The AMP process establishes criteria for qualifying for new  courthouse construction, such as requiring that an existing courthouse  have a chamber for each judge and needing two or more additional  courtrooms. AMP Process Partially Aligns with Several Leading Practices but Does Not Provide Needed Information to Decision Makers

		AMP Process Partially Aligns with Several Leading Practices in Capital Planning

The AMP process, which the judiciary has applied to about 67 percent of  its courthouses, represents progress by the judiciary in aligning its capital- planning process with leading capital-planning practices, but the  document the judiciary uses to request courthouse construction projects  lacks transparency and key information. Figure 2 summarizes leading capital-planning  practices and our assessment of the extent to which the AMP process  aligns with those practices. Alternatives Evaluation. Specifically, it lists  about $1.1 billion in estimated costs, which are the funds needed for that  specific 5-year period. As a result, there is a risk that funding decisions  could be made without complete and accurate information. Specifically, transparency about  future priorities could allow decision makers to weigh current-year budget  decisions within the context of projects’ expected future costs. Additionally, transparency  regarding future capital costs would put the judiciary’s priorities in context  with federal spending. Most Courthouse Projects Were Not Evaluated under AMP Process and Do Not Meet AMP Criterion for New Construction

		Judiciary Has Not Evaluated Most 5-Year Plan Projects under the AMP Process

The judiciary has not applied the AMP process to 10 of the 12  construction projects on the current 5-year plan dated September 2012. Judiciary officials said that they did not  want to delay the projects or force them to undergo a second capital- planning process review because the judiciary had already approved the  projects. The change in the rankings of the 4 projects calls into question the extent  to which the projects remaining on the 5-year plan represent the  judiciary’s most urgent projects and whether proceeding with these  projects while hundreds of AMP reviews remain to be done represents  the most fiscally responsible path. We recognize that conducting AMP  reviews of the 10 projects on the 5-year plan would involve additional  costs; however, not conducting AMP reviews on these projects could  involve spending billions of dollars over the next 20 years on courthouses  that may not be the most urgent projects. 2. Specifically, two projects on a previous 5-year plan that  were assessed under the AMP process were removed from the list and  now rank well down the judiciary’s list of priorities. To what extent were the courthouse projects recommended for  funding in fiscal years 2014 to 2018 assessed under the judiciary’s  current capital-planning process? To assess recent courthouse projects recommended for funding under  the judiciary’s current capital-planning process, we reviewed the  judiciary’s documents detailing the projects recommended for funding for  fiscal years 2009 through 2018, called 5-year plans, and other documents  on: congressional authorizations and funding appropriations for  courthouse projects; judiciary information on courts and courthouses; and  GSA information on federal buildings, existing and planned federal  courthouses, courthouse design, and federal historic property. 2. 3. As a  result, GSA addresses building maintenance issues regardless of the status  of the courthouse construction program. 12. Specifically, the judiciary established the criterion that courthouses  need to have a shortage of two or more courtrooms to qualify for a new  courthouse construction project. 20.
Why GAO Did This Study

Rising costs and fiscal challenges have slowed the multibillion-dollar courthouse construction program of the judiciary and the General Services Administration (GSA). In 2006, the judiciary developed AMP to address increasing costs and incorporate best practices and has evaluated about 67 percent of its courthouses under the new system. As requested, GAO assessed changes introduced with AMP. GAO examined: (1) the extent to which the AMP process aligns with leading practices and provides information needed for informed decision making and (2) the extent to which courthouse projects recommended for funding in fiscal years 2014 to 2018 were assessed under the AMP process. GAO compared the judiciary's capitalplanning practices with leading practices, analyzed courthouseplanning documents, and interviewed officials from the judiciary and GSA. GAO visited three courthouses selected because they were highly ranked by the judiciary for replacement, although observations from these site visits cannot be generalized.

What GAO Found

The Asset Management Planning (AMP) process represents progress by the federal judiciary (judiciary) in better aligning its capital-planning process with leading capitalplanning practices, but its 5-year plan for fiscal years 2014 to 2018--the document the judiciary uses to request courthouse construction projects--lacks transparency and key information on how projects qualify for new construction, alternatives the judiciary considered, and their cost. For example, the plan lists costs for the next phase of the 12 recommended courthouse projects, which have several phases, but does not list previous funding or ongoing annual costs for the projects. As a result, the plan lists about $1 billion in costs for the 12 projects, but the projects would actually cost the federal government an estimated $3.2 billion over the next 20 years. Congress has appropriated a small share of the money needed for the projects, and most will need design changes before construction can begin. As a result, there is a risk that congressional funding decisions could be made without complete and accurate information. However, with this information, decision makers could weigh current-year budget decisions within the context of projects' expected future costs, spur discussion and debate about actions to address them, and put the judiciary's requests in context with other federal spending.
Ten of the 12 recommended projects were not evaluated under the AMP process. Judiciary officials said that they did not want to delay the current projects or force them to undergo a second capital-planning process after they had already been approved. Two courthouse projects from a previous 5-year plan that were assessed under AMP were removed from the list and are now ranked behind more than 100 other courthouse construction projects. Furthermore, 10 of the 12 recommended construction projects do not qualify for a new courthouse under the AMP criterion, which requires that new courthouses need two or more additional courtrooms. These conditions call into question the extent to which the projects remaining on the 5-year plan represent the judiciary's most urgent projects and whether proceeding with these projects represents the most fiscally responsible proposal. While 10 additional AMP evaluations would involve some additional costs, not conducting those evaluations could involve spending $3.2 billion over the next 20 years on courthouses that may not be the most urgent projects.