Summary
held a hearing on May 20, 2025 at 10:00 AM in Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2167. 3 witnesses appeared.
Record
The meeting has its video, its transcript, witnesses and documents on the record.
Video
The proceedings, as the committee streamed them.
Transcript
The transcript runs to 4,026 lines and 233,974 characters, as the Government Publishing Office printed it.
1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34 FEDERAL COURTHOUSE DESIGN AND CONSTRUC-5 TION: EXAMINING THE COSTS TO THE TAX-6 PAYER78=======================================================================910 (119-22)1112 HEARING1314 BEFORE THE1516 SUBCOMMITTEE ON17 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND18 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT1920 OF THE2122 COMMITTEE ON23 TRANSPORTATION AND24 INFRASTRUCTURE25 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2627 ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2829 FIRST SESSION30 __________3132 MAY 20, 202533 __________3435 Printed for the use of the36 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure3738 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3940 Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-41 transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/42 transportation43 ______4445 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE464761-277 PDF WASHINGTON : 20254849 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE5051 Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman52 Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member53Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Eleanor Holmes Norton,54 Arkansas, Vice Chairman District of Columbia55Daniel Webster, Florida Jerrold Nadler, New York56Thomas Massie, Kentucky Steve Cohen, Tennessee57Scott Perry, Pennsylvania John Garamendi, California58Brian Babin, Texas Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia59David Rouzer, North Carolina Andre Carson, Indiana60Mike Bost, Illinois Dina Titus, Nevada61Doug LaMalfa, California Jared Huffman, California62Bruce Westerman, Arkansas Julia Brownley, California63Brian J. Mast, Florida Frederica S. Wilson, Florida64Pete Stauber, Minnesota Mark DeSaulnier, California65Tim Burchett, Tennessee Salud O. Carbajal, California66Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Greg Stanton, Arizona67Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey Sharice Davids, Kansas68Troy E. Nehls, Texas Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois69Tracey Mann, Kansas Chris Pappas, New Hampshire70Burgess Owens, Utah Seth Moulton, Massachusetts71Eric Burlison, Missouri Marilyn Strickland, Washington72Mike Collins, Georgia Patrick Ryan, New York73Mike Ezell, Mississippi Val T. Hoyle, Oregon74Kevin Kiley, California Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,75Vince Fong, California Vice Ranking Member76Tony Wied, Wisconsin Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan77Tom Barrett, Michigan Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina78Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania79Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Robert Garcia, California80 Pennsylvania Nellie Pou, New Jersey81Jeff Hurd, Colorado Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan82Jefferson Shreve, Indiana Laura Friedman, California83Addison P. McDowell, North Laura Gillen, New York84 Carolina Shomari Figures, Alabama85David J. Taylor, Ohio86Brad Knott, North Carolina87Kimberlyn King-Hinds,88 Northern Mariana Islands89Mike Kennedy, Utah90Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri91Jimmy Patronis, Florida9293 ------9495 Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and96 Emergency Management9798 Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman99 Greg Stanton, Arizona, Ranking Member100Mike Ezell, Mississippi Eleanor Holmes Norton,101Kevin Kiley, California District of Columbia102Tom Barrett, Michigan Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan103Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Shomari Figures, Alabama104 Pennsylvania John Garamendi, California105Kimberlyn King-Hinds, Dina Titus, Nevada106 Northern Mariana Islands Laura Friedman, California,107Mike Kennedy, Utah Vice Ranking Member108Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri, Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)109 Vice Chairman110Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)111112 CONTENTS113114 Page115116Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v117118 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE119120Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the121 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on122 Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency123 Management, opening statement.................................. 1124 Prepared statement........................................... 3125Hon. Laura Friedman, a Representative in Congress from the State126 of California, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on127 Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency128 Management, opening statement.................................. 6129 Prepared statement........................................... 7130131 WITNESSES132133David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government134 Accountability Office, oral statement.......................... 9135 Prepared statement........................................... 10136Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge for the U.S. District Court137 for the Northern District of New York, and Chair, Judicial138 Conference Committee on Space and Facilities, oral statement... 21139 Prepared statement........................................... 23140Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S.141 General Services Administration, oral statement................ 27142 Prepared statement........................................... 28143144 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD145146Letter of May 20, 2025, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon.147 Greg Stanton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic148 Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, from149 Kristen Swearingen, Vice President, Government Affairs,150 Associated Builders and Contractors, Submitted for the Record151 by Hon. Scott Perry............................................ 4152153 APPENDIX154155Question to David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure,156 U.S. Government Accountability Office, from Hon. Dina Titus.... 43157Questions to Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings158 Service, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Dina159 Titus.......................................................... 44160161[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]162163 May 16, 2025164165 SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER166167 TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,168Public Buildings, and Emergency Management169 FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public170Buildings, and Emergency Management171 RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Federal Courthouse172Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer''173_______________________________________________________________________174175 I. PURPOSE176177 The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,178and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and179Infrastructure will hold a hearing on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, at18010:00 a.m. E.T. in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building181entitled, ``Federal Courthouse Design and Construction:182Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer.'' In 2021, the United183States Courts updated the official Design Guide that dictates184the basic requirements for new courthouses.\1\ This hearing185will evaluate the recent changes to the Design Guide and186examine the impacts that the changes have had on the costs187associated with designing, constructing, and operating Federal188courthouses. Witnesses for this hearing will be from the189General Services Administration (GSA), the Federal Judiciary,190and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).191---------------------------------------------------------------------------192 \1\ United States Courts, U.S. Courts Design Guide (revised Mar.1932021) [hereinafter Design Guide], available at https://194www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/us-courts-195design-guide.196---------------------------------------------------------------------------197198 II. BACKGROUND199200GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION201202 The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,203and Emergency Management has jurisdiction over all of GSA's204real property activity through the Property Act of 1949 (P.L.20581-152), the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (P.L. 86-249), and206the Cooperative Use Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-541).\2\ These three207Acts are codified as title 40 of the United States Code. The208Public Buildings Service (PBS) is responsible for the209construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, and operation of210public buildings of the Federal Government, including the211United States Courts.\3\212---------------------------------------------------------------------------213 \2\ Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Cong. (2025),214available at https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/215rules.house.gov/files/documents/houserules119thupdated.pdf.216 \3\ Dominick A. Fiorentino and Garrett Hatch, Cong. Rsch. Serv.217(R47722), Overview of the General Services Administration: Acquisition218Services and Real Property Management, (Sept. 27, 2023) [hereinafter219CRS Report], available at https://www.congress.gov/220crs-product/221R47722#::text=The%20Federal%20Property%20and%20Administrative,and222%20disposal%20of%20real%20property.223---------------------------------------------------------------------------224225GSA'S CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND LEASING PROGRAM226227 PBS activities are funded primarily through the Federal228Building Fund (FBF), an intra-governmental fund into which229agencies pay rent for the properties they occupy.\4\ While the230FBF is funded through agency rents paid to GSA, it is not a231true revolving loan fund.\5\ The funds are made available via232annual appropriations bills.\6\ GSA has not had full access to233the FBF since 2011, when appropriators began using the FBF to234offset other unrelated costs in the Financial Services and235General Government appropriations bill.\7\236---------------------------------------------------------------------------237 \4\ Id. at 13.238 \5\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 592(c)(1).239 \6\ Id.240 \7\ GSA, Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, Federal241Buildings Fund (2023), available at https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/242GSA_FY_2024_Congressional_Justification_243Final-1.pdf.244---------------------------------------------------------------------------245 Each year, GSA submits to the House Committee on246Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Environment247and Public Works Committee its Capital Investment and Leasing248Program (CILP) for the subsequent fiscal year.\8\ The CILP249submission includes what are known as prospectuses for each250project, detailing the project scope, need, and estimated251costs.\9\ For fiscal year (FY) 2026, a prospectus is required252for any project in excess of $3.961 million.\10\253---------------------------------------------------------------------------254 \8\ CRS Report, supra note 3, at 14.255 \9\ Id.256 \10\ GSA, Annual Prospectus Thresholds (last updated Jul. 31,2572024), available at https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-and-258construction/annual-prospectus-thresholds.259---------------------------------------------------------------------------260261PROSPECTUS APPROVAL PROCESS262263 Pursuant to the prospectus process (40 U.S.C. 3307),264capital projects exceeding the prospectus threshold, including265construction of new courthouses, must be authorized through a266Committee resolution by the House Committee on Transportation267and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and268Public Works.\11\ The Committee approves the project by269adopting a Committee Resolution, which will typically include270limitations and guidelines that GSA must follow in proceeding271with the approved project.\12\ Only then may GSA enter into a272contract to build, purchase, or lease space.\13\273---------------------------------------------------------------------------274 \11\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307.275 \12\ CRS Report, supra note 3, at 14.276 \13\ Id.277---------------------------------------------------------------------------278 In addition to the approvals through Committee Resolutions,279the Appropriations Committees appropriate funds each year from280the FBF.\14\ For FY 2016 through FY 2022, GSA received $1.9281billion to construct fifteen new courthouses.\15\ However, in282recent years Congress has significantly reduced the amount of283funding provided for courthouse construction.\16\ Since FY2842022, about $395 million has gone to partially fund three285courthouses: Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and286San Juan, Puerto Rico.\17\ As a result, it is critical that GSA287prioritize existing construction dollars and focus those288dollars only on the highest priority projects.289---------------------------------------------------------------------------290 \14\ Id.291 \15\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-25-106724, Federal292Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will Result in293Significant Size and Cost Increases at 1 (2024) [hereinafter GAO Report2942024], available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-106724.pdf.295 \16\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2026296Congressional Budget Summary at 74 (Apr. 2025) [hereinafter Budget297Summary], available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/298document/fy-2026-congressional-budget-summary.pdf.299 \17\ Id. at 74-75.300---------------------------------------------------------------------------301302FEDERAL JUDICIARY COURTHOUSE PROJECT PRIORITIES LIST303304 Each fiscal year, as part of the Judiciary's budget305justification, the United States Courts publish a Federal306Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) list.\18\ The CPP307contains two parts: ``Part I consists of the judiciary's308highest courthouse construction funding priorities for the309budget year [and] Part II identifies out-year courthouse310construction priorities.'' \19\ For FY 2026, the Judiciary is311requesting $863 million for new courthouse construction312costs.\20\ The CPP's highest funding priories are: San Juan,313Puerto Rico; Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga, Tennessee;314Bowling Green, Kentucky; and Anchorage, Alaska.\21\ Below is a315breakdown of the outstanding funding requests for those316projects.317---------------------------------------------------------------------------318 \18\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judiciary Courthouse319Project Priorities (CPP) for Fiscal Year 2025, as Approved by the320Judiciary Conference of the United States, available at https://321www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fy_2025_section_14_322courthouse_construction.pdf.323 \19\ Id.324 \20\ Budget Summary, supra note 16, at 73.325 \21\ Id. at 74.326---------------------------------------------------------------------------327 LSan Juan, Puerto Rico: $343.4 million for328construction.329330 + LIn FY 2022, $22.5 million was funded for site and331design.332 + LIn FY 2024, $3.0 million was funded for site and333design, and $25.3 million was funded for construction.334335 LHartford, Connecticut: $6.1 million for site and336design, and $151.5 million for construction.337 + LIn FY 2021, $135.5 million was funded for site,338design, and partial construction.339 + LIn FY 2022, $138.0 million was funded for partial340construction.341 + LIn FY 2023, $61.5 million was funded for partial342construction.343344 LChattanooga, Tennessee: $3.4 million for site and345design, and $77.1 million for construction.346 + LIn FY 2021, $94.5 million was funded for site, design,347and partial construction.348 + LIn FY 2022, $85.5 million was funded for partial349construction.350 + LIn FY 2023, $38.4 million was funded for partial351construction.352 + LIn FY 2024, $20.9 million was funded for partial353construction.354355 LBowling Green, Kentucky: $26.0 million for site356and design, and $193.5 million for construction.357 + LThis project has not received any prior funding.358359 LAnchorage, Alaska: $62.1 million for site and360design.361362 + LThis project has not received any prior funding.\22\363---------------------------------------------------------------------------364 \22\ Id. at 74-75.365---------------------------------------------------------------------------366367UNITED STATES COURTS DESIGN GUIDE368369 First issued in 1991, the United States Courts Design Guide370establishes, ``the federal judiciary's requirements for the371design, construction, and renovation of court facilities and is372intended for use by judges, architects, engineers, [GSA]373personnel, and court administrators who are involved in federal374court construction projects.'' \23\ The Judiciary made375revisions to the Design Guide in 1993, 1995, 2007, and3762021.\24\ The Judiciary also made minor amendments to the 2007377version of the Design Guide in 2016.\25\ The Design Guide is a378living document that can be amended or formally updated as379needed.\26\380---------------------------------------------------------------------------381 \23\ Design Guide, supra note 1, at vii.382 \24\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 2.383 \25\ Id.384 \26\ Design Guide, supra note 1, at xi.385---------------------------------------------------------------------------386 The changes that the Judiciary incorporated into the 2021387Design Guide range widely in scope and impact. For example, the388Design Guide lays out policies related to courtroom sharing and389space planning for senior and future judges.\27\ However, the390Design Guide also sets out policies related to acoustic391requirements and interior finishes.\28\ For a detailed392breakdown of the changes in the 2021 Design Guide, see Appendix3931.394---------------------------------------------------------------------------395 \27\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 25-27.396 \28\ Id.397---------------------------------------------------------------------------398399 III. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT400401FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM402403 The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,404and Emergency Management has had ongoing oversight of the405Federal courthouse construction program. In 2010, at the406request of the Subcommittee, GAO completed a study entitled,407``Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight,408and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs.'' \29\ In409the report, GAO examined thirty-three courthouses that were410constructed during the ten-year period from 2000 to 2010.\30\411GAO found that 3.56 million square feet of extra space was412built costing the taxpayer more than $800 million because of413the following reasons:414---------------------------------------------------------------------------415 \29\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-10-417, Federal Courthouse416Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed417To Address Future Costs (June 2010) [hereinafter GAO Report 2010],418available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-417.pdf.419 \30\ Id. at 2.420---------------------------------------------------------------------------421 LThe Judiciary grossly overestimated its ten-year422projection of future judges assigned to courthouses;423 LNew courthouses did not incorporate courtroom424sharing; and425 LGSA constructed courthouses above the426Congressionally-approved size.\31\427---------------------------------------------------------------------------428 \31\ Id. at 9.429430 As a result of these findings, the Committee halted431approving new courthouses until the Judiciary revamped its432process for proposing new courthouses, including revising433judgeship projections and instituting courtroom sharing434policies.\32\ Following this, the Judiciary subsequently435updated its Asset Management Planning (AMP) process that436improved and standardized its method of reviewing the need for437new courthouses yet the AMP process continues to give greater438weight to number of courtrooms/chambers (50 percent of the439weighted AMP system) than building condition (12 percent) or440security (10 percent) in determining the ``Urgency Evaluation''441Rating or UE and need for a new courthouse.\33\ While the442Judiciary has refined its courtroom sharing policies for443magistrate, senior, and bankruptcy judges, sharing policies do444not apply to active district court judges.\34\445---------------------------------------------------------------------------446 \32\ Letter from Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairwoman and Mario Diaz-447Balart, Ranking Member, H. Subcommittee on Econ. Dev., Public448Buildings, and Emergency Management to President Barack Obama, (Aug. 2,4492010) (On file with Comm.).450 \33\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, Asset Management Planning:451Process Handbook (2023), available at https://www.uscourts.gov/data-452news/reports/handbooks-manuals/asset-management-planning-process-453handbook.454 \34\ Id.455---------------------------------------------------------------------------456 Following the United States Courts publication of the new457Design Guide in 2021, the Subcommittee requested that GAO458examine the judiciary's rationale for the changes that were459made in the new Design Guide.\35\ The report, ``Federal460Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will Result in461Significant Size and Cost Increases,'' studied the extent to462which these changes could affect the size and cost of463courthouse projects.\36\ To conduct this study, GAO examined464six recently constructed courthouses that used the 2007 Design465Guide, since no courthouses have been constructed using the4662021 Design Guide.\37\467---------------------------------------------------------------------------468 \35\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15.469 \36\ Id. at 2.470 \37\ Id. at 3.471---------------------------------------------------------------------------472 The report found that, had the 2021 Design Guide473requirements been used for the construction of those six474courthouse projects, the size of the courthouses would have475increased by almost six percent and construction costs would476have increased by approximately twelve percent.\38\ GAO largely477attributes these increases in size and cost, to the increase in478judiciary circulation requirements (i.e., the amount of space479required for movement of the public, court staff, and480prisoners).\39\481---------------------------------------------------------------------------482 \38\ Id. at 29.483 \39\ Id. at 24.484---------------------------------------------------------------------------485486 IV. CONCERNS WITH FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION487488OVER-ESTIMATING THE FUTURE NUMBER OF JUDGES489490 A primary reason for the overbuilding of recent courthouses491has been the Judiciary's inaccurate ten-year projections for492future judgeships.\40\ Since courthouses are designed to house493judges and their staff, the overall size of a courthouse is494largely determined by the number of judges expected to be495housed in the building and whether judges will share496courtrooms.\41\ However, even as far back as 1993, the GAO497questioned the basis on which the United States Courts498calculated their projections for new judges.\42\ In particular,499at that time, the courts based their calculations on a caseload500projection method.\43\ The problem of over-projecting the501number of judges has not been resolved.502---------------------------------------------------------------------------503 \40\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 26.504 \41\ Id. at 6-8.505 \42\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GGD-93-132, Federal Judiciary506Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revision (Sept. 1993),507available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-93-132.pdf.508 \43\ Id.509---------------------------------------------------------------------------510511LACK OF COURTROOM SHARING512513 The lack of courtroom sharing has also been an ongoing514issue. To conduct their report in 2010, GAO created a model for515courtroom sharing that showed significant amounts of516unscheduled time in courtrooms, illustrating sharing of517courtrooms could be significantly higher than practiced.\44\518---------------------------------------------------------------------------519 \44\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 3.520---------------------------------------------------------------------------521 Congress has consistently questioned the need for every522judge to have a courtroom, particularly in the case of a large523courthouse with 20 or more courtrooms.\45\ However, the United524States Courts have consistently requested a courtroom for every525active judge.\46\ In 2019, the Judicial Conference updated526policies with respect to Senior District Judges, Magistrate527Judges, and Bankruptcy Judges sharing courtroom.\47\ However,528the new courtroom sharing policy was only implemented for529courthouses that are renovated or newly constructed, it does530not impact existing courthouses.\48\531---------------------------------------------------------------------------532 \45\ L.A. Courthouse: GSA's Plan to Spend $400 Million to Create533Vacant Space: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure,534112th Cong. (Aug. 17, 2012), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/535content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75572/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg75572.pdf.536 \46\ Id.537 \47\ Design Guide, supra note 1.538 \48\ Id. at 2-11.539---------------------------------------------------------------------------540541CONSTRUCTION EXCEEDED AUTHORIZED LIMITS542543 In the 2010 report, GAO criticized GSA's inability to544ensure courthouse projects stayed within the authorized limits545and noted that GSA consistently built courthouses that exceeded546the scope of Congressional authorizations.\49\ The report found547that the 3.56 million square feet of extra space that was built548resulted in an additional $835 million in costs for the thirty-549three courthouses that were examined.\50\ Furthermore, GAO550estimated the cost to rent, operate, and maintain the extra551space would be almost $51 million annually.