More recently, in November 1995, we testified that the process for funding new courthouse projects lacked—and could benefit from—a comprehensive capital investment plan that articulates a rationale or justification for projects and presents projects in a long-term strategic context.Furthermore, during the last 6 years, we have reported that Congress lacks quality information to assess the merits of individual projects, understand the rationale for project priorities, and justify funding decisions. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine whether the judiciary’s 5-year plan (1) reflects the judiciary’s most urgent courthouse construction needs and (2) provides information needed by decisionmakers to evaluate the relative merits of project proposals. In making this assessment, we relied primarily on the urgency scores the judiciary developed for projects in the plan, its methodology for assessing project urgency, and AOC data related to urgency for projects that were not included in the plan. To determine whether the plan contains the most urgently needed projects, we developed minimum urgency scores for 80 locations that were not in the plan but, according to AOC, also need new courthouse projects. Also, as mentioned before, the judiciary’s intent in developing the plan was to communicate its urgent courthouse construction needs. The official said that the judiciary is aware of the conditions in Los Angeles and that the project was left out of the 5-year plan until some key planning decisions are made by GSA and the judiciary. Table 2 shows these projects and their urgency scores. As previously mentioned, the plan places heavy emphasis on projects that were already in the GSA pipeline. While we believe that pipeline projects should compete for funding, we also believe that the plan should make a convincing argument as to why these projects should be funded first. However, it did not assess other projects that, our work showed, have higher urgency scores than several of the projects in the plan. Related to not justifying its priorities, the plan and its related material lack specificity about conditions that exist at each location—information that would help decisionmakers better understand priorities. We recognize that the plan is transitional and that it will evolve. This plan and its related material do not alert Congress, an important stakeholder, that the projects do not reflect all the judiciary’s most urgent needs nor do they explain that pipeline projects with high funding priority do not always have the highest urgency scores. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' (AOC) 5-year courthouse construction plan, focusing on whether the 5-year plan: (1) reflects the judiciary's most urgent courthouse construction needs; and (2) provides information needed by decisionmakers to evaluate the relative merit of project proposals.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) while the judiciary has developed a methodology for assessing project urgency and a 5-year construction plan to communicate its urgent courthouse construction needs, GAO's analysis suggests that the 5-year plan does not reflect all of the judiciary's most urgent courthouse construction needs; (2) in preparing the 5-year plan, the judiciary developed urgency scores for 45 projects; (3) it did not develop urgency scores for other locations that according to AOC also need new courthouses; (4) GAO's analysis of available data on conditions at the 80 other locations showed that 30 of them likely would receive an urgency score higher than some projects in the plan; (5) for projects that are in the plan, high urgency scores did not always lead to high funding priority; (6) AOC officials said that this was a transitional plan in that it placed heavy emphasis in assigning funding priorities on the projects already in the GSA pipeline rather than solely on project urgency; (7) GAO's work also showed that the judiciary's plan and related material do not present competing projects in a long-term strategic context or articulate a rationale or justification for proposed projects and their relative priority; (8) they do not contain project-specific information on the conditions that exist at each location that would help decisionmakers compare the merits of individual projects, better understand the rationale for funding priorities, and justify funding decisions; and (9) GAO recognizes that the plan is transitional and that it is reasonable for pipeline projects to receive priority consideration for funding, but the plan and related material should make a convincing argument as to why they should be funded before others that have higher urgency scores.