Federal Courthouse Construction: Estimated Costs to House the L.A. District Court Have Tripled and There Is No Consensus on How to Proceed
Published: 2008-09-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the federal judiciary (judiciary) have been carrying out a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative. In downtown Los Angeles, California, one of the nation's busiest federal district courts (L.A. Court), the federal judiciary has split its district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges between two buildings--the Spring Street Courthouse and the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. In 2000 the judiciary requested and GSA proposed building a new courthouse in downtown Los Angeles in order to increase security, efficiency, and space. In response, Congress authorized and appropriated about $400 million for the project. GAO was asked to provide information on the construction of the L.A. courthouse. This report answers: (1) What is the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse in Los Angeles? (2) What effects have any delays in the project had on its costs and court operations? (3) What options are available for the future of the project? GAO reviewed project planning and budget documents, visited the key sites in Los Angeles, and interviewed GSA and judiciary officials. In its comments, the judiciary indicated that the report reflects the project's general sequence of events and circumstances, and GSA partially agreed with the report's findings related to the delays.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GSA initially estimated in 2000 that the L.A. Court could take occupancy of a new courthouse in fiscal year 2006, but occupancy has been delayed by 8 years to fiscal year 2014 at the earliest. GSA has spent $16.3 million designing a new courthouse and $16.9 million acquiring and preparing a new site for it in downtown Los Angeles. Since no construction has occurred, about $366.45 million remains appropriated for the construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. Courthouse. Project delays were caused by GSA's decision to design a larger courthouse than what was authorized by Congress, slow decision making by GSA and the judiciary to reduce scope and stay on budget, unforeseen cost escalations, and low contractor interest that caused GSA to cancel the entire 41-courtroom courthouse project. Due to the delays, estimated costs for housing the L.A. Court have nearly tripled to over $1.1 billion, rendering GSA's currently authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable and causing the L.A. Court's problems to persist. Because current cost estimates exceed authorized and appropriated amounts, GSA will need to obtain congressional approval to move forward on any plan. Meanwhile, almost half of the courtrooms in the L.A. Court's Spring Street building do not meet the judiciary's standards for size or security, and the U.S. Marshals have chosen not to use the prisoner passageways that exist in the building because they are too dangerous and inefficient. The L.A. Court also estimates that current courtroom and support space shortages will continue to worsen over time. GAO's analysis showed that four options exist for the L.A. Courthouse project, which require balancing needs for courtroom space, congressional approval, and additional estimated appropriations of up to $733 million. First, GSA has proposed building a 36-courtroom, 45-chamber courthouse to house all district and senior judges and adding 4 more courtrooms in the Roybal building to house all magistrate and bankruptcy judges. The L.A. Court supports this option, but it is the most expensive of the remaining options. Second, GSA has proposed constructing a new 20-courtroom, 20-chamber building and adding 12 more courtrooms to the Roybal building. GSA could begin construction with existing funds, but the L.A. Court opposes this option. Third, GSA has proposed housing the L.A. court in the existing buildings by adding 13 courtrooms to the Roybal building and upgrading security at the Spring Street building. GSA could begin work on the project with existing funds but the L.A. Court also opposes this option. Finally, another option, given the lack of consensus and adequate funding, is to restart the planning process. Under this option, the remaining $366.45 million appropriated for the courthouse could continue to be available for meeting the judiciary's needs in Los Angeles or be used for other purposes through a transfer or rescission. While GAO takes no position on this or the other three options, it is clear the current process is deadlocked.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the  federal judiciary (judiciary) have been carrying out a multibillion-dollar  courthouse construction initiative to address the judiciary’s growing space  needs. In downtown Los Angeles, California, at one of the nation’s busiest  federal district courts (L.A. Court), the judiciary’s operations are split  between two buildings—the Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the  Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse built in 1992. In 1996,  the judiciary concluded that the split created operational inefficiencies,  that it needed additional space in downtown Los Angeles, and that the  Spring Street building had obsolete building systems and poor security,  conditions which remain today. Consequently, the judiciary ranked Los  Angeles as its first priority for courthouse construction in fiscal year 2000.  GSA agreed in 2000 that the existing buildings did not meet the court’s  expansion and security requirements, and that many of the courtrooms in  the Spring Street building did not meet court design standards.