\51\ Additionally,552the report found that:553---------------------------------------------------------------------------554 \49\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 3.555 \50\ Id. at 9.556 \51\ Id.557---------------------------------------------------------------------------558 LTwenty-seven of the thirty-three courthouses559completed since 2000 exceeded their Congressionally-authorized560size by 1.7 million square feet;561 LFifteen of the thirty-three courthouses exceeded562their Congressional authorization for square footage by ten563percent; and564 LThree courthouses exceeded their authorized565square footage by fifty percent.\52\566---------------------------------------------------------------------------567 \52\ Id. at 13.568---------------------------------------------------------------------------569570JUDICIARY CIRCULATION REQUIREMENTS571572 In the 2024 report, GAO found that judiciary circulation573requirements in the 2021 Design Guide would have led to574increased costs and size if existing courthouses projects had575been designed to those standards.\53\ In the 2007 Design Guide,576the Judiciary used ``circulation factors'' (i.e., percentage of577usable space allotted for circulation) while the 2021 Design578Guide uses ``circulation multipliers.'' \54\ As highlighted by579GSA officials, the use of ``multipliers'' instead of580``factors'' causes the judicial space necessary to581increase.\55\ As a result, the overall size and cost of the582courthouses also increase.\56\583---------------------------------------------------------------------------584 \53\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 29.585 \54\ Id.586 \55\ Id.587 \56\ Id.588---------------------------------------------------------------------------589590 V. CONCLUSION591592 Despite implementing new policies in their 2021 Design593Guide, the United States Courts continue to request the594construction of courthouses that are too large and overbudget.595While the Design Guide includes updates to relevant policies,596including courtroom sharing, the Committee fails to see597substantive enactment of these policies. Continued598Congressional oversight is necessary to ensure that the599prospectus process serves to carefully consider requests made600by the Judiciary.601602 VI. WITNESSES603604 LMr. David Marroni, Director, Physical605Infrastructure, United States Government Accountability Office606 LThe Honorable Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge607for the United States District Court for the Northern District608of New York, and Chair, Judicial Conference Committee on Space609and Facilities610 LMr. Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public611Buildings Service, United States General Services612Administration613614 VII. APPENDIX 1615616 Table 1: Changes in the 2021 United States Courts Design Guide That617 Could Affect Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects618------------------------------------------------------------------------619 Change Description620------------------------------------------------------------------------621 Space Sharing and Future Courtroom Planning622------------------------------------------------------------------------623Courtroom sharing policy.................. Incorporates judiciary624 policies adopted from 2009625 through 2011 for judges to626 share courtrooms in new627 courthouses with multiple628 magistrate, bankruptcy, or629 senior district judges. For630 example, a courthouse with631 three or more magistrate632 judges includes one633 courtroom for every two634 magistrate judges, plus an635 additional courtroom for636 criminal duty.637638Space planning for senior and future Incorporates the judiciary's639 judges. policy adopted in 2011 that640 requires new courthouse641 projects to include space642 for existing judges and to643 account for judges eligible644 for senior status within a645 10-year planning period.646 (District judges are647 appointed for life but may648 take senior status and a649 reduced caseload, if650 desired, upon meeting651 certain age and tenure652 requirements.) Courts may653 not program space or654 include space in the655 proposed design for656 projected judgeships.657658Multiparty courtrooms..................... Allows for one multiparty659 courtroom--used for trials660 involving multiple parties--661 in new courthouses with at662 least four district judge663 courtrooms. Courts can also664 request exceptions to the665 2021 Design Guide for666 courthouses with fewer than667 four courtrooms or to allow668 for more than one669 multiparty courtroom at a670 courthouse. The 2007 Design671 Guide allowed multiparty672 courtrooms at courthouses673 with at least four674 courtrooms that serve as675 the district headquarters.676------------------------------------------------------------------------677 Size Standards and Flexibilities678------------------------------------------------------------------------679Circulation multiplier.................... Changes the method for680 calculating circulation681 within judiciary units in682 the courthouse. Courthouses683 have three types of684 circulation: (1) public685 circulation for members of686 the public; (2) restricted687 circulation for judges and688 other judiciary staff; and689 (3) secure circulation to690 move witnesses, litigants,691 prisoners, or other692 individuals who are in693 custody. The 2007 Design694 Guide used ``circulation695 factors'' (i.e., percentage696 of usable space allotted697 for circulation), and the698 2021 Design Guide uses699 ``circulation700 multipliers.'' Circulation701 multipliers are values that702 are applied (i.e.,703 multiplied) to the net704 square footage of a705 judiciary unit to determine706 the square footage needed707 to move within and between708 spaces.709710Jury assembly suites...................... Updates ceiling height711 maximums for jury assembly712 suites from 10 feet in the713 2007 Design Guide to 12714 feet and allows ceiling715 height to exceed this716 maximum, if located on a717 floor with increased floor-718 to-floor height. Courts may719 use jury assembly suites720 for other purposes, such as721 for training or722 conferences. The 2007723 Design Guide did not724 address using jury assembly725 suites for other purposes.726727Unique program spaces..................... As with the 2007 Design728 Guide, the 2021 Design729 Guide allows courts to use730 unoccupied rooms for731 Alternative Dispute732 Resolution purposes.733 However, the 2021 Design734 Guide also allows a court735 to construct a separate736 suite of Alternative737 Dispute Resolution rooms738 within its given space739 requirements, with circuit740 judicial council approval.741 The 2021 Design Guide742 allows for new courthouse743 construction projects to744 include (1) fitness745 centers, provided they are746 within judiciary's space747 envelope and do not748 increase the total square749 footage of the project; and750 (2) secure rooms to store751 sensitive or classified752 information, provided the753 room does not increase the754 total square footage of the755 court unit where the room756 is located.757758Flexibility to configure space............ As with the 2007 Design759 Guide, the 2021 Design760 Guide provides courts with761 flexibility to configure762 space within the space763 envelope of a court unit764 (i.e., the total usable765 square feet within the766 courthouse) to meet their767 needs. The 2021 Design768 Guide also specifies that769 the circuit judicial770 council must approve ``any771 significant departure''772 from square footage773 standards for space and774 ceiling heights, whereas775 the 2007 Design Guide776 specified that the circuit777 judicial council must778 approve ``a change'' to779 these standards. The 2021780 Design Guide does not781 define what ``significant''782 means in this context.783------------------------------------------------------------------------784 Design Features785------------------------------------------------------------------------786Raised access flooring.................... The 2016 chapter amendments787 removed the requirement in788 the 2007 Design Guide that789 courthouses must use raised790 access flooring in most791 spaces but specified that792 such flooring was required793 in the courtroom well794 (i.e., the area that795 includes the judge's bench,796 court personnel797 workstations, witness box,798 jury box, and counsel799 tables in the courtroom).800 The 2021 Design Guide801 removed the remaining802 requirement for raised803 accessed flooring in the804 courtroom well.805806Access for people with disabilities....... Adds a requirement that a807 minimum of one courtroom808 per court type and per809 court floor must be fully810 accessible, if all811 courtrooms cannot be812 designed to be fully813 accessible at the start of814 court operation. This 2021815 Design Guide change is816 similar in some ways to817 Architectural Barriers Act818 Accessibility Standards-819 related (ABAAS) guidance,820 which provides that while821 it is preferable for the822 judge's bench and other823 private work areas in all824 courtrooms to be fully825 accessible, in the826 alternative, private work827 areas in at least one828 courtroom of each type829 (U.S. Court of Appeals,830 U.S. District Court, and831 U.S. Bankruptcy Court)832 should be fully accessible.833 The principal difference834 between this 2021 Design835 Guide provision and the836 ABAAS-related guidance is837 that in instances where all838 courtrooms cannot be839 designed to be fully840 accessible, the 2021 Design841 Guide provision requires842 one such fully accessible843 courtroom per court type on844 each floor.845846Restrooms................................. Provides that if separate847 staff toilets are necessary848 on a single floor, the849 project team will determine850 the total number of toilets851 based on the International852 Plumbing Code. This allows853 selected staff, such as the854 Clerk of the Court, to have855 private restrooms if they856 do not add space to the857 court unit. The 2007 Design858 Guide allowed for up to two859 separate staff toilets per860 floor and did not provide861 for private restrooms for862 court executives.863864Acoustic requirements..................... Changes the acoustic865 performance requirements866 for the judiciary's spaces.867 For example, the 2021868 Design Guide does not869 include the privacy870 standard of ``inaudible''871 between spaces, which was872 in the 2007 Design Guide.873874Interior finishes......................... Allows for courts to provide875 input and have flexibility876 in the selection of877 finishes within an approved878 project budget, as879 specified in the 2007880 Design Guide, but also881 provides for additional882 finishes. For example, the883 2021 Design Guide expands884 the type of finish for the885 ceiling of the judges'886 chambers suites from887 acoustical paneling to also888 include tile.889------------------------------------------------------------------------890 Security891------------------------------------------------------------------------892Ballistic-resistant windows, glass, or Provides for ballistic-893 materials. resistant material for the894 judge's bench in the895 courtroom, as specified in896 the 2007 Design Guide, and897 adds this requirement for898 the deputy clerk station899 within the courtroom. Also900 specifies that ballistic-901 resistant material may be902 considered for a judge's903 private office.904905Mailroom screening requirements........... Incorporates the latest906 standards for mail907 screening safety, including908 requiring courts to use909 ductless mail screening910 units instead of units that911 need dedicated air-handling912 equipment, as required in913 the 2007 Design Guide.914915Security and co-tenants................... Adds a new section to the916 Design Guide on security917 considerations for courts918 with multiple tenants, such919 as other Federal agencies.920921Security screening pavilion............... Includes a new section on922 security pavilions--923 adjoining exterior924 structures for security925 screening--which926 incorporates a 2013 policy927 that the judiciary must928 approve the pavilions prior929 to their construction.930------------------------------------------------------------------------931932Figure 1: GAO Analysis of Judiciary Information.\57\933---------------------------------------------------------------------------934 \57\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 25-27.935936 FEDERAL COURTHOUSE DESIGN AND CON-937 STRUCTION: EXAMINING THE COSTS TO938 THE TAXPAYER939940 ----------941942 TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025943944 House of Representatives,945 Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public946 Buildings, and Emergency Management,947 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,948 Washington, DC.949 The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:59 a.m., in950Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry951(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.952 Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public953Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.954 The Chair asks unanimous consent that I be authorized to955declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.956 Without objection, so ordered.957 The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on958the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at959today's hearing and ask questions.960 Without objection, so ordered.961 As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into962the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.963 The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an964opening statement for 5 minutes.965966 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYL-967 VANIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVEL-968 OPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGE-969 MENT970971 Mr. Perry. Let me just begin with an apology to those who972have traveled far and waited long and dealt with Washington,973DC, for our tardiness here. Sometimes there are things that are974out of our control. It's really not an excuse, but I just want975to acknowledge that your time is valuable, and we appreciate976it.977 I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to978discuss the costs associated with designing, constructing, and979operating Federal courthouses.980 In 2021, the United States Courts updated their official981Design Guide for designing and constructing new Federal982courthouses. Following the publication of the new Design Guide,983this subcommittee requested that the Government Accountability984Office examine the changes that were made and the extent to985which these changes would have an impact on the size and cost986of courthouses. We made this request because there has been a987long history of taxpayer dollars wasted on overbuilt Federal988courthouses, and we just don't see that as needing to continue.989 In 2010, GAO reviewed 33 courthouses built between 2000 and9902010 and found they were overbuilt by 3.56 million square feet,991costing the taxpayers $835 million, plus $51 million annually992in additional operation and maintenance costs. That's real993money.994 Following those findings, this committee agreed, on a995bipartisan basis, to stop authorizing new courthouses until the996courts updated their process for setting their courthouse997priorities. Only after the courts updated their Asset998Management Planning, or the AMP process, and used it to adjust999their priority list for new courthouses did this committee1000restart authorizing courthouse projects.1001 In 2021, the courts issued a revised Design Guide for new1002courthouses. Since no courthouses have been constructed using1003the 2021 Design Guide, to conduct the 2024 report, GAO looked1004at six recently constructed courthouses that had been built1005using the previous 2007 Design Guide. GAO found that, if the1006new Design Guide had been used for these six courthouses, it1007would have increased the size by almost 6 percent and the1008construction costs by almost 12 percent.1009 Just to reiterate, in 2010, GAO found that courthouses were1010overbuilt by more than 3 million square feet. The new Design1011Guide now will result in 6 percent more space. This is at least1012questionable, if not unacceptable.1013 On top of this, despite the results of its own research1014arm--the Federal Judicial Center--indicating that courtrooms1015sit dark most days, district court judges have continued to1016argue that each of them is entitled to a dedicated courtroom,1017even though State and local courts across the country, many of1018which handle far more cases, routinely share courtrooms without1019issue.1020 To accommodate this perceived entitlement, the Federal1021judiciary often includes vacant or unfilled judgeships when1022calculating the number of courtrooms required at a new1023courthouse. This results in overbuilt facilities with unused1024courtrooms and significantly increased construction and1025maintenance costs.1026 The Chair expects that we will hear that a major driver of1027the design change is the safety and security, particularly the1028size of circulation spaces. And while the Chair agrees that1029security is an important and legitimate consideration, it is1030our duty to question these things so that we get the most1031value, including with the efficacy that goes with that.1032 However, the courts' own methodology for prioritizing1033courthouse projects assigns security just 10 percent of the1034weighted score, while courtroom and chamber needs make up 501035percent. It seems lopsided, but we are not here to judge, at1036least prematurely; we want to get the answers.1037 What is even more concerning is that the expansion of the1038circulation pattern is based, in part, on an outdated 20121039review of then-existing courthouses, some of which were the1040subject of GAO's 2010 review that found they were overbuilt. It1041seems the changes in the Design Guide had little to do with1042addressing security issues.1043 Also, I am surprised by how much of the Design Guide1044focuses on things like millwork and floor and wall finishes,1045and includes notes like polished cement is ``unacceptable.''1046Frankly, it's hard to believe that at a time when Congress and1047the President are focused on downsizing the Federal Government1048and balancing the budget, the judiciary remains so tone deaf to1049the fiscal realities. I mean, I walk on polished--probably1050unpolished--concrete around here every single day, and I am1051perfectly happy with it.1052 The United States Courts' courthouse project priorities for1053fiscal year 2026 includes a request for $863 million for new1054courthouse construction. The United States Courts are asking1055Congress and, more importantly, our bosses--the American1056taxpayers--to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new1057courthouse construction, despite decades of oversight that has1058found the Design Guides have enabled the construction of1059courthouses that are too large and too costly.1060 Going forward, Congress must take a hard look at the1061construction priorities of the United States Courts, especially1062the 2021 Design Guide, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not1063being wasted. We need to ensure that proposals for new1064courthouses that this committee must authorize make sense,1065reduce cost to the taxpayer, and are not overbuilt.1066 With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.1067 [Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]10681069 Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress1070 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on1071 Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management10721073 I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the1074costs associated with designing, constructing, and operating federal1075courthouses.1076 In 2021, the United States Courts updated their official Design1077Guide for designing and constructing new federal courthouses. Following1078the publication of the new Design Guide, this subcommittee requested1079that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine the changes1080that were made, and the extent to which these changes would have an1081impact on the size and cost of courthouses. We made this request1082because there has been a long history of taxpayer dollars wasted on1083overbuilt federal courthouses.1084 In 2010, GAO reviewed 33 courthouses built between 2000 and 20101085and found they were over-built by 3.56 million square feet, costing the1086taxpayer $835 million, plus $51 million annually, in additional1087operation and maintenance costs. Following those findings, this1088committee agreed on a bipartisan basis to stop authorizing new1089courthouses until the Courts updated their process for setting their1090courthouse priorities.1091 Only after the Courts updated their Asset Management Planning (AMP)1092process and used it to adjust their priority list for new courthouses1093did this committee restart authorizing courthouse projects.1094 In 2021, the Courts issued a revised Design Guide for new1095courthouses. Since no courthouses have been constructed using the 20211096Design Guide, to conduct the 2024 report, GAO looked at six recently1097constructed courthouses that had been built using the previous 20071098Design Guide. GAO found that, if the new Design Guide had been used for1099these six courthouses, it would have increased the size by almost six1100percent and the construction costs by almost 12 percent.1101 Just to reiterate, in 2010, GAO found that courthouses were1102overbuilt by more than three million square feet. The new Design Guide1103now will result in six percent more space. This is at least1104questionable, if not unacceptable.1105 On top of this, despite the results of its own research arm--the1106Federal Judicial Center--indicating that courtrooms sit dark most days,1107District Court judges have continued to argue that each of them is1108entitled to a dedicated courtroom even though state and local courts1109across this country, many of which handle far more cases, routinely1110share courtrooms without issue.1111 To accommodate this perceived entitlement, the Federal Judiciary1112often includes vacant or unfilled judgeships when calculating the1113number of courtrooms required in a new courthouse. This results in1114overbuilt facilities with unused courtrooms and significantly increased1115construction and maintenance costs.1116 I expect that we will hear that a major driver of the design1117changes is safety and security, particularly the size of circulation1118spaces. I agree that security is an important and legitimate1119consideration. However, the Courts' own methodology for prioritizing1120courthouse projects assigns security just ten percent of the weighted1121score, while courtroom and chamber needs make up 50 percent.1122 What is even more concerning is that the expansion of the1123circulation patterns is based, in part, on an outdated 2012 review of1124then-existing courthouses, some of which were the subject of GAO's 20101125review that found they were overbuilt. It seems the changes in the1126Design Guide had little to do with addressing security issues.1127 I am also surprised by how much of the Design Guide focuses on1128things like millwork and floor and wall finishes and includes notes1129like polished cement is ``unacceptable.''1130 Frankly, it's hard to believe that, at a time when Congress and the1131President are focused on downsizing the federal government and1132balancing the budget, the Judiciary remains so tone deaf to fiscal1133realities.1134 The United States Courts' Courthouse Project Priorities for Fiscal1135Year 2026 includes a request for $863 million for new courthouse1136construction. The United States Courts are asking Congress, and more1137importantly our bosses--the American taxpayers--to spend hundreds of1138millions of dollars on new courthouse construction despite decades of1139oversight that has found that Design Guides have enabled the1140construction of courthouses that are too large and too costly.1141 Going forward, Congress must take a hard look at the construction1142priorities of the United States Courts, especially the 2021 Design1143Guide, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. We need to1144ensure that proposals for new courthouses that this committee must1145authorize make sense, reduce costs to the taxpayer, and are not1146overbuilt.11471148 Mr. Perry. And just prior to recognizing the ranking1149member, I want to enter into the record this letter from the1150Associated Builders and Contractors regarding project labor1151agreements and the increased cost associated with those.1152 And without objection, so ordered.1153 [The information follows:]11541155 Letter of May 20, 2025, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon. Greg1156 Stanton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public1157 Buildings, and Emergency Management, from Kristen Swearingen, Vice1158 President, Government Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors,1159 Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry11601161 May 20, 2025.1162The Honorable Scott Perry,1163Chairman,1164Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on1165 Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency1166 Management, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC1167 20515.1168The Honorable Greg Stanton,1169Ranking Member,1170Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on1171 Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency1172 Management, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC1173 20515.1174 Dear Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton and Members of the U.S.1175House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on1176Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management:1177 On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national1178construction industry trade association with 67 chapters representing1179more than 23,000 members, I write to thank you for holding the hearing,1180``Federal Courthouse Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to1181the Taxpayer.'' This hearing is vital to examining cost premiums1182associated with federal construction to ensure efficient use of1183taxpayer dollars and that federal procurement policy is consistent with1184congressional intent.1185 ABC members have a strong history of competing on and completing1186courthouse construction and improvements procured by the General1187Services Administration. Furthermore, ABC members play a significant1188role in building America's infrastructure. Specifically, between fiscal1189years 2009-2023, ABC members won 54% of federal contracts worth $351190million or more, and built award-winning projects safely, on time and1191on budget. ABC is committed to promoting a fair and competitive bidding1192process that allows all qualified contractors to compete on a level1193playing field based on merit, experience, quality and safety to deliver1194the highest-quality projects at the best cost.11951196 Background11971198 In 2022, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14063,1199resulting in the corresponding January 2024 Federal Acquisition1200Regulatory Council Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal1201Construction Projects final rule, which requires project labor1202agreements on federal construction projects of $35 million or more.1203 The Biden administration mandate applies to numerous federal1204agencies, including the GSA, and discourages competition from quality1205nonunion contractors and their employees, who comprise 89.7% of the1206private U.S. construction industry workforce. As a result, this1207anticompetitive policy inflates federal construction projects costs by120822%, needlessly wasting billions