Federal Buildings: More Consideration of Operations and Maintenance Costs Could Better Inform the Design Excellence Program
Released: 2018-05-22T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The federal government is the largest real property owner in the United States with a vast inventory costing billions of dollars annually to operate and maintain. Federally owned buildings include courthouses, offices, warehouses, schools, hospitals, housing, data centers, and laboratories, among other things. GSA acts as the federal government’s landlord, and is responsible for designing, constructing, and managing federal buildings for other federal agencies and the judiciary to occupy. There are currently approximately 1,600 federally owned buildings under GSA’s custody and control.

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies, including GSA, should have accurate information on acquisition and “lifecycle” costs of current and proposed assets, including costs for designing and constructing the building, O&M, and disposal. For example, when planning and designing new federal buildings, GSA must analyze building energy and water systems (e.g., for air conditioning and heating) to identify those with the lowest acquisition and operating costs. In addition, once the building is constructed, GSA building managers and O&M contractors are responsible for maintaining the building, which includes tasks related to recurring maintenance and repair (e.g., on heating and cooling systems), maintaining the property’s roads and grounds, cleaning and janitorial services, and paying for utilities.

In 1994, GSA instituted the Design Excellence Program, a process for designing, constructing, renovating, altering, and repairing federal courthouses and office buildings. This program was developed in response to criticisms that federal buildings lacked architectural distinction. It stresses creativity in the design of buildings with the intent of constructing spaces that meet the tenant’s functional needs while also becoming public landmarks. More specifically, the program aims to meet several guidelines—called the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture— including designing spaces that: reflect the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the U.S. government; avoid uniformity; and are built in locations in which federal buildings can be incorporated into the existing public streets and landscape.

According to GSA officials, the Design Excellence Program also streamlines how GSA selects and manages the private-sector architects and engineering firms it hires for new projects. The process consists of four primary stages: planning for the prospective tenant’s needs and general project details (e.g., request for proposal announcement); selecting and working with an architectural and engineering firm to design the building; selecting a contractor to construct the building; and occupancy by the tenants.

The process is overseen by a GSA project team, consisting of a project manager, contracting officer, officials from GSA’s Office of the Chief Architect, and additional subject matter experts, who work with the federal tenant that plans to occupy the space.

A large number of the federal courthouses and office buildings constructed and controlled by GSA in the last 20 years have been completed under the Design Excellence Program. Under the program, GSA has constructed 78 facilities including 62 courthouses and 16 federal office buildings, including a data center and laboratories. These buildings account for more than 36-million square feet of space, are located in 33 states and the District of Columbia, and many have won architecture and design awards. Figure 1 shows examples of federal courthouses and office buildings constructed under the Design Excellence Program.

GSA Made Design Choices That Decreased and Increased O&M Costs

Some GSA Design Choices Have Decreased O&M Costs

According to interviews with GSA officials and building tenants, GSA has made choices in some Design Excellence buildings intended to reduce long-term O&M costs. For example: Increased natural light. All 10 of the Design Excellence buildings we visited were designed to include interior natural light, which some building managers reported reduced energy costs. According to GSA officials, natural light is not only aesthetically pleasing; it also improves lighting quality for building tenants and reduces lighting costs. For example, the First Street Federal Courthouse (Los Angeles, California) has a light well as part of its atrium and a serrated glass façade that maximizes natural light. Building officials said that 22 of the 24 courtrooms in the building receive natural light from multiple sources, reducing energy usage and requiring less frequent replacement of lighting. In addition, building officials at the Albert Armendariz, Sr., U.S. Courthouse (El Paso, Texas) reported extensive natural light from a three story window wall and the front atrium; both features provide ample light for building tenants. (See fig. 2).

Durable and easily maintained materials and finishes. In most of the 10 Design Excellence buildings we visited, GSA officials and building tenants reported selecting materials and finishes that (1) are highly durable and easy and inexpensive to clean; (2) are expected to last a long time; and (3) required little maintenance. For example, the lobby walls and floors of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse (Santa Ana, California) are made out of travertine, a very durable stone, which has lasted more than 15 years without the need for repairs or replacement. In addition, officials at a few buildings noted that the decision to install carpet tiles in lieu of large patches of carpet has made it very easy and relatively inexpensive to maintain and repair office spaces and courtrooms.