Accordingly, the judiciary requested and GSA proposed building a new  courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.
In July 2000, Congress authorized GSA to begin designing a new  courthouse in Los Angeles and has appropriated approximately $400  million for the project, which matched GSA’s estimate at that time for  completing the project. In December 2004, we reported, and GSA  acknowledged, that the government would likely incur additional  construction and operational costs beyond the estimated $400 million for  the new courthouse. You asked that we provide an update of the  construction of a new courthouse in Los Angeles. To do that, we answered  the following questions:  1.  What is the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse in  Los Angeles?  2.  What effects have any delays in the project had on its costs and court  operations?  3.  What options are available for the future of the project?
To determine the status of the construction of a new federal courthouse  and the effects of any delays on project costs and court operations, we  reviewed key documents dating from 1996 to present, including a project  time line, project options analysis, planning studies, proposals, and other  budget data. We toured the current L.A. federal court sites, including the  Spring Street Courthouse and the Roybal building to observe the  operational and security conditions of the facilities. In addition, we toured  the federal building on Los Angeles Street and the planned courthouse  site. We also interviewed L.A. district and magistrate judges and other  court officials, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, GSA, and the  U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to obtain their perspectives on the L.A.  courthouse project and determine the options available for the future of  the project. We conducted our work in Los Angeles, California, and  Washington, D.C., from January 2008 through September 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. This report presents the information we  provided to your staff during a May 19, 2008, briefing. The briefing slides  are included in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The L.A. courthouse operations currently are split between two  buildings—the Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Roybal  Federal Building built in 1992. The Spring Street building currently  consists of 32 courtrooms—11 of which do not meet the judiciary’s  minimum design standards for size. It also does not meet the security  needs of the judiciary. The Roybal Federal Building, on the other hand,  consists of 34 courtrooms (10 district, 6 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy).
The space within the L.A. Court’s buildings, like most courthouses, are  divided into courtroom space with associated jury and public spaces,  chamber space where the judge and staff office space is located, cell  blocks and other USMS spaces, and other support spaces, such as  administrative offices.
Since 2000, the construction of a new L.A. courthouse has been a top  priority for the judiciary because of the current buildings’ space, security,  and operational problems. Since fiscal year 2001, Congress has made three  appropriations totaling about $400 million for a new L.A. courthouse. In  fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $35.25 million to acquire a site for and  design a 41-courtroom building, and in fiscal year 2004, Congress  appropriated $50 million for construction of the new L.A. Courthouse. In  fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $314.4 million for the construction  of a new 41-courtroom building in Los Angeles, which Congress  designated to remain available until expended for construction of the  previously authorized L.A. Courthouse.
section_title: Construction of a New Federal L.A. Courthouse Has Experienced Repeated Delays Due to Changes in Project Scope, Unforeseen Construction Cost Escalation, and Procurement Issues
paragraphs: Since 2000 when GSA originally proposed building a new courthouse in  downtown Los Angeles, the project has experienced repeated delays in its  schedule. In 2000, GSA projected occupancy of a new L.A. courthouse by  fiscal year 2006. However, after proposing several changes in project  scope and design and repeated delays, GSA projected in 2008 the  completion of a new courthouse by fiscal year 2014—a delay of 8 years as  of now (see table 1). GSA has spent $16.3 million designing a new  courthouse and $16.9 million acquiring and preparing a new site for it in  downtown Los Angeles. Since no construction has occurred, about $366.45  million remains in GSA’s Federal Building Fund for the construction of a  41-courtroom L.A. Courthouse.
