82
W S . Hrg . 103—769
FEDERALCOURTHOUSES : AREWEOVERBUILDING?
$Y4 . G 5 .HRC . 103-769
Federal Court houses : fire He
HEAR IN GBEFOR E THE
C OMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIR S
U N ITED STATE S SENATE
ON E HU N DR ED THIRD C ON GR ESS
SECOND SESS ION
MAY 4,1994
Printed for the u se of th e Committee on Governmenta l Affa irs
U .S . GOVERNMENT PR INTING OFFICE794 34 7 cc W ASH INGTON $ 1994
For sale by the U S . Government Pri'ntmg Offi ceS upen ntemdent ofDocuments , C ongressmnal S ales Office , W ashington , DC 204 02
I S B'
N 0 - 1 6 - 9
S . Hrg. 103— 769
FEDERALCOURTHOUSES: AREWEOVERBUILDING?
$Y4 . G 8 .HRG. 103-769
Federal Court houses : Are Ne
HEAR IN G
C OMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AF
FAIR S
U N ITED STATE S SENATE
ON E HU N DR ED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 4 , 1994
Printed for the u se of the Committee on Governmenta l Affa irs
U .S . GOVERNMENT PR INTING OFFICE794 34 7 cc W AS H INGTON I 1994
For sale by the U .S . Government Prmtmg Offi ceS uperi ntendent ofDocuments , C ongress-lonaJ S ales Office , W ashington , DC 204 02
IS BN 0 - 1 6 - 0 4 6 02 3 -9
COMM ITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
J OHN GLEN N , Oh io, C ha i rma n
S AM NU NN ,Georgi a W ILL IAM V . R OTH , J R ,
DelawareCAR L LEV IN ,
M ich igan TED S TEVENS ,Alaska
J IM S AS S ER , Ten n essee W ILL IAM S COHEN , Ma i ne
DAV ID PRYOR , Arkan sas THAD COCHRAN,M l S S l S S lpp l
J OS EPH I LIEBERMAN, C onnecti cu t J OHN MC CA IN
,Ari zona
DAN IEL K AKAKA,Hawa i i R OBER T F BENN ETT
, U tahBYR ON L DOR GAN , N orth Dakota
Leonard W e i ss , S ta/7Di rector
Douglas N ore ll , Leg i s la t i ve D irectorGordon Hamel
,Profes szona l S taff
Frankli n G Polk , M i nori ty S tafi“ D i rector a nd C h i ef C ou nsel
Michal S u e Prosser , C h i ef C lerk
C O N T E N T S
Opening statements :Senator DorganSenator CohenSenator McC a in
WITNESSES
WEDNES DAY,MAY 4 , 1994
Hon . Scott Wright,Sen ior District Judge , U .S . District Court
Char les I . Patton,Assoc i ate D i rector
,Federa l Management I ssues , Genera l
Government Division ,U . S . Genera l Accounting Offi ce , accompanied by
Frances P . Clarke,Assistant Director
,Federa l Management I ssues ; K . Scott
Derrick,Eva luator-in -Charge ; and Bonn ie J . Ste l ler , Senior Statistician
Ju lia M . S ta sch ,Deputy Administrator
,Genera l Services Adm inistration
P . Gera ld Thacker,Assistant Director for Faci lities
,Security and Adm inistra
tion Services , Administrative Offi ce of the U .S . CourtsThomas G . Pinkerton
,AIA
, Group Vice President for Justice Faci litiesHe l lmuth , Obata Kassebaum
,St . Louis
,Missouri
Norman G . De lbridge,Vice President
, Thompkins Construction Company
ALPHA BETICAL LIS T OF WITNES S ESDe lbridge
,N orman G . :
TestimonyPrepared statement
Patton , Char les I. :
TestimonyPrepared statement
Pinkerton ,Thomas G
Prepared statementS tasch
,Ju lia M . :
TestimonyPrepared statement
Thacker , P . Gera ld :TestimonyPrepared statement
Wright, Hon . Scott :
TestimonyPrepared statement
APPEND IX
Prepared statement of Senator LiebermanPrepared statements of witnesses in order of appearanceLetter to Mr . Roger Johnson from Senior U . S . District Judge Scott O .
