

decisions for Component C:

Does the space request address an important functional need? 

Has the court unit making the request demonstrated efficient use of existing space?

Does the district have under-utilized space available within the same city that can be 

restacked or relinquished? 

Will the request result in improved space efficiency, as in a higher utilization rate of 

square feet per person than the current space?

Have all district and court unit needs been surveyed, and are they represented in the 

decision process? 

2.5.13 With respect to Business Rule #11(d), the permissible use of Component C lump sum 

funds applies only to a.) tenant fixtures (e.g., specialty lights and switches that are not part of 

building shell, porcelain fixtures in non-public bathrooms, and sinks and faucets in galleys 

and kitchenettes) and b.) equipment (e.g., lift motors in judges secure elevators, and 

supplemental air-conditioning units that are not part of base building equipment.) It does not 

cover the repair or replacement of tenant finishes, such as paint, vinyl wall coverings, 

carpeting, and wood paneling. Cyclical maintenance formula allotments are provided to 

courts to address the periodic repair and replacement of these finishes. 
31 

2.6 Overall Funds Management of the three Rent Components

2.6.1 While Component C is the third and smallest of the funding increments, it is not the 

remainder or residual, after Components A and B have been accounted for in the annual rent 

budget assembly process. Funding for Component C is a planned, deliberate amount, and not 

determined only as the amount remaining after providing for the Component A base, and B 

Component projects. At a minimum, funding for Component C in aggregate needs to be one 

half of one percent of the rent bill. This minimum amount is necessary because even smallspace 

actions which circuits will undertake often do not deliver for one to two years from the point of 

project inception, and the circuits need to have some assurance that Component C funding levels 

for the out-years will be able to support the space projects they have in the pipeline. 

2.6.2 In terms of constructing the overall rent budget, the working group recommended, and 

the Space and Facilities Committee endorsed, a budgeting approach which accounts: first for the 

requirements of Component A, the existing space portfolio; second, for major space actions to 

which the Judicial Conference has committed and for Component B projects which the 

Committee had previously approved but for which rent has not yet commenced; third, for the 

setting aside of at least one half of one percent of the rent bill for Component C in aggregate, to 

be shared among the circuits; and fourth, for new Component B projects.

2.6.3 In order to manage the overall rent budget within the 4.9% national budget growth 

ceiling, the Rent Management Subcommittee of the full Space and Facilities Committee, will 

annually engage in an iterative optimization exercise, balancing the level of funding for 

discretionary B projects with the level of additional funding (above the minimum one half of one 

percent) for Component C. The expectation is that the Space and Facilities Committee, in order 

to conduce overall rent growth to no more than 4.9% per annum, on average, will carefully 

control the number and size of approved new courthouse projects.
32 

GLOSSARY

Allocation: in the federal budgeting context, the setting aside of funds for a particular 

organization’s use, without the actual transfer of funds to that organization. Contrast with 

“allotment.”

Allotment: in the federal budgeting context, the transfer of appropriated (?) funds to 

organizational units, which, in turn, are responsible for obligating payments and issuing orders to 

pay vendors from the allotted funds. Contrast with “allocation.” 

AnyCourt model: a computer program which calculates, on the basis of the US Courts Design 

Guide, space needs in terms of square footage for all court unit types, given the number of 

personnel to be housed. 

Build-to-suit lease (also Lease-construct): a lease contract in which the landlord agrees to 

construct a new building to house the functions of the tenant, in return for the tenant’s agreement 

to occupy the building under a long term lease agreement.

Building Modernization: an undertaking by the building owner to update or replace base 

building systems or components (e.g., upgrades to public lobbies, elevators or bathrooms; 

replacement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning system components; sprinkler 

installation, hazardous materials removal or abatement, seismic retrofitting, roof replacement, 

etc.)

Fixture: a device securely, and usually permanently, attached or appended, to a building, such 

as a light fixture or a kitchen or bathroom fixture. In law, moveable chattel that, by reason of 

annexation to real property and adaptation to continuing use in connection with the realty, is 

considered a part of the realty.

Inflation: in the context of CRB, changes (increases or decreases) in rental costs that occur 

during the budget year for a space inventory that is unchanged in terms of both square footage 

and levels of service. Inflation covers rate changes for shell rent, operating costs, basic security, 

parking, and joint use space charges. 

Nonresident Facility: a facility with a courtroom but without a full-time judge in residence.

Operating Costs: in terms of GSA rental charges, the charge for services associated with the 

operation of real property, including utility payments, operation and maintenance of building 

mechanical equipment including the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems 

and elevator equipment, cleaning and janitorial services, landscaping and snow removal. 

Prospectus: a Congressional authorization for a project, issued in the form of a committee 

resolution. By statute, in order to lease, construct, alter or repair a building in which the cost in 

any one year will exceed the prospectus threshold (in FY 2008, the threshold is $2.69 mil) 

[confirm] GSA must first secure authorizing resolutions from both the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
33 

Refurbishment: The renovation or redecoration of existing space, including the updating of 

finishes and fixtures (e.g., new painting and carpeting, new drapes or blinds, new light fixtures 

and switches, new appliances or floor tile in the pantry area.) Refurbishment does not entail the 

expansion of an office suite, or the re-partitioning of an office suite. Expansion and repartitioning are space alterations.

Tenant alterations: as used by the Judiciary, real property fixtures, finishes and building 

components used in post-initial occupancy changes to tenant spaces.

Tenant improvements: as used by the Judiciary, the real property fixtures, finishes and 

building components used to “fit-out” tenant spaces at the point of initial occupancy. Tenant 

improvements are additions to the building shell that customize the tenant’s usable area to the 

tenant’s specific needs. In rare instances, tenant improvements are made outside the tenant’s 

assigned space, as in the case of the addition of a sally port to a building. 

Rent Estimate (RentEst): a formal step in the annual federal appropriations process whereby 

GSA previews the total cost of space for all federal tenants in GSA-controlled space, including 

the Judiciary, approximately 16 months before the commencement of the budget year.

Replacement lease: a GSA procurement, typically conducted near the expiration of the term of a 

current lease, to provide for the continuing housing of that space requirement. 
This page left intentionally blank.

82
83

6.3 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities Checklists
This page left intentionally blank.

84
85

CHECKLIST 6.3.1: INITIATE LRFP ASSESSMENT

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

(SFD/LRFP/PMD TEAM)

• Coordinate with ACEs and FPMs to

review potential locations that may

require an LRFP update

• Coordinate dates for on-site planning

sessions with clerks of court, ACEs, and

FPMs

• Develop LRFP A/E IDIQ requirements 

package

• Convene TEP to determine preferred

contractors and submit LRFP A/E IDIQ

requirements package in an RFP to

contractors

• Evaluate and submit LRFP requirements

package to preferred contractor

• Award contract to selected contractor

• Annual list of district and/or circuit LRFP

locations to update

• Onsite planning session dates

• Statement of Work and IGCE

• RFP

• PMD contract award

CIRCUIT

• Coordinate with Long-Range Planning

Team staf and FPMs to provide input on

potential locations that may require an

LRFP update

• N/A

COURT

• Coordinate dates for on-site planning

sessions with LRFP program manager

• N/A

CONTRACTOR

• Develop and submit LRFP A/E IDIQ

proposals to PMD

• Response to RFP
CHECKLIST 6.3.2: DATA REQUESTED FROM STAKEHOLDERS BY LRFP PROGRAM MANAGER

STAKEHOLDERS DATA REQUESTED

AOUSC

(LRFP PROGRAM MANAGER)

• Caseload and personnel forecasts

• Court personnel, judges data, and court contacts list

• Building and rent data

• Previous LRFP and other previous plans, as available

GSA

For each building in the district or circuit (federal and leased):

• Site plans in AutoCAD DWG format (PDF fles if AutoCAD is not available)

• Housing plans

• Space Assignment reports or E-Smart reports titled “Building by Floor/Agency Summary”

for all court components, the USAO, USMS, UST, GSA, joint use space, vacant space, and

building common areas

• BAT reports (or physical condition survey reports)

• Historic structures reports or Historic Building Preservation Plans (HBPP)

• Facility studies (i.e., master plans, feasibility studies, programs of requirement, etc.)

• List of ongoing or planned projects

• List of planned building disposals

For leased buildings ONLY:

• Space assignment drawings/foor plans in AutoCAD DWG format (including all space and

AB codes assigned to the court, USAO, USMS, UST, GSA, joint use space, vacant space,

and building common areas) (PDF fles if AutoCAD is not available)

USMS

• Current and projected personnel and space data

USAO*

• Current and projected personnel and space data

UST*

• Current space and location data (obtained from UST website)

*The USAO and UST are stakeholders for the district LRFP process only; they are not participants in the circuit LRFP

process. USAO and/or UST tasks are only applicable to the district LRFP.

86
87

CHECKLIST 6.3.3: DEVELOP LRFP PLANNING HANDBOOK AND PLAN SITE VISIT 

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

(LRFP PROGRAM MANAGER)

• Obtain courthouse and leased ofce facility data from

GSA

• Obtain personnel and space data from USMS

headquarters

• Obtain personnel and space data from USAO

headquarters*

• Obtain personnel and space data from UST website*

• Identify planning team members by name

• Submit site visit schedule to clerk of court for approval

• Review and approve planning handbook

• Distribute printed copies of the planning handbook to

the FPM and physical security specialist, and send

PDF version to participants from GSA, USMS, and

USAO* headquarters

• Handbook caseload, space, personnel,

and facility data

• Site visit schedule

COURT

• Clerk of court coordinates site visit schedule with

court unit executives, local related agencies, and local

GSA personnel and provides input to LRFP program

manager

• Clerk of court receives and disseminates LRFP

planning handbooks to court planning team

• N/A

GSA

• Send courthouse and ofce building facility data to

AOUSC

• Courthouse and ofce building facility

data

RELATED AGENCIES 

(USAO*, USMS)

• Send personnel and space data to AOUSC • Personnel and space data

LRFP CONTRACTOR

• Develop LRFP planning handbook

• Print and distribute LRFP planning handbook to

AOUSC planning team and clerk of court

• LRFP planning handbook

• Physical assessment site visit schedule

*The USAO and UST are stakeholders for the district LRFP process only; they are not participants in the circuit LRFP

process. USAO and/or UST tasks are only applicable to the district LRFP.
88

CHECKLIST 6.3.4: COMPLETE DISTRICT LRFP ON-SITE PLANNING SESSIONS AND FBAS

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

• Coordinate, schedule, and conduct pre-site visit

video/teleconference (LRFP program manager)

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference,

on-site planning sessions, and quick tours of

courthouses (LRFP program manager, FPM, and

physical security specialist)

• Co-facilitate on-site planning sessions with LRFP

contractor (LRFP program manager)

• Pre-site visit video/teleconference

meeting invitation

COURT PLANNING TEAM

• Coordinate court and local court-related and

non-related agencies’ participation in pre-site visit

video/teleconference and site visit (clerk of the

district court)

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference

• Provide representative to accompany LRFP

program manager, FPM, and physical security

specialist during quick tours of the courthouses

(clerk of the district court)

• Provide a representative to tour architects through

court-occupied spaces for FBA assessment (clerk

of the district court)

• Participate in on-site planning sessions

• N/A

CIRCUIT

(ACE AND REPRESENTATIVES 

FROM SATELLITE CIRCUIT 

LIBRARY)

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference

• Participate in on-site planning sessions

• Provide representative to accompany LRFP

contractor architects through satellite circuit library

for FBA assessment

• N/A

COURT-RELATED AGENCIES 

(CDO [WHERE APPLICABLE], 

USMS, USAO)

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference

• Participate in on-site planning sessions

• Provide tours of USMS space and prisoner

movement in courthouses

• N/A

GSA

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference

• Participate in on-site planning sessions

• Coordinate with LRFP contractor architects for

their tour of the district’s courthouses

• N/A

LRFP CONTRACTOR

• Co-facilitate on-site needs assessment planning

sessions with LRFP program manager

• Travel throughout district to complete

comprehensive tours and evaluations of

prisoner movement, court-occupied space, and

GSA general building space in all courthouses

(architects)

• N/A
89

CHECKLIST 6.3.5: COMPLETE CIRCUIT LRFP ON-SITE PLANNING SESSIONS AND FBAS

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

• Coordinate, schedule, and conduct pre-site visit video/

teleconference (LRFP program manager)

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference, onsite planning sessions, and quick tours of courthouses

(LRFP program manager, FPM, and physical security

specialist)

• Co-facilitate on-site planning sessions with LRFP

contractor (LRFP program manager)

• Pre-site visit video/

teleconference meeting

invitation

COURT PLANNING TEAM

• Coordinate court and local court-related and nonrelated agencies’ participation in pre-site visit video/

teleconference and site visit

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference

• Provide representative to accompany LRFP program

manager, FPM, and physical security specialist during

quick tours of the courthouses (clerk of the court)

• Provide a representative to tour architects through

court-occupied spaces (clerk of the court)

• Participate in on-site planning sessions

• N/A

RELATED AGENCIES 

(USMS)

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference

• Participate in on-site planning sessions

• N/A

GSA

• Participate in pre-site visit video/teleconference

• Participate in on-site planning sessions

• Coordinate with LRFP contractor’s architects for tour of

the circuit’s courthouses

• N/A

CONTRACTOR

• Co-facilitate on-site needs assessment planning

sessions with LRFP program manager

• Travel to circuit headquarters to complete

comprehensive tours and evaluations of circuitoccupied space and GSA general building space in all

courthouses (architects only)

• N/A
90

CHECKLIST 6.3.6: DEVELOP DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT LRFP

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

(LRFP PROGRAM 

MANAGER)

• Review and provide comments on the frst draft LRFP and FBA to the LRFP contractor

• Review and submit frst draft LRFP to the ACE and court planning team for comment

• Review and send fnalized FBA to the clerk of court for comment

• Schedule housing strategy working session teleconference with the clerk of court and

court planning team

• Review and provide comments on the preliminary housing strategies and draft housing

strategy working session handout to the contractor

• Distribute housing strategy working session handout and schedule to clerk of court

and to ACE and FPM for review and discussion

• Send housing strategy working session handout to clerk of court

• Co-facilitate housing strategy working session teleconference with LRFP contractor

lead architect

• Review and provide comments on full draft LRFP to the contractor

• Review and submit full draft LRFP to the ACE and clerk of court for comment

• Send pre-fnal LRFP to clerk of court and request chief judge (district or circuit)

approval

• Direct LRFP contractor to coordinate printing of printed copies and electronic media

• Preliminary draft

LRFP

• Draft FBA

• Final FBA

• First draft LRFP

• Housing strategy

working session

handout

• Full draft LRFP

• Pre-fnal LRFP

• Final LRFP

CLERK OF COURT

(COURT 

PLANNING TEAM 

AS REQUIRED)

• Distribute frst draft to court planning team for review and comment

• Review and provide comments on frst draft LRFP to LRFP program manager

• Coordinate (with court planning team and LRFP program manager) and participate in

housing strategy working session teleconference, and provide feedback as needed

• Distribute full draft to court planning team for review and comment

• Review and provide comments on full draft LRFP to LRFP program manager

• Obtain and submit chief district judge or chief circuit judge (per respective LRFP)

approval letter to LRFP program manager

• First draft LRFP

comments

• Housing strategy

working session

feedback

• Full draft LRFP

comments

• Chief judge

approval letter

LRFP 

CONTRACTOR

• Prepare and submit preliminary draft LRFP and FBA to AOUSC

• Incorporate AOUSC comments on preliminary draft LRFP and FBA and return as frst

draft LRFP and fnal FBA to AOUSC

• Develop preliminary conceptual housing strategies

• Develop handout that summarizes housing strategies and submit to AOUSC

• Participate in call with ACE and FPM to review housing strategies, revise handout as

needed and submit to AOUSC

• Co-facilitate housing strategy working session teleconference with LRFP program

manager

• Revise housing strategies as needed and incorporate into full draft LRFP

• Develop and submit full draft LRFP to AOUSC

• Revise full draft LRFP based on AOUSC and court comments

• Revise and submit a pre-fnal LRFP to AOUSC

• Finalize LRFP

• Complete printing of LRFPs and electronic media

• Distribute printed copy of LRFPs and electronic media to AOUSC, ACE, regional and

central ofce GSA, and the clerk of court

• Preliminary draft

LRFP

• Draft FBA

• Final FBA

• First draft LRFP

• Preliminary housing

strategy for each

courthouse

• Housing strategy

working session

handout

• Full draft LRFP

• Pre-fnal LRFP

• Final LRFP

• Printed LRFPs and

electronic media
91

CHECKLIST 6.3.7: PRODUCE UE RESULTS LIST

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

• Update UE ratings and rankings annually

each winter

• Conduct internal review of draft UE results list

and revise as needed with UE contractor

• Schedule and conduct teleconference with

each ACE and FPM to review draft UE results

list for that circuit’s courthouses

• Integrate any feedback from ACEs and FPMs

• Review UE Results List with Long-Range

Planning Team staf, FSO, and OLA

• Finalize UE Results List

• Publish UE Results List in February;

distribute to JCUS’ Committee on Space

and Facilities, CEs, ACEs, FPMs, and other

stakeholders; upload to JNet

• Draft UE Results List

• Final UE Results List

CIRCUIT 

(ACES)

• Participate in teleconference with LongRange Planning Team staf to review draft UE

Results List; provide feedback on courthouse

information

• N/A

UE CONTRACTOR

• Produce draft UE Results List with AOUSC

• Revise and fnalize UE Results List with

AOUSC

• N/A
CHECKLIST 6.3.8: IDENTIFY POTENTIAL NEW COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

• Coordinate Committee and JCUS agenda items for consideration of

court/circuit request for a GSA Phase I feasibility study

• Notify GSA of JCUS action on Phase I feasibility study if it was

approved by the JCUS

• Develop draft Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt POR;

send to GSA for courtesy review

• Revise frst draft Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt POR,

as appropriate; send to district and circuit for initial review

• Revise Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt POR (if

necessary) based on court and circuit review

• Send fnal draft of Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt

POR to court for review and approval

• Send approved Courtroom Utilization Study matrix, AnyCourt POR, and

circuit judicial council letter of approval to GSA with a request to initiate

a GSA Phase I feasibility study

• Send letter to circuit requesting approval of a request for a GSA Phase I

feasibility study

• Committee and JCUS agenda item

• Notifcation to GSA of approval to

move forward on developing GSA

Phase I feasibility study

• Courtroom Utilization Study matrix

• AnyCourt POR

• Request to GSA for GSA Phase

I feasibility study including

transmittal of approved Courtroom

Utilization Study matrix and

AnyCourt POR

• Comments on GSA Phase I

feasibility study

COURT

• Review and approve Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt

POR

• Certify/recertify commitment to any necessary relocation of judges

and/or closure of facilities associated with the planned project, before

GSA Phase I feasibility project or an AnyCourt post project design is

developed for transmittal to GSA (chief judge)

• Send letter of approval to circuit and request approval from circuit

judicial council for a GSA Phase I feasibility study request

• Participate in development of the GSA Phase I feasibility study

• Upon completion of the GSA Phase I feasibility study, send letter

of approval to the circuit judicial council and a request to place the

location on the CPP list.