Low-maintenance landscaping. Several of the 10 Design Excellence buildings we visited incorporated native flora into the landscape design, which can reduce energy and water costs. For example, officials planted native, drought resistant plants around the First Street Federal Courthouse (Los Angeles, California). Building officials at the Las Cruces U.S. Courthouse (Las Cruces, New Mexico), which is located in a desert environment, also reported most of the native landscape around the courthouse does not require watering.

Some GSA Design Choices Have Increased O&M Costs

According to our survey respondents—building managers at all 78 Design Excellence buildings included in our review—certain GSA design choices, such as multistory atriums and custom windows, have resulted in increased O&M costs compared to an average GSA building without those features. Almost all Design Excellence building managers (76 out of 78) reported that certain design choices resulted in increased O&M costs that would not have occurred had that design choice not been selected. For example, 67 out of 78 building managers for Design Excellence buildings stated that the effect of including multistory open spaces, like atriums, increased O&M costs due to the challenges associated with heating and cooling, making needed repairs, and cleaning these spaces. (See table 1). Building managers and tenants we spoke with confirmed our survey results, and provided examples of design choices that resulted in unexpected O&M cost increases. For example, officials noted increased O&M costs associated with separate structures and multistory atriums that were difficult to access for cleaning and repairs.

Separate Structures. Managers from only 21 of 78 Design Excellence buildings reported having an attached, but separate structure (e.g., pavilions, rotundas, restaurants, and other additional spaces connected to the building), but managers at 19 of those buildings stated that the effect of such design features increased O&M costs. For example, one federal building we visited had a rotunda with a domed roof that, according to building managers, has multiple gutter leaks that are not currently accessible due to the design of the space. As a result, maintenance staff continuously patch the ceiling without addressing the cause of the leaks (see fig. 3).

Atriums and Lobbies. Managers from 67 of 78 Design Excellence buildings reported their buildings’ multistory atriums and lobbies increased O&M costs. Several GSA managers we interviewed identified additional costs to maintain a multistory atrium or lobby, including costs for renting expensive scaffolding or mechanical lifts. For example, one Design Excellence building we visited has water leaks in the lobby ceiling, which can only be reached by extensive and expensive scaffolding (see fig. 4).

Large, Custom Windows. Managers from 65 of 78 Design Excellence buildings reported that the effect of design choices related to their buildings’ windows increased O&M costs. In addition, several Design Excellence buildings we visited had custom or uniquely shaped windows, which occasionally increased the costs to replace, repair, or maintain them. For example, GSA officials at one courthouse reported repairing one two-story, custom-made window pane, which cost $80,000 to fabricate and $50,000 to install. The courthouse had eight of these windows, and a GSA official stated that the windows are an attractive feature of the building that introduced natural light, but a different window choice would have been cheaper to maintain (see fig. 5).

Mission Spaces. Managers from 48 Design Excellence buildings reported that the effect of design choices related to mission spaces (i.e., spaces in which federal employees conduct work) increased O&M costs. Specifically, managers from 32 buildings stated that design choices made in mission spaces increased repair costs, and managers from 30 buildings reported increased cleaning costs. GSA officials at several buildings we visited discussed challenges accessing and maintaining mechanical systems incorporated into tenant mission spaces. For example, one Design Excellence building includes a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system that is hidden under a raised floor within mission spaces. Because building managers cannot easily access the system, there are maintenance delays and challenges identifying and making necessary repairs, which ultimately result in higher O&M costs. Building officials reported they considered replacing the HVAC system, but doing so would cost approximately $55 million. (See fig. 6).

Other Design Choices. According to Design Excellence building managers that responded to our survey and at locations we visited, the effect of several other design choices including energy efficient elements (e.g., solar panels and green roofs), courtyards, floors, and circulation (e.g., hallways, stairways, and elevators) increased O&M costs. For example, according to these officials, (1) the design of green roofs led to water leaks; (2) the design of courtyards led to problems maintaining unique landscaping; (3) flooring choices, specifically selected materials, led to premature scuffing and cracking; and (4) the design of hallways and stairways made them difficult to maintain.