Wright , dated Oct . 27,1993
Letter to Mr . Roger Johnson from Senior U . S . District Judge Scott 0 .
Wright , dated N ov . 9 ,1993
Letter to Mr . Roger Johnson from Chief Judge Joseph E . Stevens , J r . ,dated
N ov . 4,1993
FEDER AL C OU R THOU S ES : AR E W E
OVER BU ILDIN G?
W EDN ESDAY, MAY 4 , 1994
U . S . SENATE,
COMM ITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS ,W a sh ing ton , D C .
Th e Committee met , pursuant to noti ce , at a .m . , in roomS D— 34 2 ,
Dirksen Senate Office Bui lding,Hon . Byron L . Dorgan
presiding .
Present : Senators Dorgan ,Cohen
,Stevens , and McC a in .
OPEN IN G STATEME NT OF SEN ATOR DORGAN
S enator DORGAN $presiding] . We wi ll call thi s hearing to order .
Th e purpose of today’s hearing i s to determine the effi ciency of
the construction ,lease and purchase of Federal bui ldings , with spe
cia l emphasi s on courthouses . Thi s i s the fi rst of several hearingsof the Committee on Governmental Affairs in a special project onGovernment waste . It wi ll be on i ssues that contribute to unneededor wasteful Federal S pending .
The appetite for new Federal construction continues to grow . For
fi scal year 1994,the Treasury
,Postal Service and General Govern
ment Appropriations bi ll included $919 mi ll ion for new Federalconstruction . Thi s i s an increase of over $300 mi ll i on from the fi scal year 1993 appropriations level
,and it i s included in the esti
mated $10 b ill i on worth of Federal construction and renovationproj ects that are currently under design
,under construction
, or
funded .
Considering the priority that both the Admini stration and Congress place on reducing the deficit
,it - i s reasonable for us to ask
whether , when we are tightening our belts , we should not alsotighten our belt on thi s engine that keeps bui lding Federal bui ldIngs .
The focus of thi s hearing wi ll be on the Government’s civi l i anbui lding program . I want at the outset to commend both Mr . J ohn
son a t the GSA,and especial ly Jul i a S ta sch
,the Deputy Adm in is
trator of the GSA,and their staff
,for the efforts that they have
made in compi l ing the recently concluded “
Time Out and Revi ew .
”
Thi s review involves scrubbing approximately 200 Federal buildingrojects and resulted in proj ected savings of bi ll ion
,including
$227 mi ll ion from courthouse construction . Ms . S ta sch wi ll give usan overvi ew of how that review was conducted and the results .
In addition , we wi ll try to determine and i solate the reasons forskyrocketing Federal construction costs
,specifically the abnormally
high cost of Federal courthouse construction . I have often wondered
2
W hat causes Federal construction to be so extraordinari ly costly interms of pri ce per square foot . We find it not unusual to have $200 ,
$2 5 0 and in some cases $300 per square foot expendi ture for Federal buildi ngs and for courthouses , and that seems to me to be wayou t of l ine .
Recently , the GAO found that the Administrative Of fice of theCourts ’ process for proj ecting long-range space needs did notproduce results , according to the GAO ,
that were suf ficiently rel iable to form the basi s for congressional authori zation and fundingapproval of new construction and renovation projects .
Further , the GAO analysi s found that the Admini strative Offi ceof the Courts ’ space needs projections were overestimated by 5 mi ll ion square feet in 76 distri cts
,and underestimated by mill i on
square feet in 18 distri cts .
Thi s point wi ll be underscored in the testimony of Judge ScottWright , a senior Federal judge from Kansas C i ty
,who wi ll discuss
a range of excess costs in the Federal courts system .