of taxpayer dollars annually and1209preventing taxpayers from getting the best bang for their buck on1210federal construction projects.1211 Specific to courthouse construction, ABC identified $277-$3171212million in the below federal courthouse construction solicitations and1213presolicitations affected by the Biden PLA mandate, suggesting1214taxpayers are paying a $55.4-$63.4 million premium for such work.1215 Mike Mansfield Federal Building/Courthouse Seismic1216Retrofit & Ltd Modernization Design/Build Phase 1 Solicitation--$30-$401217million1218 Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Services for1219the Phases 2-5 Repairs and Alterations Prospectus for the U.S.1220Courthouse in Clarksburg, West Virginia--$40-$50 million1221 Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse Plaza Replacement Design1222Build Services--$35-$45 million1223 New United States Courthouse, Chattanooga--Construction1224Manager as Constructor (CMc)--$172-$182 million12251226 Developments12271228 While President Trump issued several executive orders to restore1229merit-based hiring and contracting across the federal government,1230President Biden's executive order and corresponding PLA final rule1231remain in effect.1232 On May 16, 2025, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court1233for the District of Columbia halted the Trump administration's class1234deviations from the Biden mandate for the U.S. Department of Defense1235and GSA. Now, taxpayers return to paying a premium for federal1236construction and workers are prevented from completing jobs in their1237communities.1238 With the U.S. District Court's decision, Congress and the Trump1239administration must act to restore merit to federal procurement.1240Specifically, Congress must advance H.R. 2126/S. 1064, the Fair and1241Open Competition Act, to ensure federal and federally assisted contract1242awards occur through a fair and competitive bidding process that allows1243all qualified contractors to compete on a level playing field based on1244merit, experience, quality and safety to deliver the highest-quality1245projects at the best cost.1246 ABC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the unnecessary1247premiums associated with federal courthouse construction. It is1248essential that the committee promotes competition in public works1249projects for American taxpayers and workers.1250 Sincerely,1251 Kristen Swearingen,1252 Vice President, Government Affairs, Associated Builders and1253 Contractors.1254 Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Friedman1255for 5 minutes for her opening statement.12561257 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA FRIEDMAN OF CALI-1258 FORNIA, VICE RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECO-1259 NOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMER-1260 GENCY MANAGEMENT12611262 Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chairman Perry. I have to say,1263it's refreshing to be in a committee when we have Congress1264working in a very bipartisan way and, I think, being in1265agreement on a lot of the issues in front of the committee1266today.1267 Over the last 45 years, the Government Accountability1268Office, the GAO, has compiled a large body of work on Federal1269courthouse construction, much of it at the request of this very1270committee. In study after study, GAO found that the judiciary1271has requested and received courthouses that are larger than the1272size authorized by Congress and more expensive to build and1273operate than Congress was aware of.1274 Wide latitude amongst judiciary and GSA decisionmakers in1275choices about location, design, construction, and finishes1276often resulted in expensive features in some courthouse1277projects for reasons that are obscure. Long-range space1278projections by the judiciary were not sufficiently reliable.1279The judiciary's 5-year plan did not always reflect its most1280urgently needed projects. And the judiciary did not track1281courtroom uses.1282 The judiciary pays rent to GSA for the use of these1283courthouses, and a proportion of the judiciary's budget that1284goes to rent has increased as its space requirements have1285grown. Difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs1286were so great that the judiciary requested a $483 million1287permanent annual exemption from rent payments to GSA, which1288they did not receive.1289 Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, then-chair of the1290subcommittee, was so concerned about the bloated Federal1291courthouse construction program that she asked then-President1292Obama to place a moratorium on new courthouse construction1293requests. Along the way, the judiciary did seem to try to meet1294the concern of Congress. The Judicial Conference revised its1295courtroom allocation planning assumptions. New courtroom1296construction projects are to be designed to facilitate1297courtroom sharing for senior district judges, magistrate1298judges, and bankruptcy judges, but there is still some cause1299for concern.1300 In 2022, this committee asked GAO to look at differences1301between the courts' 2007 Design Guide and their updated 20211302Design Guide. GAO found that the changes made to the 20211303Design Guide will increase the size of new courthouses by 121304percent.1305 As the judiciary increases the size of their spaces, the1306building envelope expands: more tile, more wiring, more ceiling1307tiles, more paint, longer hallways, increased circulation. You1308get the picture. The judiciary wanted three circulation zones:1309public, restricted space for judges and staff, and the secure1310circulation that's the Marshals Service purview to move1311prisoners, which, of course, is appropriate. But when updating1312the Design Guide to reflect the changes in circulation, the1313judiciary did not fully collaborate with GSA or the Federal1314Protective Service to determine necessity or even feasibility.1315 I appreciate the participation of the witnesses today.1316 Director Marroni, you and your colleagues are the1317workhorses of this committee. Year after year, report after1318report, your work is incalculable to the effective and1319efficient operations of the United States, and I want to thank1320you.1321 Judge Suddaby, I assume that you and your colleagues are1322probably annoyed by coming in front of Congress as we ask these1323questions, so I really do appreciate your being here and your1324patience with us. I hope we can work together collaboratively.1325So, thank you for being here.1326 And Commissioner Peters, I am particularly pleased to see1327you here today, since I am told you declined to participate in1328our last hearing on Federal real estate. I look forward to1329learning more about your plans to shed 63 percent of your1330workforce and 50 percent of your budget, all without impeding1331the progress of courthouses under construction and courthouses1332that need repairs and maintenance. I am interested to see how1333that can happen.1334 So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.1335 [Ms. Friedman's prepared statement follows:]13361337Prepared Statement of Hon. Laura Friedman, a Representative in Congress1338from the State of California, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on1339 Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management13401341 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1342 Over the last 45 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)1343has compiled a large body of work on Federal courthouse construction--1344much of it at the request of this Committee.1345 In study after study, GAO found that the judiciary has requested1346and received courthouses that are larger than the size authorized by1347Congress and more expensive to build and operate than Congress was1348aware of.1349 Wide latitude among judiciary and GSA decision makers in choices1350about location, design, construction and finishes often resulted in1351expensive features in some courthouse projects.1352 Long-range space projections by the judiciary were not sufficiently1353reliable.1354 The judiciary's 5-year plan did not always reflect its most1355urgently needed projects.1356 And the judiciary did not track courtroom usage.1357 The judiciary pays rent to GSA for the use of these courthouses,1358and the proportion of the judiciary's budget that goes to rent has1359increased as its space requirements have grown.1360 Difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs were so great1361that the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent annual exemption1362from rent payments to GSA--which they did not receive.1363 Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, then-chair of this1364Subcommittee, was so concerned about the bloated federal courthouse1365construction program that she asked then-President Obama to place a1366moratorium on new courthouse construction requests.1367 Along the way, the judiciary did seem to try to meet the concerns1368of Congress. The Judicial Conference revised its courtroom allocation1369planning assumptions. New courtroom construction projects are to be1370designed to facilitate courtroom-sharing for senior district judges,1371magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges.1372 But there is still some cause for concern.1373 In 2022, this Committee asked GAO to look at differences between1374the courts' 2007 design guide and their updated 2021 design guide.1375 GAO found that changes made to the 2021 design guide will increase1376the size of new courthouses by 12 percent.1377 As the judiciary increases the size of their spaces, the building1378envelope expands--more tile, more wiring, more ceiling tiles, more1379paint, longer hallways, increased circulation, etc.1380 The judiciary wanted three circulation zones: public, restricted1381space for judges and staff, and the secure circulation that is the1382Marshals Service's purview to move prisoners. But when updating the1383design guide to reflect changes in circulation, the judiciary did not1384fully collaborate with GSA or the Federal Protective Service to1385determine necessity or feasibility.1386 I appreciate the participation of all our witnesses.1387 Director Marroni, you and your colleagues are truly the workhorses1388of this Committee. Year after year, report after report, your work is1389incalculable to the effective and efficient operations of the United1390States.1391 Judge Suddaby, I assume that you and your colleagues are annoyed1392when Congress questions your priorities, but that is our job.1393 And Commissioner Peters, I am particularly pleased to see you here1394today since you declined to participate in our last hearing on federal1395real estate. I look forward to learning more about your plans to shed139663 percent of your workforce and 50 percent of your budget--all without1397impeding the progress of courthouses under construction and courthouses1398that need repairs and maintenance.1399 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.14001401 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair would1402now like to welcome our witnesses and thank them again for1403being here today. And thank you for your patience with us.1404 Briefly, I would like to take just a moment to explain our1405lighting system to our witnesses. There are three lights in1406front of you. Green means go; yellow means you are running out1407of time; and red means to conclude your remarks.1408 The Chair asks unanimous consent that witnesses' full1409statements be included in the record.1410 Without objection, so ordered.1411 The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record of1412today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses1413have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to1414them in writing.1415 Without objection, so ordered.1416 The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record1417remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and1418information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in1419the record of today's hearing.1420 Without objection, so ordered.1421 As your written testimony has been made part of the record,1422the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 51423minutes.1424 And with that, Mr. Marroni, you are now recognized for 51425minutes for your testimony, sir.14261427 TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL IN-1428 FRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OF-1429 FICE; HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE1430 U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF1431 NEW YORK, AND CHAIR, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COM-1432 MITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES; AND MICHAEL PETERS,1433 COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GEN-1434 ERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION14351436 TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL IN-1437 FRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OF-1438 FICE14391440 Mr. Marroni. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member1441Friedman, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be1442here today to discuss the judiciary's revised design standards1443for Federal courthouses and the likely impact on courthouse1444costs.1445 The judiciary issued these revised standards as part of a14462021 update to the U.S. Courts Design Guide. That guide sets1447standards for designing and constructing Federal courthouses1448and is meant to help GSA and other stakeholders build1449functional and cost-effective courthouses.1450 The judiciary updated the Design Guide for several reasons,1451including to improve security, provide flexibility for local1452courts involved in new courthouse projects, and to contain1453costs. Cost containment is certainly an important goal, because1454Federal courthouses, like all Federal real property, require a1455significant investment of taxpayer resources.1456 It can cost over $100 million simply to build a new1457courthouse, and even more to operate and maintain those1458buildings over time. As a result, changes to design standards1459are important, particularly now, as Congress and executive1460branch agencies are taking steps to reduce the Federal real1461property footprint.1462 Given that, last year we reviewed the changes that1463judiciary made in the 2021 Design Guide, and analyzed their1464potential impact on the size and cost of future courthouse1465projects. We identified 16 substantive changes and estimated1466that, together, they would increase the size of future1467courthouses by 6 percent and their cost by 12 percent, on1468average. This could equate to tens of millions of dollars in1469additional construction spending. For example, when we model1470what would happen if seven courthouse projects were designed1471according to the updated design standards, we found it would1472increase the construction costs for those seven projects by an1473estimated $143 million.1474 These higher estimated costs are due, in part, to changes1475in the 2021 Design Guide that increased the amount of space1476allotted to design pathways like hallways and stairways,1477between courtrooms, and other judiciary spaces. For example, we1478estimated that the updated standards would provide about 3501479additional square feet of circulation space for each district1480courtroom in a courthouse. Building in this additional space1481not only increases the size of judiciary space, it also1482increases the size of the overall courthouse, making it more1483expensive to build, operate, and maintain.1484 The judiciary cited the need for improved security as the1485basis for the higher amounts of circulation space, and the1486security of Federal courthouses is certainly a key1487consideration for their design and construction. However, we1488found that judiciary did not fully collaborate with GSA when1489deciding to make this and other updates to the Design Guide.1490 Specifically, while the judiciary solicited input from GSA1491on its planned changes to the Design Guide and met with GSA to1492discuss concerns with the final draft, it did not consistently1493engage in two-way communication. For example, the judiciary did1494not fully address GSA's concerns that the revised circulation1495standards were based on a 2012 contract study of older1496courthouses, some of which GAO had previously found to be1497oversized. GSA officials told us it was unclear how the1498judiciary determined the final 2021 circulation standards in1499relation to that study.1500 GSA also raised concerns that the proposed changes would1501significantly increase the overall size and cost of courthouse1502projects, which is consistent with our own analysis. While the1503judiciary adjusted some of its proposed circulation changes1504based on GSA's feedback, it did not fully address these1505concerns.1506 Given the significant cost implications, we recommended1507that the judiciary, in collaboration with GSA, reassess the1508need for the revised circulation standards in the 2021 Design1509Guide. The judiciary is now working with GSA to identify an1510approach for reassessing these standards, and that is a1511positive step. If the judiciary determines that the increase in1512circulation space isn't needed, then the Federal Government1513could avoid tens of millions of dollars in costs. And if the1514judiciary decides it is important to keep those increases in1515the guide, then it will have a stronger basis to justify the1516higher costs. That is important as the Federal Government moves1517to rightsize its Federal real property footprint.1518 Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I will1519be happy to answer any questions.1520 [Mr. Marroni's prepared statement follows:]15211522Prepared Statement of David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure,1523 U.S. Government Accountability Office15241525 Courthouse Construction: Changes to Design Standards Will Result in1526 Larger and More Costly Future Courthouses15271528 Highlights15291530What GAO Found1531 The judiciary issued a new U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide)1532in 2021 that included many changes in the standards from the prior 20071533version. GAO determined that 16 of the changes could affect the size or1534cost of courthouse projects. (See table.) Judiciary officials cited1535four overarching reasons for making these changes: to incorporate1536existing policies, provide courts with flexibility to design spaces1537that meet their needs, contain costs, and meet security needs. To date,1538no courthouses funded through fiscal year 2024 have been designed under1539the 2021 Design Guide. According to judiciary officials, as of May15402025, the judiciary was planning five courthouse projects with the1541intention of using the 2021 Design Guide.15421543 Selected Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide That Could Affect1544 the Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects1545------------------------------------------------------------------------1546 Change Description1547------------------------------------------------------------------------1548Circulation requirements.................. Increases the circulation1549 pathways (i.e., the amount1550 of space required for1551 movement of the public,1552 court staff, prisoners, and1553 others) required for1554 judiciary spaces--primarily1555 those associated with1556 courtrooms and associated1557 spaces, grand jury suites,1558 probation and pretrial1559 services, and other court1560 units.15611562Courtroom sharing policy.................. Incorporates judiciary1563 policies adopted from 20091564 through 2011 for judges to1565 share courtrooms in new1566 courthouses with two or1567 more magistrate,1568 bankruptcy, or senior1569 district judges.15701571Ballistic-resistant materials............. Adds a requirement for1572 ballistic-resistant1573 material for the deputy1574 clerk station within the1575 courtroom.15761577Raised access flooring.................... Removes the requirement for1578 raised access flooring in1579 the courtroom well--the1580 area that includes the1581 judge's bench, court1582 personnel workstations,1583 witness box, jury box and1584 counsel tables.1585------------------------------------------------------------------------1586Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information. GAO-25-10840615871588 GAO found that changes made in the 2021 Design Guide will1589significantly increase the size and cost of future courthouse projects.1590To reach this conclusion, GAO estimated the potential impacts of these1591changes for seven recently completed or future courthouses designed1592under the 2007 Design Guide. According to this analysis, changes in the15932021 Design Guide would increase the size of the courthouses by 61594percent and project costs by 12 percent on average. These hypothetical1595increases are due, in part, to increases in the amount of circulation1596within the judiciary's space. Increases in the judiciary's space result1597in larger courthouses overall, which GAO estimates will lead to more1598costly courthouses in the future, due to the need for additional1599construction materials and building components.1600 Further, GAO found that the judiciary did not fully collaborate1601with the General Services Administration (GSA) or involve the Federal1602Protective Service, which has courthouse security responsibilities. As1603a result, the judiciary missed an opportunity to address significant1604issues, such as those related to the size, cost, and security of1605courthouses. Specifically, the judiciary did not fully address GSA's1606concerns that the revised circulation requirements were based on a 20121607assessment of older courthouses that GAO had previously found to be1608oversized. Engaging with stakeholders and reassessing the need for1609increased circulation requirements in the 2021 Design Guide using1610relevant information will help the judiciary develop functional and1611cost-effective courthouses and could avoid millions of dollars in1612future costs.1613Why GAO Did This Study1614 Courthouses play an important role in ensuring the proper1615functioning of the federal judicial system. For fiscal years 20161616through 2024, Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction1617of 15 federal courthouse projects. According to the judiciary, this1618funding addressed long-standing needs for new courthouses.1619 The Design Guide aims to help GSA and other stakeholders build1620courthouses that are both functional and cost-effective. In 2021, the1621judiciary made changes to the Design Guide, citing the need to provide1622greater security for court personnel and flexibility for local courts1623involved in new courthouse projects.1624 This testimony discusses (1) the changes made in the 2021 Design1625Guide, and the judiciary's rationale for making these changes; (2) how1626these changes could affect the size and cost of future courthouse1627projects; and (3) how the judiciary collaborated with selected1628stakeholders in making these changes. It draws primarily from GAO's1629October 2024 report on the judiciary's Design Guide.1630What GAO Recommends1631 GAO made three recommendations to the judiciary that remain open.1632These include that the judiciary document a process to ensure1633collaboration with stakeholders when updating the Design Guide and, in1634collaboration with GSA, use relevant information to reassess the need1635for increased circulation requirements. In May 2025, the judiciary told1636us it is continuing to review its collaboration efforts and work to1637identify an approach to reassess its circulation requirements.1638 __________16391640 Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the1641Subcommittee:1642 I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on federal1643courthouse construction. Courthouses play an important role in ensuring1644the proper functioning of the federal judicial system and the1645administration of justice. The safety and security of federal1646courthouses are a key consideration in their design and construction.1647 The construction of new federal courthouses can cost hundreds of1648millions of dollars. From fiscal years 2016 through 2024, Congress1649appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction of 15 federal courthouse1650projects. According to the judiciary, this funding addressed long-1651standing needs for new courthouses, and for repairs and alterations to1652existing courthouses.1653 The judiciary's U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide) establishes1654standards for designing and constructing new federal courthouses. The1655Design Guide aims to help the General Services Administration (GSA) and1656other stakeholders--including architects, engineers, judges, and court1657administrators--build courthouses that are both functional and cost-1658effective. In 2021, the judiciary made changes to the Design Guide,1659citing the need to provide greater security for court personnel and1660flexibility for local courts involved in new courthouse projects.1661 Allowing for such flexibilities could affect the size and cost of1662courthouses at a time in which Congress and executive branch agencies1663are taking steps to reduce the real property footprint of the executive1664branch.\1\ Specifically, the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving1665Technologies (USE IT) Act--enacted in January 2025--requires executive1666branch agencies to measure their use of buildings and submit an annual1667occupancy report.\2\ It also establishes a building utilization rate1668target of at least 60 percent.\3\ Further, a February 2025 Executive1669Order directed, among other things, that GSA submit to the Office of1670Management and Budget a plan for the disposition of government-owned1671executive branch real property that agencies deemed no longer1672needed.\4\1673---------------------------------------------------------------------------1674 \1\ Federal agencies have long struggled to determine the amount of1675space they need to fulfill their missions, which has at times led them1676to retain excess and underutilized space. This is one reason that1677managing federal real property has remained on our High Risk List since16782003. GAO, High-Risk Series: Heightened Attention Could Yield Billions1679More and Improve Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO-25-1077431680(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2025).1681 \2\ The USE IT Act was enacted as a part of the Thomas R. Carper1682Water Resources Development Act of 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-272, div. B,1683tit. III, Sec. 2302, 138 Stat. 2992, 3218 (2025).1684 \3\ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with1685GSA, is required under the USE IT Act to ensure building utilization in1686each public building and federally leased space is not less than 601687percent on average over each 1-year period. GSA, in consultation with1688OMB, is required under the USE IT Act to take steps to reduce the space1689of tenant agencies that fail to meet the 60 percent target. These1690requirements apply to Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act)1691agencies. The CFO Act established, among other things, chief financial1692officers to oversee financial management activities at 23 major1693executive departments and agencies. Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 28381694(Nov. 15, 1990). The list now includes 24 entities, which are often1695referred to collectively as CFO Act agencies, and is codified, as1696amended, in section 901 of Title 31, United States Code.1697 \4\ Exec. Order No. 14222, 90 Fed. Reg. 11095, 11096-97 (Feb. 26,16982025). For further information on recent executive branch actions to1699dispose of government-owned property and terminate leases, see GAO,1700Federal Real Property: Reducing the Government's Holdings Could1701Generate Substantial Savings, GAO-25-108159 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8,17022025).1703---------------------------------------------------------------------------1704 This testimony is based on our October 2024 report examining issues1705related to the 2021 version of the Design Guide (2021 Design Guide).\5\1706Specifically, my remarks will focus on (1) the changes made in the 20211707Design Guide, and the judiciary's rationale for making these changes;1708(2) how these changes could affect the size and cost of future1709courthouse projects; and (3) how the judiciary collaborated with1710selected stakeholders in making changes in the 2021 Design Guide. My1711statement will also provide an update on actions the judiciary has1712taken to implement the recommendations we made in our report.1713---------------------------------------------------------------------------1714 \5\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will1715Result in Significant Size and Cost Increases, GAO-25-1067241716(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2024).1717---------------------------------------------------------------------------1718 To examine these issues for our report, we reviewed documentation1719and interviewed GSA and judiciary officials. We also worked with these1720officials to estimate the difference in total courthouse size and cost1721that would likely result from building selected projects according to1722the 2021 Design Guide, compared with the prior version of the guide1723from 2007. In addition, we conducted site visits to five of these1724courthouses, selected for variation in size and cost. Detailed1725information on the objectives, scope, and methodology for this work can1726be found in the issued report.1727 We conducted the work on which this statement is based in1728accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those1729standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain1730sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our1731findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the1732evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and1733conclusions based on our audit objectives.17341735 Background17361737Courthouse Characteristics1738 Federal courthouses can have different types of courtrooms and1739chambers, depending on the type of judges in the facility (e.g.,1740circuit, district, magistrate, and bankruptcy). Federal courthouses can1741also have other spaces, such as judiciary offices, libraries, public1742spaces, security screening areas, and office space for other tenants,1743such as the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and GSA's facilities1744management personnel. The judiciary's Design Guide includes1745requirements for the size of courtrooms, judiciary staff offices, and1746other spaces.1747 Courthouses also have various pathways (e.g., hallways, stairways,1748and elevators) that facilitate circulation for different groups in a1749manner that ensures safety and security. The length and width of some1750of these circulation pathways can vary based on their function and to1751meet building codes related to the number of occupants and visitors. As1752described in the Design Guide, the three primary types of circulation1753are: (1) public circulation for spectators, attorneys, and media1754representatives; (2) restricted circulation for judges, courtroom1755deputy clerks, court reporters, other judiciary staff, and jurors; and1756(3) secure circulation for law enforcement personnel, witnesses,1757litigants, prisoners, or other individuals who are in custody.1758Role of Federal Agencies1759 The judiciary and GSA share responsibility for managing the design1760and construction of courthouse projects.1761 The judiciary establishes funding priorities for the1762construction of new courthouses based on a long-range planning process1763and on the status of funding for previously approved, pending1764courthouse construction projects.\6\ Using its AnyCourt space1765programming tool, the judiciary identifies for GSA the type and size of1766spaces like courtrooms and offices, to ensure that courthouse projects1767meet the needs of the courts. The AnyCourt tool also calculates the1768amount of circulation within judiciary spaces, such as restricted1769hallways for court personnel to get from their offices to the1770courtrooms.1771---------------------------------------------------------------------------1772 \6\ In prior work, we reported on the judiciary's process for1773ranking courthouse needs and made recommendations to ensure that the1774judiciary's methodology for ranking courthouse projects results in1775greater transparency and consistency. The judiciary implemented one of1776our three recommendations. GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction:1777Judiciary Should Refine Its Methods for Determining Which Projects Are1778Most Urgent, GAO-22-104034 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2022).17791780 GSA is typically responsible for requesting the funding1781for courthouse construction, acquiring the building site, and1782contracting for the design and construction work for courthouse1783projects. GSA has used the judiciary's Design Guide, GSA's Facilities1784Standards for the Public Buildings Service (now rescinded), and design1785guidance from other tenants to ensure that the design and construction1786plans of the courthouse meet the space and other needs of federal1787agencies.\7\ GSA uses the judiciary's AnyCourt tool, as well as other1788tenant agencies' space programs, to then determine the total courthouse1789size. Based on this determination, GSA develops projects' cost1790estimates using its Cost Benchmark Tool. The tool is intended to enable1791GSA to accurately forecast courthouse project costs and develop1792realistic budgets based on the information specified in the judiciary's1793AnyCourt tool, as well as other tenants' space requirements.1794---------------------------------------------------------------------------1795 \7\ GSA's Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service1796(P100) established mandatory design standards and performance criteria1797for certain federally owned buildings in GSA's control. GSA, P1001798Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service (October 2021).1799In February 2025, GSA rescinded the P100 and issued interim guidance,1800stating that the informational memorandum should assist in the1801preparation of contract documents for architects, engineers, and1802general contractors until GSA develops a process to update the P100 in1803accordance with the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of18042024. GSA, Rescission of PBS P100 Facilities Standards, and Issuance of1805PBS Interim Core Building Standards (Feb. 24, 2025). The memorandum1806provides a list of laws, regulations, codes, and guidelines applicable1807to projects in GSA facilities under design and construction, including1808the Design Guide.18091810 In addition, USMS and the Federal Protective Service (FPS) have1811security responsibilities at federal courthouses. Generally, USMS1812provides security in judiciary spaces within the courthouse and for1813federal judges, attorneys, jurors, and other members of the federal1814court. FPS is responsible for providing security in nonjudiciary spaces1815within the courthouse and along the perimeter of the courthouse.\8\1816---------------------------------------------------------------------------1817 \8\ We reported on courthouse security and made recommendations1818that the judiciary, USMS, and FPS collect better information and1819improve coordination on courthouse security. The judiciary and both1820agencies fully implemented our recommendations. GAO, Federal1821Courthouses: Actions Needed to Enhance Capital Security Program and1822Improve Collaboration, GAO-17-215 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2017).1823---------------------------------------------------------------------------1824U.S. Courts Design Guide1825 The judiciary's U.S. Courts Design Guide establishes standards for1826GSA and project stakeholders to follow when designing and constructing1827new federal courthouses. The judiciary issued its first Design Guide in18281991 and made major revisions in 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2007. The1829judiciary also amended selected chapters of the 2007 Design Guide in18302016. In 2021, the judiciary issued its most recent revisions to the1831Design Guide.1832 Congressional resolutions and appropriations act language for1833courthouse projects typically stipulate that standards in the Design1834Guide should be followed.\9\ No courthouse projects funded through1835fiscal year 2024 were designed under the 2021 Design Guide. According1836to judiciary officials, as of May 2025, the judiciary is planning five1837courthouse projects with the intention of using the 2021 Design1838Guide.\10\1839---------------------------------------------------------------------------1840 \9\ Under a statutory requirement, the House Committee on1841Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on1842Environment and Public Works must adopt resolutions approving the1843purpose before Congress can make an appropriation for the proposed1844project. 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307(a). Such committee resolutions have, for1845example, stipulated that, ``except as provided in the prospectus,''1846courthouse design must not deviate from the Design Guide. If a court1847requests space that the Design Guide does not specify, or exceeds the1848limits established by the Design Guide for a given space, then this1849variation represents an ``exception'' to the Design Guide. The1850judiciary must review and approve exceptions before they are1851implemented and report them to Congress. In our October 2024 report, we1852found that the judiciary had not provided a clear and complete1853definition of, or guidance on, the types of variations that constitute1854an exception. We recommended the judiciary clearly define, or provide1855specific examples of, variations from the Design Guide that constitute1856exceptions subject to additional oversight. See GAO-25-106724.1857According to judiciary officials, the judiciary has taken steps to1858develop a report--and provide information from the report to GSA--that1859describes the type of variations from the Design Guide that constitute1860exceptions subject to additional oversight. In May 2025, we requested1861further information on the report. We will evaluate the extent to which1862its contents satisfy our recommendation when judiciary fulfills this1863request.1864 \10\ Judiciary officials stated that two planned courthouses--in1865Anchorage, Alaska and Bowling Green, Kentucky--will include all1866elements from the 2021 Design Guide. An additional three planned1867courthouses--in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Hartford, Connecticut; and San1868Juan, Puerto Rico--will include cost-neutral elements (i.e., those that1869do not increase or decrease costs) from the 2021 Design Guide.1870---------------------------------------------------------------------------1871Courthouses Funded from Fiscal Years 2016-20241872 Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction of 151873federal courthouse projects for fiscal years 2016 through 2024. At the1874time of our review, GSA had completed construction of nine of these1875projects. The other six projects were in varying phases of design or1876construction. (See fig. 1.) GSA and stakeholders used the 1997 version1877of the Design Guide to design one of the courthouses and the 20071878version of the Design Guide, with the 2016 chapter amendments, to1879design 14 courthouses.18801881 Figure 1: Status of Federal Courthouse Projects Funded from Fiscal1882 Years 2016 2024,18831884 as of August 202418851886[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]18871888 Sources: GAO presentation of General Services Administration (GSA) and1889 judiciary data;1890 Map Resources (map). GAO-25-10840618911892 Changes in the 2021 Design Guide Aim to Better Meet Court Needs1893 In our October 2024 report, we discussed that the judiciary made 161894substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide that were likely to1895increase or decrease the size and cost of courthouses.\11\ Judiciary1896officials cited four overarching reasons for making these changes: to1897incorporate existing policies, provide flexibility to meet the space1898needs at individual courthouses, contain costs, and meet security1899needs. For example, judiciary officials stated that changes such as1900increasing the amount of space for the separate circulation of the1901public, court staff, and prisoners were necessary to ensure safety. The190216 substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide fall into four broad1903categories: (1) space sharing and future courtroom planning, (2) size1904standards and flexibilities, (3) design features, and (4) security.1905(See table 1 for examples of changes in each of these categories.)1906---------------------------------------------------------------------------1907 \11\ We initially identified 28 potentially substantive changes in1908the 2021 Design Guide. We took additional steps to determine which1909changes were most substantive by requesting input from the judiciary1910and GSA on the changes they considered likely to increase or decrease1911the size and cost of courthouses. We used the judiciary and GSA's1912responses and our professional judgment to identify the final 161913substantive changes that could potentially affect the size and cost of1914courthouses, including their views on whether the changes could1915increase or decrease courthouse size and cost. We did not analyze the1916extent to which these 16 changes would affect size or cost, except for1917the change in the circulation requirements, as discussed later.19181919 Table 1: Selected Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide That1920 Could Affect the Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects1921------------------------------------------------------------------------1922 Change Description1923------------------------------------------------------------------------1924 Space sharing and future courtroom planning1925------------------------------------------------------------------------1926Courtroom sharing policy.................. Incorporates judiciary1927 policies adopted from 20091928 through 2011 for judges to1929 share courtrooms in new1930 courthouses with two or1931 more magistrate,1932 bankruptcy, or senior1933 district judges. For1934 example, a courthouse with1935 three or more magistrate1936 judges is allocated one1937 courtroom for every two1938 magistrate judges, plus an1939 additional courtroom for1940 criminal court duty.19411942Space planning for senior and future Incorporates the judiciary's1943 judges. policy adopted in 2011 that1944 requires new courthouse1945 projects to include space1946 for existing judges and to1947 account for judges eligible1948 for senior status within a1949 10-year planning period.1950 (District judges are1951 appointed for life but may1952 take senior status and a1953 reduced caseload, if1954 desired, upon meeting1955 certain age and tenure1956 requirements.) Courts may1957 not program space or1958 include space in the1959 proposed design for1960 projected judgeships.1961------------------------------------------------------------------------1962 Size standards and flexibilities1963------------------------------------------------------------------------1964Circulation requirements.................. Changes the method for1965 calculating circulation1966 within judiciary units in1967 the courthouse. Courthouses1968 have three types of1969 circulation: (1) public1970 circulation for members of1971 the public; (2) restricted1972 circulation for judges and1973 other judiciary staff; and1974 (3) secure circulation to1975 move witnesses, litigants,1976 prisoners, or other1977 individuals who are in1978 custody. The 2007 Design1979 Guide used ``circulation1980 factors'' (i.e., percentage1981 of usable space allotted1982 for circulation), and the1983 2021 Design Guide uses1984 ``circulation1985 multipliers.'' Circulation1986 multipliers are values that1987 are applied (i.e.,1988 multiplied) to the net1989 square footage of a1990 judiciary unit to determine1991 the square footage needed1992 to move within and between1993 spaces.19941995Unique program spaces..................... As with the 2007 Design1996 Guide, the 2021 Design1997 Guide allows courts to use1998 unoccupied rooms for1999 Alternative Dispute2000 Resolution purposes.2001 However, the 2021 Design2002 Guide also allows a court2003 to construct a separate2004 suite of Alternative2005 Dispute Resolution rooms2006 within its given space2007 requirements, with circuit2008 judicial council approval.2009 Further, the 2021 Design2010 Guide allows for new2011 courthouse design elements,2012 including (1) fitness2013 centers, provided they do2014 not increase the total2015 square footage of the2016 project; and (2) secure2017 rooms to store sensitive or2018 classified information,2019 provided the room does not2020 increase the total square2021 footage of the court unit2022 where the room is located.2023------------------------------------------------------------------------2024 Design Features2025------------------------------------------------------------------------2026Raised access flooring.................... The 2016 amendments to the2027 Design Guide removed the2028 requirement in the 20072029 Design Guide that2030 courthouses must use raised2031 access flooring in most2032 spaces but specified that2033 such flooring was required2034 in the courtroom well2035 (i.e., the area that2036 includes the judge's bench,2037 court personnel2038 workstations, witness box,2039 jury box, and counsel2040 tables in the courtroom).2041 The 2021 Design Guide2042 removed the remaining2043 requirement for raised2044 access flooring in the2045 courtroom well.20462047Interior finishes......................... Allows for courts to provide2048 input and have flexibility2049 in the selection of2050 finishes within an approved2051 project budget, as2052 specified in the 20072053 Design Guide, but also2054 provides for additional2055 finishes. For example, the2056 2021 Design Guide expands2057 the type of finish for the2058 ceiling of the judges'2059 chambers suites from2060 acoustical paneling to also2061 include tile.2062------------------------------------------------------------------------2063 Security2064------------------------------------------------------------------------2065Ballistic-resistant windows, glass, or Provides for ballistic-2066 materials. resistant material for the2067 judge's bench in the2068 courtroom, as specified in2069 the 2007 Design Guide, and2070 adds this requirement for2071 the deputy clerk station2072 within the courtroom. Also2073 specifies that ballistic-2074 resistant material may be2075 considered for a judge's2076 private office.20772078Mailroom screening requirements........... Incorporates the latest2079 standards for mail2080 screening safety, including2081 requiring courts to use2082 ductless mail screening2083 units instead of units that2084 need dedicated air-handling2085 equipment, as required in2086 the 2007 Design Guide.2087------------------------------------------------------------------------2088Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information. GAO-25-10840620892090Note: To identify changes, we compared the 2007 and 2021 versions of the2091 U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide). We also reviewed other2092 judiciary documentation and interviewed judiciary and General Services2093 Administration officials.20942095 In our October 2024 report, we noted that some of the 162096substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide could increase the size2097and cost of courthouse projects. For example, the 2021 Design Guide2098provides courts the option to add unique spaces that the 2007 Design2099Guide did not address, such as--under certain conditions--fitness2100centers and secure rooms. Fitness centers and secure rooms must not2101increase the total square footage of the judiciary's space in the2102courthouse project. However, according to GSA officials, the increase2103in judiciary's circulation requirements could make judiciary spaces2104larger overall and, therefore, judiciary may use the additional space2105to build unique spaces now allowed under the 2021 Design Guide, such as2106a fitness room. Both the judiciary and GSA projected an increase in2107courthouse project costs to account for additional circulation and2108unique spaces.2109 We also discussed changes that could decrease the cost of2110courthouse projects with judiciary and GSA officials. For example, the21112021 Design Guide removed the requirement that courts must use raised2112access flooring in the courtroom well, which is the area that includes2113the judge's bench, court personnel workstations, witness box, jury box,2114and counsel tables. According to judiciary and GSA officials, this2115change will reduce the cost to construct courthouses because it will2116simplify construction of the floors. Both the judiciary and GSA2117projected no change in the courthouse size from eliminating the use of2118raised access flooring.21192120 Changes in the 2021 Design Guide Will Increase the Size and Cost of2121 Future Courthouses21222123 In our October 2024 report, we estimated that changes in the 20212124Design Guide would increase the size of future courthouses by 6 percent2125and project costs by 12 percent on average. These size and cost2126increases are due, in part, to increases in the judiciary's circulation2127requirements.2128Changes to Circulation Requirements Will Increase the Size of Future2129 Projects2130 We modeled seven selected courthouses, which included six2131completed, or nearly completed, projects and one future courthouse. As2132shown in table 2, we estimated that changes in the 2021 Design Guide2133would have increased the judiciary's space needs for the seven projects2134by nearly 8 percent, on average, and the overall size of these projects2135by about 6 percent, on average.\12\2136---------------------------------------------------------------------------2137 \12\ The judiciary's space needs are those spaces requested by the2138judiciary for its use, as compared with other tenants' space. We worked2139with the judiciary to use its AnyCourt space programming tool to model2140(i.e., estimate) and compare changes in judiciary space (in usable2141square feet) that would likely result from building selected projects,2142according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the Design Guide. Total2143courthouse gross square footages are based on estimates GSA provided2144that include the space requirements of the judiciary and other building2145tenants, as well as, for example, building public spaces and2146maintenance support spaces. For further information, see Appendix II of2147GAO-25-106724.21482149 Table 2: Estimated Increases in Judiciary and Total Courthouse Space in Selected Courthouse Projects That Would2150 Result from Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide2151----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2152 Judiciary space (in Total courthouse space2153 usable square feet) (in gross square feet)2154 ------------------------ Percentage ------------------------ Percentage2155 Courthouse location 2007 2021 increase 2007 2021 increase2156 Design Design Design Design2157 Guide Guide Guide Guide2158----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2159Anniston, AL............................ 30,105 32,666 8.5% 68,451 72,273 5.6%2160Charlotte, NC........................... 142,481 153,313 7.6 288,913 305,080 5.62161Greenville, SC.......................... 110,892 117,277 5.8 222,575 232,105 4.32162Harrisburg, PA.......................... 99,371 107,155 7.8 192,414 204,032 6.02163Huntsville, AL.......................... 61,143 66,549 8.8 125,751 133,819 6.42164San Antonio, TX......................... 140,041 152,324 8.8 273,325 291,657 6.72165Future courthouse....................... 33,731 36,852 9.3 83,946 88,604 5.52166 -----------------------------------------------------------------------2167 Total................................. 617,764 666,136 7.8% 1,255,375 1,327,570 5.8%2168----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2169Source: GAO analysis of judiciary and General Services Administration (GSA) information. GAO-25-10840621702171Notes: We worked with the judiciary to use its AnyCourt space programming tool to model (i.e., estimate) and2172 compare changes in judiciary space (in usable square feet) that would likely result from building selected2173 projects according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the U.S. Courts Design Guide. The courthouse projects2174 modeled included the following six completed, or nearly completed, projects: (1) U.S. Courthouse in Anniston,2175 AL; (2) U.S. Courthouse Annex/Renovation of Jonas Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Charlotte, NC; (3)2176 Campbell U.S. Courthouse in Greenville, SC; (4) Rambo U.S. Courthouse in Harrisburg, PA; (5) U.S. Courthouse2177 in San Antonio, TX; and (6) U.S. Courthouse in Huntsville, AL. Those six projects were built according to the2178 2007 Design Guide. The modeled projects also included a future courthouse planned in the eastern U.S. The2179 future courthouse is being planned according to the 2021 Design Guide. Because Congress has not yet approved2180 and funded the future courthouse, we are not identifying the city where the project is located.21812182 Total courthouse gross square footages are based on estimates GSA2183provided that include the space requirements of the judiciary and other2184building tenants, as well as, for example, building public spaces and2185maintenance support spaces.2186 Based on GSA and judiciary officials and our review of GSA and2187judiciary documentation, we found that the updated circulation2188requirements in the 2021 Design Guide are a significant factor in2189increasing the projected size of courthouses. Specifically, the 20212190Design Guide increased the circulation requirements for judiciary2191spaces--primarily those associated with courtrooms and associated2192spaces, grand jury suites, probation and pretrial services, and other2193court units. For example, the circulation requirements for courtrooms2194and associated space increased from 17 percent to 25.9 percent of2195usable square footage for those spaces. Based on those percentages,2196each district courtroom--which is 2,400 square feet under the 2007 and21972021 Design Guides--will require approximately 348 square feet of2198additional circulation space under the 2021 Design Guide.\13\2199---------------------------------------------------------------------------2200 \13\ See table 4 of GAO-25-106724 for the judiciary's circulation2201space requirements under the 2007 and 2021 Design Guides.2202---------------------------------------------------------------------------2203 According to GSA officials, as the judiciary's space increases, the2204overall courthouse size also increases.