GSA Does Not Fully Consider O&M and Functionality Effects When Making Design Choices

With the Design Excellence Program, GSA aims to create buildings that are cost-effective and function well for tenants. However, GSA makes design choices for Design Excellence buildings during the planning and design stages of new projects without fully considering the effect of these choices on O&M costs and functionality.

GSA Does Not Fully Consider How Design Choices Affect O&M Costs

GSA does not estimate most O&M costs during planning and design. Specifically, according to GSA officials we interviewed and planning documents we reviewed, when planning and designing new buildings, officials estimate the costs of major energy systems, such as boilers and chillers. However, based on our review of GSA and industry data, these systems only account for about one-third of O&M costs in Design Excellence buildings. GSA officials stated that they do not estimate the remaining two-thirds of O&M costs—which include maintenance, cleaning, and landscaping—until late in the building’s construction. However, GSA officials also said that it would be costly to make significant design changes at that point in the process. In addition, the O&M estimates for maintenance, cleaning, and landscaping are for the purpose of selecting a contractor to provide these services, not as a means for addressing or reducing future O&M costs, according to officials.

GSA building and regional managers who are responsible for addressing the O&M consequences of design choices told us that they were not always integrated or asked to participate in planning and designing new Design Excellence buildings. Specifically, GSA building and regional managers at several of the buildings we visited stated that they were never, or seldom, consulted on O&M costs and issues during the design process, nor did they have an opportunity to review design documents. A few GSA building managers we spoke with stated that on rare occasions when they were consulted their input was rarely incorporated, or was requested too late in the construction stage to allow for necessary changes. According to these officials, if given the chance, they could have highlighted issues with certain design choices that would significantly increase O&M costs and could have offered potential solutions to reduce those costs. Officials responsible for overseeing the Design Excellence Program told us that other officials with an understanding of issues surrounding O&M are involved in the process for designing new buildings through, for example, subject matter reviews of the design concepts. Officials agreed, however, that more could be done to formally involve the perspective of facilities staff, such as building managers, who are responsible for the day-to-day management of O&M.

We found that GSA’s lack of consideration of how design choices may affect the O&M costs of Design Excellence buildings could be attributed to existing procedures that do not emphasize the need to consider such costs during the planning and design stage. Specifically, GSA’s procedures for planning, designing, and constructing new Design Excellence buildings focus on design creativity, construction challenges, budget, and schedule and do not direct GSA to estimate O&M costs during planning and design. While these procedures promote several factors to consider in a building’s design—including aesthetics, functionality, and constructability—and generally require firms to submit documentation on budget and schedule, they do not call for information on expected O&M costs. In addition, these procedures do not include seeking input on design decisions from facilities personnel who will have responsibility for the ongoing O&M once the building is occupied.

Federal standards for internal control state that federal agencies should use complete and relevant information when making decisions and design control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives. These federal standards also state that federal agencies should ensure the communication of information internally, for example through procedures that allow management to receive quality information from personnel, to help achieve the entity’s objectives. In addition, guidance from GSA and the Office of Management and Budget directs officials to consider and strive for the lowest possible costs, including O&M costs, when designing buildings.

Information on how specific design choices could affect ongoing O&M costs would allow GSA to better understand the impact of those choices. Such information is critical as O&M accounts for a significant proportion of resources dedicated to federal buildings over the long-term. According to GSA and industry associations, O&M costs are significantly higher over time than all other costs, including for construction, and typically account for between 60 and 80 percent of building lifecycle costs. To illustrate this point, we analyzed GSA construction and O&M data for Design Excellence buildings. As figure 7 shows, we estimate that over an average building’s age (60 years) the total construction and O&M costs for GSA’s 78 existing Design Excellence buildings could be about $18 billion—$8.1 billion for construction (45 percent) and $9.9 billion for O&M (55 percent). Because GSA’s procedures do not direct officials to estimate about two-thirds of O&M costs or fully integrate officials with an understanding of the O&M consequences of design decisions, officials may not have been aware of how design choices would affect approximately $6.6 billion (two-thirds of $9.9 billion) in O&M costs. In addition, without procedures that clearly emphasize the need to more fully consider O&M costs in Design Excellence buildings during the planning and design stage, GSA and other stakeholders may not have a complete picture of all relevant information necessary to make informed decisions on how to best design future federal buildings.