He wri tes in hi s prepared statement,
“ I think we would havemuch more credib il ity wi th the Congress
,i f we would get our own
house in order and stop wasting money .
”
Th e second and third panels wi ll evaluate the status of recommenda tion s contained in two recent reports which evaluatedmany of the i ssues thought to be factors contributing to the exce ss ive costs of Federal courthouse construction .
Recently,the General Accounting Of fice released thi s report .
Even though the contents of thi s report are astounding , I am notsurpri sed
,because it only rein forces what I have been trying to
make thi s body aware of for a number of months . Federal construeti on costs , in my judgment , are out of control , particularly thosecosts attributable to Federal courthouse construction .
Thi s report,entitled General Accounting Of fice , Federal Judiei
ary Space,Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revi s ion ,
” September 1993 , dealt wi th just the long-range planning process . Itshowed that the overestimation of judicial space needs could costup to $1 12 mill i on per year , or over b ill i on for the 10-yearplanning period . That i s bill i on more than would be reasonably expected to be spent .Other sign i ficant cost-related i ssues were addressed in the sec
ond report,
“Report of Independent Courts Building Program ,
”
inDecember 1993
,by a blue ribbon panel of experts in judi cial design
and construction . Our third panel wi ll argue that sign ificant efficien cie s can be achieved by adopting the recommendations conta ined in the two above-referenced reports .
So that’s how the three panel s of W i tnesses in today’s hearing arestructured .
Let me conclude by saying that a number of my colleagues havedone s ignificant work on thi s . Senator Cohen has worked for a longwhi le on Federal building costs
,and Senator McC ain an d some oth
ers .
It i s not my intention today to single out a bui ldi ng project andhold it up to ridicule or close inspection . It i s my intent to take thearray of bui lding projects that are underway and ask the question :When thi s Government i s expected to tighten its belt an d reducethe deficit , to reduce the Federal workforce by people , i sn
’
t
3
i t reasonable to bel ieve at the same time we would put the brakeson Federal bui lding projects that bui ld new extravagant and overpriced Federal bui ldings? I sn’t it also the case that we ought to putthe brakes on bui lding courthouses that we do n ot need or courthouses that cost too much?
Let us pay the same carefu l attention to Federal bui ldings , theneed for and the cost of Federal bui ldings , as we are trying to payto virtually all other spending in the Federal budget . As I have indica ted ,
thi s hearing we hope wi ll contribute to that understanding .
I think my colleagues have done some excellent work on thi s i ssuein the past .
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DORGAN
The appetite for new federa l construction continues to grow . For FY 1994 , theTreasury
,Posta l Service
,and Genera l Government Appropriations B i l l , inc luded
—c lose to a bi l l ion do l lars— for new federa l construction . This is an increase of over $300 mil lion from the FY 1993 appropriations leve l , and is includedin the estimated $ 10 bi l lion worth of federa l construction and renovation proj ectsthat are currently under design
,under construction
,or funded .
Considering the priority that both the C linton Admin istration and Congress p laceon reducing the defi cit , we must pu t the brakes on this extravagant build ing program .
The purpose of today ’s hearing is to determine the effi ciency of the construction ,
lease,and purchase of federa l bui ldings . This is the fi rst of three hearings that the
Committee on Governmenta l Affairs Specia l Proj ect on Government Waste wil l holdon issues that contribute to government waste and erode the confi dence of taxpayersacross the nation .
The focus of this hearing wil l be the government’s civi lian building program . Iwant to commend Ju l ia S ta sch , the Deputy Adm in istrator of GSA and her staff fortheir monumenta l effort in comp leting the recent ly concluded “
Time Ou t and R eview .
”This review invo lved scrubbin ap roxima te ly 200 federa l bui lding proj ects
and resu lted in proj ected savings of il lion inc lud ing $227 mi l lion from courthouse construction . Ms . S ta sch wi l l give us an overview of how the review was conducted and the resu lts .