• Letter to FSO through circuit

requesting GSA Phase I feasibility

study

• Comments on Courtroom Utilization

Study matrix and AnyCourt POR

• Approval of Courtroom Utilization

Study matrix and AnyCourt POR;

request to circuit to approve both

documents

• Host project kick-of meeting and

provide comments on GSA Phase I

feasibility study

CIRCUIT 

(CIRCUIT 

JUDICIAL 

COUNCIL)

• Approve court’s request and send letter to FSO requesting a GSA

Phase I feasibility study

• Review and approve Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and AnyCourt,

send letter of approval to FSO

• Participate in development of the GSA Phase I feasibility study

• Certify/recertify commitment to any necessary relocation of judges

and/or closure of facilities associated with the planned project, before

GSA Phase I feasibility project or an AnyCourt post project design is

developed for transmittal to GSA

• Send request for project location to be included on CPP if GSA Phase

I feasibility study validates the potential need for new courthouse or

annex/addition

• Approval and request for GSA

Phase I feasibility study

• Comments on Courtroom Utilization

Study matrix and AnyCourt POR

• Comments on GSA Phase I

feasibility study

• Approval and request for inclusion

on CPP list

(continued on next page)

92
93

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

GSA

• Review and comment on draft Courtroom Utilization Study matrix and

AnyCourt POR

• Initiate, manage, and develop GSA Phase I feasibility study in

coordination with court, circuit, AOUSC, and court-related agencies

• GSA Phase I feasibility study

JCUS

(COMMITTEE)

• Reviews request for GSA Phase I feasibility study and sends its

recommendation to the JCUS for approval (Committee)

• Approves or not approves recommended GSA Phase I feasibility study

(JCUS)

• N\A

(continued from previous page)
CHECKLIST 6.3.9: THE JUDICIARY’S CPP LIST

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

• Review and update CPP list annually

• Coordinate Committee and JCUS agenda

items

• Send CPP list to GSA, OMB, and Congress

• Committee and JCUS agenda items

• CPP list

JCUS

• Review the GSA Phase I feasibility study

and recommend to Committee for location

to be added to Part II of the CPP list

(Subcommittee)

• Review and approve Subcommittee’s

recommendation at June session; send

to JCUS for fnal review and approval

(Committee)

• Review and approve recommendations to add

project locations to the CPP list at September

session (JCUS)

• N/A

94
95

CHECKLIST 6.3.10: GSA PHASE II FEASIBILITY STUDY

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

• Coordinate with Committee and GSA to

determine appropriate time to conduct a GSA

Phase II feasibility study

• Alert court (chief judge) if recertifcation of

commitment to any necessary relocation of

judges and/or closure of facilities associated

with the planned project is required

• Review and update Courtroom Utilization

Study matrix and AnyCourt POR

• Send updated AnyCourt POR and formal

request to GSA to initiate GSA Phase II

feasibility study

• Provide review comments on GSA Phase II

feasibility study deliverable

• Subcommittee and Committee agenda

items and recommendations

• Updated Courtroom Utilization Study

matrix and AnyCourt POR

• Request to GSA for GSA Phase II

feasibility study

GSA

• Coordinate with AOUSC to determine

appropriate time to conduct a GSA Phase II

feasibility study

• Provide input on updated AnyCourt POR as

requested by AOUSC

• Direct A/E contractor to develop GSA Phase II

feasibility study

• N/A

GSA A/E CONTRACTOR

• Conduct and complete GSA Phase II

feasibility study under the direction of GSA

and in coordination with the court and AOUSC

• GSA Phase II feasibility study

COMMITTEE

• Coordinate with AOUSC to determine and

approve an appropriate time to conduct a

GSA Phase II feasibility study

• N/A
CHECKLIST 6.3.11: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, FUNDING, AND EXECUTION

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

(FPM)

• Work with GSA project manager throughout

the life cycle of project as needed by the

court

• N/A

COURT

• Work with GSA project manager throughout

the life cycle of project

• N/A

CIRCUIT

(ACE)

• Work with GSA project manager throughout

the life cycle of project as needed by the

court

• N/A

RELATED AGENCIES (USMS)

• Work with the court and GSA project

manager throughout the life cycle of project

to ensure the security of the federal Judiciary

• N/A

GSA

• Assign project to a project manager in the

GSA region

• Assemble project team and obtain

contractors for professional services (project

manager)

• Direct project through its life cycle from

development through execution and closeout

(project manager)

• Environmental Impact Assessment

• PDS

• Project Management Plan

• Scope of Work

• Notice to Proceed

A/E CONTRACTOR

• Design, engineer, plan, and construct project

• Prepare for occupancy

• Concept designs

• Construction documents

• Project schedule

96
97

CHECKLIST 6.3.12: PROJECT FUNDING

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

• Send copy of Judiciary CPP to GSA

• Provide responses to Congressional & OMB

stakeholder questions as needed

• Letter to GSA

GSA

• Propose new construction, acquisition, and

prospectus-level R&A projects (PBS regions)

• Review PBS’s budget request and include in

overall GSA budget submission to OMB in

the fall each year

• Appeal OMB recommendations as needed

• Finalize budget request in January and

submit to Congress on frst Monday in

February

• Submit a prospectus for each project

or lease to congressional authorizing

committees

• Initiate apportionment process by submitting

apportionment plan to OMB

• Submit spend plan to OMB

• Allot funds to PBS

• Sub-allot funds to appropriate regions for

expenditure (PBS)

• GSA budget request

• Prospectuses

• Apportionment plan

• Spend plan

OMB

• Examine budget request and pass back

recommendations

• Finalize budget request in January and

submit to Congress on frst Monday in

February

• Approve or modify and approve

apportionment plan and send back to GSA

• Approve spend plans

• N/A

CONGRESS

• Review and approve GSA prospectuses

for leases, R&A projects, and new

construction and acquisition projects (House

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

and Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee)

• Approve or not approve all the projects

requested by the GSA (appropriations

subcommittee)

• N/A
CHECKLIST 6.3.13: DEVELOP CAPP

STAKEHOLDERS TASK DELIVERABLES

AOUSC

• Schedule and coordinate development of

pre-CAPP meeting planning documents with

GSA and USMS

• Conduct CAPP meeting in partnership with

GSA

• Participate in CAPP meeting (SFD)

• N/A

COURT

• Review and update space data collected

from LRFP prior to meeting

• Participate in CAPP meeting

• N/A

CIRCUIT

• Host CAPP meeting

• Participate in CAPP meeting (committee

chair, circuit executive, and ACE)

• N/A

RELATED AGENCIES 

(USMS)

• Participate in CAPP meeting (national and

local staf)

• N/A

GSA

• Assist SFD in development of pre-CAPP

meeting planning documents

• Conduct CAPP meeting in partnership with

SFD

• Participate in CAPP meeting (national and

regional client executives)

• Develop CAPP

• CAPP

98
99

6.4 AMP A1: Current FBAs Page Examples

The current version of the FBA fle can be located on JNet.
This page left intentionally blank.

100
AMP A1: Current Facility Benefit Assessments (FBAs) ________ District of ________

General 

Building 

(15%)

Judiciary 

Space (15%)

Bankruptcy Courthouses (owned and leased facilities)

Non-Resident (Visiting) Courthouses

Notes:

For the AMP Process, a courthouse is a court-occupied facility that houses one or more courtrooms, whether or not there are resident judges.

Bold - indicates district headquarters 

AMP Site Visit Date: Month Year AMP Long-Range Facilities Plan Date: Month Year

Benefit Factors

Determining the performance rating for each benefit factor

 A - each district judge has a courtroom; 

 B - almost all (75% or more) judges have a dedicated courtroom;

 C - most (50%-74%) judges have a dedicated courtroom;

 D - some (25%-49%) judges have a dedicated courtroom;

 E - few (less than 25%) judges have a dedicated courtroom; and 

 F - no judges have a dedicated courtroom.

 B - almost all (75% or more) judges have a dedicated courtroom.

Bankruptcy Courthouses do not house any district court space. 

Non-Resident (Visiting) Courthouses have no full-time resident circuit, senior circuit, district, senior district, magistrate, or bankruptcy judges.

Space 

Functionality 

(30%)

Security 

(25%)

Space 

Standards 

(15%)

District

City

GSA 

Building 

Number

Facility (Courthouse) Name Year Built/ 

Renovated

City-wide 

Benefit 

Assessm

ent

Facility 

Benefit 

Assessm

ent

Facility Benefit Assessment: Main Criteria 

Building Condition (30%)

Facility benefit assessments (FBAs) are conducted on all courthouses located in a district to determine how well the existing facilities support the needs and operations of the 

court. The facility assessment is comprised of a standardized set of weighted criteria referred to as the FBA checklist that is used by the Administrative Office’s (AO) 

architects during a walk-through of each courthouse. The architects are accompanied by court staff, USMS personnel, and GSA representatives. The benefits and 

deficiencies of court-occupied spaces are thus objectively identified and consistently documented for each courthouse across the judiciary.

The higher the resulting facility benefit assessment number, the better the facility meets the operational needs of the court, with 100 representing an ideal building. The 

benefit factors cover all court components and include the main criteria of space functionality, space standards, security, and building condition. The results for each 

courthouse, and for each city with more than one courthouse, in this district are summarized in the table below.

A facility benefit assessment is conducted on each court-occupied facility with one or more courtrooms, resulting in a building facility benefit assessment.

The facility benefit assessment covers the four main categories of space functionality, space standards, security, and building condition: 

Building Condition (30%) – the condition of general building (15%) and judiciary tenant space (15%) of the facility, including the condition of the building systems 

(e.g., plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, etc.), common areas, lobbies, elevators and stairways, and exterior spaces on the site (e.g., plaza, walkways, parking, etc.);

Space Functionality (30%) – the extent to which the space supports the number and operations of judges and staff, and functions properly in terms of adjacencies, 

layout, accessibility, and circulation;

Security (25%) – the security features in the facility, such as secure and restricted circulation patterns, prisoner holding areas, sallyports, and break-resistant glazing; 

and

Space Standards (15%) – the conformance of space with the U.S. Courts Design Guide and other applicable standards for size and proportion.

Within each category, individual benefit factors assess the space of each court component that might occupy space in a courthouse. Some benefit factors are duplicated 

across court components. The facility benefit factors and category weights were endorsed by the Space & Facilities Committee in December 2007.

If that same courthouse had eleven district judges and eight district judge courtrooms, the performance rating for this factor is: 

 C - most (50%-74%) judges have a dedicated courtroom.

Each benefit factor has a set of defined performance ratings used to tell how well the facility meets the operational needs of the court. These ratings are from Level A through 

Level F, although not every level is used in each benefit factor. The letter of the rating level for each benefit factor is entered in the column labeled “Rating” and any clarifying 

comments are included in the “Comments” column. If the benefit factor is not applicable (e.g., that court component is not housed in the courthouse), an "X" is entered in the 

rating column.

Example: benefit factor 1 on the “number of courtrooms present accommodates all district judges per Judicial Conference Policy” has the performance rating levels of: 

In a courthouse with nine district judges and eight district judge courtrooms, the performance rating for this factor is: 

5/23/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 1
City-wide Benefit Assessments ________ District of ________

The city-wide facility benefit assessment is also used in the annual urgency evaluation.

District City 

GSA 

Building 

Number

Facility (Courthouse) Name Year Built/ 

Renovated

Facility Benefit 

Assessment (FBA)

Ownership 

Weight Subtotal Fragmentation Factor

City-Wide 

Benefit 

Assessment

Type:

0.0 0% 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

District City 

GSA 

Building 

Number

Facility (Courthouse) Name Year Built/ 

Renovated

Facility Benefit 

Assessment (FBA)

Ownership 

Weight Subtotal Fragmentation Factor

City-Wide 

Benefit 

Assessment

Type:

0% 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

District City 

GSA 

Building 

Number

Facility (Courthouse) Name Year Built/ 

Renovated

Facility Benefit 

Assessment (FBA)

Ownership 

Weight Subtotal Fragmentation Factor

City-Wide 

Benefit 

Assessment

Type:

0% 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

Each individual facility benefit assessment is multiplied by the relevant ownership weight for that facility. 

The results for each facility within a city are then added together and the subtotal multiplied by the fragmentation factor.

In cities where courtrooms and chambers are located in multiple facilities, a city-wide benefit assessment is also produced. This incorporates the individual facility 

benefit assessments for each facility, the type and mix of facility ownership (i.e. federally-owned, leased, or postal), and fragmentation of the court operations on a 

city-wide basis. Fragmentation assesses the degree to which court operations are split across multiple facilities within a city, except by court policy. 

In cities with a single courthouse, the facility benefit assessment is the same for the individual facility and the city-wide assessment. 

As with the individual facility benefit assessments, the assessment results range from 1-100, and a higher number indicates a better facility.

5/23/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 2
City-wide Benefit Assessments: Facility Ownership ________ District of ________

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Main court facility 100

Main court facility + 1 federally owned 66.7 33.3

Main court facility + 1 leased/Postal 75 25

Main court facility + 2 federally owned 50 25 25

Main court facility + 1 federally owned + 1 leased/Postal 50 29.7 20.3

Main court facility + 2 leased/Postal 60 20 20

Main court facility + 3 federally owned 40 20 20 20

Main court facility + 2 federally owned + 1 leased/Postal 42.4 22.7 22.7 12.2

Main court facility + 1 federally owned + 2 leased/Postal 45.5 26.3 14.1 14.1

Main court facility + 3 leased/Postal 50 16.7 16.7 16.7

Main court facility + 4 federally owned 33.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7

Main court facility + 3 federally owned + 1 leased/Postal 34.9 18.4 18.4 18.4 9.8

Main court facility + 2 federally owned + 2 leased/Postal 36.9 20.6 20.6 10.9 10.9

Main court facility + 1 federally owned + 3 leased/Postal 39.5 23.4 12.4 12.4 12.4

Main court facility + 4 leased/Postal 42.9 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3

  

Type DST City

GSA 

Building 

Number

Facility (Courthouse) Name Year Built/

Renovated

5B

5C

5D

5E

5A

1A

2A

2B

4C

4D

3A

3B

3C

4A

4B

Facility Ownership Combinations

The ownership weight for each facility is determined by the ownership type (i.e., federally-owned, leased, and postal) and number of facilities in each city. The 

weight contributed by each facility’s individual facility benefit assessment to the city-wide benefit assessment depends on the number of courtrooms and chambers 

housed within that facility, and whether the facility is leased or federally-owned. For example:

Federally-Owned Facilities Leased/Postal Facilities

Main 

Court 

Facility

Type

- The facility that houses the most district judge courtrooms is regarded as the main court facility in a city, and receives a higher weight than other court

facilities in the city.

- A federally owned court facility receives a higher weight than a leased/postal facility.

- A facility that houses multiple courtrooms receives the same weight as a facility that houses one courtroom, if their ownership is comparable (i.e., both are

federally-owned or both are leased/postal facilities) and neither is the main court facility.

5/23/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 3
City-wide Benefit Assessments: Fragmentation ________ District of ________

City City 

GSA Bldg Facility Names GSA Bldg Facility Names

A B C D Rating Comments Rating Comments

Courtrooms 

and 

Chambers 

(0.350)

All courtrooms and 

chambers are in the 

main court facility, or the 

court is split by policy 

(1.00)

At least one, and up to 

10%, of the courtrooms 

and chambers are 

located outside the main 

court facility (0.934)

At least 10% but less 

than 25% of the 

courtrooms and 

chambers are located 

outside the main court 

facility (0.867)

At least 25% of the 

courtrooms and 

chambers are located 

outside the main court 

facility (0.80)

Prisoner 

Movement 

(0.233)

All courtrooms and grand 

jury suites in which 

prisoner proceedings are 

held are located in the 

main court facility, or are 

split by court and USMS 

policy (1.00)

At least one, and up to 

10%, of the courtrooms 

in which prisoner 

proceedings are held are 

located outside the main 

court facility (0.90)

At least 10% but less 

than 25% of the 

courtrooms in which 

prisoner proceedings are 

held are located outside 

the main court facility 

(0.80)

At least 25% of the 

courtrooms in which 

prisoner proceedings are 

held are located outside 

the main court facility 

(0.70)

All operations are 

located in the main court 

facility or split by court 

policy (1.00)

All operations are 

located outside the main 

court facility, but colocated and within 3 

blocks of main court 

facility (0.95)

All operations are 

located outside the main 

court facility, but colocated and more than 3 

blocks away from main 

court facility (0.90)

Operations are split 

between two or more 

facilities (0.85)

All operations are 

located in the main court 

facility or split by court 

policy (1.00)

All operations are 

located outside the main 

court facility, but colocated and within 3 

blocks of main court 

facility (0.95)

All operations are 

located outside the main 

court facility, but colocated and more than 3 

blocks away from main 

court facility (0.90)

Operations are split 

between two or more 

facilities (0.85)

Fragmentation is the degree to which court operations, and supporting operations such as prisoner movement, are split across more than one facility within a city (unless by court policy). If there is 

no fragmentation of these operations within a city, then the individual facility benefit assessment and the city-wide facility benefit assessment are the same.

** Courts with combined district/bankruptcy court clerk’s offices are assessed using the same set of performance ratings.

District 

Court 

(0.583)

Bankruptcy Court 

(0.193)**

Court of Appeals 

(0.223)

The multiplier is calculated based upon a set of weights and performance measures derived from the overall AMP weights used for current facility benefit assessments.

The fragmentation multiplier is a value between 0 and 1. The closer the multiplier is to 0, the greater the degree of fragmentation. The more buildings across which courtrooms and chambers are 

split (except by policy), the smaller the multiplier and the lower the city-wide benefit assessment. No fragmentation in a city (e.g., all courtrooms and chambers are located in a single facility), results 

in a multiplier equal to 1 and the city-wide benefit assessment equals the individual facility benefit assessment. 

Court Component 

(weight)

Performance Measure (value)*

* A corresponding value for each performance rating is shown in parentheses. The corresponding value is multiplied by the court component weight to determine the number of points counted toward the fragmentation

multiplier. For example, a Bankruptcy Court for which all operations are located in the main court facility receives a performance rating of A. In this case, the corresponding value of 1.00 is multiplied by the weight of 0.193,

thus 0.193 points are counted toward the fragmentation multiplier.

5/23/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 4
AMP Process

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A Level B 

Performance Performance 

Rating Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D Level E 

Performance Performance 

Rating Rating

Level F 

Performance Rating

Rating

Comments

82 1 Space Functionality District Court District Judge 

Courtrooms

The required number of courtrooms are present to accommodate all district 

judges per Judicial Conference policy

Almost all (75% or 

Each district judge more) judges have 

has a courtroom a dedicated 

courtroom

Most (50%-74%) 

judges have a 

dedicated 

courtroom

Some (25%-49%) Few (less than 25%) 

judges have a judges have a 

dedicated dedicated 

courtroom courtroom

No judges have a 

dedicated 

courtroom

83 2 Space Functionality District Court Senior District 

Judge Courtrooms

The required number of courtrooms is present to accommodate all senior 

district judges per Judicial Conference policy

The number of 

courtrooms meets 

the Judicial 

Conference policy

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the 

courtrooms are 

present.

Most (50%-74%) of 

the courtrooms are 

present.

Some (25%-49%) of 

the courtrooms are 

present.

Few (less than 25%) 

of the courtrooms 

are present.

There are no 

courtrooms present.

The multi-party 

168 3 Space Standards District Court District Judge 

Courtrooms

The multi-party courtroom meets U.S. Courts Design Guide standards for 

size and configuration

The multi-party 

courtroom meets 

USCDG standards

courtroom does not 

meet USCDG 

standards, but is 

The multi-party 

courtroom is not 

adequate

adequate

84 4 Space Functionality District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

District and senior district judge courtrooms are appropriately located relative 

to judges’ chambers, holding cells, public access, and jury deliberation 

facilities

All courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are appropriately 

located

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

No courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

169 5 Space Standards District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

Courtrooms for district judges and senior district judges are sized to meet 

U.S. Courts Design Guide standards with proper proportions, height, and 

acoustics

All courtrooms meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

85 6 Space Functionality District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

The layout of the district and senior district judge courtrooms (e.g., sight lines, 

well area, spectator seating, and circulation) accommodates the required 

number of court personnel, attorneys, litigants, jurors, and spectators

All courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

have appropriate 

layouts

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

No courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Courtrooms for district and senior district judges provide separation of access 

261 7 Security District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

with four entrances: one for judges; one for court personnel and jury 

members; one for prisoners and USMS personnel; and one for the public 

(spectators, news media, attorneys, litigants, and witnesses.) Entrances for 

the various groups should be located as close as possible to their stations in 

All courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

No courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

the courtroom.