The delays were initially caused by GSA’s decision to design a courthouse  much larger than what was authorized by Congress. In fiscal year 2001,  Congress appropriated funds for project design for a 1,016,300-square-foot  courthouse that corresponded with plans for a 41-courtroom courthouse.  In November 2001, however, GSA designed a 1,279,650-square-foot  courthouse that contained 54-courtrooms. GSA officials said that GSA  increased the scope of the project to accommodate the judiciary’s stated  need. Judiciary officials stated that the decision was made jointly with  GSA and that changes to GSA’s planning criteria contributed to the  increased scope. GSA officials disagreed and stated that GSA’s planning  criteria did not contribute to the increase in the scope of the project. A  year and a half later, after it had conducted the environmental assessments  and purchased the site for the new courthouse, GSA informed Congress  that it had designed a 54-courtroom courthouse in a May 2003 proposal.  However, OMB did not include the 54-courtroom building plan in the  President’s fiscal year 2005 budget, which caused GSA to revise its plans  and reduce the number of courtrooms in the plans for the new L.A.  courthouse to 41. According to GSA, the 54-courtroom courthouse plan  was designed to be readily adaptable to a reduced scope, if a larger scope  was not approved. Nonetheless, a senior GSA official estimated that the  initial decision to design a 54-courtroom courthouse delayed the project 2  years due to redesign and re-procurement requirements.
This delay caused the project as initially planned to go over budget due to  inflationary cost escalations, and GSA needed to make further reductions  to the courthouse in order to procure it within authorized and  appropriated amounts. However, GSA and L.A. Court officials were slow  to reduce scope, which caused additional delays and led to the need to  make additional reductions. For example, GSA did not simplify the  building-high atrium and associated curtain wall that were initially  envisioned for the new courthouse until January 2006 even though the  judiciary had expressed repeated concerns about the construction and  maintenance costs of the atrium since 2002. In July 2005, GSA advised the  judiciary that the project could not be constructed for the appropriated  amounts because of material shortages and other market factors, and in  January 2006, GSA completed a redesigned plan with a simplified atrium  and curtain wall. In addition, it took 18 months for GSA to formally  propose reducing the number of courtrooms in an attempt to reduce costs.  In March 2006, GSA cancelled the procurement of the new courthouse due  to insufficient competition when one of the two construction contractors  bidding on the 41 courtroom project withdrew. Yet, it was not until the  following year in May 2007 that the judiciary proposed reducing the  number of courtrooms in a new building to 36, and another 4 months  before GSA delivered a revised 36-courtroom proposal to Congress.
Additionally, an unforeseen, rapid increase in construction costs  contributed to delays in the L.A. courthouse project. According to GSA  officials, construction costs escalated in the L.A. market at more than  twice the inflation factor used by GSA, necessitating scope reductions and  redesigns and causing more delays. GSA officials stated that the  escalations in construction costs, which went as high as 16 percent in  2006, were unprecedented and unpredictable. According to information  provided by GSA, construction costs escalated nationwide and also  affected the construction of a California State courthouse in Long Beach,  California, which is near Los Angeles.
Other issues related to the procurement process for the new courthouse  also contributed to the delays in the L.A. courthouse project by  diminishing contractor interest in the project or diverting contractors to  other projects. For example, GSA solicited bids for the construction of the  neighboring San Diego and L.A. courthouses around the same time.  According to GSA officials, in hindsight, this may have limited the number  of potential bidders for the construction of the L.A. courthouse as  contractors with limited regional capacity chose to bid on the smaller San  Diego project instead of the L.A. project. Furthermore, the L.A. courthouse  project was competing with other public works construction in the Los  Angeles area. GSA officials estimated that $50 billion worth of public  construction projects in the L.A. market, which includes increased  spending to renovate local schools, further limited the number of potential  bidders for the L.A. courthouse project. GSA officials also stated that they  chose a procurement approach designed to provide contractors with  flexibility in meeting budgeted construction costs, but this approach may  in actuality have lowered contractor interest by making the contractor  responsible for more of the risk of cost overruns.
section_title: Delays Contributed to L.A. Project Cost Estimates Nearly Tripling and Current Problems Persisting
paragraphs: Over 8 years of delay in GSA’s estimated occupancy of the new L.A.  courthouse, estimates have nearly tripled, rendering GSA’s currently  authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable. In May 2004, GSA  estimated the 41-courtroom courthouse project would cost about $400  million, but current estimates for building a new federal courthouse of  similar scope now exceed $1.1 billion. At this rate, each day of additional  delay costs about $54,000, assuming current escalation rates, according to  GSA. Consequently, every 44 days of additional delay cost as much as one  2,400-square-foot district courtroom.