GSA realizes that the focus of Design Excellence projects has been on design and construction, not O&M costs, and, in September 2017, initiated a process, called “Operational Excellence”, to more fully consider O&M costs. This process includes considering ways to more fully consider O&M costs during planning and design, including developing a cost tool that would estimate future O&M costs. In addition, GSA is considering ways to update existing procedures for designing and constructing new buildings to include a more comprehensive evaluation of potential O&M costs, for example, by more fully integrating knowledgeable personnel at key stages. However, according to GSA officials, they are still in the early stages of determining what needs to be done in part due to a small staff, which includes one full-time employee and one part-time employee. As of March 2018, GSA has not established a schedule for updating its procedures to require considering O&M during design.

Design Excellence Buildings Generally Function Well, but Some Costly Design Choices Did Not Improve Functionality

Most design choices made for Design Excellence buildings, including the shape and size of courtrooms and the lighting in hallways, have had a positive effect on overall building functionality (i.e., helped the tenant agency achieve its mission), according to officials we surveyed and interviewed. For example, GSA building managers we surveyed reported the functionality of at least one design choice in most buildings (72 of 78 buildings) as good or very good. Specifically, they reported that in most buildings, the overall functionality of design choices was good in many of the areas we asked them about. In addition, building managers reported that the functionality of the following design choices was also good or very good: selected material color (53 buildings) and lighting (58 buildings); shape and size of the space (61 buildings); pedestrian circulation (61 buildings); and temperature control in the areas critical for a building’s operation, such as courtrooms or office space (46 buildings).

GSA and tenant agency officials whom we interviewed were also positive about how the design choices affected the functionality of their buildings, especially the use of windows and atriums to allow natural light. Tenants also reported they enjoyed other features of the new buildings, including commissioned artwork and the design of the interior and exterior. Tenants’ satisfaction with the function of Design Excellence buildings may, in part, reflect the condition of their previous office space. For example, one tenant noted that moving from temporary trailers into a state-of-the-art courthouse was a substantial functional improvement.

However, we found that increased spending on certain design choices did not always provide improved functionality for the building tenant. For example, GSA building managers reported that in many buildings (67 of 78) atriums and lobbies (i.e., vertical penetrations) have increased O&M costs due to higher repair, cleaning, and energy costs. At the same time, building managers reported that in 51 of those 67 buildings, choices made in the design of multistory atriums and lobbies, e.g., material color and lighting, did not have a positive effect on building functionality (see table 2). Similarly, the decision to install solar panels and green roofs (e.g., energy efficient elements), increased O&M costs in several areas, particularly repair costs, but in over half of the buildings with these features, building managers did not report an improvement in functionality. For example, in two courthouses we visited solar panels installed with the intention of saving on energy costs are not supplying as much power as expected and, therefore, have not yet provided the expected energy benefits.

Tenants we interviewed also noted that in some cases, design choices have not functioned well and are costly to maintain and operate. According to a tenant at one Design Excellence office building, while the decision to construct a multistory atrium has added aesthetic value for federal employees, it has also resulted in challenges balancing air pressure between the atrium and the adjacent office spaces. These differences in air pressure have resulted in uncomfortable working conditions, such as fluctuating temperatures, which have hampered productivity. Another tenant told us about design choices such as long hallways and elevators that do not stop at all floors, making it difficult for tenant employees to move efficiently through the building. Some of these design choices, such as elevators with mechanical systems at the bottom of the elevator shaft, have proven costly to maintain as they age more quickly. Other tenants noted that the selection of heating and cooling systems, which automatically adjust building temperatures based on time of day, for example, have not functioned as planned, resulting in variable temperatures and employee discomfort.