District and Senior 

170 8 Space Standards District Court District Judge Judges' conference room is provided and meets standards Yes No 

Courtrooms

171 9 Space Standards District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

A robing room is provided where required. All robing rooms are 

provided

Most (50% or more) 

robing rooms are 

provided

Some (less than 

50%) robing rooms 

are provided

No robing rooms 

are provided

263 10 Security District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

An adequate number of prisoner holding cells are provided for each district 

courtroom according to USMS standards

All courtrooms have 

an adequate 

number of holding 

cells 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

have an adequate 

number of holding 

cells

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms have an 

adequate number of 

holding cells

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms have an 

adequate number of 

holding cells

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms have an 

adequate number of 

holding cells

No courtrooms have 

an adequate 

number of holding 

cells

1 11 Building Condition District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

Courtrooms for district and senior district judges are in good repair (e.g., no 

water damage, water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All courtrooms are 

in good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are in good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

No courtrooms are 

in good repair

172 12 Space Standards District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

Two attorney/witness rooms are provided for each district courtroom to meet 

U.S. Courts Design Guide standards

All courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are provided with 

two A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

No courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

2 13 Building Condition District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are serviced 

adequately by 

building systems

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

262 14 Security District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

If exterior windows exist in district judge and senior district judge courtrooms, 

they are ballistic-resistant

All courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

No courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

173 15 Space Standards District Court

District and Senior 

District Judge 

Courtrooms

District judge and senior district judge courtrooms meet public accessibility 

requirements at the litigant/counsel tables, lectern, witness stand, jury box, 

and spectator seating. 

All courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

86 16 Space Functionality District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

The required number of courtrooms is present to accommodate all magistrate 

judges per Judicial Conference policy

The number of 

courtrooms meets 

the Judicial 

Conference policy

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the 

courtrooms are 

present.

Most (50%-74%) of 

the courtrooms are 

present.

Some (25%-49%) of 

the courtrooms are 

present.

Few (less than 25%) 

of the courtrooms 

are present.

There are no 

courtrooms present.

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 1
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

87 17 Space Functionality District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

Magistrate judge courtrooms are appropriately located relative to judges’ 

chambers, holding cells, public access, and jury deliberation facilities

All courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are appropriately 

located

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

No courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

174 18 Space Standards District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

Magistrate judge courtrooms are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards with proper proportions, height, and acoustics

All courtrooms meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

88 19 Space Functionality District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

The layout of the magistrate judge courtrooms (e.g., sight lines, well area, 

spectator seating, and circulation) accommodates the required number of 

court personnel, attorneys, litigants, jurors, and spectators

All courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

have appropriate 

layouts

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

No courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

264 20 Security District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

Courtrooms for magistrate judges provide separation of access with four 

entrances: one for judges; one for court personnel and jury members; one 

for prisoners and USMS personnel; and one for the public (spectators, news 

media, attorneys, litigants, and witnesses.) Entrances for the various groups 

should be located as close as possible to their stations in the courtroom.

All courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

No courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

266 21 Security District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

An adequate number of prisoner holding cells are provided for each 

magistrate judge courtroom according to USMS standards

All courtrooms have 

an adequate 

number of holding 

cells 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

have an adequate 

number of holding 

cells

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms have an 

adequate number of 

holding cells

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms have an 

adequate number of 

holding cells

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms have an 

adequate number of 

holding cells

No courtrooms have 

an adequate 

number of holding 

cells

175 22 Space Standards District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

Two attorney/witness rooms are provided for each magistrate judge 

courtroom to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards

All courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are provided with 

two A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

No courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

3 23 Building Condition District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

Courtrooms for magistrate judges are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, 

water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All courtrooms are 

in good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are in good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

No courtrooms are 

in good repair

4 24 Building Condition District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are serviced 

adequately by 

building systems

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

265 25 Security District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

If exterior windows exist in magistrate judge courtrooms, they are ballisticresistant

All courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

No courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

176 26 Space Standards District Court Magistrate Judge 

Courtrooms

Magistrate judge courtrooms meet public accessibility requirements at the 

litigant/counsel tables, lectern, witness stand, jury box, and spectator seating. 

All courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

89 27 Space Functionality District Court District Judges 

Chambers

The required number of judges' chambers are provided in the court facility to 

accommodate each judge

Each judge has a 

chambers suite

Almost all (75% or 

more) judges have 

a dedicated 

chambers suite

Most (50-75%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Some (25-50%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Few (less than 25%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

No judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

267 28 Security District Court District Judges' 

Chambers Chambers are accessed from restricted circulation All chambers have 

restricted access 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

have restricted 

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

No chambers have 

restricted access 

access 

177 29 Space Standards District Court District Judges' 

Chambers

District judges' chambers meet or are within 10% of U.S. Courts Design 

Guide standards (e.g., size and acoustics)

All chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

90 30 Space Functionality District Court District Judges' 

Chambers

Layout is contiguous and accommodates the judge, law clerks, reception 

area (e.g., internal circulation patterns and adjacencies)

All chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

have appropriate 

layouts

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

No chambers have 

appropriate layouts

5 31 Building Condition District Court District Judges' 

Chambers

Chambers for district judges are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water 

leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All chambers are in 

good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers are 

in good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

No chambers are in 

good repair

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 2
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

6 32 Building Condition District Court District Judges' 

Chambers

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

178 33 Space Standards District Court District Judges' 

Chambers District judges' chambers meet accessibility requirements 

All chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

268 34 Security District Court District Judges' 

Chambers

If exterior windows exist in district judges' chambers, they are ballisticresistant

All chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

No chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

91 35 Space Functionality District Court Senior District 

Judges' Chambers

The required number of judges' chambers are provided in the court facility to 

accommodate each judge

Each judge has a 

chambers suite

Almost all (75% or 

more) judges have 

a dedicated 

chambers suite

Most (50-74%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Some (25-49%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Few (less than 25%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

No judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

269 36 Security District Court Senior District 

Judges' Chambers Chambers are accessed from restricted circulation All chambers have 

restricted access 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

have restricted 

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

No chambers have 

restricted access 

access 

179 37 Space Standards District Court Senior District 

Judges' Chambers

Senior district judges' chambers meet or are within 10% of U.S. Courts 

Design Guide standards (e.g., size and acoustics)

All chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

92 38 Space Functionality District Court Senior District 

Judges' Chambers

Layout is contiguous and accommodates the judge, law clerks, reception 

area (e.g., internal circulation patterns and adjacencies)

All chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

have appropriate 

layouts

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

No chambers have 

appropriate layouts

7 39 Building Condition District Court Senior District 

Judges' Chambers

Chambers for senior district judges are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, 

water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All chambers are in 

good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers are 

in good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

No chambers are in 

good repair

8 40 Building Condition District Court Senior District 

Judges' Chambers

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

180 41 Space Standards District Court Senior District 

Judges' Chambers Senior district judges' chambers meet accessibility requirements 

All chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

270 42 Security District Court Senior District 

Judges' Chambers

If exterior windows exist in senior district judges' chambers, they are ballisticresistant

All chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

No chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

93 43 Space Functionality District Court Magistrate Judges' 

Chambers

The required number of judges' chambers are provided in the court facility to 

accommodate each judge

Each judge has a 

chambers suite

Almost all (75% or 

more) judges have 

a dedicated 

chambers suite

Most (50-74%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Some (25-49%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Few (less than 25%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

No judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

271 44 Security District Court Magistrate Judges' 

Chambers Chambers are accessed from restricted circulation All chambers have 

restricted access 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

have restricted 

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

No chambers have 

restricted access 

access 

181 45 Space Standards District Court Magistrate Judges' 

Chambers

Magistrate judges' chambers meet or are within 10% of U.S. Courts Design 

Guide standards (e.g., size and acoustics)

All chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

94 46 Space Functionality District Court Magistrate Judges' 

Chambers

Layout is contiguous and accommodates the judge, law clerks, reception 

area (e.g., internal circulation patterns and adjacencies)

All chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

have appropriate 

layouts

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

No chambers have 

appropriate layouts

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 3
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

9

10

47

48

Building 

Building 

Condition

Condition

District 

District 

Court

Court

Magistrate Judges' 

Chambers

Magistrate Judges' 

Chambers

Chambers for magistrate judges are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, 

water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All chambers are in 

good repair 

All chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers are 

in good repair

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No chambers are in 

good repair

No chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

182 49 Space Standards District Court Magistrate Judges' 

Chambers Magistrate judges' chambers meet accessibility requirements 

All chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

272 50 Security District Court Magistrate Judges' 

Chambers

If exterior windows exist 

resistant

in magistrate judges' chambers, they are ballisticAll chambers with exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

No chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

95 51 Space Functionality District Court Visiting District 

Judges' Chambers

The number of visiting judges' chambers provided in the 

accommodates each visiting district judge

court facility Each judge has a 

chambers suite

Some visiting 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

No visiting judges 

have a dedicated 

chambers suite

273 52 Security District Court Visiting District 

Judges' Chambers Chambers are accessed from restricted circulation All chambers have 

restricted access 

Some chambers 

have restricted 

access 

No chambers have 

restricted access 

183 53 Space Standards District Court Visiting District 

Judges' Chambers

Visiting district judges' chambers meet or are within 10% 

Design Guide standards (e.g., size and acoustics)

of U.S. Courts All chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some chambers 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

No chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

96 54 Space Functionality District Court Visiting District 

Judges' Chambers

Layout is contiguous and accommodates the judge, law clerks, reception 

area (e.g., internal circulation patterns and adjacencies)

All chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Some chambers 

have appropriate 

layouts

No chambers have 

appropriate layouts

11 55 Building Condition District Court Visiting District 

Judges' Chambers

Chambers for visiting district judges are in good repair (e.g., no water 

damage, water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All chambers are in 

good repair 

Some chambers are 

in good repair

No chambers are in 

good repair

12 56 Building Condition District Court Visiting District 

Judges' Chambers

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Some chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

184 57 Space Standards District Court Visiting District 

Judges' Chambers Visiting district judges' chambers meet accessibility requirements 

All chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some chambers 

meet accessibility 

requirements

No chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

274 58 Security District Court Visiting District 

Judges' Chambers

If exterior windows exist in visiting district judges' chambers, they are ballisticresistant

All chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some chambers 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

No chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

97

185

13

59

60

61

Space Functionality

Space Standards

Building Condition

District 

District 

District 

Court

Court

Court

Jury Assembly 

Jury Assembly 

Jury Assembly 

Area

Area

Area

The jury assembly area is located convenient to public access for prospective 

jurors

The jury assembly area is sized and configured to meet U.S. Courts Design 

Guide standards, including a lounge, service unit, orientation room, toilets, 

and acoustics

The jury assembly area is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, 

mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No 

No

14

186

98

62

63

64

Building Condition

Space Standards

Space Functionality

District 

District 

District 

Court

Court

Court

Jury Assembly 

Jury Assembly 

Trial Jury Suites

Area

Area

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

Jury assembly area meets accessibility requirements 

Trial jury suites are located adjacent to their related courtrooms or are 

proximate and accessible by restricted circulation 

Jury assembly area 

is serviced 

adequately by 

building systems 

Yes

All jury suites are 

appropriately 

located

Almost all (75% or 

more) jury suites 

are appropriately 

located

Most (50%-74%) 

jury suites are 

appropriately 

located

Some (25%-49%) 

jury suites are 

appropriately 

located

Few (less than 25%) 

jury suites are 

appropriately 

located

Jury assembly area 

is not serviced 

adequately by 

building systems 

No

No jury suites are 

appropriately 

located

187

15

65

66

Space Standards

Building Condition

District 

District 

Court

Court

Trial 

Trial 

Jury Suites

Jury Suites

Trial jury suites are 

standards

Trial jury suites are 

damaged millwork, 

sized and configured to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, 

etc.)

All jury suites meet 

or are within 5% of 

USCDG standards

All jury suites are in 

good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) jury suites 

meet or are within 

5% of USCDG 

standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) jury suites 

are in good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

jury suites meet or 

are within 5% of 

USCDG standards

Most (50%-74%) 

jury suites are in 

good repair

Some (25%-49%) 

jury suites meet or 

are within 5% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

jury suites are in 

good repair

Few (less than 25%)

jury suites meet or 

are within 5% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

jury suites are in 

good repair

No jury suites meet 

or are within 5% of 

USCDG standards

No jury suites are in 

good repair

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 4
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

16 67 Building Condition District Court Trial Jury Suites Trial jury suites provide sufficient acoustic privacy at the perimeter

All jury suites 

provide acoustic 

privacy

Almost all (75% or 

more) jury suites 

provide acoustic 

privacy

Most (50%-74%) 

jury suites provide 

acoustic privacy

Some (25%-49%) 

jury suites provide 

acoustic privacy

Few (less than 25%) 

jury suites provide 

acoustic privacy

No jury suites 

provide acoustic 

privacy

17 68 Building Condition District Court Trial Jury Suites Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All jury suites are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Almost all (75% or 

more) jury suites 

are serviced 

adequately by 

building systems

Most (50%-74%) 

jury suites are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (25%-49%) 

jury suites are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Few (less than 25%) 

jury suites are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the jury 

suites are serviced 

adequately by 

building systems

188 69 Space Standards District Court Trial Jury Suites Trial jury suites meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

All grand jury suites Some grand jury All grand jury suites 

99 70 Space Functionality District Court Grand Jury Suites Access to the grand jury suites is not immediately visible to the public are not immediately suites are not are immediately 

visible immediately visible visible

189 71 Space Standards District Court Grand Jury Suites The grand jury suites meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards for size and 

proportion

All grand jury suites 

meet USCDG 

standards

Some grand jury 

suites meet USCDG 

standards

No grand jury suites 

meet USCDG 

standards

100 72 Space Functionality District Court Grand Jury Suites Layout accommodates the required number of attorneys, court personnel, 

witnesses and jurors (e.g., proper sight lines and internal circulation patterns)

All grand jury suites 

have appropriate 

layouts

Some grand jury 

suites have 

appropriate layouts

No grand jury suites 

have appropriate 

layouts

18 73 Building Condition District Court Grand Jury Suites Grand jury suites are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, 

mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All grand jury suites 

are in good repair 

Some grand jury 

suites are in good 

repair 

No grand jury suites 

are in good repair 

19 74 Building Condition District Court Grand Jury Suites The grand jury suites provide sufficient acoustic privacy at the perimeter

All grand jury suites 

provide sufficient 

acoustic privacy

Some grand jury 

suites provide 

sufficient acoustic 

privacy

No grand jury suites 

provide sufficient 

acoustic privacy

All grand jury suites Some grand jury No grand jury suites 

20 75 Building Condition District Court Grand Jury Suites Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

are serviced 

adequately by 

suites are serviced 

adequately by 

are serviced 

adequately by 

building systems building systems building systems 

190 76 Space Standards District Court Grand Jury Suites Grand jury suites meet accessibility requirements 

All grand jury suites 

meet accessibility 

requirements

Some grand jury 

suites meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No grand jury suites 

meet accessibility 

requirements

102 77 Space Functionality District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office A contiguous clerk's office is in the court facility

The clerk's office is 

located in the court 

facility and is 

contiguous

The clerk's office is 

located in the court 

facility, but it is not 

contiguous

The clerk's office is 

not fully located in 

the court facility.

103 78 Space Functionality District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office Clerk's office is conveniently located for public access Yes No

104 79 Space Functionality District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office Clerk's office has appropriate access to courtrooms and chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to all 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to almost all 

(75% or more) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to most 

(50%-74%) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to some 

(25%-49%) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to few (less 

than 25%) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to no 

courtrooms and 

chambers

275 80 Security District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office Access to clerk's staff offices is controlled Yes No

191 81 Space Standards District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office

The public area, including the intake counter, is sized to meet U.S. Courts 

Design Guide standards (e.g., counter space, preparation space, queuing 

area for the public, public access computer stations, records exam area, and 

work area for the required number of clerks)

All of the public area 

meets USCDG 

standards

Most (50% or more) 

of the public area 

meets USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) of the public 

area meets USCDG 

standards

None of the public 

area meets USCDG 

standards

276 82 Security District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office The public intake counter has break-resistant glazing Yes No

101 83 Space Functionality District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office

The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court Yes No

192 84 Space Standards District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office

Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., clerk, chief deputy, managers, supervisors, and staff)

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

193 85 Space Standards District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, facility access card ID 

room, automation areas, conference/training rooms, secured, active, and 

inactive records storage, exhibit storage, and vault storage)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

105 86 Space Functionality District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office

Layout accommodates staff functions (e.g., internal circulation patterns and 

adjacencies)

All of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

Most (50%-74%) of 

the clerk's office has 

an appropriate 

layout

Some (25%-49%) of 

the clerk's office has 

an appropriate 

layout

Less than 25% of 

the clerk's office has 

an appropriate 

layout

None of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 5
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

21 87 Building Condition District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office

The clerk's office is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, 

damaged millwork, etc.)

All of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair

Most (50%-74%) of 

the clerk's office is 

in good repair

Some (25%-49%) of 

the clerk's office is 

in good repair

Less than 25% of 

the clerk's office is 

in good repair

None of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair

22 88 Building Condition District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

194 89 Space Standards District Court District Court Clerk's 

Office Clerk's office meets accessibility requirements 

All of the office 

meets accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

of the office meets 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) of the office 

meets accessibility 

requirements

None of the office 

meets accessibility 

requirements

Bankruptcy court is 

106 90 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms The bankruptcy court is located in the courthouse

Bankruptcy court is 

located in the 

courthouse

Bankruptcy court is 

located in a nearby 

facility

not adequately 

located (e.g., long 

distance, in more 

X

than one facility)

107 91 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms The number of courtrooms present accommodates all bankruptcy judges Each judge has a 

courtroom

Almost all (75% or 

more) judges have 

a dedicated 

courtroom

Most (50%-74%) 

judges have a 

dedicated 

courtroom

Some (25%-49%) 

judges have a 

dedicated 

courtroom

Few (less than 25%) 

judges have a 

dedicated 

courtroom

No judges have a 

dedicated 

courtroom

108 92 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

Courtrooms are appropriately located relative to judges' chambers and public 

access

All courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are appropriately 

located

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

No courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

195 93 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

Courtrooms are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards with 

proper proportions, height, and acoustics

All courtrooms meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

109 94 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

The layout of the bankruptcy courtrooms (e.g., sight lines, well area, spectator 

seating, and circulation) accommodates the required number of court 

personnel, attorneys, litigants, and spectators

All courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

have appropriate 

layouts

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

No courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

277 95 Security Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

Courtrooms for bankruptcy judges provide separation of access with three 

entrances: one for judges; one for court personnel and jury members; and 

one for the public (spectators, news media, attorneys, litigants, and 

witnesses.) Entrances for the various groups should be located as close as 

possible to their stations in the courtroom.

All courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

No courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

196 96 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms A robing room is provided where required All robing rooms are 

provided

Most (50% or more) 

robing rooms are 

provided

Some (less than 

50%) robing rooms 

are provided

No robing rooms 

are provided

197 97 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

Two attorney/witness rooms are provided for each courtroom to meet U.S. 

Courts Design Guide standards

All courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are provided with 

two A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

No courtrooms are 

provided with two 

A/W rooms that 

meet USCDG 

standards

23 98 Building Condition Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

Bankruptcy courtrooms are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water 

leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All courtrooms are 

in good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are in good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

No courtrooms are 

in good repair

24 99 Building Condition Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

are serviced 

adequately by 

building systems

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

278 100 Security Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

If exterior windows exist in the bankruptcy courtrooms, they are ballisticresistant

All courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

No courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

198 101 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judge 

Courtrooms

Bankruptcy courtrooms meet public accessibility requirements at the 

litigant/counsel tables, lectern, witness stand, jury box, and spectator seating.

All courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

110 102 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judges' 

Chambers

The number of judges' chambers provided in the court facility accommodates 

each judge

Each judge has a 

chambers suite

Almost all (75% or 

more) judges have 

a dedicated 

chambers suite

Most (50%-74%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Some (25%-49%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Few (less than 25%) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

No judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 6
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

279 103 Security Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judges' 

Chambers Chambers are accessed from restricted circulation All chambers have 

restricted access 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

have restricted 

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

No chambers have 

restricted access 

access 

199 104 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judges' 

Chambers

Each chambers suite meets or is within 10% of U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., size and acoustics)

All chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

111 105 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judges' 

Chambers

Layout is contiguous and accommodates the judge, law clerks, reception 

area (e.g., internal circulation patterns and adjacencies)

All chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

have appropriate 

layouts

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

No chambers have 

appropriate layouts

25 106 Building Condition Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judges' 

Chambers

Chambers for bankruptcy judges are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, 

water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All chambers are in 

good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers are 

in good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers are in 

good repair

No chambers are in 

good repair

26 107 Building Condition Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judges' 

Chambers

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

200 108 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judges' 

Chambers Bankruptcy judges' chambers meet accessibility requirements 

All chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

280 109 Security Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Judges' 

Chambers

If exterior windows exist for bankruptcy judges' chambers, they are ballisticresistant

All chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

No chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

113 110 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office A contiguous clerk's office is in the court facility

The clerk's office is 

located in the court 

facility and is 

contiguous

The clerk's office is 

located in the court 

facility, but it is not 

contiguous

The clerk's office is 

not fully located in 

the court facility

114 111 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office Clerk's office is conveniently located for public access Yes No

115 112 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office Clerk's office has appropriate access to courtrooms and chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to all 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to almost all 

(75% or more) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to most 

(50%-74%) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to some 

(25%-49%) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to few (less 

than 25%) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to no 

courtrooms and 

chambers

281 113 Security Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office There is controlled access to staff offices Yes No

201 114 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office

The public area, including the intake counter, is sized to meet U.S. Courts 

Design Guide standards (e.g., counter space, preparation space, queuing 

area for the public, public access computer stations, records exam area, and 

work area for the required number of clerks)

All of the public area 

meets USCDG 

standards

Most (50% or more) 

of the public area 

meets USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) of the public 

area meets USCDG 

standards

None of the public 

area meets USCDG 

standards

282 115 Security Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office The public intake counter has break-resistant glazing Yes No

112 116 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office

The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court Yes No

202 117 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office

Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., clerk, chief deputy, managers, supervisors, and staff)

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

of the office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) of the office 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

None of the office 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

203 118 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, facility access card ID 

room, automation areas, conference/training rooms, secured, active, and 

inactive records storage, exhibit storage, and vault storage)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

116 119 Space Functionality Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office

Layout accommodates staff functions (e.g., internal circulation patterns and 

adjacencies)

All of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

Most (50%-74%) of 

the clerk's office has 

an appropriate 

layout

Some (25%-49%) of 

the clerk's office has 

an appropriate 

layout

Less than 25% of 

the clerk's office has 

an appropriate 

layout

None of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

27 120 Building Condition Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office

The clerk's office is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, 

damaged millwork, etc.)

All of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair

Most (50%-74%) of 

the clerk's office is 

in good repair

Some (25%-49%) of 

the clerk's office is 

in good repair

Less than 25% of 

the clerk's office is 

in good repair

None of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair

28 121 Building Condition Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 7
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

204 122 Space Standards Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk's Office Clerk's office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

117 123 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms

The number of en banc courtrooms present in the court facility 

accommodates the court

All courtrooms are 

present

Most (50% or more) 

of the courtrooms 

are present

Some (less than 

50%) of the 

courtrooms are 

present

None of the 

courtrooms are 

present

118 124 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms En banc courtrooms are appropriately located in the court facility

All courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

are appropriately 

located

No courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

207 125 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms

The en banc courtrooms meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards with 

proper proportions, height, and acoustics

All courtrooms meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

No courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

119 126 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms

The layout of the en banc courtrooms (e.g., sight lines, well area, spectator 

seating, and circulation) accommodates the required number of court 

personnel, attorneys, and spectators

All courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

have appropriate 

layouts

No courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

283 127 Security Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms

Appellate courtrooms provide separation of access with three entrances: one 

for judges (close to robing and conference rooms); one for court personnel 

(just below the bench); and one for the public and attorneys.

All courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

No courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

208 128 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms A robing room for judges is provided where required All robing rooms are 

provided

Most (50% or more) 

robing rooms are 

provided

Some (less than 

50%) robing rooms 

are provided

No robing rooms 

are provided

29 129 Building Condition Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms

En banc courtrooms for circuit judges are in good repair (e.g., no water 

damage, water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All courtrooms are 

in good repair 

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

are in good repair

No courtrooms are 

in good repair

30 130 Building Condition Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

are serviced 

adequately by 

building systems

No courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

209 131 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms

En banc courtrooms meet public accessibility requirements at the counsel 

tables, lectern, and spectator seating.

All courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

No courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

284 132 Security Court of Appeals Court of Appeals En 

Banc Courtrooms If exterior windows exist in the en banc courtroom, they are ballistic-resistant

All courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

No courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

120 133 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms

The number of panel courtrooms present in the court facility accommodates 

the court

All courtrooms are 

present

Most (50% or more) 

of the courtrooms 

are present

Some (less than 

50%) of the 

courtrooms are 

present

None of the 

courtrooms are 

present

121 134 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms Panel courtrooms are appropriately located in the court facility

All courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

are appropriately 

located

No courtrooms are 

appropriately 

located

210 135 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms

The panel courtrooms meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards with proper 

proportions, height, and acoustics

All courtrooms meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

No courtrooms 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

122 136 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms

The layout of the panel courtrooms (e.g., sight lines, well area, spectator 

seating, and circulation) accommodates the required number of court 

personnel, attorneys, and spectators

All courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

have appropriate 

layouts

No courtrooms have 

appropriate layouts

285 137 Security Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms

Appellate courtrooms provide separation of access with three entrances: one 

for judges (close to robing and conference rooms); one for court personnel 

(just below the bench); and one for the public and attorneys.

All courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms provide 

separate access

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

No courtrooms 

provide separate 

access

205 138 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Courtrooms

Judges' conference room is provided and meets U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards Yes No

211 139 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms A robing room for judges is provided where required All robing rooms are 

provided

Most (50% or more) 

robing rooms are 

provided

Some (less than 

50%) robing rooms 

are provided

No robing rooms 

are provided

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 8
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

Attorney lounge 

206 140 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Courtrooms Attorney lounge is provided to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards

Attorney lounge 

meets USCDG 

standards

does not meet 

USCDG standards, 

but alternative 

Attorney lounge is 

not adequate

No attorney lounge 

is present

space is adequate

31 141 Building Condition Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms

Panel courtrooms for circuit judges are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, 

water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All courtrooms are 

in good repair 

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms are in 

good repair

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

are in good repair

No courtrooms are 

in good repair

32 142 Building Condition Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

are serviced 

adequately by 

building systems

No courtrooms are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

212 143 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms

Panel courtrooms meet public accessibility requirements at the counsel 

tables, lectern, and spectator seating.

All courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

No courtrooms 

meet accessibility 

requirements

286 144 Security Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Panel Courtrooms If exterior windows exist in the panel courtroom, they are ballistic-resistant

All courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Most (50% or more) 

courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (less than 

50%) courtrooms 

with exterior 

windows have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

No courtrooms with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

123 145 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Resident Circuit 

Judges' Chambers

The number of resident judges' chambers provided in the court facility 

accommodates each resident judge

Each judge has a 

chambers suite

Most (50% or more) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Some (less than 

50%) judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

No judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

287 146 Security Court of Appeals Resident Circuit 

Judges' Chambers Chambers are accessed from restricted circulation All chambers have 

restricted access 

Most (50% or more) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Some (less than 

50%) chambers 

have restricted 

No chambers have 

restricted access 

access 

213 147 Space Standards Court of Appeals Resident Circuit 

Judges' Chambers

Resident judges' chambers meet or are within 10% of U.S. Courts Design 

Guide standards (e.g., size and acoustics)

All chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

124 148 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Resident Circuit 

Judges' Chambers

Layout is contiguous and accommodates the judge, law clerks, reception 

area (e.g., internal circulation patterns and adjacencies)

All chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Most (50% or more) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Some (less than 

50%) chambers 

have appropriate 

layouts

No chambers have 

appropriate layouts

33 149 Building Condition Court of Appeals Resident Circuit 

Judges' Chambers

Chambers for resident judges are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, 

water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All chambers are in 

good repair 

Most (50% or more) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Some (less than 

50%) chambers are 

in good repair

No chambers are in 

good repair

34 150 Building Condition Court of Appeals Resident Circuit 

Judges' Chambers

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

214 151 Space Standards Court of Appeals Resident Circuit 

Judges' Chambers Resident judges' chambers meet accessibility requirements 

All chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) chambers 

meet accessibility 

requirements

No chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) Some (less than 

288 152 Security Court of Appeals Resident Circuit 

Judges' Chambers

If exterior windows exist in resident judges' chambers, they are ballisticresistant

All chambers have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballistic50%) chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticNo chambers have 

ballistic-resistant 

windows

X

resistant windows resistant windows

125 153 Space Functionality Court of Appeals

Non-Resident 

Circuit Judges' 

Chambers

The number of non-resident judges' chambers provided in the court facility 

accommodates each non-resident judge

Each judge has a 

chambers suite

Most (50% or more) 

judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

Some (less than 

50%) judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

No judges have a 

dedicated chambers 

suite

289 154 Security Court of Appeals

Non-Resident 

Circuit Judges' 

Chambers

Chambers are accessed from restricted circulation All chambers have 

restricted access 

Most (50% or more) 

chambers have 

restricted access 

Some (less than 

50%) chambers 

have restricted 

No chambers have 

restricted access 

access 

215 155 Space Standards Court of Appeals

Non-Resident 

Circuit Judges' 

Chambers

Non-resident judges' chambers meet or are within 10% of U.S. Courts Design 

Guide standards (e.g., size and acoustics)

All chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Almost all (75% or 

more) chambers 

meet or are within 

10% of USCDG 

standards

Most (50%-74%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Some (25%-49%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

Few (less than 25%) 

chambers meet or 

are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

No chambers meet 

or are within 10% of 

USCDG standards

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 9
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

126

35

156

157

Space Functionality

Building Condition

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Non-Resident 

Circuit Judges' 

Chambers

Non-Resident 

Circuit Judges' 

Chambers

Layout is contiguous and accommodates the judge, law clerks, reception 

area (e.g., internal circulation patterns and adjacencies)

Chambers for non-resident judges are in good repair (e.g., no water damage, 

water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All chambers have 

appropriate layouts

All chambers are in 

good repair 

Most (50% or more) 

chambers have 

appropriate layouts

Most (50% or more) 

chambers are in 

good repair

Some (less than 

50%) chambers 

have appropriate 

layouts

Some (less than 

50%) chambers are 

in good repair

No chambers have 

appropriate layouts

No chambers are in 

good repair

36 158 Building Condition Court of Appeals

Non-Resident 

Circuit Judges' 

Chambers

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

No chambers are 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

216 159 Space Standards Court of Appeals

Non-Resident 

Circuit Judges' 

Chambers

Non-resident judges' chambers meet accessibility requirements 

All chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) chambers 

meet accessibility 

requirements

No chambers meet 

accessibility 

requirements

290 160 Security Court of Appeals

Non-Resident 

Circuit Judges' 

Chambers

If exterior windows exist in non-resident judges' chambers, they are ballisticresistant

All chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Most (50% or more) 

chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

Some (less than 

50%) chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

No chambers with 

exterior windows 

have ballisticresistant windows

X

128

129

130

291

161

162

163

164

Space Functionality

Space Functionality

Space Functionality

Security

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

A contiguous clerk's office is in the court facility

Clerk's office is conveniently located for public access

Clerk's office has appropriate access to courtrooms and chambers

There is controlled access to clerk's staff offices

The clerk's office is 

located in the court 

facility and is 

contiguous

Yes

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to all 

courtrooms and 

chambers

Yes

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to most 

(50% or more) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office is 

located in the court 

facility, but it is not 

contiguous

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to some 

(less than 50%) 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office 

has appropriate 

access to no 

courtrooms and 

chambers

The clerk's office is 

not fully located in 

the court facility.

No

No

217 165 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

The public area, including the intake counter, is sized to meet U.S. Courts 

Design Guide standards (e.g., counter space, preparation space, queuing 

area for the public, public access computer stations, records exam area, and 

work area for the required number of clerks)

All of the public area 

meets USCDG 

standards

Most (50% or more) 

of the public area 

meets USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) of the public 

area meets USCDG 

standards

None of the public 

area meets USCDG 

standards

292 166 Security Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office The public intake counter has break-resistant glazing Yes No

127

218

167

168

Space Functionality

Space Standards

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court

Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., circuit executive, managers, supervisors, staff)

Yes

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No

219 169 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, facility access card ID 

room, conference rooms, records storage, supplies, and equipment)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

131

37

170

171

Space Functionality

Building Condition

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

Layout accommodates staff functions (e.g., internal circulation patterns and 

adjacencies)

The clerk's office is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, 

damaged millwork, etc.)

All of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

All of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair 

Most (50% or more) 

of the clerk's office 

has an appropriate 

layout

Most (50% or more) 

of the clerk's office 

is in good repair

Some ( less than 

50%) of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

Some (less than 

50%) of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair

None of the clerk's 

office has an 

appropriate layout

None of the clerk's 

office is in good 

repair

38 172 Building Condition Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

220 173 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Clerk's Office Clerk's office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 10
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

133 174 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Circuit Executive The office is located in proximity to judges' chambers and the clerk's office, 

and is connected by restricted access

appropriately 

located and is 

connected by 

restricted access

appropriately 

located or does not 

have restricted 

access

appropriately 

located and does 

not have restricted 

access

132 175 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Circuit Executive The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court Yes No

221 176 Space Standards Court of Appeals Circuit Executive Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., circuit executive, managers, supervisors, staff)

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

222 177 Space Standards Court of Appeals Circuit Executive

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, conference rooms, 

records storage, supplies, and equipment)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

134

39

178

179

Space Functionality

Building Condition

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Circuit Executive

Circuit Executive

Layout is contiguous and accommodates staff functions (e.g., internal 

circulation patterns and adjacencies)

The office is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, 

damaged millwork, etc.)

All of the office has 

an appropriate 

layout

All of the office is in 

good repair 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office has an 

appropriate layout

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is in 

good repair

Some (less than 

50%) of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

in good repair

None of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

None of the office is 

in good repair

40 180 Building Condition Court of Appeals Circuit Executive Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

223 181 Space Standards Court of Appeals Circuit Executive Circuit executive office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

137 182 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

The office is accessible to the public and is located in proximity to and 

connected by restricted access to the conference rooms, clerk's office, and 

library

The office is 

appropriately 

located and 

accessed

The office is not 

appropriately 

located or does not 

have appropriate 

access

The office is not 

appropriately 

located and 

accessed

135

224

183

184

Space Functionality

Space Standards

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court

Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., circuit executive, managers, supervisors, staff)

Yes

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No

225 185 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, conference rooms, 

records storage, supplies, and equipment)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

136

138

41

226

186

187

188

189

Space Functionality

Space Functionality

Building Condition

Space Standards

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

The required number of conference rooms is present with appropriate 

acoustics

Layout is contiguous and accommodates staff functions (e.g., internal 

circulation patterns and adjacencies)

The office area is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, 

damaged millwork, etc.)

The office provides sufficient acoustic privacy 

Yes

All of the office has 

an appropriate 

layout

All of the office is in 

good repair 

Yes

Most (50% or more) 

of the office has an 

appropriate layout

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is in 

good repair

Some (less than 

50%) of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

in good repair

None of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

None of the office is 

in good repair

No

No

42 190 Building Condition Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

227 191 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Mediation Attorney Mediation attorney office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

The office is 

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

The office is not 

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

The office is not 

140 192 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Staff Attorney

The office is located in proximity to the clerk's office, and is connected by 

restricted access

appropriately 

located and is 

connected by 

restricted access

appropriately 

located or does not 

have restricted 

access

appropriately 

located and does 

not have restricted 

access

The office is The office is not The office is not 

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 11
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

139

228

193

194

Space Functionality

Space Standards

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals 

Staff Attorney

Court of Appeals 

Staff Attorney

The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court

Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., circuit executive, managers, supervisors, staff)

Yes

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No

229 195 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Staff Attorney

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, conference rooms, 

records storage, supplies, and equipment)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

141

43

196

197

Space Functionality

Building Condition

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals 

Staff Attorney

Court of Appeals 

Staff Attorney

Layout is contiguous and accommodates staff functions (e.g., internal 

circulation patterns and adjacencies)

The office area is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, 

damaged millwork, etc.)

All of the office has 

an appropriate 

layout

All of the office is in 

good repair 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office has an 

appropriate layout

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is in 

good repair

Some (less than 

50%) of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

in good repair

None of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

None of the office is 

in good repair

44 198 Building Condition Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Staff Attorney

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

230 199 Space Standards Court of Appeals Court of Appeals 

Staff Attorney Office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

143 200 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Circuit Library Access to the library meets court policy Yes No

293 201 Security Court of Appeals Circuit Library The library entrances and exits are located so that staff can monitor access Yes No

142 202 Space Functionality Court of Appeals Circuit Library The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court Yes No

231 203 Space Standards Court of Appeals Circuit Library Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., circuit executive, managers, supervisors, staff)

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

232 204 Space Standards Court of Appeals Circuit Library

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., display of periodicals, access to catalogues and microfiche, 

photocopying, research facilities, records storage, supplies, equipment, and 

surplus book storage)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

233 205 Space Standards Court of Appeals Circuit Library Stack area is sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards for storage 

of the hard copy collection 

All stack areas are 

sized to meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

stack areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) stack areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No stack areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

144

45

46

234

147

148

206

207

208

209

210

211

Space Functionality

Building Condition

Building Condition

Space Standards

Space Functionality

Space Functionality

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

Pretrial Services

Pretrial Services

Circuit Library

Circuit Library

Circuit Library

Circuit Library

Pretrial Services 

Office

Pretrial Services 

Office

Layout accommodates staff functions and library users (e.g., internal 

circulation patterns and adjacencies)

Library is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, damaged 

millwork, etc.)

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

Library areas meet accessibility requirements 

Pretrial services office is located in the court facility

When in the court facility, the pretrial services office is appropriately located

All of the library has 

an appropriate 

layout

All of the library is in 

good repair 

Yes

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Pretrial services 

office is located in 

the court facility

Yes

Most (50% or more) 

of the library has an 

appropriate layout

Most (50% or more) 

of the library is in 

good repair

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) of the library 

has an appropriate 

layout

Some (less than 

50%) of the library is 

in good repair

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Appropriate 

functions of the 

pretrial services 

office are located in 

the court facility

None of the library 

has an appropriate 

layout

None of the library is 

in good repair

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Pretrial services 

office location is not 

adequate

No

No

X

149 212 Space Functionality Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

The building configuration and location of the pretrial services office allows for 

after-hours access Yes No

294 213 Security Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

When located outside a courthouse, security controls (e.g., x-ray equipment, 

magnetometer, etc.) are located in the building

All security controls 

are provided in the 

building 

Security controls are 

provided on each 

court-occupied floor

Security controls are 

provided only at 

public intake 

counter (ballisticresistant glazing)

Security controls are 

not adequate

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 12
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

295 214 Security Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

When located outside a courthouse, no high-risk tenants are located in the 

facility (e.g., USPS, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, IRS, ATF, ICE, and CIS) Yes No X

298 215 Security Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

Separate restricted access is provided for the staff to enter the office without 

passing through the public reception area of the suite Yes No

296 216 Security Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

From the waiting area, the public cannot enter the staff offices without going 

through controlled access Yes No

297 217 Security Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

When located in a courthouse, the reception counter has break-resistant 

glazing (or ballistic-resistant glazing when outside a courthouse) Yes No

145 218 Space Functionality Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court Yes No

235 219 Space Standards Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., officers, managers, supervisors, staff)

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

236 220 Space Standards Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, conference rooms, 

multipurpose room, records storage, supplies, and equipment)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

146 221 Space Functionality Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

The number of drug testing areas present in the court facility accommodates 

the court Yes No

237 222 Space Standards Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

Drug testing areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards for 

urinalysis collection and testing Yes No 

238 223 Space Standards Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

Drug testing areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards for 

storage facilities Yes No

150 224 Space Functionality Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

Layout is contiguous and accommodates staff functions (e.g., internal 

circulation patterns and adjacencies)

All of the office has 

an appropriate 

layout

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

Most (50%-74%) of 

the office has an 

appropriate layout

Some (25%-49%) of 

the office has an 

appropriate layout

Less than 25% of 

the office has an 

appropriate layout

None of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

47 225 Building Condition Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

Office is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, damaged 

millwork, etc.)