\14\ This results in an increase2205in the overall building gross square footage, which comprises the total2206space within the courthouse, including judiciary spaces; other tenant2207spaces; and shared lobbies, hallways, and support spaces such as rooms2208for telecommunications equipment.2209---------------------------------------------------------------------------2210 \14\ GSA expresses the total size of a federal courthouse in gross2211square feet. GSA plans courthouse space to be 67 percent efficient2212(i.e., the ratio of all tenants' usable square feet to the building's2213gross square feet). Consequently, as any tenant's usable square footage2214increases, so does the building gross square footage; as tenant spaces2215expand, public hallways and other building common spaces then expand to2216service the larger areas.2217---------------------------------------------------------------------------2218Changes to Circulation Requirements Will Increase the Cost of Future2219 Projects2220 As a result of the increases in courthouse size identified through2221our modeling, we also estimated that changes in the 2021 Design Guide2222would increase estimated construction costs by approximately 12 percent2223on average for the same seven modeled projects. We worked with GSA to2224use its Cost Benchmark Tool to estimate cost increases that would2225likely result from building selected projects according to the 2007 and22262021 versions of the Design Guide.\15\ According to our modeling2227estimates, changes in the 2021 Design Guide--mostly those made to the2228judiciary's circulation requirements--increased estimated construction2229costs by approximately $143 million for the seven selected courthouses2230(see table 3).2231---------------------------------------------------------------------------2232 \15\ We requested that GSA use its Cost Benchmark Tool to calculate2233the likely budget effects on the construction costs for the same seven2234selected projects of the changes in the 2021 Design Guide. GSA cost2235models assume that projects will take 3 years to construct, beginning2236in fiscal year 2026, and use fiscal year 2019 and 2022 cost values.22372238 Table 3: Increases in Estimated Construction Costs of Selected Courthouse Projects That Would Result from2239 Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide2240----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2241 Estimated construction Cost increase2242 cost (millions) -----------------------2243 ------------------------2244 Location 2007 2021 Overall2245 Design Design (millions) Percentage2246 Guide Guide2247----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2248Anniston, AL.................................................... $67.5 $75.2 $7.7 11.4%2249Charlotte, NC................................................... 274.2 310.3 36.1 13.22250Greenville, SC.................................................. 206.5 220.0 13.5 6.52251Harrisburg, PA.................................................. 198.4 215.3 16.9 8.52252Huntsville, AL.................................................. 127.0 148.3 21.3 16.82253San Antonio, TX................................................. 238.2 270.9 32.7 13.72254Future courthouse............................................... 87.9 102.9 15.0 17.12255 -----------------------------------------------2256 Total......................................................... $1,199.6 $1,342.9 $143.3 11.9%2257----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2258Source: GAO summary of General Services Administration (GSA) information. GAO-25-10840622592260Notes: We worked with GSA to use its Cost Benchmark Tool to model (i.e., estimate) and compare cost increases2261 that would likely result from building selected projects according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the U.S.2262 Courts Design Guide The courthouse projects modeled included the following six completed, or nearly completed,2263 projects: (1) U.S. Courthouse in Anniston, AL; (2) U.S. Courthouse Annex/Renovation of Jonas Federal Building2264 and U.S. Courthouse in Charlotte, NC; (3) Campbell U.S. Courthouse in Greenville, SC; (4) Rambo U.S.2265 Courthouse in Harrisburg, PA; (5) U.S. Courthouse in San Antonio, TX; and (6) U.S. Courthouse in Huntsville,2266 AL. The six projects were built according to the 2007 Design Guide. The modeled projects also included a2267 future courthouse planned in the eastern U.S. The future courthouse is being planned according to the 20212268 Design Guide. Because Congress has not yet approved and funded the future courthouse, we are not identifying2269 the city where the project is located. Figures have been rounded and do not add precisely.22702271Estimated costs are for construction and exclude site acquisition, design, and project management and inspection2272 costs. The modeled construction cost estimates are not comparable to GSA's original prospectuses to Congress2273 (e.g., fiscal year 2016) or to actual construction costs for completed projects, as the modeled cost values,2274 durations, and schedules are not the same.22752276 The increases in estimated construction costs result from both2277increases in the judiciary's space and the additional courthouse space2278and building material needed overall (other building costs).\16\ Of the2279total estimated increase in construction costs, the portion associated2280with increases in the judiciary's space varies across projects but, in2281aggregate, contributes to just under half ($66 million of $1432282million), while the remainder is associated with the overall increases2283in courthouse size. If the judiciary were to revert to the circulation2284requirements in the 2007 Design Guide when designing future2285courthouses, we estimate the federal government could achieve tens of2286millions of dollars in cost avoidance.\17\2287---------------------------------------------------------------------------2288 \16\ Examples of other building costs associated with the2289building's size increase include costs for telecommunication closet2290wiring; plumbing systems and bathroom fixtures; structural concrete and2291steel; and materials for ``hardened'' construction (e.g., heavy glazed2292block walls rather than lighter drywall) in the USMS's secure2293circulation areas.2294 \17\ GAO, 2025 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce2295Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve an Additional One2296Hundred Billion Dollars or More in Future Financial Benefits, GAO-25-2297107604 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2025).2298---------------------------------------------------------------------------2299The Judiciary Should Collaborate with Stakeholders to Reassess the Need2300 for Larger and More Costly Courthouses23012302 In our October 2024 report, we found the judiciary did not fully2303collaborate with GSA or FPS when updating the 2021 Design Guide and2304therefore missed an opportunity to obtain additional information on2305significant issues, such as those related to the security, size, and2306cost of courthouses. We also reported that the judiciary solicited2307input on changes in the 2021 Design Guide but did not fully address2308GSA's concerns.2309The Judiciary Did Not Engage in Consistent Communication with GSA or2310 Involve FPS When Updating the Design Guide2311 The judiciary solicited input from GSA on changes to the Design2312Guide and met with GSA to discuss some of its concerns with the final2313draft. However, the judiciary did not consistently engage in two-way2314communication with GSA throughout the process of updating the Design2315Guide. For example, while the judiciary communicated with GSA regarding2316comments GSA made on suggested revisions to the Design Guide in2317February 2020, the judiciary did not convey to GSA whether or how it2318had incorporated those comments. According to judiciary officials, they2319did not follow up with GSA on how they had addressed GSA's feedback2320because they did not have a process for communicating with stakeholders2321to address their comments. In addition, the judiciary did not keep a2322record of its final disposition of the comments, because officials did2323not sufficiently monitor the transfer of information across the three2324project managers who sequentially led efforts to update the Design2325Guide.2326 Further, although the judiciary identified FPS as a key external2327stakeholder in 2019 during the process of updating the Design Guide, it2328did not solicit input from FPS. According to judiciary documentation2329developed after the update to the 2021 Design Guide was complete,2330officials did not involve FPS in the process because FPS is responsible2331for the external security of courthouses, which does not include the2332internal judiciary space to which the standards in the Design Guide2333apply. This documentation stated that the judiciary had incorrectly2334identified FPS as a stakeholder in 2019. FPS officials told us that the2335Design Guide largely does not affect FPS and that they did not have2336concerns with the 2007 Design Guide and subsequent changes.2337 However, the 2021 Design Guide states that the judiciary and2338selected other agencies, including GSA and FPS, have federal courthouse2339security responsibilities, and that security is essential to the basic2340design of courthouses.\18\ Specifically, the Design Guide notes that2341FPS is responsible for nonjudiciary spaces within the courthouse. It2342also includes requirements related to FPS; for example, FPS is to2343install closed-circuit video cameras that provide a clear view of each2344exit of the courthouse.2345---------------------------------------------------------------------------2346 \18\ In an April 2025 letter to congressional oversight and2347appropriations committees, the judiciary cited its concerns with2348funding in light of threats to the courts, including direct threats2349against individual judges. Judicial Conference of the United States,2350Letter to Congressional Committees (Apr. 10, 2025).2351---------------------------------------------------------------------------2352 In our October 2024 report, we recommended that the judiciary2353develop and document a process to better ensure effective collaboration2354when updating the Design Guide, including by engaging in two-way2355communication with, and soliciting input from, all relevant2356stakeholders. In May 2025, judiciary officials told us the judiciary2357was conducting a review of collaboration and communication processes it2358had previously used to identify areas of improvement. This2359recommendation remains open.2360The Judiciary Did Not Fully Address GSA's Concerns with Increases in2361 Circulation Requirements2362 GSA raised concerns about the judiciary's revised circulation2363requirements in the 2021 Design Guide. Specifically:2364 GSA questioned the judiciary's basis for increasing2365courthouse circulation requirements. An architectural firm the2366judiciary contracted to assist with revisions to the 2007 Design Guide2367recommended an increase in circulation requirements, in part, based on2368a 2012 study that examined the judiciary's circulation space needs.\19\2369GSA staff raised concerns that the 2012 study relied on a review of2370completed courthouse projects that we previously found exceeded the2371sizes authorized by Congress.\20\ GSA officials were unclear how the2372contracted architectural firm reached its conclusions, as well as how2373the judiciary determined the final 2021 circulation requirements in2374relation to the 2012 study.2375---------------------------------------------------------------------------2376 \19\ Judiciary officials told us that, in making the decision to2377increase circulation requirements, they relied on the assessment of the23782012 study by a separate architectural firm that had extensive federal,2379state, and local courthouse design experience. The 2012 study was2380undertaken for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts via a GSA2381contract. Federal courthouses assessed within the study were completed2382between 1995 and 2008.2383 \20\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning,2384Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO-238510-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2010).23862387 GSA raised concerns that the proposed changes to the2388judiciary's circulation requirements would result in significant2389increases in the overall size and cost of courthouse projects.2390Specifically, GSA noted that the draft Design Guide's increased2391circulation requirements would apply to all areas of courthouses,2392including public circulation and shared common spaces whose functions2393do not require increased circulation space. GSA officials stated that,2394consequently, these circulation changes would increase the overall size2395---------------------------------------------------------------------------2396and cost of courthouses.23972398 In response to GSA's concerns, the judiciary adjusted some of the2399circulation requirements to less than what the contractor initially2400recommended. The judiciary also clarified that the revised circulation2401requirements applied only to judiciary spaces accessible from2402restricted or secured corridors. However, the judiciary did not take2403steps to fully address GSA's concerns that the increased circulation2404requirements would significantly increase the overall size and cost of2405future courthouses. Further, the judiciary's preliminary cost estimates2406of increasing the judiciary's circulation space under the 2021 Design2407Guide did not include all potential costs for future courthouse2408projects. Specifically, these estimates did not account for likely2409increases to the overall courthouse size, operations, and maintenance2410costs over the life of the courthouses, and the judiciary's rent2411obligations.\21\ While judiciary officials acknowledged that the2412increased circulation requirements would lead to higher costs, they2413believed the circulation space and cost increases were necessary to2414enhance the safety of judges and the public.2415---------------------------------------------------------------------------2416 \21\ We have previously reported that operations and maintenance2417costs typically comprise 60 to 80 percent of total life cycle costs.2418See GAO, Federal Buildings: More Consideration of Operations and2419Maintenance Costs Could Better Inform the Design Excellence Program,2420GAO-18-420 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2018.). GSA buildings are2421typically built with a 100-year assumed life cycle. Federal agencies,2422including the judiciary, that operate in facilities under the control2423and custody of GSA pay rent to GSA for the space they occupy.2424---------------------------------------------------------------------------2425 Further, according to judiciary officials, architectural firms that2426worked on past courthouse projects using the 2007 circulation2427requirements reported that the circulation requirements for judiciary2428space were too restrictive. However, judiciary officials were unable to2429provide documentation of any architectural firm's challenges related to2430the circulation requirements, or the number of firms and projects2431affected. In addition, project stakeholders and courthouse occupants we2432spoke with told us that courthouses built according to the 2007 Design2433Guide generally met their circulation needs.2434 In our October 2024 report, we recommended that the judiciary, in2435collaboration with GSA, reassess the need for increased circulation2436requirements in the 2021 Design Guide, using relevant information. Such2437an assessment should consider the space and cost modeling of recently2438constructed courthouses discussed in that report, the perspectives of2439project stakeholders and building occupants in these courthouses, the2440cost implications for future rent obligations paid to GSA, and2441operations and maintenance costs of judiciary space and overall2442building space in future courthouses.2443 In May 2025, judiciary officials told us that the judiciary and GSA2444had discussed our recommendation and were continuing to work to2445identify an approach for reassessing the circulation requirements in2446the 2021 Design Guide. This recommendation remains open.2447 Our modeling shows that the overall increase to judiciary space2448caused by new circulation requirements will increase the overall future2449courthouse size and cost. We believe that reassessing the need for2450increased circulation requirements in the 2021 Design Guide using2451relevant information--such as the perspectives of project stakeholders2452and building occupants in recently constructed courthouses--will help2453ensure that the judiciary and GSA develop functional and cost-effective2454courthouses. This reassessment is especially important as GSA continues2455to take steps to reduce the federal government's real property2456footprint.2457 Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the2458Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased2459to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.24602461 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman for your2462testimony. The Chair now recognizes Judge Suddaby.2463 You are recognized for your testimony for 5 minutes, sir.24642465 TESTIMONY OF HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, DISTRICT JUDGE2466 FOR THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DIS-2467 TRICT OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIR, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE2468 COMMITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES24692470 Judge Suddaby. Chairman Perry and Representative Friedman2471and members of the subcommittee, I am Glenn Suddaby. I am a2472U.S. district court judge in the northern district in New York,2473and I am the Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on2474Space and Facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to be here2475today.2476 As this subcommittee considers the topic of Federal2477courthouse design and construction, examining the cost to the2478taxpayer, I want to assure you that the judiciary is also2479thinking about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.2480 Federal courthouses play an instrumental role in allowing2481the third branch to carry out its constitutional mission. Every2482day in these buildings across the country, judges preside over2483hearings, trials; litigants appear in courtrooms to present2484their cases to juries; and the public is able to observe the2485administration of justice.2486 Courthouses are unique buildings. They serve a vital and2487distinct purpose to the communities in which they are located.2488Accordingly, the judiciary plays particular importance on its2489courthouse construction and facilities programs.2490 In recent years, the judiciary has used a number of tools2491to manage its courthouse construction program in a cost-2492efficient and effective manner, including a 3-percent space2493reduction program, circuitwide policies to assure no net new2494space growth, and a Capital Security Program, as well as2495courtroom-sharing policies.2496 At the outset, it is important to note the judiciary space2497is not like much of the executive branch. The Constitution and2498statutes passed by Congress requires to have a presence and2499hold court in hundreds of communities across this country to2500ensure there is equal access to justice for all.2501 The vast majority of the courthouses are buildings that2502have been in place for decades, many of which have deferred2503maintenance liabilities. At the same time, the judiciary2504acknowledges we are obligated to the efficient use of the space2505we have. To that end, in 2013, the judiciary began its space2506reduction program by setting out on a 5-year goal to reduce its2507nationwide footprint by 3 percent. By 2018, the judiciary2508surpassed that goal, reducing over 1.1 million rentable square2509feet, which equated to an annual cost avoidance of $36 million2510and a cumulative cost avoidance of over $100 million during2511that time period.2512 Since the conclusion of that space reduction effort, the2513judiciary has maintained a no net new policy, whereby any space2514increase within a circuit must be met with corresponding and2515equal space reduction in order to ensure the Federal judiciary2516footprint does not grow. Courts today are still finding2517innovative ways to do more with less, closing underused2518nonresident courthouses and leveraging open office workspace2519strategies to gain greater efficiencies.2520 The Judicial Conference has also developed its Capital2521Security Program, which provides funding to address security2522deficiencies in existing courthouses. Where physical2523renovations are viable, the construction of new courthouses is2524not needed or expected in the foreseeable future. The program's2525goals include utilizing buildings and Government resources in a2526cost-effective manner to address security deficiencies that put2527the public and Government staff at risk, also providing lower2528cost alternatives to higher cost capital investments. This2529cost-effective program has reduced the need for new courthouses2530in many locations across the country.2531 Since 2011, the judiciary has implemented three separate2532courthouse-sharing policies. Courtroom sharing is required in2533all new construction projects for senior, magistrate, and2534bankruptcy court judges. The judiciary also requires sharing2535policies to be followed when a court needs to build out2536additional space in any existing facility as a result of newly2537authorized judgeships.2538 An important tool in implementing our courthouse2539construction program is the U.S. Courts Design Guide. The2540Design Guide sets forth the judiciary's unique, essential2541requirements for design, construction, and renovation of2542facilities.2543 In March 2017, the Judicial Conference approved undertaking2544a comprehensive review and revision of the existing Design2545Guide--which was previously updated in 2007--as a result of a2546number of new courthouse construction projects being completed.2547It was determined that the previous Design Guide was outdated2548in terms of industry standards and practices, and did not2549reference critical Judicial Conference policies including2550courtroom sharing. The updated Design Guide was incorporated by2551the Judicial Conference, and these policies and standards were2552incorporated.2553 The judiciary is evaluating addressing each of the2554recommendations made by the 2024 GAO report, including2555reassessing the need for increased circulation requirements and2556collaborating with GSA on mutually acceptable methodologies.2557 As always, the judiciary looks forward to working together2558with the subcommittee and its executive branch service partners2559to design and construct courthouses that meet the branch's2560unique needs and enable us to carry out our constitutional2561mission.2562 Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I am2563happy to answer any questions.2564 [Judge Suddaby's prepared statement follows:]25652566 Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge for the2567 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, and Chair,2568 Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities25692570 Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of the2571Subcommittee:2572 Good morning, I am Glenn Suddaby, District Judge for the U.S.2573District Court for the Northern District of New York and chair of the2574Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities. I am appearing2575today by designation of the Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the2576United States and on its behalf. I appreciate your invitation to appear2577today to discuss the federal Judiciary's courthouse construction2578program and U.S. Courts Design Guide.2579 As members of the Subcommittee know, federal courthouses play an2580instrumental role in allowing the Third Branch to carry out its2581constitutional mission. Every day in these buildings across the country2582judges preside over hearings and trials; litigants appear in courtrooms2583to present their cases to juries; and the public is able to observe the2584administration of justice. In so many communities across the country,2585these buildings are symbols of the federal government and our2586democracy, and, accordingly, these buildings serve as visible reminders2587of the government's commitment to upholding justice.2588 I say this not to overstate the role of the Judiciary in our2589government, but to underscore the importance the federal Judiciary2590places on its courthouse construction program. Simply put, courthouses2591are unique buildings, and they serve a vital and distinct purpose to2592the communities in which they are located.2593 The Judicial Conference last testified before this Subcommittee in25942016 after Congress had graciously appropriated $1 billion in fiscal2595year (FY) 2016 for new courthouse construction. Since that time, many2596of our fundamental policies and practices have remained consistent. One2597example is our Asset Management Planning (AMP) process which was2598adopted in 2008. The AMP process is used to identify and prioritize, on2599an objective basis, the space and facilities needs of the federal2600Judiciary. The AMP process is a ``good government'' measure that was2601developed to: (1) achieve cost-containment goals; and (2) provide an2602objective and consistently applied methodology for identification of2603space needs, prioritization of those needs, and development of2604solutions for all Judiciary buildings. By applying this methodology, we2605ensure that only the most urgent project recommendations are approved2606by the Judicial Conference.2607 To enhance long-range facilities planning, the AMP process2608integrates costs, space needs, and functionality. AMP analysis is more2609detailed and robust than was the previous long-range facilities2610planning process--a process that was criticized by the Government2611Accountability Office (GAO) and Congress. The AMP process assesses2612facilities in a holistic and objective manner. It identifies space2613alternatives and strategies, considers the costs and benefits of space2614housing strategies, and thereby determines the best strategy to meet2615the current and future needs of the court. Under the AMP process, each2616district and circuit adopts a long-range facilities plan which entails2617an evaluation of each courthouse location for urgency of space needs.2618The AMP process evaluates the building condition and its security2619needs. An Urgency Evaluation Results List is then developed each year,2620placing each courthouse location in rank order. This objective ranking2621reflects the urgency of the Judiciary's space needs.2622 Using this information, courthouse projects are prioritized and2623transmitted to Congress in the Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project2624Priorities list (CPP). The CPP is the Judiciary's planning instrument2625that details its funding priorities for new courthouse construction2626projects as approved by the Judicial Conference. The CPP is structured2627in two parts. Part I lists the Judiciary's ``current year'' courthouse2628construction priorities--projects for which the Judiciary will request2629federal funding in its annual budget submission. The priority order of2630all projects