GSA is currently at a standstill because current cost estimates for a 41- courtroom courthouse exceed authorized and appropriated amounts and  the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request did not include any funds  for the L.A. courthouse project. Consequently, GSA will need to obtain  congressional approval to move forward on any plan. Specifically, all  options currently under consideration would require approval of a new  prospectus and an estimated appropriation of from $282.1 million to  $733.6 million if cost estimates are still viable.
Because of the delays in the courthouse project, the operational, space,  and security issues that made the new courthouse a top priority have  persisted and in some cases worsened.
The L.A. Court’s operational problems continue. Housing district and  magistrate judges in both the Spring Street and the Roybal buildings  causes operational inefficiencies, according to judiciary officials. For  example, judges, prisoners, juries, and evidence must be transported  between buildings, and many judicial offices need to be duplicated. In  addition, a high-level L.A. Court official said that the judiciary has stopped  investing in the parts of the Spring Street Courthouse for which it is  responsible because it expects the judiciary to move into a new building.
The L.A. Court’s space needs persist. L.A. Court officials said that the  court does not have chamber or courtroom space for four pending district  judgeships and that it currently faces growing deficits in a number of  support areas (see table 2).
Severe security problems at Spring Street remain. According to USMS  officials, the Roybal building has strong security, but security at the Spring  Street building is poor and cannot be improved due to the age and design  of the building. The Spring Street building lacks a secure parking area and  secure prisoner corridors for 20 of its 32 courtrooms. In addition, USMS  officials said that they do not use the prisoner corridors that do exist  because they are unsafe and do not have holding cells just outside the  courtrooms in accordance with judiciary security standards. In addition,  USMS officials said that the security situation is worsening in Los Angeles  because logs showed a five-fold increase in suspicious activities in L.A.  federal courthouses from 2004 to 2007.
section_title: Options for the Future of the Project Require Balancing Court Needs with Additional Costs and Other Factors
paragraphs: Since 2000, GSA has developed eight different proposals for housing the  L.A. court. Three of them are still under consideration (see table 3);  proposals still under consideration are bolded in the table and identified as  options in the rest of the report. Each of the options under consideration  would require balancing court needs with costs, obtaining a new  authorization and appropriation, and considering other benefits and  challenges.
Each of these remaining options expands the use of Roybal as a federal  courthouse to varying degrees and only one option would continue to use  the Spring Street building as a courthouse (see table 4).
Each of these options would require congressional approval beyond what  GSA has already received. In September 2007, GSA drafted the 36- courtroom building proposal, but the President did not include any funds  for the project in his fiscal year 2009 budget request to Congress. Then, in  March 2008, GSA developed the 20-courtroom building proposal, but it has  not been authorized and no funds have been appropriated to for it.
subsections: section_title: Option 1: Build a 36- Courtroom, 45-Chamber Building and Add 4 Courtrooms to Roybal
paragraphs: GSA estimated that this proposed project would cost $1.1 billion—$733.6  million more than Congress has already appropriated—and be completed  by 2014 if construction starts in 2009. This project would provide the L.A.  Court with 74 courtrooms in total, including 36 district courtrooms, 20  magistrate courtrooms, and 18 bankruptcy courtrooms, all of which would  meet or exceed the judiciary’s current design standards for size and  security. The main advantage of this project is that it would allow a  division of operational and support activities between the new courthouse  and the Roybal building according to the function and responsibilities of  the judges, which court officials and judges said would be more efficient  than the current split. All the district and senior judges would be housed in  the new courthouse, while the magistrate and bankruptcy judges would be  in the Roybal building. In addition, because this plan includes a large new  building, its implementation would not disrupt court operations by  substantially renovating space the court simultaneously is using. The court  favors this plan, in part, because it would fulfill its need for a larger  building through courtroom sharing among senior judges who would  occupy the extra chambers in the new building. The challenges of building  a 36-courtroom courthouse are the high costs and the possibility that GSA  would face the same problems attracting contractors as it did when it  attempted to contract for the construction of a 41-courtroom building.