All of the office is in 

good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the office is 

in good repair

Most (50%-74%) of 

the office is in good 

repair

Some (25%-49%) of 

the office is in good 

repair

Less than 25% of 

the office is in good 

repair

None of the office is 

in good repair

239 226 Space Standards Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office The office provides sufficient acoustic privacy Yes No 

48 227 Building Condition Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

240 228 Space Standards Pretrial Services Pretrial Services 

Office Pretrial services office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Appropriate 

Probation office is functions of the Probation office 

153 229 Space Functionality Probation Office Probation Office Probation office is located in the court facility located in the court probation office are location is not X

facility located in the court adequate

facility

154 230 Space Functionality Probation Office Probation Office When in the court facility, the probation office is appropriately located Yes No

155 231 Space Functionality Probation Office Probation Office The building configuration and location of the probation office allows for afterhours access Yes No

Security controls are 

299 232 Security Probation Office Probation Office When located outside a courthouse, security controls (e.g., x-ray equipment, 

magnetometer, etc.) are located in the building

All security controls 

are provided in the 

building 

Security controls are 

provided on each 

court-occupied floor

provided only at 

public intake 

counter (ballisticSecurity controls are 

not adequate

resistant glazing)

300 233 Security Probation Office Probation Office When located outside a courthouse, no high-risk tenants are located in the 

facility (e.g., USPS, Secret Service, FBI, DEA, IRS, ATF, ICE, and CIS) Yes No X

303 234 Security Probation Office Probation Office Separate restricted access is provided for the staff to enter the office without 

passing through the public reception area of the suite Yes No

301 235 Security Probation Office Probation Office From the waiting area, the public cannot enter the staff offices without going 

through controlled access Yes No

302 236 Security Probation Office Probation Office When located in a courthouse, the reception counter has break-resistant 

glazing (or ballistic-resistant glazing when outside a courthouse) Yes No

151 237 Space Functionality Probation Office Probation Office The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court Yes No

241 238 Space Standards Probation Office Probation Office Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., officers, managers, supervisors, staff)

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 13
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

242 239 Space Standards Probation Office Probation Office

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, conference rooms, 

multipurpose room, records storage, supplies, and equipment)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

152 240 Space Functionality Probation Office Probation Office The number of drug testing areas present in the court facility accommodates 

the court Yes No

243

244

156

49

245

241

242

243

244

245

Space Standards

Space Standards

Space Functionality

Building Condition

Space Standards

Probation Office

Probation Office

Probation Office

Probation Office

Probation Office

Probation Office

Probation Office

Probation Office

Probation Office

Probation Office

Drug testing areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards for 

urinalysis collection and testing

Drug testing areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide standards for 

storage facilities

Layout is contiguous and accommodates staff functions (e.g., internal 

circulation patterns and adjacencies)

Office is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, damaged 

millwork, etc.)

The office provides sufficient acoustic privacy

Yes

Yes

All of the office has 

an appropriate 

layout

All of the office is in 

good repair 

Yes

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the office is 

in good repair

Most (50%-74%) of 

the office has an 

appropriate layout

Most (50%-74%) of 

the office is in good 

repair

Some (25%-49%) of 

the office has an 

appropriate layout

Some (25%-49%) of 

the office is in good 

repair

Less than 25% of 

the office has an 

appropriate layout

Less than 25% of 

the office is in good 

repair

No 

No

None of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

None of the office is 

in good repair

No

50 246 Building Condition Probation Office Probation Office Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

246 247 Space Standards Probation Office Probation Office Probation office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

The office is 

158 248 Space Functionality Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

The office is located significantly distant from the USAO, USMS, Probation 

Office, Pretrial Services Office, and BOP, preferably in a building that does 

not house these or other federal law enforcement agencies

Office is located in a 

building with no law 

enforcement 

agencies

significantly 

separated (by at 

least one floor) from 

law enforcement 

agencies located in 

the same building

The office location is 

not adequate

159 249 Space Functionality Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender The office is located in the court facility Yes No

247

304

250

251

Space Standards

Security

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

When Office is located outside a courthouse, a trial preparation suite of 

offices is provided in the courthouse

There is controlled access to staff offices

Yes

Yes

No 

No

306

305

252

253

Security

Security

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Restricted access is provided for the staff separate from the public access to 

the client reception area

When in a court facility, the reception counter has break-resistant glazing

Yes

Yes

No

No

157 254 Space Functionality Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court Yes No

248 255 Space Standards Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Office areas and workstations are sized to meet FPD design guide standards 

(e.g., officers, managers, supervisors, staff)

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

249 256 Space Standards Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Support and storage areas are sized to meet FPD design guide standards 

(e.g., copier/workrooms, mailroom, conference rooms, records storage, 

supplies, and equipment)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

160 257 Space Functionality Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender Office is contiguous Yes No

51

250

258

259

Building Condition

Space Standards

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Office is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, damaged 

millwork, etc.)

The office provides sufficient acoustic privacy

All of the office is in 

good repair 

Yes

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the office is 

in good repair

Most (50%-74%) of 

the office is in good 

repair

Some (25%-49%) of 

the office is in good 

repair

Less than 25% of 

the office is in good 

repair

None of the office is 

in good repair

No 

52 260 Building Condition Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

251 261 Space Standards Federal Public 

Defender

Federal Public 

Defender Office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 14
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

163 262 Space Functionality Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms The 341 hearing and conference rooms are co-located in the same facility as 

the bankruptcy administrator office

The rooms are 

located in the same 

facility as the office 

and bankruptcy 

court

The rooms are 

located in the same 

facility as either the 

office or bankruptcy 

court

The rooms are not 

located in the same 

facility as the office 

or bankruptcy court

161 263 Space Functionality Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms A 341 hearing room is present Yes No 

252 264 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms The 341 hearing room is sized to meet standards Yes No 

253 265 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms The 341 hearing room provides sufficient acoustic privacy Yes No

162 266 Space Functionality Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms The number of 341 conference rooms accommodates the bankruptcy 

administrator Yes No

254 267 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms The 341 conference rooms are sized to meet standards Yes No

255 268 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms The 341 conference rooms provide sufficient acoustic privacy Yes No

256 269 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms 341 hearing and conference rooms meet accessibility requirements 

All rooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some rooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No rooms meet 

accessibility 

requirements

164 270 Space Functionality Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms

Layout accommodates the required number of court personnel, attorneys, 

creditors, and spectators (e.g., proper sight lines, well area, spectator seating, 

and circulation)

All rooms have an 

appropriate layout

Some rooms have 

an appropriate 

layout

No rooms have an 

appropriate layout No

53 271 Building Condition Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms 341 hearing and conference rooms are in good repair (e.g., no water 

damage, water leaks, mold, damaged millwork, etc.)

All rooms are in 

good repair 

Some rooms are in 

good repair

No rooms are in 

good repair

No 341 hearing 

rooms are in good 

repair

54 272 Building Condition Bankruptcy 

Administrator 341 Hearing Rooms Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately Yes No

166 273 Space Functionality Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator

The bankruptcy administrator office is located proximate to the bankruptcy 

court 

The office is colocated with the 

bankruptcy court

The office is not 

located with the 

bankruptcy court, by 

preference 

The office is not 

located with the 

bankruptcy court, 

against preference 

307 274 Security Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator There is controlled access to staff offices Yes No

308 275 Security Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator When in a court facility, the reception counter has break-resistant glazing Yes No

165 276 Space Functionality Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator

The number of office areas and workstations present in the court facility 

accommodates the court Yes No

257 277 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Office areas and workstations are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., circuit executive, managers, supervisors, staff)

All office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

office areas meet 

USCDG standards

Some (less than 

50%) office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

No office areas 

meet USCDG 

standards

258 278 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Support and storage areas are sized to meet U.S. Courts Design Guide 

standards (e.g., copier/workrooms, mail work area, conference rooms, 

records storage, supplies, and equipment)

All support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

Most (50% or more) 

support and storage 

areas meet USCDG 

standards

Some (less than 

50%) support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

No support and 

storage areas meet 

USCDG standards

167 279 Space Functionality Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Layout is contiguous and accommodates the law clerks, support staff, and 

reception area (e.g., internal circulation patterns and adjacencies)

All of the office has 

an appropriate 

layout

Most (50% or more) 

of the office has an 

appropriate layout

Some (less than 

50%) of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

None of the office 

has an appropriate 

layout

55 280 Building Condition Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Office is in good repair (e.g., no water damage, water leaks, mold, damaged 

millwork, etc.)

All of the office is in 

good repair 

Almost all (75% or 

more) of the office is 

in good repair

Most (50%-74%) of 

the office is in good 

repair

Some (25%-49%) of 

the office is in good 

repair

Less than 25% of 

the office is in good 

repair

None of the office is 

in good repair

259 281 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator The bankruptcy administrator office provides sufficient acoustic privacy Yes No

56 282 Building Condition Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Building systems (e.g., lighting, temperature control/HVAC, etc.) perform 

adequately 

All of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems 

Most (50% or more) 

of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

Some (less than 

50%) of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

None of the office is 

serviced adequately 

by building systems

260 283 Space Standards Bankruptcy 

Administrator

Bankruptcy 

Administrator Bankruptcy administrator office areas meet accessibility requirements 

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50% or more) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (less than 

50%) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

71 284 Building Condition General Building Public Access Staff parking is available Staff parking is 

available

There is adequate 

parking nearby

Parking is not 

adequate

72 285 Building Condition General Building Public Access Parking is available for jurors and the public Parking is available There is adequate 

parking nearby

Parking is not 

adequate

73 286 Building Condition General Building Public Access Public transportation is available to the court facility Public transportation 

is available

Public transportation 

is available but has 

limited service

Public transportation 

is not available

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 15
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

309 287 Security General Building Public Access Court facility access for the public is through a single security entrance

Court facility has a 

single security 

entrance

Court facility has 

multiple security 

entrance locations

Entrance security is 

not adequate

310 288 Security General Building Public Access No high-risk tenants are located in the court facility (e.g., USPS, Secret 

Service, FBI, DEA, IRS, ATF, ICE, and CIS) Yes No

Court personnel Court personnel Court personnel 

311 289 Security General Building Public Access Court personnel enter through the secured public entrance enter through the 

secured public 

enter through 

separate secured 

enter through 

multiple unsecured 

entrance entrances entrances

74 290 Building Condition General Building Adjacency and 

Circulation

The entry lobby is sized to accommodate the required volume of public and 

court personnel traffic, sufficient queue space, and the required security 

equipment

Yes No

75 291 Building Condition General Building Adjacency and 

Circulation

Corridors are sized to accommodate the volume of public, court personnel, 

and prisoner traffic

All corridors are 

adequate

Almost all (75% or 

more) corridors are 

adequate

Most (50%-74%) 

corridors are 

adequate

Some (25%-49%) 

corridors are 

adequate

Few (less than 25%) 

corridors are 

adequate

No corridors are 

adequate

76 292 Building Condition General Building Adjacency and 

Circulation Public elevators are adequate to accommodate the needs of the court All elevators are 

adequate

Almost all (75% or 

more) elevators are 

adequate

Most (50%-74%) 

elevators are 

adequate

Some (25%-49%) 

elevators are 

adequate

Few (less than 25%) 

elevators are 

adequate

No elevators are 

adequate

77 293 Building Condition General Building Adjacency and 

Circulation

Public waiting areas outside the courtroom accommodate participants and 

spectators

All public waiting 

areas are 

appropriately sized

Almost all (75% or 

more) public waiting 

areas are 

appropriately sized

Most (50%-74%) 

public waiting areas 

are appropriately 

sized

Some (25%-49%) 

public waiting areas 

are appropriately 

sized

Few (less than 25%) 

public waiting areas 

are appropriately 

sized

No public waiting 

areas are 

appropriately sized

78 294 Building Condition General Building Adjacency and 

Circulation Toilet rooms are provided to accommodate the public and court personnel

All toilet rooms are 

appropriately 

provided

Almost all (75% or 

more) toilet rooms 

are appropriately 

provided

Most (50%-74%) 

toilet rooms are 

appropriately 

provided

Some (25%-49%) 

toilet rooms are 

appropriately 

provided

Few (less than 25%) 

toilet rooms are 

appropriately 

provided

No toilet rooms are 

appropriately 

provided

57 295 Building Condition General Building Adjacency and 

Circulation The court facility hallways, elevators, and stairways are in good repair All areas are in 

good repair

Almost all (75% or 

more) areas are in 

good repair

Most (50%-74%) 

areas are in good 

repair

Some (25%-49%) 

areas are in good 

repair

Few (less than 25%) 

areas are in good 

repair

No areas are in 

good repair

58 296 Building Condition General Building Adjacency and 

Circulation

The acoustics, lighting, and temperature control are appropriate for the court 

facility hallways, elevators, and stairways

All areas have 

adequate acoustics, 

lighting, and 

temperature control

Almost all (75% or 

more) areas have 

adequate acoustics, 

lighting, and 

temperature control

Most (50%-74%) 

areas have 

adequate acoustics, 

lighting, and 

temperature control

Some (25%-49%) 

areas have 

adequate acoustics, 

lighting, and 

temperature control

Few (less than 25%) 

areas have 

adequate acoustics, 

lighting, and 

temperature control

No areas have 

adequate acoustics, 

lighting, and 

temperature control

79 297 Building Condition General Building Adjacency and 

Circulation

Public areas (e.g., entrances, lobbies, corridors, stairways, elevators, and 

toilets) meet accessibility requirements

All areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Almost all (75% or 

more) areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Most (50%-74%) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Some (25%-49%) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

Few (less than 25%) 

areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

No areas meet 

accessibility 

requirements

59 298 Building Condition General Building Exterior On-site surface paving is in good condition All paving is in good 

condition

Almost all (75% or 

more) paving is in 

good condition

Most (50%-74%) 

paving is in good 

condition

Some (25%-49%) 

paving is in good 

condition

Less than 25% 

paving is in good 

condition

No paving is in good 

condition

60 299 Building Condition General Building Exterior Exterior walkways and plazas, stairs, and ramps are in good condition All areas are in 

good condition

Almost all (75% or 

more) areas are in 

good condition

Most (50%-74%) 

areas are in good 

condition

Some (25%-49%) 

areas are in good 

condition

Few (less than 25%) 

areas are in good 

condition

No areas are in 

good condition

61 300 Building Condition General Building Exterior Exterior landscaped areas are in good condition All areas are in 

good condition

Almost all (75% or 

more) areas are in 

good condition

Most (50%-74%) 

areas are in good 

condition

Some (25%-49%) 

areas are in good 

condition

Few (less than 25%) 

areas are in good 

condition

No areas are in 

good condition

312 301 Security General Building Exterior The location and condition of the area surrounding the court facility provides a 

safe and secure environment for the public and court personnel Yes No

313 302 Security General Building Exterior No adjacent facilities have sight lines into restricted court areas Yes No

All sides of the Three sides of the Two sides of the One side of the No sides of the 

314 303 Security General Building Exterior The court facility setback from the property line is in accordance with the ISC 

Security Design Criteria Manual

building meet 

setback 

building meet 

setback 

building meet 

setback 

building meets 

setback 

building meet 

setback 

requirements requirements requirements requirements requirements 

315 304 Security General Building Exterior There are physical barriers on site to protect the court facility from 

unwarranted vehicular access Yes No

316 305 Security General Building Exterior Perimeter doors, windows, and other entrances are properly secured

All perimeter doors, 

windows, and other 

entrances are 

properly secured

Almost all (75% or 

more) perimeter 

doors, windows, and 

other entrances are 

properly secured

Most (50%-74%) 

perimeter doors, 

windows, and other 

entrances are 

properly secured

Some (25%-49%) 

perimeter doors, 

windows, and other 

entrances are 

properly secured

Few (less than 25%) 

perimeter doors, 

windows, and other 

entrances are 

properly secured

No perimeter doors, 

windows, or other 

entrances are 

properly secured

317 306 Security General Building Exterior Fresh-air intakes and other utility entrances are properly secured to prevent 

contaminants Yes No

The court facility 

318 307 Security General Building Exterior The court facility shell is resistant to blasts 

shell is resistant to 

blasts in 

accordance with the 

ISC Security Design 

The court facility 

shell is partially 

resistant from blasts 

The court facility 

shell is not blastresistant

Criteria Manual

319 308 Security General Building Exterior The court facility shell incorporates progressive collapse Yes No

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 16
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

Circulation is mostly Circulation is A portion of the 

321 309 Security General Building Restricted Access Courthouse hallways, elevators, and stairways provide separation of public, 

restricted, and secure circulation

Public, restricted, 

and secure 

circulation is 

separated

separated and 

electronic security 

measures are used 

where circulation 

paths cross or 

generally separated 

and manual security 

measures are used 

where circulation 

paths cross or 

circulation is 

separated, but 

situations exist 

where paths 

converge and there 

There is no 

separation of 

circulation

converge converge is no security

80 310 Building Condition General Building Restricted Access The court facility has a loading dock or service entrance

There is service 

entrance and 

internal loading 

dock 

There is a service 

entry and external 

loading dock

There is a service 

entry but no loading 

dock

81 311 Building Condition General Building Restricted Access The freight elevator has convenient access to the loading dock

There is access 

convenient access 

to the elevator from 

the loading dock

There is a freight 

elevator but no 

loading dock

There is no freight 

elevator

322 312 Security General Building Restricted Access Judges have a path of restricted travel from the building entrance to 

chambers

All judges have a 

path of restricted 

travel

Almost all (75% or 

more) judges have 

a path of restricted 

travel

Most (50%-74%) 

judges have a path 

of restricted travel

Some (25%-49%) 

judges have a path 

of restricted travel

Few (less than 25%) 

judges have a path 

of restricted travel

No judges have a 

path of restricted 

travel

The sallyport meets The sallyport only 

323 313 Security General Building Prisoner Movement A prisoner sallyport is provided USMS standards 

and accommodates 

accommodates 

vans and smaller There is no sallyport

vehicles of all size vehicles

324 314 Security General Building Prisoner Movement The central cellblock is connected to the prisoner sallyport through secure 

prisoner circulation Yes No

325 315 Security General Building Prisoner Movement Secure circulation is provided between the central cellblock and the 

courtroom holding cells

All holding cells 

have appropriate 

circulation from the 

central cellblock 

Almost all (75% or 

more) holding cells 

have appropriate 

circulation from the 

central cellblock 

Most (50%-74%) 

holding cells have 

appropriate 

circulation from the 

central cellblock 

Some (25%-49%) 

holding cells have 

appropriate 

circulation from the 

central cellblock 

Few (less than 25%) 

holding cells have 

appropriate 

circulation from the 

central cellblock 

No holding cells 

have appropriate 

circulation from the 

central cellblock 

326 316 Security General Building Prisoner Movement Secure circulation is provided between the prisoner holding cells and the 

courtrooms

All courtrooms have 

appropriate 

circulation from the 

holding cells 

Almost all (75% or 

more) courtrooms 

have appropriate 

circulation from the 

holding cells 

Most (50%-74%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate 

circulation from the 

holding cells 

Some (25%-49%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate 

circulation from the 

holding cells 

Few (less than 25%) 

courtrooms have 

appropriate 

circulation from the 

holding cells 

No courtrooms have 

appropriate 

circulation from the 

holding cells 

62 317 Building Condition General Building Building Systems The electrical infrastructure, including building service and wiring, is sufficient 

to support court operations

The electrical 

infrastructure is 

sufficient to support 

all court operations

The electrical 

infrastructure is 

sufficient to support 

most (50% or more) 

court operations

The electrical 

infrastructure is 

sufficient to support 

less than 50% of 

court operations

Emergency power is Emergency power is 

fully provided for life partially provided for 

63 318 Building Condition General Building Building Systems Emergency generator adequately supports the court facility

safety purposes 

(e.g., emergency 

lighting, security, 

one elevator, smoke 

life safety purposes 

(e.g., emergency 

lighting, security, 

one elevator, smoke 

There is no 

emergency 

generator

evacuation, and fire evacuation, and fire 

alarms) alarms)