on Part I is maintained until a project has been fully2631funded, at which point the funded project will be removed from Part I.2632Part II of the CPP lists out-year courthouse construction priorities.2633Each year, the priority of projects on Part II is reviewed and updated2634based on the AMP calculated Urgency Evaluation rating for each2635location, the addition of new locations, and the elevation of locations2636from Part II to Part I of the CPP.2637 Since FY 2016, Congress has provided approximately $2.12 billion2638for courthouse construction projects. This includes $1 billion for 10-2639plus projects, the largest one-time appropriation ever made for2640courthouse construction. In total, this has resulted in full funding2641for 13 different courthouse construction or acquisition projects, and2642partial funding for three others. Of those 13 fully funded projects,2643nine have been delivered, and the remaining four should be completed in2644the next two years. Working together with the General Services2645Administration (GSA), the Judiciary has managed all of these projects2646successfully, delivering state of the art facilities that meet the2647needs of local courts and communities. The Judiciary works together2648with GSA and other federal stakeholders to track the status of every2649project; identify risks; develop a portfolio management plan;2650participate on the National Courthouse Change Management Board (which2651reviews and oversees potential changes that could impact scopes,2652schedules, and budgets for each project); and execute communication2653strategies that support transparent and timely sharing of information2654with project stakeholders. The Judiciary is appreciative of the funding2655to date and is hopeful Congress will continue to support this program2656and provide additional resources to the projects that have received2657partial funding as well as those projects identified on the Judiciary's2658CPP that have not yet received funding.2659 In addition to the progress the Judiciary has made in managing the2660funding provided for new courthouse construction projects, we have also2661made great strides over the past decade in managing our existing space2662portfolio. In 2013, the Judiciary set out on a five-year goal to reduce2663its nationwide footprint by 3 percent. By 2018, the Judiciary surpassed2664its goal, reducing over 1.1 million rentable square feet which equated2665to an annual cost avoidance of $36 million and cumulative cost2666avoidance of over $100 million during the time of space reduction.2667Since the conclusion of that space reduction effort, the Judiciary has2668maintained a No Net New policy, whereby any space increase within a2669circuit must be met with a corresponding and equal space reduction.2670Courts today are still finding innovative ways to do more with less--2671closing underused non-resident courthouses and leveraging open office2672workspace strategies to gain greater efficiencies.2673 Additionally, the Judicial Conference endorsed the Capital Security2674Program (CSP) in 2010. The CSP provides funding to ameliorate security2675deficiencies in existing courthouse buildings where physical2676renovations are viable and the construction of a new courthouse is not2677needed or expected in the foreseeable future. The CSP's goals include2678utilizing existing building assets and government resources in a cost-2679effective manner; addressing security deficiencies that put the public2680and government staff at risk; and providing a lower cost alternative to2681higher cost capital investments or even a new courthouse. Typical2682improvements funded through the CSP include constructing secure and/or2683restricted corridors; adding or reconfiguring elevators to provide2684secure and/or restricted circulation; enclosing prisoner drop-off areas2685to create sallyports; creating visual barriers for judges' parking2686areas; and reconfiguring security screening areas. This cost-effective2687program has reduced the need for new courthouses in many locations2688across the country.2689 The Judicial Conference has also continued to implement three2690separate courtroom sharing policies, as requested by this Subcommittee.2691Currently, courtroom sharing is required in all new construction2692projects for senior, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges. The Judiciary2693also requires sharing policies to be followed when a court needs to2694build out additional space in an existing facility as a result of a2695newly authorized judgeship or because a judge has taken senior status.2696Additionally, in response to direction given by both this Subcommittee2697and recommendations from GAO, the Judicial Conference eliminated the2698inclusion of projected new judgeship space needs from the project2699requirements for new construction. These policies balance the2700Judiciary's obligation to be good stewards of taxpayers' funds along2701with our duty under the Constitution to provide access to justice and2702ensure that cases are handled in a fair and expeditious manner.2703 An important tool in implementing our courthouse construction2704program is the U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide). Appropriate2705courthouse design must balance the need for secure and restricted2706spaces with public access. At the same time, it must address a local2707court's present space needs while incorporating opportunities for2708future growth. Courthouse designs must accomplish these goals in a2709thoughtful, effective, and cost-conscious manner to deliver buildings2710that can serve communities for generations. These values are2711prioritized in the Judicial Conference's management and oversight of2712its courthouse construction program and the development, update, and2713application of the Design Guide.2714 The Design Guide sets forth the Judiciary's unique and essential2715requirements for the design, construction, and renovation of federal2716court facilities. As noted above, the buildings are occupied daily by2717federal judges and judiciary personnel, litigants from both the public2718and private sector, federal law enforcement and security personnel, in-2719custody defendants and other individuals who are appearing before the2720local court, and members of the public. Because of the varied business2721of the court, there is a need for a variety of different spaces and2722supporting infrastructure in a federal courthouse. To this end, the2723Design Guide is intended to be used by judges, court administrators,2724architects, engineers, the United States Marshals Service (USMS), and2725GSA personnel that are involved in federal court construction projects.2726 In March 2017, the Judicial Conference approved undertaking a2727comprehensive review and revision of the existing Design Guide last2728updated in 2007. Recent congressional funding at the time of nine new2729courthouse construction projects highlighted the need to examine the2730usefulness of the then-current Design Guide to all stakeholders to2731glean best practices from the large influx of new courthouse projects.2732It was determined that the 2007 Design Guide was outdated in terms of2733industry standards and practices and did not reference critical2734Judicial Conference policies including courtroom sharing or the2735elimination of build-out space for projected judgeships, another policy2736requested by this Subcommittee. The review and update would serve to2737increase the clarity and ease of use of the Design Guide as well as the2738Judicial Conference policies and industry standards and practices that2739were missing.2740 This effort was a comprehensive, multi-year process that sought a2741broad range of technical and practical expertise. The Administrative2742Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) established a working group of relevant2743stakeholders within the Judiciary, including court personnel and judges2744that had recently undertaken a significant new courthouse or alteration2745project. The Judiciary also sought feedback from our external service2746partners, GSA and USMS. This process was overseen entirely by the2747Committee on Space and Facilities, and the Committee's approved2748revisions were submitted into a draft 2021 Design Guide. At its March27492021 session, the Judicial Conference considered the recommendations of2750the Committee and approved the 2021 Design Guide for publication.2751 Upon approval of the new Design Guide, the Judiciary informed all2752stakeholders of the final product highlighting the significant changes2753made to the previous Design Guide including incorporating all Judicial2754Conference courtroom sharing policies and increasing design2755flexibility. Additionally, the Design Guide was also posted on2756USCourts.gov along with several videos informing stakeholders on2757changes and how to use the document. Finally, the Judiciary began its2758work on a Best Practices Guide, a companion document that demonstrates2759the need for, and applicability of, the Design Guide by providing2760examples of past projects, lessons learned, and case studies on how the2761Design Guide may be implemented. This document was published in 2021.2762In addition to this work, after the Judicial Conference approved the2763updated Design Guide, the AO conferred with staff at the Office of2764Management and Budget to explain significant changes to the updated2765Design Guide and respond to staff inquiries.2766 At the time of its approval, the Judiciary intended for this Design2767Guide to be applied to all projects that had not yet received federal2768funding. Accordingly, the first new courthouse project where the new2769Design Guide would apply is the project in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The2770new courthouse projects in Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga,2771Tennessee; and Hato Rey, Puerto Rico have all been designed using the2772former 2007 Design Guide.2773 In its report on the development of, and standards put forth by,2774the 2021 Design Guide, the GAO makes three recommendations. The2775recommendations address: (1) the definition of a Design Guide2776exception; (2) the Judiciary's collaboration with other federal2777stakeholders; and (3) the new circulation factors incorporated into the2778updated Design Guide. The Judiciary appreciates the time and careful2779consideration that GAO has given to its review and is currently in the2780process of addressing the recommendations.2781 With regard to the first recommendation on the definition of a2782Design Guide exception, GAO reports that GSA officials have difficulty2783finding information in the 2021 Design Guide about which changes2784constitute exceptions. Previously, the Judiciary had published an2785Exceptions Appendix, which listed specific exceptions to the standards2786and planning assumptions, that was agreed to by both the Judiciary and2787GSA. This document, however, was not updated after its publication and2788quickly became outdated when considering updated practices and new2789Judicial Conference policies. Moreover, the document actually created2790confusion about which requests would qualify as an exception and the2791level of approval that was necessary. Accordingly, in 2017, the2792Judicial Conference approved eliminating the Exceptions Appendix and2793reported that any item not identified in the program of requirements in2794the Design Guide, would be an exception and require a certain level of2795approval depending on the nature of the exception.2796 This approach to identifying exceptions, in the Judiciary's view,2797has proved workable, and until the GAO report, the Judiciary was2798unaware of GSA's critical commentary in this regard. Since the issuance2799of GAO's report, the Judiciary has evaluated options for clarifying the2800exceptions policy, including whether to add specific examples in the2801Design Guide or a new Exceptions Appendix.2802 It should be noted that detailed information about exceptions and2803the necessary approvals needed are included throughout the 2021 Design2804Guide. Further, neither the criteria of what constitutes an exception2805nor the process for review and approval of exceptions were changed from2806the 2007 to the 2021 Design Guide. Regardless, the Judiciary is in the2807process of developing a report which identifies all items from the2808previous Exceptions Appendix, where the same items are found in the28092021 Design Guide, and what level of approval is required for each2810exception. This report will be shared with GSA to ensure a mutual2811understanding of Design Guide exceptions. Defining exceptions is2812critical because not only must they be approved by the Judicial2813Conference, but exceptions must be included in all GSA prospectuses2814submitted to Congress for authorization for the project. I can assure2815you that the Committee on Space and Facilities and the Judicial2816Conference takes their consideration of exceptions very seriously due2817to the implications of them for a project.2818 With respect to GAO's second recommendation regarding improved2819collaboration, throughout the Judiciary's review process, the Branch2820sought input from all relevant stakeholders, as referenced above,2821including GSA. Indeed, during the revision process, the Judiciary2822sought broad input from GSA at two separate times in 2018 and again in28232019. In response, GSA provided 560 comments--all of which the2824Judiciary reviewed and addressed, including comments about Design Guide2825exceptions and circulation factors. In 2020, GSA's Public Buildings2826Commissioner, Daniel Mathews, and his staff met with the Chair of the2827Space and Facilities Committee, Judge Jeffrey Helmick, and the Chair of2828the Space Standards Subcommittee, Judge David Keesler, and AO staff to2829discuss GSA's most significant comments related to the draft Design2830Guide.2831 While good faith efforts were made to solicit, consider, and2832incorporate comments from GSA, the Judiciary agrees more could have2833been done with follow-up communications including improved2834documentation on the resolution of all comments. This same improvement2835can be made with the Branch's collaboration with our security partners2836as well. The Judiciary believes it has already made progress on2837addressing this recommendation with regard to our conversations with2838GSA on Design Guide exceptions as detailed above. Certainly, we will2839endeavor to do so in the future.2840 Finally, with respect to GAO's third recommendation for the2841Judiciary to collaborate with GSA to reassess the need for increased2842circulation requirements, the Judiciary has been collaborating with GSA2843regarding a mutually acceptable methodology. As the Subcommittee knows,2844a courthouse contains three distinct circulation paths: public,2845restricted (for judges and court employees), and secure (for in-custody2846persons and designated staff). For the safety of the public, judges,2847and staff, all three circulation paths must remain separate, and only2848intersect in a courtroom. The 2007 Design Guide used different2849departmental circulation factors to help designers and GSA estimate the2850necessary square footage for a given courthouse project. These2851circulation factors increased the net square footage of a room to take2852into account space for walls and the hallways and vestibules needed to2853get to those spaces. Because the 2007 Design Guide and GSA used2854different standards to plan for and measure space, the 2007 Design2855Guide did not accurately account for the total circulation area needed.2856As a result, the Judiciary reduced square footage in multiple projects2857from other court areas to align the design of the courthouse with the2858square footage included in the prospectus program. The increased2859circulation factors in the 2021 Design Guide attempt to fix this2860problem by better aligning with how GSA measures space during the2861design phase of construction projects.2862 While GSA may disagree with the circulation information cited by2863Judiciary experts, the Judiciary did consider feedback from all2864stakeholders as noted above. Although GAO states that construction2865costs will increase as a result of new circulation factors, the2866Judiciary ultimately determined that the incurred costs are a necessary2867and defensible expense so that federal courthouses are appropriately2868sized to ensure the safety of the public, judges and court staff.2869 That being said, the Judiciary has committed to re-evaluating the2870need for the circulation multipliers included in the 2021 Design Guide.2871This review will include the potential impacts on safety and function2872as well as future construction cost and size. The Judiciary will confer2873with GSA and other stakeholders during this review.2874 Ultimately, the Judiciary looks forward to continuing to work2875together with this Subcommittee and its executive branch service2876partners to design and construct courthouses that meet the Branch's2877unique needs and enable it to carry out its constitutional mission. In2878the spirit of good stewardship, we will be working hard to deliver2879these projects so that they meet all of the individual courts' needs,2880and in an effective, cost-efficient manner befitting the trust that2881Congress has placed in us by appropriating these needed funds.2882 Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of the2883Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear today to2884discuss our courthouse construction program and the U.S. Courts Design2885Guide. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may2886have.28872888 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the judge.2889 Mr. Peters, you are now recognized for your testimony for 52890minutes.28912892 TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL PETERS, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC2893 BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRA-2894 TION28952896 Mr. Peters. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member2897Friedman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My2898name is Michael Peters, and I serve as Commissioner of the2899Public Buildings Service at the U.S. General Services2900Administration.2901 I accepted this position for two reasons: first, it enabled2902me to fulfill a calling to public service I had not previously2903answered; and second, it provides me with an opportunity to2904contribute to addressing the unsustainable imbalance between2905our Federal revenues and expenditures. I am honored to be2906serving in this role, and grateful for the opportunity to2907appear before you today to discuss the Federal courthouse2908program.2909 Since stepping into this role in January, I have been2910focused on realigning PBS with its core mission: delivering2911efficient, cost-effective real estate solutions that support2912Federal agencies and serve the American taxpayer.2913 Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian and I share a2914fundamental belief with this committee: Taxpayers shouldn't pay2915to keep the lights on when nobody is home. That is why we are2916committed to identifying and shedding costly, underused space,2917while investing in the assets that matter most. To date, we2918have sold 19 Federal properties, avoiding $49 million in2919deferred maintenance, and initiated the termination of nearly2920600 vacant or underused leases, saving $298 million in future2921obligations. My strategy centers on focusing limited capital on2922core, mission-critical facilities like courthouses, while2923leveraging the private sector where appropriate.2924 PBS partners closely with the Federal judiciary to deliver2925courthouse projects that meet evolving security and operational2926needs. Since 2016, we have completed 10 major courthouse2927projects, with more underway, totaling over $2 billion in2928investment. We have also made significant progress under the2929courthouse security program.2930 However, these gains haven't come without challenges. GSA2931currently faces over $24 billion in deferred maintenance needs,2932$8.3 billion of which is tied to courthouses alone.2933Prioritization is essential, and we must continue to ensure2934that every courthouse project approved by Congress delivers on2935time, on budget, and aligned with judicial needs.2936 In closing, GSA is dedicated to rightsizing the Federal2937real estate portfolio, reducing liabilities, and investing2938where it matters most. I am proud of the progress we are2939making, and I look forward to working with you to deliver on2940this mission.2941 Thank you, and I welcome your questions.2942 [Mr. Peters' prepared statement follows:]29432944 Prepared Statement of Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings2945 Service, U.S. General Services Administration29462947 Introduction:29482949 Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and2950distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Michael Peters,2951and I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service (``PBS'') at2952the U.S. General Services Administration (``GSA''). I appreciate the2953Committee's invitation to appear before you today to discuss the2954Federal courthouse program.2955 I am honored to have been appointed as Commissioner of PBS this2956January, and I am excited about the opportunity to serve in alignment2957with the Trump-Vance Administration to return GSA to its founding2958mission of streamlining Federal operations, consolidating resources and2959efficiently providing essential services for American taxpayers.2960 Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian and I agree with Chairman2961Perry, taxpayers should not be paying to keep the lights on when nobody2962is home. That is why we aim to responsibly steward taxpayer resources2963by identifying underutilized and costly infrastructure for the public2964we serve.2965 We are not just shrinking our footprint but creating a smarter,2966more agile real estate portfolio. By efficiently delivering our agency2967partners the space needed to effectively accomplish their missions, we2968are maximizing taxpayer value.2969 In my time as Commissioner, GSA has sold 19 federal properties,2970avoiding $49 million in deferred maintenance costs and initiated the2971termination of 595 vacant or underutilized leases, eliminating $2982972million in future lease obligations.2973 Today, I am prepared to discuss PBS's collaboration and partnership2974with the Federal Judiciary and our ongoing work to execute projects2975that meet the Judiciary's critical mission requirements.29762977 PBS Strategy--A New Approach29782979 In order to accomplish the goals of this Administration, I would2980also like to take a moment to discuss my strategy and approach to2981managing PBS's real estate portfolio in the best interest of the2982taxpayer.2983 Generally, I believe that more specialized space, such as2984courthouses, land ports of entry and certain law enforcement facilities2985should be Federally owned, and that is where PBS should use its limited2986appropriation funding to address critical deferred maintenance2987liabilities.2988 GSA can no longer afford to effectively maintain all of the2989federally owned assets it currently manages, which is why I am laser2990focused on investing in our core assets, such as courthouses and other2991types of specialized space, and identifying office facilities for2992disposition where the government could lease replacement space from the2993private sector cost-effectively. In fact, since FY2011, GSA has2994requested approximately $19 billion for Repair and Alteration funding2995to maintain our current inventory of assets, but Congress has only2996appropriated approximately $9.5 billion during that time, representing2997a reduction of 50% from the requested level. These funding constraints2998have significantly limited GSA's ability to maintain its portfolio and2999led to the exponential growth in Repair and Alteration liabilities for3000GSA's federally owned portfolio, which now total more than $24.43001billion, with more than $8.3 billion of those liabilities associated3002with courthouses. Those figures represent a 536% growth in liabilities.3003Downsizing the portfolio, with a focus on assets with substantial3004deferred maintenance, will enable GSA to more effectively deploy the3005available capital over a smaller footprint.30063007 Courthouse Program30083009 The Federal courthouse construction program is administered jointly3010by the Federal Judiciary and GSA. GSA works with the Federal Judiciary3011to propose projects for funding and seek approval of those funds from3012Congress. While the Judiciary establishes its priorities for courthouse3013construction projects and sets forth housing requirements for each3014project, GSA works in tandem to ensure that projects meet the needs of3015the Judiciary and are consistent with the Federal Judiciary Courthouse3016Project Priorities.3017 Courthouses are proposed in order of priority by the Judiciary and3018funding is requested in that priority order, including feasibility3019studies. GSA's role is to administer consistent, cost-effective3020delivery of the U.S. courthouse program according to the Courts'3021national prioritization plan and driven by the Judicial Conference on3022Space and Facilities.3023 GSA also develops the plans for these projects, including the3024identification of any U.S. Courts Design Guide exceptions approved by3025the Judiciary, and identification of the strategy for the courthouse3026facilities being replaced.30273028 Achievements and Opportunities30293030 With regard to delivery of the program, I would like to point out3031several key recent achievements as we work to deliver both new3032courthouses and repair and alterations projects on schedule and on3033budget, within the parameters established by the prospectuses GSA3034submits and the resolutions approved by this Committee.3035 Since Fiscal Year 2016, GSA has delivered ten projects associated3036with the new courthouse program, with five additional projects in3037construction, and three additional projects in the design phase. Those3038eighteen projects, across fifteen cities, total approximately $2.123039billion. GSA is also coordinating with the Judiciary to deliver the3040Courthouse Security Program, and since Fiscal Year 2012, there have3041been eight projects completed, five in construction, and two more in3042design.3043 Recently, PBS-GSA announced the sale of the Gus J. Solomon U.S.3044Courthouse. By including the Solomon courthouse in President Trump's3045strategy to optimize the government's real estate portfolio, GSA will3046avoid over $76 million in potential capital expenditures to modernize3047the vacant 90-year-old building for continued office use.3048 The potential for adaptive reuse by the private sector is3049exceptional.3050 The results of our efforts are notable, exhibited in our project3051delivery outcomes and provide a solid foundation to grow on into the3052future.30533054 Challenges30553056 These efforts were not realized without their fair share of3057challenges. As mentioned before, GSA's goal is simply to ensure that3058any courthouse project funded and approved by Congress is completed in3059support of the mission to our federal customer Agencies.3060 We will continue our efforts to deliver courthouses on time and on3061budget with the funding already provided by Congress; however, moving3062forward will require working with our judiciary partners and Congress3063on how to best ensure a balanced allocation of resources.3064 As I previously mentioned, current estimates equal approximately3065$24 billion in liability for GSA's federally owned portfolio: a3066portfolio that also averages over 50 years of age. And while this3067number is steadily growing, priorities identified by the Judiciary must3068also compete for limited funding across GSA's owned portfolio.3069 A few examples of repair and alterations projects competing for3070limited future funding:30713072 In Pennsylvania at the James A. Byrne Courthouse in3073 Philadelphia, this core asset requires upgrades to the heating,3074 ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which includes3075 comprehensive replacement of obsolete air handling units and3076 degraded ductwork, and the installation of enhanced controls3077 and related electrical and life-safety upgrades. The current3078 estimated cost of this investment is $87.4M.30793080 Also in Pennsylvania, the Joseph F. Weis, Jr. U.S. Courthouse3081 in Pittsburgh, which is another core asset, requires3082 replacement of the HVAC system, associated electrical systems,3083 and a section of the roof, as well as a lightning protection3084 and fall arrest system. The current estimated cost of this3085 investment is $44.9M.30863087 Conclusion30883089 In conclusion, GSA requires both funding and prospectus approval to3090deliver high-quality space on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. The need3091for funding, a more streamlined prospectus process, as well as expanded3092authorities to drive the identification and preparation of assets for3093disposition are a few of the tools that would allow GSA to reduce the3094size of the Federal inventory, address deferred maintenance and operate3095more efficiently in this challenging environment.3096 I am very proud of the work that we are doing to help return GSA to3097its founding mission drafted over 75 years ago--a mission designed to3098help customer agencies achieve their missions through cost-effective3099real estate investments.3100 I look forward to partnering with you to address these key3101priorities in the 119th Congress and to drive cost efficiency in3102Federal real estate. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before3103you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.31043105 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman and all our3106witnesses. Thank you for your testimony. We will now turn to3107questions.3108 The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Ms. Friedman,3109for her questions.3110 Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.3111 Mr. Peters, thank you again for being here today.3112 The Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, provided GSA with3113$3.4 billion for building renovations and improvements; $9753114million to support the emerging and sustainable technologies;3115$2.15 billion for low-embodied carbon materials in construction3116and renovation projects; and $250 million to turn GSA3117facilities into high-performance green buildings.3118 GSA identified 164 projects to be supported with the IRA3119funding: 42 Federal courthouses; 69 Federal buildings; and 533120land points of entry. These projects include modernizing3121buildings, replacing windows, repairing building facades,3122making deep energy retrofits, installing stormwater management3123technology, stabilizing garages and foundations, resurfacing3124parking lots, and replacing windows and lighting. And to be3125clear, a lot of these kinds of upgrades also make buildings run3126more efficiently and make them less expensive to operate in the3127long run. So, there are a lot of good reasons to do this work.3128 What is the status of the courthouse modernization projects3129that GSA identified as good candidates for IRA funding? And I3130will also ask a second question; you can answer them both at3131once.3132 Will GSA move forward with the projects for which funding3133has not yet been obligated?3134 Mr. Peters. Thank you for the question.3135 So, we have done an assessment, in conjunction with the3136work here, and we are continuing to utilize IRA funds, both for3137LPOE projects and for courthouse projects.3138 The requirement we have is that we must comply with the3139legislation and the law, but we need to find cost-effective3140alternatives. So, if there is a situation--you mentioned low-3141embodied carbon--where a low-embodied carbon solution was3142prohibitively expensive relative to a more standard solution,3143we wouldn't proceed with the IRA funding in that case. But to3144date, we have been able to utilize IRA funding and have3145actually over $1 billion of funding we look forward to3146utilizing moving forward for LPOEs and for courthouses.3147 Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much.3148 So, GSA's approach to reducing waste and construction costs3149has included a focus on energy efficiency in both existing3150Federal buildings and new construction. This has been the case3151for the past 30 years, through both Democratic and Republican3152Presidents and leadership. These projects are--like I3153mentioned--often undertaken as energy savings performance3154contracts, where the Federal funds are leveraged to attract3155private investment.3156 Does GSA currently have any energy savings performance3157contracts in Federal courthouses?3158 And how is GSA's contracting freeze impacting these3159projects?3160 Mr. Peters. So, we do continue to utilize ESPCs. We have3161scrutinized and evaluated them on a case-by-case basis. I think3162your assessment is accurate that, in many cases in the past, we3163have been able to employ technology--you can call it green3164technology, you can call it energy-saving technology, whatever3165it is--we want to deliver the most value to taxpayers that we3166can, so we are not opposed to saving money.3167 Now, we are opposed, if there is a low-cost alternative--3168perhaps natural gas that is the low-cost solution--we don't3169want to feel like we are obligated to put a solar panel on a3170roof if we have a lower cost solution for securing energy. But3171we are not prohibiting any type of energy sources in our3172projects going forward.3173 I can't speak--I would be happy to get back to you on3174ESPCs, and courthouses in particular. We are certainly using3175ESPCs across the portfolio, though.3176 Ms. Friedman. Thank you. I will move now to Judge Suddaby.3177Thanks again for being here.3178 The judiciary has cited the need for heightened security at3179courthouses as a reason for revisiting the 2007 Design Guide.3180Obviously, we want everyone to be safe and secure in3181courthouses. Given ongoing security concerns, why did the3182judiciary not include the Federal Protective Service in the3183process of revising the design guideline?3184 Judge Suddaby. Thank you for the question.3185 We participated with our stakeholders, GSA, the Marshals3186Service, and FPS. FPS was consulted. FPS took the position that3187they weren't really involved in the Design Guide, they were3188responsible for the exterior of the courthouses, the courthouse3189proper, the properties. And certainly, going forward with any3190courthouse construction, we are going to be consulting with FPS3191to say, ``Where do you want to put cameras? How do you envision3192courthouse hardening projects?'' to make sure that that3193building is secure.3194 Ms. Friedman. Thank you.3195 Mr. Marroni, in 2013, GAO cited gross overestimates by the3196judiciary of projected additional judgeships, a refusal to3197share courtrooms, and courthouses constructed by the GSA that3198far exceed the congressionally approved square footage as3199reasons for the overruns.3200 So, my question is, how has the implementation of3201courtroom-sharing requirements for bankruptcy, magistrate, and3202senior district judges impacted the judiciary's courthouse3203construction requests?3204 Mr. Marroni. So, certainly, when you use courtroom sharing,3205it reduces the number of courtrooms you need to build in3206courthouses. So, that is going to have a positive effect on3207reducing the cost of construction. Courtroom sharing is a great3208way to maximize the utilization of your space.3209 Ms. Friedman. Thank you, I yield back.3210 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the Representative, gentlelady.3211The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning.3212I guess I am going to start with Mr. Marroni here.3213 Your most recent report said that the changes to the 20213214Design Guide result in significant size and cost of future3215courthouses. And it seems to me--like, I think, if nothing3216else, we ought to just maybe question this process as the3217beginning here. You are working with the Conference Committee3218on Space and Facilities which Judge Suddaby, I guess, chairs.3219Do you see this as the appropriate methodology for determining3220what courthouses should be?3221 I understand I am not a judge, so I am not in the chambers,3222I don't know what the needs are. I suspect you're not, either,3223so we would design a building differently. So we want that3224input, but is--are we asking the people to provide the input--3225are those the very people that are going to say, well, you need3226this and you don't need that? With all due respect, I mean, I3227would assume that they would advocate for the best for3228themselves--we all would--but is that the best for the3229taxpayer, and is that the most efficient and best way to do3230this, in your estimation, based on what you have seen?3231 Mr. Marroni. So, I think it is important that judiciary3232establishes the requirements. As you say, they know best their3233needs. But I think, as part of that, it is important that they3234collaborate with GSA, with their partners, to get a sense of3235the real-world implications of this.3236 I also think getting congressional oversight and other3237independent means to look at these Design Guide changes like we3238have done in this 2024 report is important because, yes, as--3239anyone, when you are looking at your needs, you are going to3240know what you need, but you are also--maybe you go for a little3241more than perhaps an independent observer would think you would3242need. So, having an independent source to look at it is3243important.3244 Mr. Perry. So, just to follow that line of reasoning, that3245line of thought, who is the arbitrator? Who is the arbiter? Who3246is the honest broker--not to say that anybody is dishonest, but3247is it Congress? Is it this committee that provides all the3248oversight to what the--who else would it be? Who is it? Is it3249you?3250 Mr. Marroni. It is not us. The primary oversight would be3251Congress, through the authorization process, as well as through3252the appropriations process. Judiciary, as a branch of3253Government, is setting its own requirements there----3254 Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Okay, so----3255 Mr. Marroni [continuing]. We certainly can help by3256providing reports, but we are not the primary.3257 Mr. Perry. So, that having been said, in my opening3258statement, I mentioned the fact that the courthouse project3259assigned security 10 percent of the weighted score, while the3260courtroom and chamber needs make up 50 percent. Who determines3261that makeup, is it Judge Suddaby's group or--who--is it3262Congress? Who determines that?3263 Because the claim is that this is all for security and3264safety, and I think we are all for that, whether you are a3265Democrat or Republican, but it clearly indicates that there are3266other forces that seem to take precedent over safety and3267security. The question is, who determines what that breakout is3268supposed to be?3269 Mr. Marroni. So, I believe judiciary sets their3270requirements for the security and the other requirements for3271the courthouse.3272 Mr. Perry. Does that not seem at least a little bit like3273the fox guarding the henhouse?3274 Mr. Marroni. Well, I think it's a starting point to design.3275You need the customer to decide what the requirements are, but3276you do need some oversight of what's coming out of that.3277 Mr. Perry. So, let me ask you this. We have got the 20213278Design Guide, but we have also got the 2007 Design Guide. The3279committee has been informed that the courthouse in San Juan,3280Puerto Rico, would be designed to the 2007 standards, but may3281include elements from the 2021 standards. Those are the very3282elements that your organization, the GAO, claimed would3283increase cost and size.3284 Why do we have two standards, and which one are we3285following, and why are we following--what is happening here?3286 Mr. Marroni. So, my understanding there--and Judge Suddaby3287can correct me--but my understanding is they are using the 20073288Design Guide and then incorporating cost-neutral elements from3289the 2021 guide, so, not circulation we are describing, they are3290including the cost-neutral elements. But Judge Suddaby may be3291able to----3292 Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Okay, Judge, what do you say to3293that?3294 Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you.3295 First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that the3296judiciary is not tone deaf with regard to your concerns.3297 Now, based on criticism from GAO and this committee, we had3298a 5-year plan which was halted. And we went to the asset3299management program to rightsize courthouses, and we continue to3300do that. And we look for every opportunity to downsize courts.3301We are not looking to build bigger, more elaborate courthouses.3302We are trying to build secure courthouses that will last the3303cycle that GSA sets with 100-year building cycle.3304 So, these things that--the 2007 Design Guide was in effect3305when Puerto Rico was authorized to go forward with their new3306construction based on their seismic retrofit concerns and the3307building being unsafe, therefore, the 2007 guide would be used.3308There have been no courthouses constructed or even designed3309under the 2021 Design Guide.3310 So, cost-neutral things that can occur to improve the3311design and circulation patterns of that courthouse in Puerto3312Rico, that will be done as long as it is cost-neutral.3313 Mr. Perry. Okay, thank you. My time has expired. The Chair3314now recognizes the Representative from Washington, DC, the3315Honorable Ms. Norton.3316 Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.3317 I support policies like the Courthouse Affordability and3318Space Efficiency Act that ensure cost-effectiveness and space3319efficiency, and require courtroom sharing. This subcommittee,3320including when I was chair, has worked over the past two3321decades to prevent Federal courthouse overbuilding and to save3322taxpayer dollars.3323 The judiciary has a history of providing flawed projections3324for future courthouses, which has led to underutilized3325courtrooms across the Nation. This is why the Public Buildings3326Service must collaborate with the Judicial Conference on space3327efficiencies.3328 Commissioner Peters, how does this administration plan to3329collaborate with the judiciary to effectively manage the design3330and construction of courthouse projects and implement3331courtroom-sharing policies?3332 Mr. Peters. Thank you for the question, Representative3333Norton. That is a great question.3334 One of the things that I was really surprised by when I3335first assumed this role was the lack of data we had not just3336about courtroom utilization, but really about utilization of3337Federal properties across our entire portfolio. One of the3338benefits that I had going for me was that, through the WRDA3339legislation which was passed, we were instructed to work with3340OMB to begin developing occupancy data across the portfolio.3341Actually, yesterday--last night, late last night, that data3342just started coming in, and that will really inform our3343decisionmaking on a go-forward basis across the Federal3344portfolio of which assets to dispose of and where to3345consolidate.3346 With respect to the courts, we're really lacking in that3347type of data and don't have a good understanding of occupancy,3348going forward. The bills you referenced do call for--to begin3349developing utilization data in the courthouses, and I think3350that would be important data for all of us. But the courts,3351Congress, and us at GSA to identify where there are3352opportunities to increase utilization, where we have shortfalls3353and might need to consider adding additional space or adding3354additional courts.3355 In terms of the courts' actual utilization of their3356facilities, that is really outside of GSA's control. That is a3357matter for the courts to assess. I would say it is our3358collective duty and Congress', for sure, to determine how to3359allocate the very scarce capital we have in an environment3360where we have almost $37 trillion in debt. We don't have a lot3361of excess funds. We don't even have enough funds to address the3362$8\1/2\ billion of deferred maintenance within the portfolio.3363 So we need to be very judicious in building new courthouses3364and making certain that, when we do so, it is because there is3365a true need there, and putting a close eye to that.3366 Ms. Norton. Thank you.3367 Mr. Marroni, what steps can Congress take to work with the3368Public Buildings Service and the judiciary to ensure smart3369asset management for courthouses?3370 Mr. Marroni. I think Congress needs to do things like this,3371these kind of hearings, ask tough questions during both the3372prospectus process and during appropriations to understand the3373basis for requests for funding for courthouse projects and have3374that independent look.3375 Ms. Norton. Justice Suddaby, how can Members of Congress be3376assured that the planning of new courthouses is consistent with3377the actual needs of the judiciary?3378 Judge Suddaby. The new courthouse AMP program, where we3379evaluate every year the needs for every court across this3380country--and it is called an urgency evaluation--to consider3381the courts' needs with regard to space, number of judges,3382number of courtrooms, number of chambers, as well as security3383concerns, all that is weighed and they are ranked. And we act3384on the ones that are most urgent at that time.3385 We have a courthouse priorities list that--all of this came3386out of the stop work order by Congress with regard to3387courthouses on the 5-year plan, and reassessing how we looked3388at planning and constructing new courthouses.3389 With regard to the overbuilding, again, the judiciary heard3390this committee and GAO's concerns, and projected judgeships are3391no longer part of the calculation that is done with regard to3392determining whether courthouses--the size of courthouses and3393how they are built. There is a 10-year window that we look at.3394If there are senior judges or judges who are active judges that3395are looking at taking senior within that 10-year period, the3396courthouse is appropriately built for that future expansion,3397but nothing else.3398 So there are a number of things that the court does,3399continuing to look at our portfolio and make sure only the most3400urgent courts across the country are going to percolate up to3401the top of that list to get consideration, and we do that in3402conjunction with GSA to make sure that we are doing things3403appropriately. And, of course, they come to Congress with a3404prospectus. And all of this is put through the Space and3405Facilities Committee and the Judicial Conference for approval3406before it comes here to you for your appropriation approvals.3407 Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.3408 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now3409turns to Representative Barrett.3410 Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and apologies for not3411being here for your opening remarks, I was on my way across.3412 But I did have a few questions for you, so if you have3413already answered them, please bear with me.3414 I know we have talked a lot about courtroom sharing, and3415what effect that has on overbuilding or building to rightsize3416or the appropriate size of a courtroom. Can you give us any--3417either of you that have had insight into this, has there been3418any look at what percent of the time a courtroom is in use3419versus time that it is essentially dormant and not in use and3420could help facilitate that courtroom sharing?3421 Judge Suddaby. I am happy to take the question.3422 Courtroom sharing has been in place now since 2009 for both3423magistrate judges and senior judges, and then bankruptcy court3424judges since 2011. Any construction that goes forward includes3425those requirements.3426 Mr. Barrett. Right.3427 Judge Suddaby. And any buildout in an existing courthouse3428includes those elements.3429 Now, the courtrooms----3430 Mr. Barrett [interrupting]. We have got a lot of legacy3431courtrooms that aren't under that condition, right? Because3432they haven't been built or updated since then. And if we look--3433and not to interrupt you or cut you off, but if we look3434retrospectively, do we do any analysis of what percent of the3435time--and this is just an oversimplification of my own, kind3436of, understanding of this, is that most cases end up not going3437to a full trial, with a jury and everything else.3438 I am sure the courtrooms are used for other proceedings3439along the way, but the--like the stuff you see on ``Law &3440Order'' is less likely to happen in real life with dramatic3441jury trials and everything else, thereby probably offloading3442some of the need for courtrooms that are fairly dormant most of3443the time. Is that accurate?3444 Judge Suddaby. I would say it's not accurate.3445 Mr. Barrett. Okay.3446 Judge Suddaby. There is a reason for judges having access3447to courtrooms, and that is an important tool to get their3448docket or their cases moved. They have to handle emergency3449motions, they have to do trials that require Speedy Trial Act3450concerns. And active district court judges in this country are3451among the most busy judges in this Nation, and they have to3452have a courtroom accessible to them.3453 Now, is that courtroom used every day, 8 o'clock to 53454o'clock in the afternoon? No, not always. It depends on what's3455going on. But certainly, that access and the ability to be in3456there is what gives them the ability to do their jobs. And the3457courtroom-sharing policies that the Judicial Conference3458continues to look at and refine consider these things, and we3459work on them consistently to make sure that we are sharing3460where appropriate, but making sure that judges have courtrooms3461to do their work.3462 Mr. Barrett. And I think, if you look at some of how we do3463our work here, I mean, this committee hearing room is used for3464the full committee, it is used for each of the subcommittees,3465we share this space, and if you were to look at our committee3466today, there are fewer Members than the full committee, and you3467would say maybe we are overbuilt in this room. But when the3468full committee is assembled and we are doing a markup,3469obviously, we are rightsized for that situation.3470 I just want to make sure that what we are doing is the3471appropriate use of resources that we have, and the escalation3472dramatically of building costs over time has made it such that3473we have to be far more mindful about the capital expense of3474things, everything from building materials to labor to siting3475approval to engineering design. All of that has become far more3476expensive over time, and it ends up coming out of, certainly,3477the appropriations that come from the Congress.3478 Another question I had for you, do we own every Federal3479courthouse? Does the Federal Government own, or do we rent any3480space currently?3481 Judge Suddaby. There are some leased courthouses.3482 Mr. Barrett. Okay.3483 Judge Suddaby. And that is a decision that is made in3484conjunction with GSA, that it is more cost-efficient and3485effective and timely to build--or have a lease-build done in a3486particular area, a lot of times often rural or remote regions3487of the country, where constructing a Federal building just does3488not make good economic sense. So there are a few leased3489buildings. And, of course, we have other leases for different3490court units. Probation and pretrial services often are in3491leased spaces. Federal defenders' offices are typically in3492leased spaces.3493 Mr. Barrett. Okay, thank you.3494 And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.3495 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now3496recognizes Representative Figures.3497 Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the3498witnesses for being here today, and thank you to your3499respective teams for getting you guys prepared here. I don't3500know if a law clerk--when I was a law clerk, congressional3501testimony preparation wasn't exactly within the job3502description, so I want to give a special thanks to you guys.3503 Judge Suddaby, I want to start with you. Can you just talk3504about and highlight the importance--I have been a Federal law3505clerk myself, I worked at the Department of Justice--can you3506talk about the importance in all of this to making sure that3507prioritizing judicial security remains the, sort of, North Star3508in all of these design changes and all of the construction3509assessments that we are doing, that we don't lose sight of the3510ball of making sure that we are asking our judges and our court3511personnel and officers and witnesses and all of those who are3512participating in courthouse proceedings, that they are in as3513safe as possible position that they can possibly be?3514 Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you. The Design Guide revision3515was--a lot of the impetus for that was on that particular3516concern: security. And it is a major concern in all3517construction.3518 The three pathways of circulation: secure for in-custody3519persons in law enforcement, the Marshals Service transporting3520people into our courts; restricted areas for judges and staff;3521and obviously, the open public corridors--in many of our older3522courthouses, those pathways do not exist. These are from3523lessons learned, things like building sally ports for the3524appropriate transportation and security of in-custody persons,3525secure parking, all of these things are incorporated in the3526Design Guide. And, again, we worked cooperatively with GSA to3527make sure those issues are addressed.3528 One of the things that drove the size concerns of GAO--and3529we thank them for their analysis--is making sure that those3530corridors existed and didn't impinge on the other areas of the3531courthouse design. So, certainly, again, it is not our3532intention to build bigger or more opulent courthouses. Secure,3533efficient courthouses that will stand for decades and allow for3534reasonable growth without overbuilding is what we are3535attempting to do.3536 Mr. Figures. And I want to shift focus a little bit to our3537more rural areas, satellite offices as they are commonly3538referred to. I come from Alabama. Mobile and Montgomery are3539both respective, sort of, judicial district seats, Montgomery3540being the middle district, Mobile being the southern district.3541They both have satellite offices. And those satellite offices3542historically--as I am sure you can relate to, Judge--they have3543historically been the red-headed stepchild when it comes to3544investments in terms of construction, redesign, upgrades,3545renovations, that sort of thing.3546 So, as we go through this process, can you talk to