The L.A. Court’s operations are currently split between two buildings—the  Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Roybal Federal Building  built in 1992. 1.) Courthouse Project Cancelled After Delays and Increases in Estimated Costs

In our 2008 report, we found that GSA had spent $16.3 million designing  a new courthouse for the L.A. court and $16.9 million acquiring and  preparing a new site for it in downtown Los Angeles. In addition, we  reported that about $366.45 million remained appropriated for the  construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. courthouse. The project was delayed because GSA decided to  design a larger courthouse than congressionally authorized, GSA and the  judiciary disagreed over the project’s scope, costs escalated  unexpectedly, and there was low contractor interest in bidding on the  project. GAO Found Judiciary’s Rent Challenge Stems from Courthouses Having Unneeded Space with Higher Associated Costs

		GAO Found That Increases in the Judiciary’s Rent Costs Were Primarily Due to Increases in Space and That Courthouses Have Significant Unneeded Space

In 2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual  exemption from rent payments to GSA because it was having difficulty  paying for its increasing rent costs. GSA denied this request. In  2010, we found that the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000  include 3.56 million square feet of unneeded space—more than a quarter  of the space in courthouses completed since 2000. This extra space  consists of space that was constructed as a result of (1) exceeding the  congressionally authorized size, (2) overestimating the number of judges  the courthouses would have, and (3) not planning for judges to share  courtrooms. Overall, this space is equal to the square footage of about 9  average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to construct this extra  space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835 million, and the annual cost  to rent, operate, and maintain it is $51 million. Using the  judiciary’s data, we designed a model for courtroom sharing, which shows  that there is enough unscheduled time for substantial courtroom sharing. Sharing could also be  increased by having three senior judges—instead of two—share one  courtroom. We recommended, among other things, that  GSA ensure that new courthouses are constructed within their authorized  size or that congressional committees are notified if authorized sizes are  going to be exceeded; that the Judicial Conference of the United States  retain caseload projections to improve the accuracy of its 10-year-judge  planning; and that the Conference establish and use courtroom sharing  policies based on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed  with most of the recommendations, but expressed concerns about our  methodology and key findings. We continue to believe that our findings  were well supported and developed using an appropriate methodology,   as explained in the report. Challenges Related to Costs and Unneeded Space in Courthouses Are All Applicable to the L.A. Courthouse Project

The three causes of extra space—and the associated extra costs—in  courthouses that we identified in 2010 are all applicable to the L.A.  courthouse project. Second, overestimates of how many judges the L.A. Court would need led  to the design of a courthouse with more courtrooms than necessary. Specifically, we reported in 2004 that the proposed L.A. courthouse was  designed to include courtrooms for 61 judges (47 current district and  magistrate judges and 14 additional judges expected by 2011), but in 2011,  the L.A. Court still has 47 district and magistrate judges—and none of the  14 additional judges that were expected. This outcome calls into question  the space assumptions that the original proposals were based on. Third, in 2008 we reported that in planning for judges to share  courtrooms, the judiciary favored an option proposed by GSA that  provided for sharing by senior judges, but our 2010 analysis indicated that  further sharing was feasible and could reduce the size and cost of the  L.A. courthouse project. Specifically, GSA’s proposal to build a 36- courtroom, 45-chamber building and add 4 courtrooms to Roybal’s  existing 34 courtrooms—which GSA estimated at the time would cost  $1.1 billion, or $733.6 million more than Congress had already  appropriated—would have provided the L.A. Court with 74 courtrooms in  total—36 district courtrooms in the new building and 38 courtrooms (20  magistrate and 18 bankruptcy) in Roybal. As described  above, our model suggested that additional courtroom sharing would be  possible in a courthouse such as the L.A. courthouse, which could reduce  the number of courtrooms needed for this project, broadening the  potential options for housing the L.A. District Court.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 2000, as part of a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative, the judiciary requested and the General Services Administration (GSA) proposed building a new courthouse in Los Angeles to increase security, efficiency, and space--but construction never began. About $400 million was appropriated for the L.A. courthouse project. For this testimony, GAO was asked to report on (1) the status of the L.A. courthouse project, (2) challenges GAO has identified affecting federal courthouses nationwide, and (3) the extent to which these challenges are applicable to the L.A. courthouse project. This testimony is based on GAO-10-417 and GAO's other prior work on federal courthouses, during which GAO analyzed courthouse planning and use data, visited courthouses, modeled courtroom sharing scenarios, and interviewed judges, GSA officials, and others. In GAO-10-417 , GAO recommended that (1) GSA ensure that new courthouses are constructed within their authorized size or, if not, that congressional committees are notified, (2) the Judicial Conference of the United States retain caseload projections to improve the accuracy of its 10-year-judge planning, and (3) the Conference establish and use courtroom sharing policies based on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed with most of the recommendations, but expressed concerns with GAO's methodology and key findings. GAO continues to believe that its findings were well supported and developed using an appropriate methodology..

What GAO Found

GAO reported in 2008 that GSA spent about $33 million on design and site preparations for a new 41-courtroom L.A. courthouse, leaving about $366 million available for construction. However, project delays, unforeseen cost escalation, and low contractor interest had caused GSA to cancel the project in 2006 before any construction took place. GSA later identified other options for housing the L.A. Court, including constructing a smaller new courthouse (36 courtrooms) or using the existing courthouses--the Spring Street Courthouse and the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. As GAO also reported, the estimated cost of the 36-courthouse option as of 2008 was over $1.1 billion, significantly higher than the current appropriation. The challenges that GAO has identified in recent reports on federal courthouses include increasing rent and extra operating, maintenance, and construction costs stemming from courthouses being built larger than necessary. For example, in 2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual exemption from rent payments to GSA due to difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs. GAO found in 2006 that these increasing rent costs were primarily due to increases in total courthouse space--and in 2010, GAO reported that more than a quarter of the new space in recently constructed courthouses is unneeded. Specifically, in the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000, GAO found 3.56 million square feet of excess space. This extra space is a result of (1) courthouses exceeding the congressionally authorized size, (2) the number of judges in the courthouses being overestimated, and (3) not planning for judges to share courtrooms. In total, the extra space GAO identified is equal in square footage to about 9 average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to construct this extra space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835 million, and the estimated annual cost to rent, operate and maintain it is $51 million. Each of the challenges GAO identified related to unnecessary space in courthouses completed since 2000 is applicable to the L.A. courthouse project. First, as GAO reported in 2008, GSA designed the L.A. Courthouse with 13 more courtrooms than congressionally authorized. This increase in size led to cost increases and delays. Second, in 2004, GAO found that the proposed courthouse was designed to provide courtrooms to accommodate the judiciary's estimate of 61 district and magistrate judges in the L.A. Court by 2011--which, as of October 2011, exceeds the actual number of such judges by 14. This disparity calls into question the space assumptions on which the original proposals were based. Third, the L.A. court was planning for less courtroom sharing than is possible. While in 2008 the judiciary favored an option proposed by GSA that provided for some sharing by senior judges, according to GAO's 2010 analysis, there is enough unscheduled time in courtrooms for three senior judges to share one courtroom, two magistrate judges to share one courtroom, and three district judges to share two courtrooms. In 2011, the judiciary also approved sharing for bankruptcy judges. Additional courtroom sharing could reduce the number of additional courtrooms needed for the L.A. courthouse, thereby increasing the potential options for housing the L.A. Court.