In addition, GSA has sometimes made design choices in buildings that do not apply to one of the primary functional goals of the Design Excellence Program—to serve as a landmark that positively represents the federal government to the public. Specifically, GSA does not consider that some buildings, due to their purpose or location, are unlikely to function as landmarks because they have limited interaction with or limited visibility by the public. In this regard, we found that most Design Excellence buildings (66 of 78) are visible and accessible to the general public, i.e., “public-facing”. Many of these buildings have succeeded in becoming public landmarks and several have won awards for their design. Specifically,

62 serve as courthouses, which are visible from public streets and people may enter to observe judicial proceedings or conduct personal business. See figure 8 for an example of a Design Excellence courthouse with publicly visible exteriors and interiors.

Four serve as office buildings for various federal agencies that are publicly accessible.

In contrast, we found that 12 Design Excellence office buildings restrict the public from accessing interior spaces. Specifically,

Seven can be seen from public sidewalks or roads, even though the building is not open to the public, such as the U.S. Secret Service Headquarters and FBI field office buildings. As a result, these buildings’ exteriors could be public landmarks that represent the federal government, but the interior design features are not publicly accessible. For example, the Ronald H. Brown U.S. Mission to the United Nations Building in New York City has an impressive and publicly visible exterior façade but restricts public access to a multi- story rotunda and art space (see fig. 9).

Five have obstructed views from public roads and sidewalks in addition to restricting public access to the interior. Neither the exterior nor interior design choices, which can be expensive to operate and maintain, in these buildings can be seen or appreciated by the public. For example, according to the tenant agency and GSA officials, the visually impressive interior atrium and courtyard at the Ariel Rios Federal Building have proven logistically challenging and expensive to maintain and are not accessible to the public. In addition, the façade of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite Operations Facility, which, according to GSA officials, is expensive to maintain and repair, is not accessible by the public. (See fig. 10).

According to GSA officials, when they carry out their planning and design for Design Excellence buildings, they do not differentiate between buildings that will be public-facing and those that will not. This approach may be in part due to the fact that GSA’s procedures for planning and designing new Design Excellence buildings do not call for consideration of how design choices may have different functional benefits, including whether the interior and exterior of planned buildings would be accessible to the public. Federal standards for internal control state that federal agencies should use complete and relevant information when making decisions and designing control activities, including procedures to achieve objectives. By taking a “one size fits all” approach and not considering the functionality of design choices, such as how a building’s location and intended use will affect the public’s ability to see the exterior and interior, GSA may be selecting design choices that increase O&M costs without improving functionality.

GSA Does Not Systematically Collect and Share Information on Common O&M Cost Experiences That Could Affect Design Choices

According to GSA officials, GSA currently does not systematically collect and share information on how design choices made for previous Design Excellence projects have affected O&M costs with the project teams— consisting of a project manager, contracting officer, and other GSA officials—that are responsible for overseeing the planning and design of new buildings. GSA has evaluated what is and is not working effectively in some existing Design Excellence buildings and has on occasion shared these evaluations with project teams. For example, GSA has evaluated the performance of 6 out of 78 Design Excellence buildings. These evaluations included identifying design decisions that led to higher O&M costs and, on one occasion, developed a formal presentation to share these lessons with the team working on a new Design Excellence project.

According to officials, GSA requires agency personnel with subject matter expertise to review building design concepts provided by private-sector architects and engineers. GSA also fosters information sharing through procedures that encourage project teams to exchange ideas, lessons learned, and concerns. However, these processes either (1) are not done in a consistent or systematic way, or (2) require information sharing among a small group of officials, i.e., a project team, which might not have visibility over the extensive design choices made in all existing buildings. While all of these information-sharing initiatives offer benefits, GSA’s procedures do not include a systematic collection and sharing of information with the project teams responsible for managing new Design Excellence projects on how design choices affected O&M costs in existing Design Excellence buildings. According to GSA officials, they are considering formalizing this sort of information collection and sharing as part of the Operational Excellence process, but as previously noted, GSA is in the early stages of setting up this initiative and has not established a schedule for completing its actions or updating its procedures.