me--Mr.3547Peters, I will direct this one to you, but anyone who wants to3548take a stab at it--of what we can do to prioritize making sure3549that those satellite offices don't fall behind the curve in3550this and don't get unnecessarily cut.3551 Mr. Peters. I appreciate the question. I actually was born3552in Alabama many moons ago.3553 Mr. Figures. Well, here is the question: Roll Tide or War3554Eagle?3555 Mr. Peters. Well, I grew up in Florida.3556 [Laughter.]3557 Mr. Figures. There is only one right answer.3558 Mr. Peters. There is no good answer there, so--but that is3559a great question.3560 I mean, we have a great partnership with the courts and3561work with them. I have met with Judge Suddaby on more than one3562occasion before this, and they really set the priority in terms3563of which projects get prioritization, both for new construction3564as well as dealing with deferred maintenance in our facilities.3565 And you are right, there are a lot of courthouses,3566particularly some of these stepchildren, but even here within3567the District, that are neglected, right? Of our $24 billion in3568deferred maintenance across GSA, over $8 billion of that is3569just within the courts. And those are--they are not nice-to-3570haves, they are critical needs that need to be addressed, and3571we are working with you to deal with that. So----3572 Mr. Figures [interrupting]. Right. And I don't want to cut3573you off, I've got one more----3574 Mr. Peters [interposing]. Go ahead.3575 Mr. Figures [continuing]. Question I want to squeeze in.3576 Throughout the DOGE process, there were numerous Federal3577facilities that were listed for sale, Federal property that was3578listed for sale, and in some cases, this was shared space3579between Federal courthouses and maybe a nonjudicial space. Were3580any of you guys consulted in your roles with any of the3581proposed cuts?3582 And the reason I ask this is because there was courthouse3583space in one of my areas that was very valuable and vital3584parking that, without it--they don't build parking decks3585underground in Mobile, Alabama, for hurricanes and sea-level3586issues--without it, employees will be in a tough spot.3587 So, A, I want to work with you guys to hopefully try to3588resolve those issues; but B, I just want to know if any of you3589guys were consulted in the, sort of, listing of Federal3590property as it related to shared space with Federal courts3591throughout the DOGE process.3592 Mr. Peters. If you don't mind, I will answer that first,3593and then I will let the judge comment.3594 The list that we published initially was--there were two3595purposes. Primarily, it was to identify core assets which we3596view as, basically, untouchable assets. They should be owned by3597the Federal Government in perpetuity. There were other assets3598that didn't fall under that category that got listed as3599noncore. Probably not the best name. That was not meant to3600imply that those assets are for sale or that we are trying to3601market them, it was meant to imply that we want to evaluate3602them and assess their importance to the Federal Government3603based on how utilized they are, what level of deferred3604maintenance is in them currently, could the existing tenants be3605moved into another facility. So, probably poor communication on3606our part.3607 I will say that the policy we have in place now, whether it3608relates to a potential lease termination or disposing of a3609building, is to first identify it, then contact the agency for3610which it would be relevant to get their input on that decision.3611If the agency is in agreement--in this case, the courts--that,3612hey, this is an asset we could dispose of, then to reach out to3613Congress and the relevant Members of the House and the Senate3614to make certain that they are aware before we take any action.3615 But we probably did move a little too quickly in our first3616month here, and we have changed our procedures at this point.3617 Mr. Figures. Thank you. I am well over my time. I3618appreciate it, Chair.3619 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now3620recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Onder.3621 Dr. Onder. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the3622witnesses for being here today.3623 Mr. Peters--and again, I apologize, excuse me if any of my3624questions have been asked previously--but what tools does the3625GSA have to push back when the judiciary proposes a building3626project, a courthouse that appears to be oversized or3627misaligned with the actual usage? What tools are at your3628disposal, and what's usually the outcome?3629 Mr. Peters. Yes, so I guess, as I mentioned earlier, I3630think we really have been developing a collaborative3631relationship with the judiciary--but it's in the context of3632what we spoke of earlier, massive Federal debt, tight budget.3633We just have limited funds.3634 Many of these projects are clearly useful, not just within3635judiciary, elsewhere. But just because it's useful doesn't mean3636we can afford it. And----3637 Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.3638 Mr. Peters [continuing]. So, what we are working to do is3639to develop a better process of assessing need, and I think we3640would like to work collaboratively with the judiciary and3641Congress on--one of the things that was mentioned earlier is3642utilization. Because right now, we are gathering that data3643outside of the judiciary, but we don't have it collectively. If3644they have it, I am unaware of it. Just think about, like, how3645often are these courtrooms occupied? And I don't know what the3646ultimate standard should be, but let's work together to assess3647that so that we can make informed decisions about where do we3648spend our limited capital dollars either improving and3649upgrading an existing facility or investing in it, in a new3650courthouse.3651 But our tools are really--we are kind of instructed what to3652build, and Congress appropriates the funds and says, ``Go build3653this courthouse,'' and then we try to do that as cost-3654effectively as we can. But we don't ultimately determine the3655design standards.3656 Dr. Onder. Right. So, yes, you touched on something I did3657want to ask. Does the GSA verify whether the new courthouses3658are actually being fully utilized once they are built?3659 Mr. Peters. So, I have to admit we do not.3660 Dr. Onder. Yes.3661 Mr. Peters. I--that--at least historically, that has not3662been our role.3663 Like I say, I would welcome the opportunity to work3664together to determine how utilized they are----3665 Dr. Onder [interposing]. Sure.3666 Mr. Peters [continuing]. To determine how necessary they3667are.3668 Dr. Onder. And Judge, do you care to comment?3669 Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you.3670 Well, any part of the Design Guide that would deviate, any3671construction deviation, would have to be approved by the3672Judicial Conference, and then it would have to go through the3673process as an exception with GSA. They would then have to3674include it in the prospectus that would be sent over here for3675congressional approval. So, to say that we are looking at3676overbuilding or doing extravagant things, that is not what this3677is about. And that's not what we are doing.3678 As far as courtroom usage, there is a separate Judicial3679Conference committee, the CACM Committee, Court Administration3680and Case Management, that has been looking and analyzing this3681issue for a number of years which led, in conjunction with3682feedback from this subcommittee, to courtroom sharing that we3683have now.3684 The determination about the way courtrooms are used by3685active district court judges, as I indicated previously, we use3686our space differently. And the fact that a courtroom may be3687empty for a period of time does not mean that that courtroom is3688not being put to use by a judge moving his docket, settling3689cases, being ready to handle emergency motions, or anything3690else.3691 So, those types of decisions the Judicial Conference makes3692by informed information coming back from the judges across the3693country.3694 Dr. Onder. Okay, very good.3695 And Mr. Marroni, the GAO found that many courthouses are3696underutilized, with more space than needed. Has there been any3697measurable improvement since your last audit?3698 And are there any reforms you would recommend to rein in3699courthouse proposals that you might deem oversized?3700 Mr. Marroni. So, our last look at this was in 2010, so,3701quite some time ago. I don't have current data on the3702utilization.3703 I do think the adoption of courtroom sharing has been an3704important step. I think that is worth looking further at. And I3705do agree with Commissioner Peters. The extent that there can be3706data, it sounds like judiciary may have some of that data to3707look at--how are these spaces being used, could there be more3708courtroom sharing, are there methods to increase utilization--3709is worthwhile.3710 Dr. Onder. Thank you. I yield back.3711 Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Missouri.3712Are there any further questions?3713 Looking around the room, I apologize. The change in3714schedule, unfortunately, oftentimes results in--we have other3715things that are layered on top of these hearings, and I would3716like to have the luxury of other Members being here to ask more3717questions, but we simply don't have them, because I am sure3718they are busy doing other things that comport with their3719schedule before it was kind of upended this morning.3720 I do have one, kind of, final question as an overall theme3721here regarding utilization--occupancy, if you will, or3722utilization maybe is the better term. Who is collecting that3723information right now? Is there any ongoing collection?3724 And I imagine, differently from some other Federal3725facility, where we are looking for occupancy, it seems to me3726that the court has a very unique circumstance where they might3727have a competing interest in the same room, or something like3728that, so we would have to identify that as a specific category3729to capture. But is anyone doing that? Who should be doing it?3730Who is best suited to do it?3731 Judge Suddaby. It is being done, and it's done by the3732Judicial Conference committee that I just mentioned. We refer3733to it as CACM. And the recommendations of this subcommittee to3734the judiciary led to courtroom sharing in the areas that we3735thought were appropriate. And those utilization factors are the3736ongoing study.3737 But as I have indicated, the use is so unique and3738different----3739 Mr. Perry [interposing]. We understand.3740 Judge Suddaby [continuing]. To any other public----3741 Mr. Perry [interrupting]. And we are not----3742 Judge Suddaby [continuing]. You know, public space----3743 Mr. Perry [interrupting]. We are not here to challenge3744that, but we need to have the data.3745 In talking to both of you, or all three of you, regarding3746Congress' role in oversight, we can't do a good job at that, or3747an adequate job, if we don't have the information.3748 So, there is a study that is ongoing. Is it just a3749continual study, or is there going to be some end to it that we3750receive a report? How will we know--or can we just tap into3751that information at any time and get utilization rates for this3752courtroom or that courtroom and this courthouse, this is how3753many times somebody was in this one when somebody else needed3754to use it--how is that all----3755 Judge Suddaby [interposing]. Yes.3756 Mr. Perry [continuing]. Meted out at this point?3757 Judge Suddaby. The CACM Committee, again, is the one would3758be responsible for that, and we can certainly ask them if they3759have those sort of statistics and numbers.3760 Mr. Chairman, for example, I just turned senior this past3761year as a district court judge. In my entire career, I have3762never had a single courtroom that I was assigned to. I have3763shared courtrooms with other senior judges and other active3764judges, because I am in a Federal office building with3765courtrooms that are available throughout the building.3766 So, we make do with what we have, and do it effectively and3767efficiently, I think. But certainly, the way that the3768courtrooms are used, I think there is a lack of an appreciation3769of how critical it is to have that availability. And certainly,3770the judiciary is always looking for ways to maximize the usage,3771minimize more space, and give back space when we can. And those3772programs that I mentioned, those tools that we have been doing,3773are continuing all the time.3774 So, the answer you are looking for, we will approach the3775CACM Committee, see what information they have, and see if we3776can provide that information back to this committee, what they3777have, sir.3778 Mr. Perry. Well, the Chair thanks the judge and thanks the3779gentleman for that. And understand, regardless of whether the3780questions come from myself or other Members here, we are having3781this hearing so that we can formulate appropriate public3782policy, and so, we are seeking information. It would be, I3783think, derelict if we were to make those decisions without3784having the correct input. And I don't think you would like the3785outcome of that, either.3786 So, it would be better to have the input----3787 Judge Suddaby [interposing]. I see.3788 Mr. Perry [continuing]. So that we can make decisions.3789 Whether I think that the majority of the consideration3790should be on security as opposed to how the courtroom is3791structured or whatever, that's one person's opinion. But I3792think we all need the information so that we can do the job3793that we are tasked to do. That is the purpose for this hearing.3794 And so, I am asking you that question so that we get the3795information, because if we are not going to get the3796information, or we are not knowing when we are going to get the3797information, then I suspect this body is going to move to say:3798you are going to provide this information this way by this time3799so we can make a decision. All right? So that is the reason for3800the question.3801 Judge Suddaby. Understood, sir. I didn't take exception to3802that.3803 Mr. Perry. Yes, all right.3804 Judge Suddaby. We will try and get you the information and3805get back.3806 And if I can make just one last comment with regard to the3807cost for space, in our own self-interest in these tough budget3808times which the judiciary recognizes, rent is one of our3809biggest must-pays. And when it comes to an extra conference3810room or some other type of space within a courthouse,3811certainly, we want to be able to keep staff. And when it comes3812to a decision between space and personnel to do the work, we3813are always going to lean towards personnel.3814 So, it's in our self-interest to examine our space and make3815sure that we are rightsized and efficient, and optimize the use3816of our space so we can keep not only the lights on, but the----3817 Mr. Perry [interposing]. Yes, sure.3818 Judge Suddaby [continuing]. People that we need to do the3819job in place.3820 Mr. Perry. And we understand that you care for your people.3821We do, as well, whether we are on different sides of the aisle.3822I am sure that Ms. Norton and I both agree that a functioning3823judiciary is critical to our society and the things that we3824have, the great things that we have in this country. We expect3825you to advocate for the things that are important to you. We3826have to be, kind of, the referees in this thing to determine3827the right thing is being done.3828 With that, unfortunately, because we have no other Members3829to ask questions, this concludes our hearing for the day. I3830would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony3831and for your time and your patience here today.3832 This subcommittee now stands adjourned.3833 [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]38343835 Appendix38363837 ----------38383839 Question to David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastruc-3840 ture, U.S. Government Accountability Office, from Hon.3841 Dina Titus38423843 Question 1. The judiciary created an Asset Management Planning3844(AMP) process to prioritize construction projects. In 2022, the3845Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the judiciary's asset3846management process for ranking courthouses was not entirely transparent3847or objective. For example, GAO reported that the methodology the3848judiciary used to score courthouses would prioritize larger courthouses3849over smaller ones.3850 Since that report was published, what steps has the judiciary taken3851to improve its Asset Management Planning process? In your view, are3852those steps sufficient?3853 Answer: In our 2022 report, we recommended approaches for the3854judiciary's Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) to refine3855its scoring process to improve the objectivity and transparency of the3856results.\1\ AOUSC has taken some actions to implement these approaches,3857but one of our three recommendations remains open.3858---------------------------------------------------------------------------3859 \1\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Judiciary Should Refine3860Its Methods for Determining Which Projects Are Most Urgent, GAO-22-3861104034 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2025).3862---------------------------------------------------------------------------3863 Recommendation 1 (Closed): In 2022, we found that the3864judiciary did not always update assessment scores, when appropriate, to3865reflect major changes in courthouses' operating status. For example, a3866hurricane destroyed one courthouse in 2018, and another had a mold3867problem. We found that the judiciary did not update these courthouses'3868assessment scores, an update that would have had an important effect on3869the urgency ratings--a later part of the AMP process. By updating3870courthouse assessment scores to reflect major changes in operating3871status, the judiciary can provide more accurate and reliable3872information to decision-makers. We recommended that AOUSC update3873assessment scores, as appropriate, to reflect major changes in a3874courthouse's operating status.38753876 In February 2025, AOUSC provided us with documentation3877demonstrating that it had taken steps to help ensure that urgency3878ratings accurately reflect major changes in courthouses' operating3879status. Specifically, when a courthouse's operating status changes to3880uninhabitable or permanently closed, AOUSC immediately enters the3881change in operating status and its associated supporting documentation3882into the AMP database. The changes in the database populate the Urgency3883Evaluation Results List, preventing AOUSC from including non-3884operational courthouses in urgency ratings. Additionally, AOUSC3885completes a summary document--with the courthouses that AOUSC has added3886and removed from the Urgency Evaluation Results List, along with an3887accompanying explanation--and publishes it annually. AOUSC distributes3888the Urgency Evaluation Results List and summary to judiciary decision-3889makers for their consideration in approving and funding construction3890projects. By taking these steps, the AOUSC is better positioned to help3891ensure that decision-makers have access to more accurate and reliable3892information on courthouses that experience major changes in operation3893status, which meets the intent of our recommendation.38943895 Recommendation 2 (Open): In our 2022 report, we noted3896that the AMP evaluation process has three main parts: a courthouse3897assessment, a citywide assessment, and an urgency evaluation rating for3898its courthouse needs. We found that elements of the AMP scoring3899methodology could amplify or diminish the scores of certain courthouses3900and cities in ways that were not always transparent. As a result, the3901scoring methodology was not clearly aligned to the AMP evaluation goal3902of conducting an objective and consistent evaluation. For example, our3903analysis indicated that some of the courthouses with the most3904significant needs nationwide had their citywide scores, and part of3905their urgency ratings, diluted because their city had other courthouses3906that were in better condition. We recommended that AOUSC evaluate the3907AMP's scoring methodology's three-part process, to ensure its effects3908align to the AMP's goals and are made transparent to judiciary3909decision-makers, and make revisions where needed.39103911 As of January 2024, AOUSC officials stated that they had begun3912an analysis of the AMP's scoring methodology's three-part process to3913ensure its effects align to the AMP's goals and are transparent to3914judiciary decision-makers. Officials further stated they would describe3915this analysis in a memo AOUSC was developing. Once received, we will3916review the documentation and determine if it addresses the3917recommendation.39183919 Recommendation 3 (Closed): In our 2022 report, we found3920that the scoring methodology sets a cap or limit that is the maximum3921number or score a city can get for each of four rating components.3922Setting caps is an important decision because a city's need can appear3923more or less urgent depending on where the judiciary sets the cap for3924the rating calculation. However, judiciary officials acknowledged that3925they did not have formal or documented criteria for determining where3926to set caps. Further, officials said they set a cap by observing the3927highest calculated needs and placed a cap where natural breaks in the3928data began to occur.39293930 Without a consistent, transparent process for placing caps,3931there was no guarantee that the judiciary could consistently and3932objectively rank the order of cities' needs. This could lead the3933judiciary to inadvertently recommend courthouses for construction3934projects that are not actually those with the most urgent needs.3935Therefore, we recommended that the AOUSC better document for judiciary3936decision-makers the criteria the judiciary applies for the placement of3937caps.39383939 In August 2022, we confirmed several actions taken by AOUSC to3940document the criteria for setting caps. AOUSC established an Asset3941Management Planning Process Handbook that described the rating3942methodology for the urgency evaluation and made clear the purpose of3943setting caps each year. Specifically, the handbook described that AOUSC3944would use natural breaks in the data for cap criterion and address3945outlier values as to not skew the overall urgency rankings. To that3946end, the handbook made clear that locations with values at or above the3947cap for each criterion would receive ``full credit'' for the maximum3948allowable value for that criterion. In addition, all other locations3949would receive credit in relation to the cap value and a percentage of3950the urgency evaluation's model weight for that criterion. Within the3951handbook, AOUSC documented and communicated the criteria to the3952judiciary's decision-makers. The AOUSC's actions make the AMP's process3953for setting caps more consistent and transparent, which meets the3954intent of our recommendation.39553956 Questions to Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings3957 Service, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon.3958 Dina Titus39593960 Question 1. According to Assistant Commissioner for Facilities3961Management Andrew Heller, the Public Buildings Service intends to3962eliminate 3,557 positions through a nonvoluntary Reduction in Force3963(RIF). That is 63 percent of the Public Buildings Service's total3964workforce.3965 Question 1.a. How will staff reductions at the Public Buildings3966Service impact GSA's operation of court facilities?3967 Question 1.b. How have staff reductions impacted GSA's ability to3968deliver courthouses currently under construction?3969 Answer to 1.a. & 1.b.: GSA is adapting to workforce changes by3970continuing to identify and address operational challenges, including3971with our court facilities. GSA is strategically reallocating resources,3972where appropriate, to meet our customer agencies' evolving needs and3973maintain safe, fully functional spaces for our tenants.3974 Through a comprehensive analysis of our construction and repair and3975alteration projects, GSA is diligently working to ensure these projects3976have the necessary project management coverage and oversight. GSA3977employees are focused on supporting our customer agencies and providing3978the best value for the American taxpayer.39793980 Question 2. Through its Fine Arts Program, GSA maintains one of the3981oldest and largest public arts collections in the United States. The3982civic artworks in the collection date back to the 1850s and are3983displayed in federal buildings and courthouses across the United3984States. In Las Vegas, the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse features3985``Eldorado,'' a stunning landscape of the desert by Brent Thomson3986commissioned by GSA in 2000, among other works that illustrate Southern3987Nevada's unique beauty. Last month, I led other members of the3988Congressional Arts Caucus in a letter to the GSA expressing concerns3989about reports that over half of the GSA Fine Arts Program staff had3990been terminated. The letter demands answers on how GSA will maintain3991those invaluable works.3992 Question 2.a. As GSA works to shrink the size of the federal real3993estate portfolio and dispose of public buildings, what is happening to3994this art?3995 Answer: As buildings are considered for disposal, the GSA Center3996for Fine Arts will assess the artwork to determine the most appropriate3997course of action. Some pieces may remain in place with protective3998covenants, while others may be removed and relocated to other federal3999buildings or loaned to museums or nonprofit institutions. In some4000cases--such as when artwork is considered part of the real property and4001conveyed with the building--GSA may choose to reallocate the artwork.40024003 Question 2.b. How are you working with your colleagues at GSA to4004ensure that it is taken care of and accounted for?4005 Answer: The GSA Center for Fine Arts continues carrying out its4006responsibility to care for over 26,000 artworks in the Fine Arts4007Collection. The Fine Arts staff use a database and application called4008The Museum System, known as TMS, as the primary tool to manage GSA's4009art collection. The history of each object, its current location and4010condition, and any needed actions such as protection during4011construction or conservation, are tracked in TMS. TMS is a commercially4012available collections management software and is used by museums4013internationally.4014 TMS also allows non-art program GSA staff in the field to view past4015inspection forms and to generate new inspection forms. For the next4016biennial inspection in 2026, the Fine Arts staff will rely on and4017coordinate with non-art program GSA staff in the field to confirm4018artwork location, take photos, note artwork condition, and flag4019critical issues for Fine Arts staff to address.4020 In addition to artworks installed in GSA-owned facilities, the GSA4021Center for Fine Arts routinely updates the inventory and renews or4022initiates loan agreements with institutions. The TMS database is4023critical to managing the loan program, which accounts for almost 24,0004024artworks in the collection.40254026 [all]Witnesses
3 witnesses appeared, with 9 papers on file.
Documents
The committee filed 3 documents for the meeting.