Technology Technology Technology 

64 319 Building Condition General Building Building Systems The data and telecommunications infrastructure supports court operations infrastructure is infrastructure is infrastructure is not 

adequate partially adequate adequate

65 320 Building Condition General Building Building Systems The main HVAC system is sufficient to support court operations

The main HVAC 

system is sufficient 

to support all court 

operations

The main HVAC 

system is sufficient 

to support most 

(50% or more) court 

operations

The main HVAC 

system is sufficient 

to support less than 

50% of court 

operations

66 321 Building Condition General Building Building Systems The water supply and plumbing systems are sufficient to support court 

operations Yes No

All of the building Most (50% or more) Less than 50% of 

67 322 Building Condition General Building Building Systems The building has a fire sprinkler system has a fire sprinkler of the building has a the building has a 

system fire sprinkler system fire sprinkler system

The entire building, 

including its HVAC The entire building 

system, has has automated The building has 

automated smoke smoke detection only manual alarms The building has The building does 

68 323 Building Condition General Building Building Systems The building has an integrated fire alarm system detection and 

manual alarms 

and manual alarms 

reporting to the 

reporting to the 

USMS and other 

only manual alarms 

reporting within the 

not have smoke 

detection or fire 

reporting to the USMS and other security on a 24/7 building alarms

USMS and other security on a 24/7 basis

security on a 24/7 basis

basis

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 17
AMP Process City GSA Bldg Number Facility Name ________ District of ________

Current Facility Benefit Assessment

Expert 

Choice 

Number

Assessment 

Number Main Criterion Court Component Category Functionality Factor

Level A 

Performance 

Rating

Level B 

Performance 

Rating

Level C 

Performance 

Rating

Level D 

Performance 

Rating

Level E 

Performance 

Rating

Level F 

Performance 

Rating

 Rating Comments

69 324 Building Condition General Building Building Systems The roof is in good condition (e.g., no leaks, damage, unsecured debris) condition leaks of damage leaks or damage

70 325 Building Condition General Building Building Systems Building shell, basement, and below-grade is in good condition (e.g., no water 

leaks, structural cracks, etc.)

The area is in good 

condition

The area has minor 

leaks or damage

The area has major 

leaks or damage

There is a central There is a central 

327 326 Security General Building Central Mail Room The court facility has a central mail room that meets MSFJ standards mail room that 

meets MSFJ 

mail room that does 

not meet MSFJ 

There is no central 

mail room

standards standards

328 327 Security General Building Central Mail Room X-ray equipment and a magnetometer are provided to screen mail at the

loading dock or directly entering the mail room Yes No

320 328 Security General Building Exterior

Restricted parking, with electronic access control, is provided for judges. 

Parking is located in a totally enclosed area under the building or in a fenced 

area with no public view of the parking area or the judge's path to the 

building. A separate restricted entrance to the building is provided.

Interior restricted 

parking is provided 

for all judges

Interior or exterior 

restricted parking is 

provided for all 

judges

Interior or exterior 

restricted parking is 

provided for some 

judges

Interior or exterior 

restricted parking is 

not provided for all 

judges

The roof is in good The roof has minor The roof has major 

7/27/2022 AOUSC Confidential Page 18
6.5 Current FBA Results List

The current version of the FBA Results list can be located on JNet.

123
This page left intentionally blank.

124
District of XXXX, Long-Range Facilities Plan Facility Benefit Assessment Results 

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU) PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not remove this notice – Properly destroy or return documents when no longer needed

A-1

Facility Benefit Assessment Results

Courthouses and Facility Benefit Assessments (FBAs) 2022

As part of the AMP process, Facility Benefit Assessments (FBAs) are conducted on courthouses[1] to determine how well the 

existing facility supports (i.e., benefits) the needs and operations of the court. The facility assessment consists of a standardized 

set of factors that is used as a checklist by the Administrative Office’s architects during a tour of each courthouse. Tours occur 

as part of the district or circuit’s Long-Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) on-site planning session. The classification of space by type 

(e.g., district judge courtroom, magistrate judge courtroom) is also standardized within the AMP process and documented in the 

AMP Business Rules. 

The individual FBA factors are used to assess the space occupied by each court component within a courthouse. In this way, 

the benefits and deficiencies of court-occupied space are objectively identified and consistently documented for each courtoccupied facility across the judiciary. In cities where courtrooms and chambers are located in multiple facilities, a city-wide 

benefit assessment[2] is produced. 

The facility benefit assessment covers the four main categories of space functionality, space standards, security, and building 

condition:

• Building Condition (30%) – the condition of general building (15%) and judiciary tenant space (15%) of the facility,

including the condition of the building systems (e.g., plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, etc.), common areas, lobbies,

elevators and stairways, and exterior spaces on the site (e.g., plaza, walkways, parking, etc.);

• Space Functionality (30%) – the extent to which space supports the number and operations of judges and staff, and

functions properly for adjacencies, layout, accessibility, and circulation;

• Security (25%) – the security features in the facility, such as secure and restricted circulation patterns, prisoner holding

areas, sallyports, and break-resistant glazing; and

• Space Standards (15%) – the conformance of space with the U.S. Courts Design Guide and other applicable standards 

for size and proportion.

The higher the resulting FBA (or city-wide benefit assessment) rating, the better the existing facility (or aggregate of facilities 

within a city) meets the operational needs of the court. In general, a rating of 100 represents an ideal courthouse, a rating of 

80-99 represents a good courthouse, a rating of 70 to 79 represents an adequately functioning courthouse, a rating of 60 to 69

represents a marginal courthouse, and a rating below 60 represents a poor courthouse.

[1] For the AMP process, a courthouse is a court-occupied facility that houses one or more courtrooms, whether or not there are resident

judges.

[2] The city-wide benefit assessment incorporates the individual facility benefit assessments for each facility, the type and mix of facility

ownership (i.e., federally owned, leased or postal), and fragmentation of the court operations on a city-wide basis. Fragmentation

assesses the degree to which court operations, such as courtrooms, chambers and prisoner movement, are split across multiple

facilities within a city (except by court policy).
District of XXXX, Long-Range Facilities Plan Facility Benefit Assessment Results 

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU) PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not remove this notice – Properly destroy or return documents when no longer needed

A-2

The FBA results for the courthouses in the District of XXXX are shown in Table 1. To provide some comparative context, the 

national summary of FBA results of courthouses assessed through January 2022 is shown in the following figures. These 

summary results correspond to the courthouses included on the 2022 AMP Annual Urgency Evaluation (UE) Results List (379 

courthouses located in 301 cities and 94 districts, including 12 circuit headquarters). 

Table 1. District of XXXX: Courthouses and Facility Benefit Assessments (FBA)

(Insert FBA table here.)
District of XXXX, Long-Range Facilities Plan Facility Benefit Assessment Results 

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU) PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not remove this notice – Properly destroy or return documents when no longer needed

A-3

National Summary of FBA Results

FBAs assess how well an existing facility supports the operations of the court: 100 represents an ideal courthouse (Figure 1). 

The national results for each of the four main criteria of the FBA are depicted in Figures 2 through 7. 
District of XXXX, Long-Range Facilities Plan Facility Benefit Assessment Results 

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU) PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not remove this notice – Properly destroy or return documents when no longer needed

A-4

Building Condition Criterion (30%) (Figure 2) – assesses the condition of general building space (15%) and judiciary tenant 

space (15%) of the facility, including the condition of the building systems (e.g., plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, etc.), 

common areas, lobbies, elevators and stairways, and exterior spaces on the site (e.g., plaza, walkways, parking, etc.)

Space Functionality Criterion (30%) (Figure 3) – assesses the extent to which space supports the number and operations of 

judges and staff, and functions properly for adjacencies, layout, accessibility, and circulation 
District of XXXX, Long-Range Facilities Plan Facility Benefit Assessment Results 

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU) PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not remove this notice – Properly destroy or return documents when no longer needed

A-5

Security Criterion (25%) (Figure 4) – assesses the security features in the facility, such as secure and restricted circulation 

patterns, prisoner holding areas, and break-resistant glazing

Space Standards Criterion (15%) (Figure 5)– assesses the conformance of space with the U.S. Courts Design Guide and 

other applicable standards for size and proportion
District of XXXX, Long-Range Facilities Plan Facility Benefit Assessment Results 

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU) PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not remove this notice – Properly destroy or return documents when no longer needed

A-6

The Building Condition Criterion (30%) is further segmented as follows:

1. General Building Sub-Criterion (15%) (Figure 6)– assesses the interior and exterior spaces that are part of the

overall building, including building systems.

2. Judiciary Space Sub-Criterion (15%) (Figure 7) – assesses space occupied by the Judiciary, including the systems

that serve those spaces.
131

6.6 Current UE Results List

The current version of the UE Results list can be located on JNet.
This page left intentionally blank.

132
A TRADITION OF SERVICE TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

March 21, 2023 

MEMORANDUM

To: Circuit Executives 

District Court Executives 

Clerks, United States Courts 

From: David J. Insinga 

Chief, Space and Facilities Division

RE: 2023 URGENCY EVALUATION RESULTS LIST (INFORMATION)

Attached for your information and posted on the JNet is a copy of the 2023 Asset 

Management Planning (AMP) Urgency Evaluation (UE) Results list and its accompanying UE 

Annual Update Summary (Attachment 1). This UE Results list updates and replaces the 

previous version dated February 2022. It includes 380 courthouses and factors in newly 

constructed chambers and courtroom projects, emergent courtroom and chambers needs, updated 

annualized caseload growth projections, and additional court locations assessed under the AMP 

process since the previous update in 2022. In addition, an objective statistical approach, the 

Interquartile Range Method, was used in this year’s analysis to determine the cap for each 

criterion. 

The UE Annual Update Summary, which is published annually, provides a wrap-up on 

revisions made to the UE Results list (Attachment 2). Specifically, it includes information on 

courthouses added and removed from the list since its inception in 2011, locations in the UE top 

50 with a significant change in UE ranking, the status of Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities 

list and Courthouse Security Program locations, and an explanation of the methodology used to 

calculate key parts of the UE ratings.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Suzanne Allan at 

(202) 502-1184, or by email at Suzanne_Allan@ao.uscourts.gov.

Attachments 

cc: Members, Committee on Space and Facilities

Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

TXW

5 TXE Sherman/Plano 49.830 1 59.827 4 60.011 - 1 - - 2 2 3 - - - - - - 3 - 4 - - 50.170 40.14 8.36 22.79 6.79

10 OKN Tulsa 71.646 2 57.809 9 45.429 - - - - 2 1 - - 1 - - 1 - 3 - 2 1 - 28.354 (8.71) 7.79 34.71 11.36

11 GAM Macon 48.973 3 54.878 3 63.166 - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - 2 - - - - 51.027 3.50 5.50 (4.21) 4.29

9 AKX Anchorage 64.249 4 54.360 5 59.524 - 2 1 - - 2 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - 1 1 35.751 1.71 4.29 (1.50) 3.50

9 CAC Riverside 83.873 5 51.960 2 63.252 - - 2 - 3 1 3 - 1 - - - - 5 - 1 1 - 16.127 44.00 37.79 3.21 2.86

10 OKE Muskogee 58.747 6 48.450 7 55.819 - - - 1 2 1 1 1 - - - - - 1 - 3 1 - 41.253 (1.86) 11.50 21.36 5.36

4 NCM Greensboro 55.973 7 45.459 13 43.205 - 1 - - 1 2 - - - - - - - 2 - 1 - - 44.027 - 7.64 - 3.57

7 INS Indianapolis 61.737 8 42.801 46 32.865 - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - 1 - 2 - - 38.263 141.14 28.36 13.07 3.36

4 VAW Roanoke 68.437 9 40.657 15 42.125 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 31.563 6.79 21.29 (5.21) 2.71

9 CAS San Diego 68.091 10 40.594 16 41.700 - - - - 8 - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - 31.909 (24.57) 51.00 27.50 77.36

8 ARW Fort Smith 65.165 11 40.532 14 42.809 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 34.835 5.71 2.50 (2.86) 1.07

5 5th Circuit New Orleans (Circuit HQ) 67.080 12 40.283 91 25.818 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 32.920 (592.29) 321.43 (21.29) 3.86

11 ALN Florence (NR) 39.509 13 40.012 19 40.012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60.491 (3.57) 1.21 (1.79) - 

4 NCE Raleigh 61.906 14 39.995 11 44.011 - - - - 3 1 1 - - - - - - 2 - 2 - 1 38.094 24.64 28.93 (2.79) 7.43

5 TXN Dallas 77.961 15 39.880 10 45.376 - 1 - - - 4 - - - - - - - 3 - - - 1 22.039 62.79 67.29 8.93 7.21

7 WIE Green Bay 59.635 16 39.685 12 43.893 - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - 40.365 6.71 6.50 1.29 2.79

5 TXS McAllen 65.373 17 39.249 22 38.514 - - - - - 2 - 1 - - - - - 3 - - 1 - 34.627 11.50 5.00 90.36 34.64

1 MEX Portland 62.291 18 38.906 8 47.065 - 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 37.709 (2.86) 5.50 (0.64) 2.86

6 TNW Memphis 80.200 19 38.644 126 23.502 - 1 - - - 2 - - - - 1 - - 1 - 3 - 1 19.800 (4.86) 9.14 (14.64) 10.64

3 PAW Pittsburgh 82.049 20 37.959 18 40.466 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - 2 17.951 17.07 17.36 8.93 5.50

5 TXW Del Rio 60.985 21 37.565 25 38.178 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - 2 - - 39.015 (1.14) 0.71 73.93 52.64

11 FLS West Palm Beach 56.277 22 37.263 27 37.594 - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 43.723 71.00 29.50 (7.29) 8.14

7 INS Evansville 58.924 23 36.300 36 35.445 - - 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - 41.076 2.14 1.57 1.07 0.57

10 COX Colorado Springs 58.159 24 36.230 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 41.841 - - (0.21) - 

9 AZX Tucson 79.186 25 36.192 32 36.165 - 1 - - - 4 1 - - - - - - - - 4 - - 20.814 (7.36) 18.79 29.07 61.57

9 CAE Yosemite 45.518 26 36.007 24 38.191 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 54.482 - - - - 

4 SCX Charleston 50.254 27 35.842 23 38.232 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49.746 23.21 22.43 (3.14) 4.36

2 NYW Rochester 63.421 28 35.821 28 36.809 - - - 1 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 36.579 28.71 5.36 (3.79) 8.21

4 VAE Norfolk 69.299 29 35.335 21 38.711 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 30.701 (11.29) 7.93 (44.14) 17.86

5 TXN Fort Worth 65.215 30 34.917 43 33.826 - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 34.785 44.29 30.07 10.57 4.43

9 ORX Pendleton (NR) 47.891 31 34.806 30 36.545 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 52.109 10.36 1.36 - - 

6 KYW Louisville 70.148 32 34.763 31 36.489 - 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 29.852 6.57 8.57 (6.93) 6.36

11 FLN Pensacola 62.829 33 34.474 42 34.146 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 37.171 5,985.07 49.57 (10.50) 7.64

8 ARW Texarkana 49.323 34 33.679 44 33.362 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50.677 (2.21) 1.07 0.21 0.86

3 DEX Wilmington 70.768 35 33.639 35 35.554 - - - - 1 2 1 - - - - - - 3 - 3 - 1 29.232 73.50 25.21 (7.86) 2.50

10 WYX Mammoth Hot Springs 49.273 36 33.525 34 35.559 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50.727 - - - - 

11 ALM Dothan (NR) 50.053 37 33.175 37 35.254 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49.947 (2.43) 3.43 (0.93) 0.71 Circuit District

City

City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023(most urgent to least)Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022(most urgent to least)Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

1

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

9 WAW Vancouver (NR) 49.904 38 33.108 38 35.117 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50.096 - - - - 

8 MNX Fergus Falls (NR) 49.985 39 33.055 39 35.060 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50.015 - - - - 

9 CAN Oakland 80.687 40 33.041 54 31.550 - 1 - - 1 2 - - - - - - - 2 - 2 - - 19.313 96.36 6.21 (5.86) 2.36

5 LAW Monroe 50.256 41 33.029 40 34.978 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49.744 (2.21) 2.50 (2.29) 0.86

9 CAC Los Angeles 76.072 42 32.607 55 31.270 - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - 7 - - 23.928 126.14 140.50 (48.50) 12.14

7 ILS Benton 67.778 43 32.036 20 39.929 - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 32.222 (0.14) - (3.14) 2.21

2 VTX Burlington 70.815 44 31.017 45 33.097 - 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 29.185 2.79 2.07 (3.86) 1.79

6 KYE Pikeville (NR) 53.439 45 30.877 47 32.722 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46.561 (11.71) 1.79 (2.71) 0.57

3 NJX Newark 76.779 46 30.785 61 30.225 - - - - 1 2 - - - - - - - 6 - 1 - 1 23.221 172.93 28.00 1.79 6.07

6 MIW Marquette 55.146 47 30.487 49 32.368 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 44.854 0.79 3.29 (0.79) 1.43

5 TXN Wichita Falls (NR) 54.560 48 30.460 48 32.483 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45.440 (4.21) 3.21 0.86 0.43

5 TXS Corpus Christi 93.692 49 30.433 29 36.722 - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - 2 - - - - 6.308 (16.21) 2.93 35.50 17.43

6 KYW Paducah 54.875 50 30.372 51 32.001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45.125 (1.36) 2.14 (21.21) 5.07

4 SCX Florence 74.820 51 30.268 60 30.486 1 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 25.180 (11.93) 5.64 (12.71) 4.57

5 MSS Hattiesburg 55.006 52 30.264 53 31.780 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44.994 (7.79) 2.57 0.86 1.64

11 11th 

Circuit Atlanta (Circuit HQ) 64.873 53 30.227 68 29.264 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 35.127 147.64 70.64 (7.86) 9.00

11 FLM Tampa 83.494 54 30.224 50 32.034 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 7 - - 16.506 56.86 45.79 (7.50) 25.79

4 VAW Danville (NR) 54.527 55 30.163 52 31.980 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45.473 (0.36) 1.71 (2.07) 0.64

11 GAN Atlanta 71.835 56 29.829 63 30.029 - - - - - 1 2 - - - - - - 2 - - - - 28.165 147.64 70.64 (7.86) 9.00

5 LAW Alexandria 55.964 57 29.490 56 31.096 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44.036 0.36 2.64 0.57 1.07

9 WAE Richland 86.021 58 29.229 230 11.916 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 13.979 19.21 2.79 5.07 4.07

4 SCX Anderson 56.221 59 29.215 58 30.798 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43.779 (9.29) 3.64 (6.36) 1.86

4 VAW Abingdon 82.844 60 29.141 33 36.098 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 17.156 (2.29) 1.86 0.43 4.64

8 IAN Sioux City 56.448 61 28.891 59 30.638 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43.552 (4.43) 0.64 (1.93) 0.93

8 SDX Sioux Falls 57.382 62 28.672 62 30.041 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42.618 (0.29) 2.29 0.50 2.79