As discussed, some design choices in existing Design Excellence buildings have decreased or increased O&M costs. Since GSA does not systematically share how these types of design choices affected O&M costs with teams responsible for planning and designing new buildings, similar issues could occur in future buildings. For example, we previously mentioned that building managers indicated that using durable materials, low maintenance landscaping, and energy-efficient lighting can reduce long-term O&M costs.

Building managers also reported common issues caused by design choices that led to increased costs including: Inefficiently located mechanical systems. Building managers reported the location of mechanical systems in Design Excellence buildings often led to increased cost. Specifically, building managers reported the location of these systems increased repair costs (41 out of 77 buildings) and energy costs (32 out of 77 buildings). In the Design Excellence buildings we visited, building managers and tenants reported issues with the location of mechanical systems (4 buildings). For example, officials indicated that air-conditioning systems were placed in inefficient locations that required more energy usage because water had to be pumped unnecessarily far distances (see fig. 11).

Difficult-to-access lights. Building managers reported that design choices for the location of interior lights increased maintenance costs in the majority of Design Excellence buildings (55). In particular, managers reported that the location of lights in atriums and lobbies (38 buildings) and courtrooms and other mission spaces (33 buildings) increased costs. In addition, GSA officials at locations we visited said that lights above tall staircases, ceiling lights in atriums and auditoriums, and lights directly above permanent structures led to additional costs, including the need to use scaffolding or rent large equipment to maintain these lights. (See fig. 12). One way that a majority of GSA building managers (61) we surveyed are attempting to mitigate high maintenance cost for lighting issues is to install energy efficient equipment, such as light-emitting diode (LED) lights.

Difficult-to-maintain materials and finishes. In 68 Design Excellence buildings, building managers reported that materials or finishes were chosen that are easily worn. Similarly, in buildings we visited (4 buildings), GSA officials reported that decisions on the materials used or configuration of exterior surfaces (e.g., the roof or façade) of a Design Excellence building led to repair and maintenance problems, particularly water leaks. (See fig. 13).

Hard to clean surfaces. Cleaning surfaces, especially in atriums, can be a challenge for maintaining Design Excellence buildings. For example, building managers we surveyed reported that the decision to install certain types of window treatments increased cleaning costs (49 buildings). In three buildings we visited, building managers and tenants also said Design Excellence buildings required special equipment or scaffolding to clean windows or surfaces, which led to increased cleaning costs. (See fig. 14).

According to federal standards for internal control, agencies should use and communicate complete and relevant information when designing control activities, including procedures to achieve objectives. Without a formalized process for systematically collecting and sharing how design choices affected O&M costs in existing buildings, designs for future Design Excellence buildings may not benefit from the successful strategies used by others to reduce O&M costs or may continue to repeat problematic choices that may result in increased O&M costs.

Conclusions

Through the Design Excellence Program, GSA has achieved excellence in architecture and the design of federal buildings. Buildings constructed under the Design Excellence Program have created unique and aesthetically pleasing workspaces, have met the functional needs of tenant agencies, and have become public landmarks. However, because GSA does not have program procedures that call for consideration of how certain design features may affect O&M, it may not be fully aware of the costs of including these features in its building design and plans. Specifically, GSA does not estimate or gather all perspectives from building and regional managers on the full O&M costs of design choices, or consider the extent to which they will improve the functionality of the building for tenants and the public. For example, GSA’s one-size fits all approach in designing these buildings does not consider whether non- public buildings need the same costly architectural elements as buildings intended to serve as public landmarks. Further, GSA is missing opportunities to improve future building designs by not systematically gathering and sharing information on the common design choices that had both positive and negative effects on O&M costs. Without a clear picture of the ongoing costs of these choices, GSA and other stakeholders are missing critical information to better inform the design and construction of new buildings. While GSA has just begun an Operational Excellence initiative to help identify future O&M costs, it is not clear what actions GSA will take to improve consideration of O&M costs during planning and design or when it will take those actions.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following four recommendations to GSA:

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should update existing procedures to require GSA officials to estimate the full operations and maintenance costs of design choices in the planning and design process for new Design Excellence buildings. (Recommendation 1)