In addition , we wi l l try to determine and iso late the reasons for skyrocketing federa l construction costs
,specifi ca l ly the abnorma l ly high cost of federa l courthouse
construction . At is sue are the flawed methodologies emp loyed by the AOC to p lanand project their courthouse space requirements one
,two
,and three decades into
the future— and what this means to the taxpayer .
Recently , the GAO found that the AOC process for roject ing long-range spaceneeds did not produce resu lts that were suffi ciently re iable to form the basis forcongressional authorization and funding approva l of new construction and renovation proj ects .
Further , the GAO ana lysis found that the AOC space needs proj ections were overestimated by 5 mil lion square feet in 76 districts and underestimated by mi l lionsquare feet in 18 d istricts .
Th is point wi l l be underscored in the testimony of Judge Scott Wright , a seniorFedera l judge from Kansas City
,who wi l l discuss a range of excess costs in the Fed
era l courts system .
He wrote , for examp le : I think we wou ld have much more credibi l i ty with theCongress if we wou ld get our own house in order and stop wasting money .
The second and third pane ls,respective ly , wil l eva luate the status of rec
ommendations contained in two recent reports which eva luated many of the is suesthought to be factors contributing to the excessive costs of federa l courthouse construction :
Recent ly the Genera l Accounting Offi ce (GAO ) re leased th is reportEven though the contents of the report are astounding, I am not surprised , be
cause it on ly reinforce s what I have been trying to make this body aware of for severa l months . Federa l construction costs are out of contro l— particular ly those costsattributab le to federa l courthouse construction . This report , entit led
“
Genera l Accounting Of fice— Federa l Judiciary Space
,Long Range Planning Process Needs R e
v ision” GAO/GGD—93—132 , September 1993 dea lt with just the long-range p lann ing
grocess . It showed that : The overestimation of judicia l space needs cou ld cost up to1 12 mi l lion per year , or over bi l lion for the 10-year p lanning period .
4
Charles Patton— the Associate Director for Federa l Management I ssues and otherGAO experts wi l l outline the three maj or flaws in the Court ’s long-range p lann ingprocess and review the status of GAO’
s recommendations for improved p lanning.
Other sign ifi cant cost-re lated issues were addressed in a second report , “Reportof Independent Courts Bui lding Program ,
December 1993 by a b lue ribbon pane lof expert s in judicia l design and construction . This third pane l wil l show that signifi cant effi ciencies can be achieved by adopting the recommendations contained inthe two above referenced reports .
Other sa lient issues that this hearing wil l address inc lude :o Th e AOC design guide ;0 Needs prioritization ;o Th e one judge/on e cour troom princip le , and ;0 I s sues u n ique to the cour ts that contribute to high court house constructioncosts .
I n conc lusion let me say,I know how diffi cu lt it is to cut costs associated with
the construction of bui ldings . In my own state , I worked to reduce the initia l proposed cost of a federa l courthouse from $4 6 m i l lion down to $23 m il lion— the GS A ’
s“
Time Ou t and Review” recommended additiona l cuts which we concurred with andtoday we p lan to construct a very serviceab le courthouse for approximate ly $ 19 mi llion . The issue here is not so much whether the AOC has a bona-fi de need for add it ion a l federa l cou rthouses but rather , in the process of meeting the needs of the judiciary ,
are we overbuilding?
Senator DORGAN . Let me call on Senator Cohen for an openingstatement .
OPEN IN G S TATENIEN T OF SEN ATOR COHENSenator COHEN . Thank you very much
,Mr . Chairman .
I have a statement which would very much dupl i cate your owncomments thi s morning . First
,let me say that thi s i s a seri es of
ongoing hearings that started several years ago . As the Chairmanhas pointed out
,we bel ieve that we are constructing bui ldings at
the Federal level that we did not need,that we were leasing space
that we could not afford,and that the GSA was paying exces sive
or exorb itant pri ces for office space and courthouses at a time whenthere was a glut of suitable office space on the market .
