COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION 
COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING 

AND THE 

JUDICIARY COURTHOUSE PLANNING AND PRIORITIZATION PROCESS 

The federal courthouse construction program is administered jointly by the judiciary and the General Services AdThe judiciary establishes priorities for courthouse construction projects and sets the housing requirements for eacthat completed facilities meet the needs of the courts. GSA, as the holder of real property authority, secures the f

courthouse construction, acquires the building site, and completes design and construction work on the facilities The judiciary sets forth its priorities for courthouse construction funding on its Federal Judiciary Courthouse Prlist. The CPP is divided into two parts. Part I consists of the judiciary’s highest courthouse construction funding identifies out-year courthouse construction priorities. As described in detail below, the most recent CPP include

project priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2021: Hartford, CT, and Chattanooga, TN. MANAGEMENT OF FY 2016 and FY 2018 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING 

In FY 2016, Congress provided $948 million to GSA for the construction of courthouses on the CPP list, as apprConference in September 2015. This unprecedented infusion of resources fully funded all four projects on Part I 

time (Nashville, TN; Toledo, OH; Charlotte, NC; and Des Moines, IA), as well as the first four projects on Part I

Anniston, AL; Savannah, GA; and San Antonio, TX). A fifth project from Part II (Harrisburg, PA) also received 

total, of the 11 projects on the September 2015 CPP, eight received full funding, and a ninth received partial funmillion was appropriated for new construction and acquisition of facilities that are joint U.S. courthouses and fedGreenville, MS, and Rutland, VT. Joint courthouse/federal building projects are prioritized by GSA and do not ajudiciary’s CPP. All of these courthouse projects have been authorized by both the House Committee on Transp

Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. In FY 2018, Congress provided the remainder of funding needed for the project in Harrisburg, PA ($137.2 milliocomplete construction funding for two additional projects: Huntsville, AL ($110.0 million) and Fort Lauderdale, Both the Huntsville and Fort Lauderdale projects have received authorization and are underway. Each of these projects is in a different stage of development. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) with GSA, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and other Executive Branch stakeholders on a number of portfoliactivities to ensure that additional milestones are reached, and projects remain on track. These activities include 

and project status meetings; development of a communications and program management plan; establishment of 
Courthouse Change Management Board to oversee changes impacting scope, schedule, and budget; and deploymmanagement dashboard to track progress. Ongoing coordination continues among judiciary stakeholders to addrthe portfolio including risks, policies, and best practices. UPDATES TO THE CPPIn September 2019, the Judicial Conference of the United States approved an updated CPP list for FY 2021 and 

The approved CPP (a copy of which is included below) reflects the addition of one new location to the CPP – BoBased on the judiciary’s Asset Management Planning (AMP) process, Urgency Evaluation scores, and the recomproject’s completed GSA feasibility study, Bowling Green was added to Part II. 

The two projects on Part I are described in more detail below. 

1. Hartford, Connecticut– $271.2 million for site acquisition, design, and construction 

The Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse (Ribicoff Federal Building) in Hartford, CT

the judiciary’s CPP list for FY 2021. GSA estimates that $271.2 million is required for site acquisition, d

construction of the new courthouse. No project funding has been appropriated to date. 

The Ribicoff Federal Building was constructed in 1963 and houses the district court, bankruptcy court, anamong other tenants. The courthouse building currently houses 11 judges (three district judges (includes senior district judges, two magistrate judges, one bankruptcy judge, and one senior circuit judge) and con

courtrooms (four district, three magistrate, and one bankruptcy), many of which do not meet U.S. Courts (USCDG) size standards. The Ribicoff Federal Building has considerable challenges related to prisoner movement, with no dedicatand an undersized sally port, prohibiting separate public/prisoner/judge circulation. The U.S. Immigratio

Enforcement Office escorts 350-500 prisoners per month in this building. The annex to the Ribicoff Fedeconstructed in 1991, has ongoing water intrusion, air quality, and HVAC issues. The annex also suffered after a major storm in 2008. 
2. Chattanooga, Tennessee– $189.1 million for site acquisition, design, and construction 

The Chattanooga U.S. Courthouse is number two on the judiciary’s CPP for FY 2021. GSA estimates thneeded for site acquisition, design, and construction of the courthouse. No project funding has been apprThe existing courthouse was constructed in 1933 and houses the district court, among other tenants. The 

houses five judges (two district judges, one senior district judge, and two magistrate judges) and contains district and three magistrate). The bankruptcy court is currently housed in leased space (two bankruptcy j

bankruptcy judge courtrooms). The courthouse building lacks adequate security, does not provide for fut

does not meet USCDG standards. Because of inadequacies in the existing building’s configuration and siand the public must use the same public elevators and corridors. There are not enough courtroom holding access route to one of the magistrate judge courtrooms passes through the magistrate judge’s chambers. Flacks a prisoner sally port, adequate setbacks, or perimeter barriers. The building has ongoing water infilissues, and a major rat infestation throughout the building, as well as the presence of asbestos. None of ththe recommended size requirements of the USCDG, nor accessibility requirements for persons with disab

The FY 2021 CPP as approved by the JCUS in September 2019 appears on the following page. However, GSA updating some project estimates and these numbers could change accordingly. 


BACKGROUND:Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) ListThe judiciary compiles a prioritized list of federal construction projects representing the courts’ most urgent courneeds. This prioritization is based on the judiciary’s long-range space planning methodology called the Asset M

(AMP) process (as discussed below). Prior to FY 2016, this list was referred to as the Five-Year Courthouse ProPlan). In September 2015, the Judicial Conference recognized that the Five-Year Plan did not reflect an accurate 

articulate the relative urgency-of-need for projects on the Five-Year Plan (particularly those that remained on the of time). To address these concerns, the Conference adopted a new planning instrument to detail the judiciary’s 

construction: the Federal Judiciary CPP list. The CPP is a two-part, two-page document. Part I lists the judiciary’s highest courthouse construction priorities the judiciary will request federal funding in its annual budget submission – in numbered priority order. The prioprojects on Part I is maintained until a project has been fully funded, at which point the funded project is remove

of the CPP consists of a separate table that includes the remaining projects. Prioritization of projects on Part II i

updated annually based on the location’s Urgency Evaluation (UE) score. New projects may be added to the CP

of a GSA feasibility study that recommends the construction of a new courthouse or annex.

AMP ProcessThe AMP process was approved by the Judicial Conference in March 2008. The AMP process incorporates rigo

assessments and consistently applied objective standards and guidelines to evaluate space needs in federal courth

nation. Deliverables of the AMP process include a district-wide Long-Range Facilities Plan, a Facility Benefit A

score for each courthouse, and an UE ranking for each city. Through these deliverables, the judiciary identifies cissues by location, preliminary housing solutions, and relative urgency-of-need compared to other courts nationwThe FBA score is based upon factors grouped into one of four weighted categories: 

1. Building Condition – 30 percent 2. Space Functionality – 30 percent 3. Security – 25 percent 4. Space Standards – 15 percent 
The UE ranking is used to determine which courthouses throughout the nation have the most urgent space needs, of the courthouse or type of housing solution. There are four weighted factors used to calculate a courthouse loc

1. FBA score – 40 percent 2. Judges without chambers – 30 percent 3. Judges without courtrooms based on courtroom sharing policies – 20 percent 4. Projected caseload growth – 10 percent 

The annual UE Results List is published early each calendar year to reflect updates in a location’s courtroom or cchanges in caseload growth, and to add new locations that have been evaluated under the AMP process since the year’s UE Results List. To date, all 94 districts and circuit headquarters throughout the country have been assessprocess.