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should update existing procedures to require GSA officials to obtain information from personnel responsible for addressing the operations and maintenance consequences of design choices at key decision points during the planning and design of new Design Excellence buildings. (Recommendation 2)

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should update existing procedures to require GSA officials to further consider and document, during the planning and design of new Design Excellence buildings, how design choices may affect building functionality, such as whether a building is publicly visible and accessible. (Recommendation 3)

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should update existing procedures to require GSA officials to systematically collect and share information with project teams responsible for overseeing the planning and design of new buildings on the positive and negative effects of common design choices on operations and maintenance costs in existing Design Excellence buildings. (Recommendation 4)

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to GSA, the U.S. Administrative Office of Courts, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce for comment. In written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, GSA stated that it agreed with our recommendations and provided several technical comments. GSA clarified its policies for selecting and analyzing the lifecycle costs of building systems. In addition, GSA stated that table 2 in our report did not capture the full functional benefits and reasons for making certain design choices. As we noted in the report, this table does not preclude that a specific design choice may be functional or have functional benefits. We also included several of the examples GSA highlighted in their comments, such as the functional need for a separate structure, which may serve key security functions. GSA also stated that our conclusions did not indicate that most Design Excellence buildings functioned well. We added language to the conclusions to clarify this point.

The U.S. Administrative Office of Courts, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce did not provide comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Commerce. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report assesses the extent to which: (1) the General Services Administration (GSA) made design choices that affect operations and maintenance (O&M) costs; (2) GSA considers O&M costs and functionality when planning and designing buildings; and (3) GSA systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs related to design choices in existing buildings.

To address all of our objectives, we reviewed applicable federal regulations; GSA procedures, policies, and standards for designing, constructing, and operating federal facilities, including specific policies and procedures for Design Excellence buildings; our prior work; and reports by other federal agencies and related professional organizations on topics, including the standard costs of operating and maintaining office buildings. Our review examined 78 federal buildings and courthouses that GSA constructed under the Design Excellence Program—referred to as “Design Excellence buildings”—since the program started in 1994. At our request, GSA provided a list of all buildings under the agency’s custody and control that were constructed under the Design Excellence Program. Based on input from GSA officials indicating that large campuses were unlikely to have reliable O&M data, we excluded nine buildings that are part of the White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland. We reviewed relevant GSA documents pertaining to the remaining 78 Design Excellence buildings, including the most recent Asset Business Plans detailing investment needs for maintenance and repairs, strategies for efficient operations, building use, and tenant satisfaction. We analyzed GSA-provided historical data on construction and O&M costs from 2000 to 2016 for the buildings in our review and projected O&M future costs. To calculate our projection, we made several assumptions, including (1) that annual O&M costs would increase at the same level as 2016 O&M costs ($174 million), and (2) that Design Excellence buildings will reach the average age of all current GSA buildings (60 years). We assessed the reliability of these data through electronic testing and reviewing documentation on the data. We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of illustrating the extent to which O&M costs make up total building costs.

We also conducted a web-based survey of GSA building managers responsible for overseeing O&M for the 78 Design Excellence buildings included in our review. The survey addressed the extent to which certain design choices affect O&M costs and building functionality. We developed the survey based on our objectives, prior GAO work, and site visits to 10 Design Excellence buildings. We pretested the survey with GSA officials at three Design Excellence buildings, which were selected based on building age, location, total square feet, fiscal year 2016 O&M costs, and the building’s primary use (e.g., office or courthouse). As part of our pretesting, we asked GSA building managers to explain their understanding of survey questions and made edits based on their comments. We conducted the survey from November 2017 to March 2018 and our response rate was 100 percent (78 out of 78). See appendix III for a copy of the survey and summarized responses.

We visited 10 Design Excellence buildings in three GSA regions to view design choices and O&M activities. As part of these site visits, we conducted interviews that included tenant agencies located in these buildings, GSA building managers responsible for managing these buildings and officials from GSA regional offices with oversight responsibilities for these buildings. To select our site visit locations and ensure geographic and agency diversity, we considered several factors including building operating costs, size, location, and the tenant agency. Based on these criteria we selected the buildings listed in table 3. The interviews and tours we conducted during our site visits do not allow us to generalize the findings to all Design Excellence buildings. Information gathered from our site visits did allow us to show how O&M costs were considered in specific Design Excellence buildings and the effects of design choices.