In addition to those the Chairm an has commended for thei r efforts in trying to put a halt to thi s type of excessive spending , wehave to commend Roger Johnson
,the new Admini strator of GSA ,
who in fact agreed to put a moratorium on the buildi ng and leasingof projects . He revi ewed some 200 Federal construction and leasingproj ects
,which
,as you have indicated
,Mr . Chairman , may save
the taxpayers about b ill ion, $227 mill i on of which wi ll come
out of the construction of Federal courthouses .
It i s clear from the studies that we have received that there hasbeen an overestimation of the projected needs of our judici ary andin many cases there has been a good deal of gold plating— extrava
gant accessories that are clearly unnecessary . We find ourselvespaying as much as $220 per square foot for a Federal courthouse ,when in fact the going rate for State and local facil ities i s closerto $90 per square foot .
You mentioned the Arizona case,and I am going to defer any
comments on thi s project to my colleague from Ari zona . But I bel i eve in the State of Ari zona , the Federal courthouse project arrivedat a construction per square foot of some $2 16 ,
compared to a Statefaci l i ty of comparable si ze and function of $93 , and perhaps Senator McC a in can enl i ghten us as to how that i s achieved in thegreat State of Arizona . That i s basical ly repli cated over and over .
5
It i s not just Arizona . It i s New York,it i s Massachusetts
,i t i s
wherever we have courthouse construction .
S o thi s i s a very important hearing, Mr . Chairman,and I look
forward to the wi tnesses coming forward , to see how we can takemeasures to cut down on the kind of waste that we have seen
,in
cluding that big hole that i s being fil led up down on PennsylvaniaAvenue that we have talked about for the past year or so , originally designed
,I bel ieve
,to house the International Trade Insti
tute . I am not sure what the function i s going to be n ow , but it i san extraordinary waste of taxpayers ’ money
,and thi s i s just a con
t inu a tion of ou r efforts to curb that .Thank you .
PREPAR ED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COHEN
I am p leased to be here today,with Senator Dorgan
,to examine the federa l gov
ernmen t’
s courthouse construction program which spends bil lions of taxpayers ’ dollars on the construction , renovation , and exp ansion of federa l cour thouses . Federa ldo l lars are scarce and , as a resu lt , we must ensure that they are spent wise ly . Tax
payers ’ do l lars shou ld be spent on fi ghting crime and getting crim ina ls off ourstreets
,not to pu t mahogany pane ling on cou rthouse wa l ls .
This is not a new is sue for me . Over the past year , I have been very critica l ofthe Genera l Services Administration ’s (GSA) management of our federa l buildingprogram . Last year
,the Subcommittee on Overs ight of Government Management
he ld a hearing at my request to examine the way the federa l government managesits rea l estate . The resu lts were uite disturbing. The hearin high lighted how thegovernment was constructing buildings it did not need and Teasing space it cou ldnot afford . We a lso discovered that GS A was not on ly p aying exorbitant amountsfor offi ce sp ace and courthouses , but that many of these were located in areas wherethere was a lready a glut of suitab le of fice space .
At GS A Administrator Roger Johnson ’s confi rmation hearing , I asked him to examine a l l p lanned construction managed by GSA to ensure that proj ects were in factneeded and that the construction and leases were cost-effective and in the best interest of taxpayers . Th e Administrator undertook th is review and recommended ahandfu l of p roj ects for cance l lation . Although he took signifi cant criticism for imp lemen t ing my suggestion ,
I commend Roger Johnson for h is bo ld action to rev i ewsome 200 federa l construction and leasing proj ects and am p leased that Americantaxpayers wi l l save bi l lion as a resu lt of this in itiative . Some $227 mil lion iss lated to come out of the federa l courthouse program .
