GSA Worked to Select Green Projects and New Courthouses That Reflected Recovery Act Priorities

		GSA Selected Green Projects to Achieve Environmental Goals and Obligate Funds Quickly

According to GSA officials, the agency obligated its $4.5 billion in  Recovery Act funds to green projects that would help convert federal  buildings and courthouses into green buildings and that could be  obligated quickly. In total, GSA used about $800 million of its $4.5 billion  green building funds toward 15 full or partial courthouse modernization  projects (an average of about $53 million each). Courthouse in San  Antonio, Texas, GSA installed solar panels and a solar water heater  on the roof (fig. Table 3 shows  simple payback period estimates for selected energy- and water-saving  technologies installed at the Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and U.S. GSA Generally Selected New Construction Projects That Helped It Build or Acquire New Courthouses

In addition to $4.5 billion in green funds, the Recovery Act provided GSA  with $750 million for federal buildings and U.S. courthouses. As of May 2014, GSA had used $257 million of its $750 million-general- purpose funds for seven courthouses and the remainder on federal  buildings that did not have a judiciary presence. GSA’s Project Management Has Not Always Aligned with Successful Practices and Had Mixed Effects on Judicial Operations

		GSA’s Project Management Did Not Always Align with Successful Practices

We found that GSA management incorporated the seven successful  practices for managing large-scale investments to varying degrees at 10  courthouse projects that we reviewed in greater detail. Courthouse in San Juan, Puerto Rico, judiciary tenants said that GSA  limited their involvement during construction, and as a result, their input  was not obtained on the project’s phased schedule approach that  required the closure of all public restrooms in the operating courthouse for  a year, except for one restroom on the seventh floor of the adjoining  federal building. For example,  judiciary officials at Federico Degetau Federal Building and Clemente  Ruiz Nazario U.S. Costs or Schedules Changed for a Majority of Courthouse Construction and Modernizations

According to GSA cost and schedule data for new construction and full or  partial modernization courthouse projects, GSA completed 8 of the 22  Recovery Act projects on time and on budget. Most Judiciary Tenants Were Satisfied with Completed Recovery Act Projects, but Some Reported Disruptions and Coordination Challenges

Judiciary tenants at 6 of 10 of the courthouses we studied said that  Recovery Act projects did not disrupt court operations. For example, although the MPC directed GSA project managers  to include on-site renewable energy systems—including solar panels,  solar water heaters, or both—when scoping projects, project managers  did not incorporate this MPC at 4 of the 10 courthouses in our review. GSA has not yet evaluated the environmental performance of its  Recovery Act projects against the MPC. Without evaluating building performance against the MPC, GSA is limited  in its knowledge of whether projects have achieved expected outcomes. Some Projects Are Contributing to Federal Environmental Goals but It Remains Unclear If They Meet the MPC