section_title: Option 2: Build a 20- Courtroom, 20-Chamber Building and Add 12 Courtrooms to Roybal
paragraphs: GSA estimated that this proposed project would cost $701.1 million— $301.5 million more than Congress has already appropriated—and be  completed by 2014 if construction starts in 2009. This project would  provide the L.A. Court with 66 courtrooms in total, including 36 district  courtrooms, 20 magistrate courtrooms, and 10 bankruptcy courtrooms.  With congressional approval, GSA could use existing funds to begin  planning and constructing the new building. In addition, the planned 20- courtroom building may be expandable at some future time. This plan  would also maximize the use of Roybal as a courthouse. The challenges of  building the 20-courtroom courthouse are that district judges would  continue to be split between two buildings and it is unclear what support  operations would move to the new building. In addition, the success of  this plan relies on GSA’s obtaining an authorization and appropriation to  add 12 courtrooms in Roybal. Without that appropriation, the L.A. Court  would likely have to remain in the Spring Street building—meaning it  would be split between three buildings, not just two, as is currently the  case. Another challenge related to the 20-courtroom building plan is that  GSA would need to build the new courtrooms in Roybal while the building  is occupied by the L.A. Court. GSA officials said that this type of  renovation is possible if the most disruptive work is done at night and on  weekends. However, judiciary officials said that court officials often need  to work at nights and on weekends. In addition, the L.A. district judges  unanimously opposed it because it would split district judges over a  further distance. The proposed location of the 20-courtroom building is  about a third of a mile further from Roybal and the Spring Street  Courthouse is. The L.A. Court also opposes this plan because it believes  that GSA has underestimated the costs, overstated the end capacity, and  would have trouble attracting bidders for the project.
section_title: Option 3: Add 13 courtrooms to Roybal and Upgrade Spring Street Building Security
paragraphs: GSA estimated that this project would cost $648.4 million—$282.1 million  more than Congress has already appropriated. In 2008, GSA estimated that  it could complete the project by 2016, but to do so, it would have had to  start work in January, which it did not do. For example, GSA’s time line  for this project assumed that procurement of the design contract would be  completed by April 2008; that work has not yet begun. This proposal  would provide the L.A. Court with 64 courtrooms in total, which would be  composed of 29 district courtrooms, 17 magistrate courtrooms, and 18  bankruptcy courtrooms. GSA’s proposal indicated that some of the  courtrooms would not meet the judiciary’s design standards for size. The  advantages of this plan are that it would maximize the use of GSA’s  current stock of owned buildings in downtown Los Angeles, and that, with  congressional approval, GSA could use existing funds to begin working on  the project. Another advantage would be that GSA could sell the site it  initially purchased for the new courthouse in order to help offset the costs  of the project. The plan also would attempt to address the security  concerns that currently exist in the Spring Street building. However, many  of the same challenges for the 20-courtroom courthouse also exist for this  plan, including the need to renovate occupied space and a lack of clarity  about where different support operations would be located. In addition,  the court’s operations would be split further among the Spring Street  building, the Roybal building, and the federal building located between  those two buildings. Also, the estimate only covers security upgrades for  the Spring Street building, not a complete renovation. This project also has  the longest time until completion of the three projects, putting it at greater  risk for additional cost escalations. Finally, the L.A. Court considers this  the worst of the three options.
section_title: Option 4: Restart Planning Process and Possibly Use Remaining Funds for Other Purposes
paragraphs: Because there is neither consensus nor adequate funding to complete any  of the plans currently under consideration, another option is for GSA and  the judiciary to restart the planning process and develop a new proposal to  meet the long-term needs of the L.A. Court that all stakeholders can  support. Since GSA has developed numerous proposals on housing the  L.A. Court, it is difficult to know which one it believes is the best solution,  and the district judges assigned to the L.A. Court unanimously opposed  GSA’s most recent proposal to build a 20-courtroom building. Restarting  the planning process would help avoid implementing one of the plans that  the judiciary does not support. The remaining $366.5 million appropriated  for the project could remain in place for meeting the judiciary’s needs in  Los Angeles once a project is agreed upon, or the funds could be used for  other purposes, such as addressing GSA’s $6.6 billion repair and  maintenance backlog by receiving congressional approval to transfer or  rescind the funds. This option would not address any of the L.A. Court’s  long-standing space deficits, operational problems with a split court, or  security and other problems related to the Spring Street building, and  some of the problems would likely worsen until a long-term solution could  be found.