7 ILS East St. Louis 70.476 63 28.378 145 21.773 - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 29.524 40.50 18.64 (4.00) 4.29

6 KYE Lexington 70.909 64 28.159 66 29.655 - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.091 (5.86) 5.36 (8.43) 4.14

10 10th 

Circuit Denver (Circuit HQ) 67.018 65 28.132 73 28.365 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 32.982 53.21 43.43 (20.71) 18.71

10 COX Denver 67.018 65 28.132 65 29.729 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 32.982 53.21 43.43 (20.71) 18.71

11 ALM Opelika (NR) 57.635 66 28.128 64 29.757 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42.365 (3.14) 3.36 (1.79) 0.36

8 NDX Minot (NR) 57.785 67 27.900 67 29.592 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42.215 (2.00) - (4.50) - 

5 TXW Midland 78.111 68 27.629 92 25.778 - - 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - 21.889 9.57 3.07 6.29 9.43

11 GAM Columbus 63.931 69 27.578 71 28.488 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 36.069 4.07 3.14 (12.43) 5.14

11 FLN Gainesville (NR) 58.826 70 27.388 69 29.086 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 41.174 (3.50) 0.14 (1.93) 1.79

DC DC Circuit Washington 73.105 71 27.206 134 22.627 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26.895 89.79 35.50 19.07 11.21

DC DCX Washington 73.105 71 27.206 134 22.627 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26.895 89.79 35.50 19.07 11.21

9 AKX Fairbanks 59.498 72 26.844 72 28.436 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40.502 (0.50) 0.50 (0.64) 0.64

2

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

6 MIE Port Huron 61.143 73 26.837 74 28.275 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38.857 11.14 1.57 2.07 0.43

2 CTX New Haven 60.100 74 26.760 75 28.184 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39.900 - 9.21 - 1.36

5 TXE Texarkana 64.298 75 26.712 78 27.689 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 35.702 (4.64) 1.50 (0.64) 0.50

1 RIX Providence 68.572 76 26.639 148 21.422 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 31.428 (5.14) 6.79 1.14 1.14

11 GAS Augusta 65.484 77 26.598 80 27.549 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 34.516 0.43 2.36 (1.36) 4.00

8 ARW Fayetteville 63.598 78 26.587 57 30.995 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 36.402 0.29 2.57 (0.29) 3.14

6 MIE Bay City 73.800 79 26.389 84 27.034 - - 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - 26.200 (6.36) 1.93 0.93 0.86

9 AKX Juneau (NR) 60.648 80 26.322 79 27.615 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39.352 (0.07) 0.29 0.79 0.36

6 KYW Owensboro 60.565 81 26.260 76 27.876 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39.435 0.07 1.57 (0.21) 1.57

2 VTX Rutland 62.870 82 26.252 81 27.449 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37.130 8.57 1.36 3.71 1.21

7 ILC Springfield 61.148 83 26.180 70 28.923 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38.852 (2.93) 3.43 (1.79) 4.21

10 COX Grand Junction (NR) 60.466 84 26.128 77 27.713 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39.534 - - (0.07) - 

9 MTX Butte 61.125 85 25.906 82 27.294 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38.875 1.57 0.93 (1.36) 1.43

11 ALN Decatur 61.091 86 25.715 83 27.275 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38.909 - - - - 

5 TXS Victoria 66.808 87 25.643 109 24.405 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.192 (3.14) 0.57 9.79 3.14

11 ALN Birmingham 68.800 88 25.516 123 23.619 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 31.200 (32.50) 10.07 (6.86) 3.36

11 ALS Selma (NR) 61.693 89 25.477 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38.307 (9.36) 2.21 0.14 0.50

7 INN South Bend 74.132 90 25.318 6 57.717 - - 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 25.868 25.50 22.93 (3.21) 3.07

3 NJX Camden 84.237 91 25.211 187 16.469 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 2 - 1 - - 15.763 49.43 10.29 (9.07) 0.71

7 ILC Urbana 62.978 92 25.178 87 26.444 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37.022 9.36 3.93 (3.93) 3.14

4 VAW Harrisonburg 62.278 93 25.162 86 26.620 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37.722 (1.29) 3.36 (5.36) 1.43

6 MIE Detroit 70.573 94 25.033 132 22.996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 29.427 (183.64) 22.07 (11.07) 7.00

11 GAS Brunswick 67.705 95 24.956 88 26.235 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 32.295 (6.64) 1.57 0.93 2.29

11 GAS Dublin (NR) 64.164 96 24.945 99 25.164 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35.836 (1.07) 0.79 3.14 1.57

11 GAM Valdosta (NR) 65.350 97 24.890 94 25.450 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34.650 1.93 2.21 4.36 3.71

8 ARW El Dorado 71.555 98 24.761 26 37.989 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 28.445 (4.71) 0.71 0.43 0.36

6 MIE Flint 72.700 99 24.757 121 23.737 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 27.300 4.29 3.29 2.57 1.36

10 NMX Santa Fe 62.652 100 24.683 89 26.181 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37.348 (19.43) - - - 

3 PAE Easton 67.421 101 24.558 93 25.452 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 32.579 - - - - 

4 NCE Greenville 63.050 102 24.420 90 25.902 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36.950 - - - - 

7 WIE Milwaukee 66.429 103 24.218 103 24.833 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.571 19.21 27.50 (21.43) 6.71

5 TXE Marshall 64.309 104 24.141 97 25.274 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35.691 (7.86) 12.14 0.57 0.14

6 OHS Columbus 74.558 105 24.117 101 24.901 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 25.442 361.64 22.43 (2.57) 4.71

8 ARE Jonesboro 66.359 106 23.919 102 24.895 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.641 9.43 5.14 3.43 0.57

10 OKW Lawton 63.895 107 23.862 96 25.309 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36.105 - - - - 

8 NDX Grand Forks 63.962 108 23.817 98 25.262 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36.038 (2.07) - (4.64) - 

5 TXW San Antonioa 67.897 109 23.721 111 24.330 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32.103 17.50 15.93 (8.29) 15.57

3

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

9 CAE Redding 64.307 110 23.596 85 26.926 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35.693 - - (0.86) 0.07

8 MOW Springfield 66.682 111 23.513 119 23.897 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.318 (7.21) 3.00 3.21 3.07

6 TNM Columbia (NR) 64.845 112 23.365 104 24.755 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35.155 (0.50) 4.43 (0.29) 0.07

5 TXE Lufkin 65.372 113 23.327 110 24.334 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34.628 (0.29) 1.57 0.93 0.79

8 ARE Helena 72.082 114 23.313 129 23.077 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27.918 1.79 3.00 13.00 2.29

7 WIW Eau Claire (NR) 64.735 115 23.306 105 24.720 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35.265 - - - -

4 NCM Durham 64.952 116 23.163 108 24.568 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35.048 - - - -

4 NCE Elizabeth City 68.573 117 23.126 113 24.205 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.427 1.07 1.57 6.14 1.57

2 CTX Bridgeport 65.650 118 23.092 112 24.294 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34.350 - 9.21 - 1.36

5 TXS Galveston 69.874 119 23.084 120 23.828 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 30.126 (25.21) 3.50 - 0.50

11 FLS Miami 72.024 120 23.078 106 24.658 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27.976 65.79 54.21 (36.79) 38.57

7 INN Fort Wayne 66.889 121 22.773 118 23.957 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.111 12.14 11.57 (2.14) 1.86

8 SDX Aberdeen 65.742 122 22.727 115 24.056 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34.258 - 0.36 (1.86) 0.79

5 TXE Tyler 66.500 123 22.605 116 24.039 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.500 (6.36) 11.14 (3.64) 1.57

8 SDX Rapid City 67.691 124 22.420 107 24.639 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32.309 (1.36) 0.79 2.14 3.14

2 2nd Circuit New York (Circuit HQ) 72.467 125 22.401 131 23.009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 27.533 (343.29) 78.43 (34.64) 11.00

2 NYS New York 72.467 125 22.401 131 23.009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 27.533 (343.29) 78.43 (34.64) 11.00

6 TNM Nashvillea 67.878 126 22.381 125 23.577 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32.122 (20.86) 53.00 (1.57) 1.57

4 WVS Bluefield 66.656 127 22.338 127 23.480 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.344 3.00 6.57 (0.43) 0.21

7 INN Lafayette 66.364 128 22.302 124 23.602 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.636 0.50 2.00 - -

6 KYE Frankfort 66.875 129 22.056 117 23.976 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.125 (0.64) 1.00 0.21 0.64

9 WAE Yakima 73.263 130 21.975 140 22.171 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 26.737 24.07 3.50 3.07 2.43

10 NMX Roswell 69.776 131 21.972 141 22.155 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.224 0.07 - 4.93 3.00

11 GAS Waycross (NR) 66.871 132 21.971 114 24.087 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 33.129 (2.79) 1.00 (0.43) 0.50

2 NYN Utica 67.247 133 21.961 128 23.247 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32.753 8.64 1.43 - -

5 TXS Houston 81.958 134 21.954 147 21.545 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 2 - - 18.042 (5.14) 42.14 10.71 10.71

6 TNE Winchester (NR) 68.838 135 21.801 142 21.974 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.162 (1.79) 2.00 2.79 1.93

5 LAE New Orleans 75.584 136 21.797 149 21.222 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 24.416 (592.29) 321.43 (21.29) 3.86

11 GAN Gainesville 68.771 137 21.734 130 23.065 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 31.229 9.86 3.93 (1.36) 0.86

2 NYN Binghamton 67.745 138 21.606 133 22.852 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32.255 4.36 1.93 (0.64) 1.00

4 NCW Asheville 69.843 139 21.343 136 22.543 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.157 - 4.64 (6.93) 4.14

8 MNX Duluth 67.761 140 21.307 135 22.599 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32.239 - - - -

5 TXE Beaumont 68.274 141 21.303 138 22.419 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.726 (21.29) 3.86 (10.21) 2.36

6 MIW Lansing 67.901 142 21.214 137 22.501 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 32.099 (6.14) - - -

9 IDX Boise 68.765 143 21.114 122 23.700 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.235 (0.43) 3.29 (0.29) 3.93

11 GAN Rome 68.445 144 21.027 139 22.240 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.555 (0.50) 3.43 (1.71) 0.79

4 VAW Charlottesville 68.969 145 20.616 144 21.849 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31.031 (0.86) 1.64 (2.14) 0.64

4

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

1 MEX Bangor 73.950 146 20.543 160 18.482 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 26.050 0.57 5.36 (2.43) 1.36

9 CAN Salinas (NR) 69.122 147 20.407 146 21.645 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.878 - - - -

3 PAW Johnstown 70.183 148 20.091 143 21.933 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.817 (3.07) 2.29 0.79 0.50

11 GAM Athens (NR) 72.046 149 20.075 153 20.687 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27.954 0.71 1.71 3.29 4.07

8 MOE Hannibal (NR) 69.974 150 19.998 150 21.066 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.026 1.93 3.29 - -

10 WYX Casper 75.941 151 19.992 154 20.459 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 24.059 2.57 0.86 4.29 3.71

6 TNM Cookeville (NR) 70.277 152 19.728 151 20.911 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.723 (2.71) 3.00 (1.86) -

4 SCX Spartanburg 70.574 153 19.606 152 20.699 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.426 (4.00) 1.71 (9.29) 1.14

8 NDX Bismarck 81.189 154 19.309 164 18.134 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 18.811 4.93 2.57 11.86 4.14

4 4th Circuit Richmond (Circuit HQ) 75.802 155 19.302 157 19.275 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 24.198 1.00 9.71 (62.36) 8.93

5 TXS Laredo 89.674 156 19.204 184 16.750 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 2 - 1 - - 10.326 2.50 2.00 25.64 28.79

10 NMX Albuquerque 80.884 157 19.116 189 16.330 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 2 - - - 19.116 5.50 6.64 2.36 25.14

6 MIW Kalamazoo 74.694 158 18.869 170 17.663 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 25.306 (2.86) - - -

5 TXN Abilene 72.391 159 18.572 155 20.263 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27.609 3.07 5.64 (0.29) 0.71

10 KSX Topeka 76.277 160 18.512 161 18.371 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 23.723 (6.50) 3.21 (4.86) 6.21

2 NYS White Plains 88.735 161 18.468 194 14.947 - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - 4 - 1 - - 11.265 13.43 10.07 2.36 2.36

9 CAN San Jose 85.746 162 18.407 17 41.330 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - 14.254 28.36 5.21 (6.71) 3.43

7 7th Circuit Chicago (Circuit HQ) 78.323 163 18.276 95 25.334 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 21.677 (14.21) 69.86 (8.79) 8.36

7 ILN Chicago 78.323 163 18.276 95 25.334 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 21.677 (14.21) 69.86 (8.79) 8.36

4 WVN Martinsburg 78.364 164 18.226 165 18.122 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 21.636 2.43 5.86 1.29 2.21

3 3rd Circuit Philadelphia (Circuit HQ) 76.210 165 18.223 158 18.914 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.790 (1,002.14) 59.86 (38.21) 19.00

3 PAE Philadelphia 76.210 165 18.223 158 18.914 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.790 (1,002.14) 59.86 (38.21) 19.00

9 CAN San Francisco 85.415 166 18.154 212 13.336 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 14.585 94.50 17.86 (1.86) 7.50

8 ARW Hot Springs (NR) 73.719 167 17.973 170 17.663 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26.281 6.43 2.14 0.64 1.21

6 6th Circuit Cincinnati (Circuit HQ) 78.802 168 17.940 181 16.925 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - 21.198 (15.36) 3.07 3.86 3.79

6 OHS Cincinnati 78.802 168 17.940 181 16.925 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - 21.198 (15.36) 3.07 3.86 3.79

8 MNX St. Paul 86.704 169 17.763 216 12.883 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 3 - 2 - - 13.296 (0.07) - - -

9 9th Circuit Portland 78.834 170 17.647 178 17.222 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 21.166 (19.96) 11.50 (14.64) 12.36

6 OHN Youngstown 78.539 171 17.645 172 17.575 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.461 (17.36) 1.43 5.93 2.00

4 NCE Fayetteville (NR) 73.520 172 17.500 159 18.562 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26.480 - - - -

10 KSX Wichita 74.855 173 17.259 163 18.147 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25.145 (3.79) 2.71 (14.21) 5.86

4 SCX Columbia 75.804 174 16.967 176 17.355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24.196 (10.64) 10.71 (7.71) 7.00

2 NYN Albany 80.533 175 16.802 180 16.965 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 19.467 6.14 5.57 (9.57) 5.79

6 OHN Akron 79.754 176 16.759 190 15.853 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 20.246 (29.00) 2.86 5.71 2.57

6 KYE Ashland (NR) 74.877 177 16.752 167 17.879 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25.123 (2.14) 1.71 0.07 0.79

8 SDX Pierre 75.023 178 16.699 162 18.185 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24.977 (1.86) 0.21 (2.00) 1.93

4 WVN Elkins (NR) 74.897 179 16.687 171 17.638 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25.103 (5.36) 1.00 (0.57) 0.71

3 NJX Trenton 82.623 180 16.639 168 17.827 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 17.377 1,182.21 81.36 (6.50) 0.86

5

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

6 OHS Dayton 75.477 181 16.523 173 17.574 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24.523 (7.14) 1.43 (5.64) 2.86

4 MDX Salisbury (NR) 75.210 182 16.384 175 17.378 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24.790 - - - - 

7 ILC Peoria 76.090 183 16.355 166 18.018 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.910 5.57 4.57 (7.36) 2.57

3 PAM Williamsport 78.428 184 16.243 183 16.822 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 21.572 (11.29) 4.71 (4.71) 2.00

5 LAM Baton Rouge 86.658 185 16.160 211 13.354 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 13.342 (13.50) 11.43 (15.07) 8.07

1 MAX Worcester 76.246 186 16.093 174 17.381 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.754 (11.50) 4.00 0.71 0.36

6 MIE Ann Arbor 78.200 187 15.996 179 17.005 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.800 (6.07) 1.64 0.86 0.71

11 GAN Newnan 76.882 188 15.968 186 16.506 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.118 6.64 3.00 1.00 0.50

4 MDX Greenbelt 82.080 189 15.916 182 16.871 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 17.920 (11.29) 15.21 (22.43) 19.21

3 PAM Wilkes Barre 76.349 190 15.744 185 16.691 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.651 - - 0.29 0.14

11 FLS Key West (NR) 76.636 191 15.611 188 16.443 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.364 0.86 1.64 (6.79) 1.00

7 INS New Albany 76.926 192 15.423 192 15.769 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23.074 3.36 1.64 (1.00) 0.21

9 WAE Spokane 78.413 193 15.369 191 15.810 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.587 (11.93) 4.93 (21.79) 10.00

9 NVX Las Vegas 95.362 194 15.177 234 11.286 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 1 - 1 4.638 41.29 32.14 2.57 17.14

10 UTX Salt Lake City 83.207 195 14.719 203 14.134 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 16.793 - 11.86 - 11.86

10 OKW Oklahoma City 80.275 196 14.529 195 14.859 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.725 (15.57) 12.93 (23.86) 11.71

6 MIW Traverse City 81.310 197 14.496 196 14.466 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 18.690 - - - - 

3 VIX St. Thomas 78.504 198 14.454 177 17.324 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.496 (7.29) 0.71 (1.86) 2.36

5 TXW Pecos (NR) 87.260 199 14.451 200 14.275 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.740 0.14 0.93 49.64 26.43

5 MSS Natchez 79.133 200 14.406 193 15.338 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.867 9.14 1.64 0.79 0.07

9 MTX Missoula 82.053 201 14.272 219 12.684 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 17.947 (0.71) 1.64 (2.79) 2.29

5 TXN Amarillo 79.013 202 14.213 169 17.742 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.987 (1.36) 6.07 (0.07) 1.79

3 PAE Allentown 90.285 203 14.206 210 13.589 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - 9.715 66.93 9.79 3.93 2.29

10 WYX Cheyenne 86.317 204 14.018 218 12.700 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 13.683 (5.21) 1.64 (22.93) 6.64

11 FLM Ocala 81.794 205 13.927 197 14.328 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 18.206 11.29 9.14 1.00 3.57

5 TXN San Angelo (NR) 79.847 206 13.874 202 14.191 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.153 3.71 2.07 0.86 0.86

9 9th Circuit San Francisco (Circuit HQ) 85.408 207 13.870 229 11.977 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.592 94.50 17.86 (1.86) 7.50

8 NEX Lincoln 79.795 208 13.704 199 14.293 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.205 (1.29) 0.14 0.29 2.57

5 LAW Lake Charles 85.207 209 13.606 236 10.550 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.793 121.50 24.79 (6.79) 1.36

5 TXN Lubbock 84.484 210 13.605 225 12.245 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.516 (0.50) 5.79 8.57 2.29

4 WVS Huntington 80.823 211 13.532 204 14.047 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.177 (0.21) 8.36 1.50 1.07

6 MIW Grand Rapids 82.080 212 13.489 206 13.805 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.920 4.71 14.50 (11.43) 11.29

5 LAW Shreveport 95.965 213 13.274 294 5.276 - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - 2 - - 4.035 (7.00) 4.07 (1.50) 2.64

9 AZX Phoenix 90.295 214 13.203 228 12.032 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - 9.705 (5.50) 83.00 (19.00) 18.50

5 MSN Oxford 80.750 215 13.123 208 13.601 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.250 (6.57) 10.07 (6.57) 1.21

2 NYS Poughkeepsie 80.219 216 13.073 205 13.866 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19.781 - - - - 

8 ARE Little Rock 81.929 217 12.906 209 13.591 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18.071 (2.86) 19.29 (12.14) 4.36

9 WAW Tacoma 84.856 218 12.489 214 13.032 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.144 21.14 18.79 (28.07) 13.29

6

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

4 NCW Statesville (NR) 82.611 219 12.416 223 12.391 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.389 4.07 2.29 1.21 3.21

4 VAE Alexandria 84.926 220 12.342 226 12.085 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.074 11.93 17.79 (63.71) 17.36