Since GSA has not measured the progress of its Recovery Act projects  toward meeting the MPC, we analyzed GSA’s energy and water usage  data for the full or partial courthouse- modernization projects we reviewed  against federal portfolio-wide goals upon which some of the MPC were  based. We evaluated whether the five courthouses were  contributing toward the federal goal by either meeting or exceeding the 27  percent reduction that was expected by fiscal year 2014. GSA should examine incorporating successful management  practices—such as consistently involving tenants at various stages of  the project—into its capital investment process to ensure that projects  are managed efficiently and that tenant disruptions are minimized. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines how the General Services Administration (GSA)  used funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009  (Recovery Act) in buildings that included a judicial presence. This report examines (1) how  GSA determined which courthouse projects to fund under the Recovery  Act; (2) how GSA’s management of selected Recovery Act courthouse  projects aligned with successful practices and whether these projects  disrupted judiciary operations, and (3) how, if at all, GSA established  environmental performance goals for courthouses funded by the  Recovery Act and whether the selected projects met those goals. To identify how GSA determined which courthouses would receive  Recovery Act funds, we reviewed GSA’s Recovery Act-planning  documents; project selection criteria; prior GAO reports; and relevant  legislation and guidance, including the Energy Independence and  Security Act of 2007 (EISA), related federal statutes, and executive  orders related to GSA’s $4.5 billion in high-performance green (green)  Recovery Act funds and its $750 million in funds for federal buildings and  U.S. courthouses.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Recovery Act provided GSA with $5.55 billion—over three times the agency's 2009 funding for new construction and renovations—to invest in federal buildings and U.S. courthouses. This amount included $4.5 billion to convert federal buildings and U.S. courthouses into green buildings that would reduce energy and water use, among other goals.
GAO was asked to review GSA's use of Recovery Act funds as they related to courthouses. This report examines (1) how GSA determined which courthouse projects to fund under the Recovery Act, (2) how GSA's management of selected Recovery Act projects aligned with successful practices and whether these projects disrupted judiciary operations, and (3) how GSA set environmental goals for courthouses and whether selected projects met those goals. GAO reviewed relevant laws and agency documents, collected cost and schedule data on courthouse projects, and analyzed environmental outcomes for 10 projects. GAO selected these 10 Recovery Act courthouse projects, based on project size, type, and location, and interviewed GSA officials and judiciary tenants about GSA's management and coordination.

What GAO Found

The General Services Administration (GSA) developed eight selection criteria for utilizing its $4.5 billion in high-performing green (green) building funds—or more than 80 percent of its total $5.5-billion budget—under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). GSA used almost $800 million of its $4.5-billion green building funds on 15 full or partial modernization projects and the remaining funds were used on federal buildings or limited scope projects. For example, at the Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in San Antonio, Texas, GSA installed solar panels and a solar water heater on the roof, installed a green roof on the interior courtyard, and replaced the building's lighting. In addition, as of May 2014, GSA used $257 million of the $750 million in Recovery Act funds dedicated to federal buildings and U.S. courthouses to construct or acquire seven courthouses.
GSA management of selected Recovery Act courthouse projects did not always align with seven successful practices that GAO developed for managing large-scale investments. GAO's more in-depth review of 10 courthouses showed that while GSA generally provided top leadership support and sufficient funding, its management of these Recovery Act projects did not always align with the remaining five practices. For example, judiciary tenants at 3 of the 10 courthouses said that GSA management did not actively engage with judiciary stakeholders during construction. In one case, judiciary officials at the Federico Degetau Federal Building and Clemente Ruiz Nazario Courthouse in Puerto Rico said they were not consulted on the project's phased schedule approach that required the closure of all public restrooms in the operating courthouse for a year, except for one restroom on the seventh floor of the adjoining federal building. For the projects GAO reviewed, when GSA did not incorporate the successful practices, GAO found that projects were more likely to experience schedule delays, cost increases, or lack of tenant support. GAO found that most judiciary tenants were satisfied with the completed projects, although tenants at 4 courthouses said the projects disrupted court operations.
GSA set environmental goals by establishing minimum performance criteria (MPC) to guide how it designed green courthouse Recovery Act projects; however, environmental outcomes are not yet known. The MPC included dozens of environmental requirements for projects in areas such as energy, water, and material use. While some Recovery Act projects have been completed for several years and GSA has the necessary data to evaluate projects, GSA officials have not developed a schedule for analyzing building performance against the MPC. GAO evaluated the extent to which the selected courthouses with a year or more of operational data contributed toward the energy and water- reduction goals that GSA used to develop the MPC. GAO found that as of fiscal year 2014, 2 of the 5 courthouses with available data are contributing toward energy reduction goals, and all 4 courthouses with available data are contributing toward water reduction goals. Without evaluating the performance of courthouse projects against the MPC, GSA lacks important information that could guide the agency's future investments in green infrastructure.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that GSA (1) examine incorporating successful management practices into its capital investment process and (2) analyze and apply environmental outcomes for green Recovery Act projects. GSA agreed with GAO's recommendations.