We are not advocating this or any of the other three options. Our intent is  to identify current options so that Congress and stakeholders can evaluate  them. Nonetheless, it is clear the current process is deadlocked.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and GSA with  draft copies of this report for their review and comment. In written  comments, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicated that the  report reflects the general sequence of events and circumstances that have  led to the current situation. The letter also provided technical comments  that we incorporated, as appropriate. The letter and our comments are  contained in appendix II.
In written comments, GSA indicated that it partially agreed with the  report’s findings related to the delays in the L.A. Courthouse project and  provided additional technical comments that we incorporated, as  appropriate. In the technical comments, GSA indicated that the judiciary  has been reluctant to consider any reduction in the scope of the project as  requested by GSA. Our report indicates that GSA and the judiciary were  slow to reduce scope to stay on budget. GSA’s written comments are  contained in appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to the GSA Administrator and the  Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. We also will make  copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff that made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Los Angeles Courthouse Construction Project Briefing
subsections: section_title: Key Questions
subsections: section_title: 1. What is the status of the construction of a new federal
paragraphs: courthouse in Los Angeles? 2. What effects have any delays in the project had on project  costs and court operations? 3. What are the options for the future of the project?
section_title: Scope and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Reviewed key documents dating from 1996 to present,
paragraphs: including project time line, project options analysis, planning  studies, proposals, and other budget data.
Toured L.A. federal court sites, including the Spring Street  Courthouse, the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and  Courthouse, the federal building on Los Angeles Street, and  the planned courthouse site.
Interviewed L.A. district and magistrate judges and other  court officials, the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts,  the General Services Administration (GSA), and the U.S.  Marshals Service (USMS).
section_title: Scope and Methodology (continued)
subsections: section_title: We conducted our work in Los Angeles, California, and
paragraphs: Washington, D.C., from January 2008 to May 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform  the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on  our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Concluding observations
subsections: section_title: Delays from exceeding the congressional authorization and
paragraphs: slow decision making, paired with unexpectedly high cost  escalation rates, rendered the currently authorized  prospectus for a new 41-courtroom building unachievable  with currently appropriated funds.
Stakeholders do not agree on how to proceed.
GSA has developed numerous proposals on the L.A.  courthouse and currently supports the 20-courtroom  courthouse. The federal judges in Los Angeles unanimously  opposed GSA’s most recent proposal to build a 20- courtroom building.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Administrative Office of the  U.S. Courts’ letter dated August 25, 2008.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1.  The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicated that additional  details on the reasoning behind the decision to propose a 41- courtroom courthouse would be helpful. GSA officials said that the  decision to propose a 41-courtroom courthouse was based on 80  percent of the federal judiciary’s stated need at the time—80 percent of  51 courtrooms is approximately 41—and that the judiciary could fit  within that space by sharing courtrooms. We added this information to  the body of the report.  2.  We clarified the report in response to this comment.  3.  We did not do a detailed assessment of the possible 20-courtroom  courthouse plan and, consequently, did not assess whether it provides  space for future expansion. However, there may be design concepts  that would leave sufficient room for expansion on the 3.7-acre site,  which originally supported the 54-courtroom courthouse plan  developed by GSA.  4.  Our report does not make any statements related to the number of  bankruptcy courtrooms required by the federal judiciary in Los  Angeles, but does list the number of those courtrooms that GSA  projects for each of the current options thus shows that the 20- courtroom courthouse option would provide 8 fewer bankruptcy  courtrooms in Los Angeles than the other options currently being  considered.  5.  Assessing the validity of GSA’s project budget and schedule were  outside the scope of this report. The U.S. House of Representatives,  Committee on Transportation, Subcommittee on Economic  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management  requested this information from the GSA Inspector General.  6.  We have clarified the report to reflect that the estimated costs to house  the L.A. Court have tripled.  7.  We clarified the report to reflect that Roybal currently houses 10  district, 6 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy courtrooms.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the General Services Administration
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, David Sausville, Assistant  Director; Keith Cunningham; Bess Eisenstadt; Susan Michal-Smith;  Jennifer Kim; and Susan Sachs made key contributions to this report.