11 GAM Albany 82.162 221 12.094 215 12.973 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.838 (0.79) 3.00 (0.57) 2.29

9 MTX Great Falls 83.860 222 12.082 227 12.080 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 16.140 - 1.43 (4.57) 3.14

7 INS Terre Haute (NR) 83.094 223 12.064 277 6.588 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.906 17.00 4.21 0.57 0.36

8 8th Circuit St. Louis (Circuit HQ) 92.083 224 12.021 244 9.703 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 7.917 (32.21) 64.07 (8.36) 18.00

8 MOE St. Louis 92.083 224 12.021 244 9.703 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 7.917 (32.21) 64.07 (8.36) 18.00

9 CAC Santa Barbara 82.074 225 11.847 220 12.566 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.926 - - - - 

9 CAE Sacramento 91.868 226 11.814 237 10.357 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 1 8.132 (24.29) 27.00 (37.07) 14.43

9 CAC Woodland Hills 82.153 227 11.795 221 12.511 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17.847 - - - - 

4 NCE Wilmington 83.219 228 11.763 201 14.192 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.781 4.07 5.50 0.29 3.00

3 PAM Scranton 83.285 229 11.743 224 12.253 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.715 (18.36) 10.79 (11.50) 4.07

7 WIW Madison 84.275 230 11.740 222 12.401 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.725 6.86 25.21 (5.57) 4.36

2 NYN Syracuse 83.793 231 11.721 207 13.616 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.207 (4.64) 10.43 (8.86) 7.43

6 OHN Cleveland 85.436 232 11.662 233 11.407 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.564 (75.21) 26.21 1.64 7.57

1 NHX Concord 89.262 233 11.631 198 14.307 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - 10.738 39.57 7.14 (0.64) 3.57

9 HIX Honolulu 90.823 234 11.609 242 9.812 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 9.177 (5.21) 6.93 (16.07) 11.00

4 VAE Newport News (NR) 84.411 235 11.050 232 11.551 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.589 (0.29) 1.86 (28.36) 7.21

4 NCE New Bern 83.926 236 11.048 231 11.572 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.074 (4.64) 3.50 0.64 1.07

4 MDX Baltimore 86.991 237 10.991 213 13.056 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.009 5.00 26.07 (49.00) 28.29

8 NDX Fargo 86.093 238 10.664 235 10.563 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.907 2.71 2.50 2.93 3.14

5 TXW Waco 88.692 239 10.609 243 9.721 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.308 62.21 15.79 (6.43) 7.43

4 NCM Winston-Salem 84.854 240 10.569 217 12.845 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.146 - 7.64 - 3.57

10 KSX Kansas City 88.548 241 10.336 240 10.045 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 11.452 (1.57) 4.79 (12.14) 5.07

2 NYE Brooklyn 91.929 242 10.131 258 7.734 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.071 72.36 61.43 (31.71) 16.57

11 FLM Fort Myers 89.303 243 10.029 239 10.229 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 10.697 14.57 14.07 (5.14) 4.57

3 VIX St. Croix 85.927 244 9.797 156 19.534 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.073 12.29 2.29 (4.57) 0.43

11 FLN Tallahassee 86.005 245 9.533 241 9.921 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.995 (0.71) 0.29 (0.71) 2.86

11 GAS Statesboro (NR) 85.885 246 9.452 238 10.257 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.115 0.86 1.21 (3.86) 0.64

10 NMX Las Cruces 91.956 247 9.198 246 9.157 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 8.044 5.50 2.21 (73.71) 50.36

8 IAN Cedar Rapids 92.225 248 9.070 251 8.498 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 7.775 (1.79) 1.57 (3.57) 0.86

9 CAN Santa Rosa 86.347 249 9.023 245 9.571 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.653 - - - - 

9 CAE Fresno 89.733 250 8.907 248 8.783 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.267 (3.43) 22.07 (14.29) 17.36

11 ALS Mobile 90.463 251 8.627 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.537 (19.07) 19.43 (13.50) 9.29

9 IDX Pocatello 90.629 252 8.610 253 8.053 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 9.371 1.93 1.14 (0.21) 1.86

6 KYE London 94.234 253 8.426 260 7.579 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - 5.766 (16.79) 3.43 0.36 3.07

1 1st Circuit Boston (Circuit HQ) 89.308 254 8.424 252 8.341 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.692 (32.07) 44.07 (1.00) 3.71

7

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

1 MAX Boston 89.308 254 8.424 252 8.341 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.692 (32.07) 44.07 (1.00) 3.71

5 TXW Austin 95.558 255 8.349 272 6.821 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 4.442 2.43 13.00 (0.57) 7.07

5 MSS Gulfport 87.978 256 8.329 247 8.790 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.022 (59.50) 6.29 (4.79) 2.14

2 NYW Buffalo 92.132 257 8.097 257 7.856 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.868 52.86 8.57 (15.86) 10.14

9 MTX Helena 87.980 258 8.048 249 8.518 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.020 0.71 0.93 (1.50) 0.57

1 PRX Ponce 87.869 259 8.017 250 8.504 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12.131 - - - - 

6 KYE Covington 88.777 260 7.655 255 8.015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.223 (2.64) 2.57 (4.21) 1.71

9 CAC Santa Ana 97.440 261 7.485 254 8.020 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - 2.560 43.64 31.50 (2.14) 2.07

9 9th Circuit Seattle 91.307 262 7.456 256 7.975 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.693 (29.36) 31.43 (23.43) 8.57

9 MTX Billings 89.479 263 7.415 262 7.515 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.521 (1.43) 1.50 (5.86) 4.36

9 ORX Portland 91.314 264 7.239 265 7.109 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.686 (39.07) 10.93 (14.64) 12.36

5 MSS Jackson 90.259 265 7.189 261 7.551 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.741 3.64 12.79 (0.64) 2.86

9 IDX Coeur dAlene 89.489 266 7.162 263 7.422 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.511 (0.14) 0.57 0.36 0.79

8 NEX Omaha 93.244 267 7.127 278 6.540 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 6.756 (0.71) 0.29 (10.14) 5.29

11 FLM Jacksonville 92.267 268 7.117 273 6.793 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.733 24.57 21.79 (17.14) 6.36

7 ILN Rockford 91.011 269 6.697 305 1.970 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.989 17.86 5.00 (1.79) 0.50

9 9th Circuit Pasadena 89.920 270 6.662 268 7.066 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.080 - - - - 

11 FLM Orlando 92.335 271 6.624 264 7.405 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.665 (386.79) 32.36 (12.21) 6.71

9 ORX Eugene 93.252 272 6.623 279 6.498 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 6.748 (0.71) 5.14 (4.00) 3.71

9 CAE Bakersfield 93.428 273 6.599 269 6.956 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 6.572 - - (2.29) 0.07

1 MAX Springfield 93.726 274 6.593 285 5.854 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 6.274 (6.21) 3.86 0.50 0.21

9 GUX Hagatna 90.316 275 6.581 271 6.894 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.684 0.57 1.86 (9.79) 1.14

5 TXS Brownsville 94.035 276 6.578 291 5.546 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 5.965 0.43 2.00 (5.57) 15.50

9 WAW Seattle 92.769 277 6.490 270 6.950 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.231 (29.36) 31.43 (23.43) 8.57

2 NYE Central Islip 96.835 278 6.426 290 5.604 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 3.165 34.50 23.71 (1.29) 4.43

4 WVS Charleston 91.811 279 6.387 284 5.952 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.189 (4.14) 15.86 0.93 2.14

9 AZX Yuma 90.411 280 6.337 274 6.722 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.589 - - - - 

9 CAN McKinleyville 90.485 281 6.288 275 6.670 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.515 - - - - 

9 CAE Modesto (NR) 90.503 282 6.277 276 6.657 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.497 - - - - 

11 ALM Montgomery 91.815 283 6.046 282 6.036 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.185 (9.57) 14.29 (5.00) 2.43

4 WVN Wheeling 91.890 284 5.984 283 6.007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.110 3.21 6.36 0.71 1.00

5 LAW Lafayette 92.162 285 5.960 267 7.088 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.838 (7.71) 5.71 1.07 2.57

4 VAW Lynchburg 91.464 286 5.854 280 6.153 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.536 0.71 1.86 (0.71) 1.43

5 TXW Alpine 91.241 287 5.789 281 6.140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.759 - - - - 

7 INN Hammond 92.381 287 5.789 289 5.749 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.619 (1.14) 10.14 (3.43) 4.86

6 TNW Jackson 93.571 288 5.780 296 5.026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 6.429 (0.64) 2.36 (2.64) 4.07

8 IAS Davenport 91.783 289 5.661 266 7.107 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8.217 (2.00) 0.86 (3.50) 2.14

11 FLS Fort Pierce 92.242 290 5.626 286 5.816 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.758 4.64 6.36 (8.00) 1.79

8

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

9 NVX Reno 92.400 291 5.510 288 5.793 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.600 (4.29) 8.50 (4.29) 2.57

3 PAW Erie 92.228 292 5.406 287 5.808 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.772 3.86 3.50 (0.93) 0.50

6 OHN Canton 92.144 293 5.192 292 5.507 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.856 - - - -

6 TNE Greeneville 98.047 294 5.144 297 4.734 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1.953 (7.00) 7.86 2.79 5.43

8 MNX Minneapolis 94.529 295 4.987 295 5.030 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.471 (189.57) 132.50 (22.86) 3.86

8 MOW Kansas City 93.701 296 4.980 293 5.375 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.299 (0.14) 8.00 (16.36) 6.14

5 TXW El Paso 95.345 297 4.677 259 7.611 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.655 (10.57) 3.57 (93.86) 49.36

8 MOW Jefferson City 95.841 298 4.225 299 3.858 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.159 (1.57) 2.07 3.50 2.14

4 WVS Beckley 94.289 299 4.121 298 4.049 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.711 (2.71) 10.36 (3.71) 0.57

4 VAE Richmond 97.547 300 3.859 301 3.349 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 2.453 1.00 9.71 (62.36) 8.93

8 MOE Cape Girardeau 95.690 301 3.737 300 3.364 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.310 0.79 7.86 0.64 4.36

6 TNE Knoxville 97.196 302 2.906 303 2.855 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.804 (2.00) 17.36 (2.71) 5.86

9 CAS El Centro 96.094 303 2.581 304 2.738 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.906 (0.07) - - -

4 VAW Salem Not Assessed 304 2.144 306 1.365 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Not 

Assessed - - - -

2 NYW Geneseo Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

3 PAE Reading Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

3 PAW Duncansville Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

4 MDX Bethesda Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

6 OHN Medina Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

7 INS Bloomington Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed 306 1.365 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not 

Assessed - - - -

9 CAC El Segundo Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

9 CAS Carlsbad Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

9 IDX Idaho Falls Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

10 KSX Lawrence Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

11 GAN Jasper Not Assessed Not 

Assessed

Not 

Assessed

 Not 

Assessed Not Assessed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not Assessed - - - -

General Notes

a

 - The existing bankruptcy courthouses in Nashville, TN, and San Antonio, TX, remain in use following the construction of new district courthouses in those cities. These two bankruptcy courthouses are included in the 2023 Annual Update; Urgency Evaluation ratings for these cities will be recalculated after the 

new district courthouses are assessed. 

9

Attachment 1
Asset Management Planning: Urgency Evaluation Results City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

Yearly evaluation results are used to assist in the assessment and prioritization of space needs. A higher urgency evaluation rating (number) represents a more urgent need. February 14, 2023 AMP Annual Update

City-level results sorted by Urgency Evaluation

 District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate JudgesBankruptcy Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges District Judges Senior District Judges Magistrate Judges Bankruptcy Judges Circuit Judges

Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (3.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.0%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2007 to 2021 (4.5%)Average Annual Growth (Decline) 2022 to 2036 (1.5%)

1.5 4.25 1.5 3.5 60.49 94.50 35.50 13.00 15.57 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100% 100% 75% 50% 50% 100%

Florence, 

ALN

San 

Francisco, 

CAN

Washington, 

DCX Helena, ARE San Antonio, 

CircuitDistrict

City TXW City-Wide Benefit Assessment 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2023 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2023 Urgency Evaluation Rank Order 2022 (most urgent to least) Urgency Evaluation Rating 2022

Courtroom Needs by Judge Type (20%) Chambers Needs by Judge Type (30%) Caseload Growth (10%)

Current (15.0%) Future (5.0%) Future (7.5%) Civil Filings (4.0%) Criminal Defendants (6.0%) City-Wide Benefit Assessment Gap (40%)

Roanoke, VAW Raleigh, NCE Tulsa, OKN

McAllen, TXS

Los Angeles, CAC

Las Vegas, NVX

Tampa, FLM

Current (22.5%)

Bold black text - indicates court locations on Part II of the Judiciary's FY 2024 CPP list with a completed Phase 1 GSA feasibility study (or equivalent) [Macon, GA; Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC; and Norfolk, VA].

The following locations are on Part I of the FY 2024 CPP list and are excluded from the 2023 UE results list per JCUS policy: San Juan (Hato Rey), PR – Judicial Space Emergency (and CSP project); Hartford, CT; Chattanooga, TN; and Bowling Green, KY. 

Columns shaded in Teal highlight the 2023 UE Rankings and Ratings.

Blue text - indicates court locations with a completed, ongoing, or approved request for a Phase 1 GSA feasibility study [Green Bay, WI; Rochester, NY; Sherman/Plano, TX; Dallas, TX; Portland, ME; West Palm Beach, FL; Tampa, FL; Riverside, CA; and South Bend, IN].

Red text - indicates court locations with a completed CSP project, locations funded for a Capital Security Program (CSP) project, locations awaiting project funding, or locations approved for a CSP project study. Completed project locations are Benton, IL; Brunswick, GA; San Juan, PR (Phase 1); Lexington, KY; 

Columbus, GA; and St. Thomas, VI; facility benefit assessments (FBAs) for these locations have been updated to reflect the CSP projects. Funded project locations are Texarkana, AR/TX; Monroe, LA; Fort Worth, TX; Detroit, MI; and Hato Rey, PR (Phase 2). Locations with partial funding for design only are 

Alexandria, LA; Augusta, GA; and Fort Wayne, IN. Locations awaiting both design & construction funding are Burlington, VT, and Hattiesburg, MS. Yakima, WA, is funded for a CSP project study in FY 2023.

Italicized Bold black text - indicates court locations on Part II of the Judiciary’s fiscal year (FY) 2024 Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) list with a completed, ongoing, or approved request for a Phase 2 GSA feasibility study [Anchorage, AK; McAllen, TX].

Rows shaded in Teal indicate new locations added to the 2023 UE results [Carlsbad, CA; Colorado Springs, CO; Mobile, AL; Selma, AL].

10

Attachment 1
6.7 Current Judiciary CPP List

The current version of the CPP list can be located on JNet.

145
This page left intentionally blank.

146
Page 1 of 2

FEDERAL JUDICIARY COURTHOUSE PROJECT PRIORITIES (CPP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

AS APPROVED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 2022

The Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) is the Judiciary’s list of courthouse construction funding priorities as approved by the Judicial 

Conference of the United States (Judicial Conference). The CPP was developed using the results of the Asset Management Planning (AMP) process. 

Approved by the Judicial Conference in 2008, AMP is a comprehensive facility planning tool designed to identify the Judiciary’s most urgent space needs, 

address cost-containment concerns, and incorporate applicable industry best practices. 

Under the AMP process, each courthouse nationwide is assessed to determine current and future needs, identify preliminary housing solutions as 

needed, and calculate the relative urgency of need compared to other courts nationwide. Factors considered include building condition, building 

functionality, security, compliance with space standards, courtroom and chambers needs, and caseload and personnel growth. From this assessment, 

an Urgency Evaluation (UE) Results List that ranks space urgency by court location on a “worst first” basis is developed. Each location’s UE rating is

updated annually until a project is placed on Part I of the CPP, at which time its rating is “frozen” for purposes of planning certainty.

The CPP is divided into two parts. Part I, provided below, consists of the Judiciary’s courthouse construction funding priorities for FY 2024. In addition, 

in September 2020, the Judicial Conference declared a judicial space emergency for the Nazario U.S. Courthouse and Degetau Federal Building in Hato 

Rey, Puerto Rico, due to unique circumstances resulting from GSA’s planned seismic retrofit of the Degetau Federal Building and the significant 

detrimental impact it would have on district court components housed in the Degetau Federal Building. These projects alI have a completed GSA Phase 

II feasibility study or equivalent to establish cost estimates and housing solutions needed to address local court housing needs.

Judicial Space Emergency

FUNDING SUMMARY ($M) 

District City Project Description

FY 2024 Funding Request Previously Funded Est.Total 

(Site/Design, 

Construction)

Site 

Acquired

Status

Site/Design Construction Site/Design Construction (as of 3/2022)

District of Puerto Rico San Juan Courthouse Annex 20.020 295.532 22.476 0.000 338.028 Yes GSA Feas. Study Completed

NOTES: Cost estimate based on GSA’s November 2022 new courthouse budget update; Degetau R&A design funding included with new annex construction to ensure Degetau project is coordinated with the 

two-phased annex construction. Follow-on R&A construction funding for Degetau will be requested by GSA in a future budget year. Site for Courthouse Annex federally owned.

Part I: Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Courthouse Construction Funding Priorities

FUNDING SUMMARY ($M) 

Priority District City

Project 

Description

FY 2024 Funding Request Previously Funded Est.Total 

(Site/Design, 

Construction)

Site 

Acquired

Status

Site/Design Construction Site/Design Construction (as of 3/2022)

1 District of Connecticut Hartford New Courthouse 0 128.069 69.340 265.660 463.069 No GSA Ph II Feas. Study Completed

2 Eastern District of Tennessee Chattanooga New Courthouse 0 76.315 42.085 176.315 294.715 No GSA Ph II Feas. Study Completed

3 Western District of Kentucky Bowling Green New Courthouse TBD TBD 0.000 0.000 TBD No GSA Ph II Feas. Study Completed

TOTAL: TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

NOTES: All projects have been assessed using the AMP process. Judiciary policies pertaining to courtroom sharing and the exclusion of projected judgeships have been applied to all projects. GSA is still 

developing a cost estimate for the Bowling Green project; a revised CPP will be provided when the estimate is available.
Page 2 of 2

Part II of the CPP identifies outyear courthouse construction priorities. All locations have been assessed under the AMP process and prioritized based 

on the project location’s UE rating. As projects in Part I are funded and constructed, projects in Part II may potentially move to Part I. A project location 

must have a completed GSA Phase II feasibility study before moving to Part I. In selecting which projects should begin a Phase II study, the Judicial 

Conference’s Committee on Space and Facilities will rely heavily on a location’s UE rating. Where multiple locations have similar scores, additional factors 

may be considered, including prisoner production figures during a given period of time, previous funding, and whether the current facility is owned by 

GSA. When a GSA Phase II feasibility study has been completed, that project will be elevated to Part I and placed behind any other locations already on 

Part I the next time the CPP is updated. Until a location is moved to Part I, its UE rating will be refreshed each year to capture changes in courtroom 

needs, chambers needs, and caseload growth, and as a result, its place in the prioritization of Part II projects may change.

Part II: CPP Outyear Courthouse Construction Priorities (Based on 2022 Urgency Evaluation Rating)

District City 2022 UE Rating Site Acquired Status (as of 9/2022)

Middle District of Georgia Macon 63.166 No GSA Ph I Feasibility Study Completed

District of Alaska Anchorage 59.524 No GSA Ph I Feasibility Study Completed; GSA Ph II Feasibility Study In Progress

Middle District of North Carolina Greensboro/W-S 43.205 No GSA Ph I Feasibility Study Completed

Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk 38.711 Yes GSA Feasibility Study Completed in 2010; needs refresh

Southern District of Texas McAllen 38.514 No GSA Ph I Feasibility Study Completed; GSA Ph II Feasibility Study Requested

NOTE: All projects have been assessed using the AMP process; Judiciary policies pertaining to courtroom sharing and the exclusion of projected judgeships have been applied to all projects