Courthouse Has Experienced Repeated Delays Due to Changes in Project Scope, Unforeseen Construction Cost Escalation, and Procurement Issues

Since 2000 when GSA originally proposed building a new courthouse in  downtown Los Angeles, the project has experienced repeated delays in its  schedule. 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. The delays were initially caused by GSA’s decision to design a courthouse  much larger than what was authorized by Congress. Delays Contributed to L.A. Project Cost Estimates Nearly Tripling and Current Problems Persisting

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. 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. 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. 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. Options for the Future of the Project Require Balancing Court Needs with Additional Costs and Other Factors

Since 2000, GSA has developed eight different proposals for housing the  L.A. court. Option 1: Build a 36- Courtroom, 45-Chamber Building and Add 4 Courtrooms to Roybal

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. 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. With congressional approval, GSA could use existing funds to begin  planning and constructing the new building. Option 4: Restart Planning Process and Possibly Use Remaining Funds for Other Purposes

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. 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. We are not advocating this or any of the other three options. Nonetheless, it is clear the current process is deadlocked. 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. In written comments, GSA indicated that it partially agreed with the  report’s findings related to the delays in the L.A. Our report indicates that GSA and the judiciary were  slow to reduce scope to stay on budget. 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 project  costs and court operations? 3. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.