We also interviewed GSA officials located in GSA Headquarters within the Office of Design and Construction, including the Chief Architect, and the Office of Facilities Management. We also interviewed GSA regional officials within the Office of Facilities Management in four of GSA’s 11 regional offices: Greater Southwest Region, National Capital Region, Pacific Rim Region, and Southeast Sunbelt Region. We selected regional offices based on the location of our site visits and included one additional regional office based on it having the highest total O&M operating costs of the eight remaining regional offices. We discussed several topics with GSA officials, including how O&M costs were considered during planning and design and how information on the O&M costs of design choices are shared.

To determine the extent to which GSA considers O&M costs and functionality when planning and designing buildings, we analyzed Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) data. Our analysis of U.S. government- owned office buildings that are less than 40 years old, occupied, and needed for a tenant’s mission, identified five potentially relevant variables to explain variation in the O&M costs: building type (i.e., whether a building was constructed under the Design Excellence Program), size, age, and condition of the building, as well as the median hourly wage of O&M services in the building’s location. After controlling for these variables, we found that size and median hourly wage but not building type had a statistically significant relationship to O&M costs. We assessed the reliability of these data through electronic testing as well as a review of documentation for each federal data source. We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing our attempts to identify factors that influence O&M costs in federal buildings. We also requested and received additional information from the building managers of Design Excellence federal office buildings. Specifically we asked for information on the extent to which these federal office buildings are public-facing, have restrictions on public entry and are visible from public sidewalks or roads, and what the daily volume of public visitors was.

We compared GSA’s efforts to consider O&M costs in the planning and design of Design Excellence buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government on using complete and relevant information when making decisions and design control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives, as well as on communicating information internally. In addition, we compared GSA’s efforts to consider these costs in the planning and design of Design Excellence buildings to guidance from GSA and the Office of Management and Budget that directs agency officials to consider and strive for the lowest possible costs, including O&M costs, when designing buildings. We also compared GSA’s efforts to consider functionality when planning and designing these buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government on using complete and relevant information when making decisions and design control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives.

To assess the extent to which GSA systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs related to design choices in existing Design Excellence buildings, we reviewed Post Occupancy Evaluations commissioned by GSA on six Design Excellence buildings. These evaluations contain information, such as how GSA buildings are performing and the extent to which they comply with GSA’s federal standards for public buildings. These evaluations can include reviews of operations and maintenance documentation, interviews and surveys with building occupants, and interviews with relevant GSA staff, architectural and engineering design team staff, and an on-site evaluation. We also compared GSA’s process for collecting and sharing how design choices affected O&M costs in existing buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government on using and communicating complete and relevant information when designing control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to May 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Buildings Constructed under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Design Excellence Program

GSA created the Design Excellence Program in 1994. Under this program, GSA has constructed 78 buildings in 33 states and the District of Columbia, buildings that range in size from about 35,000- to over 3- million gross square feet (see table 4).

Appendix III: Survey of General Services Administration (GSA) Building Managers and Summarized Results

This appendix provides a copy of the survey completed by managers for all 78 buildings constructed under GSA’s Design Excellence Program included in our review. The appendix also includes the responses received for each of the close- ended questions (1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a, 3a, and 4a); it does not include information on open-ended responses (1d, 1f, 2b, 3b, 3c, 4b, and 5). The purpose of this survey was to gather responses on how design choices affected operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and building function. See appendix I for additional information on our survey methodology.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Lori Rectanus, (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director); Matthew Cook (Analyst in Charge); Eli Albagli; Sarah Arnett; Colin Ashwood; Melissa Bodeau; Lacey Coppage; Caitlin Cusati; Terrence Lam; Joshua Ormond; Dae Park; Minette Richardson; Kelly Rubin; Ardith Spence; and Dave Wise made key contributions to this report.