Last year , I a lso introduced legis lation to reform the way the federa l governmentmanages its offi ce space . An amended version of m legi s lation was passed as artof the Reso lution Trust Corporation (RTC ) bi l l and
,
has subsequently become TawWh ile I am concerned about how the government manages its entire inventory of
federa l bui ldings,I am p articu lar ly concerned with the aggressive pro am to con
struct new federa l courthouses . I n 1991 , Congress appropriated over 5 4 6 m il lionfor 13 new court construction proj ects . This represented 4 2 percent of a l l funds appropriated for new construction pro
'
ects in 1991 . Concern over federa l courthouseconstruction is especia l ly warrante because the money spent for th is purpose isgrowing. For examp le
,the FY 1994 Treasury/Posta l appropriations bil l inc luded a l
most a bil lion do l lars for new federa l construction ,an increase of $300 mi l lion over
FY 1993 . This year,the President asked for an additiona l $ 1 bi l lion to construct 1 1
new federa l cour thouses .
In March,Senator Bob Kerrey and I
,offered a sense-of-the-Senate reso lution to
the budget reso lution,which was adopted , ca l ling for a one year moratorium on the
new construction of federa l cou rthouse space .
I am particu lar ly concerned by the growth occurring in federa l courthouse construction for a number of reasons . I am concerned that we may be bui lding proj ectswe do not need , that we are adding extravagant extras onto federa l courthouseswhich increase their cost
,and tha t GS A is paying more for bui ldings than the pri
vate sector .
We are going to hear te stimony today that federa l courthouse construction costsare too high ; the proces s of the federa l j udiciary for projecting long-range spaceneeds is flawed and ; the federa l jud iciary has overestimated its space needs overth e next ten years by over 3 mi llion square feet which
,if authorized , wi l l resu lt in
a waste of bil lion in unnee de d new federa l cou rt space .
6
Last fa l l , GAO rep orted that the p roj ections for court 8 ace needs are serious lyflawed . GAO reported that “ the Admin istrative Offi ce of tfie Courts (AOC ) processfor proj ecting lon -range space needs did not produce resu lts th at were suffi cient lyre liab le to form t e basis for Congressiona l authorization and funding app rova l ofnew construction and renovation proj ects for court space .
”
LastXyear, GS A was spend ing an average of $220 a square foot for courthouse
space . e t R S . Means , a Boston—based company wh ich est imates construction costsfor the riva te sector , states that it wou ld cost about $90 per square foot to bui lda typical
3
state or loca l courthouse . For examp le,the Phoenix federa l courthouse is
purported to cost $2 16 per square foot while the state of Arizona was ab le to bui lda new supreme court bu ild in for $93 per square foot.There are other stories 0? extravagance . Kitchenettes
,brass doorknobs
,custom
lighti ng and sp ecia l carpeting contributed signifi cant ly to the cost of the recent lycompleted courthouse at Foley Square in N ew York City . Unfortunate ly
, future examp es of extravagance wi l l undoubted ly arise as proj ects proceed in Boston
,Se
att le , St . Lou is and Sacramento . I t is no wonder pub lic confi dence in governmentcontinues to dec line when stori es such as these are so common w ith in our federa lbui ld i ng program .
Al though a number of these proj ects were the focus of GS A ’
S suspend and review,
I am skeptica l that we can e liminate the waste in the federa l overnmen t’
s construction of its courthouses and offi ce space without fundamenta ly rethinking theway we ap roach our rea l estate management po licies .
During t ese tight budgetary times,Congress must ensure that taxpayers
’ dol larsare being S pent wise ly and that our federa l rea l estate management program ismanaged in the most cost effective way possib le . As a resu lt , I look forward to hearing the testimony from today ’s witnesses on how we can bring down the costs of
federa l courthouse construction and the progress that the AOC and the GS A havemade in imp lementing some of the recommendations that were issued by the GAOand the b lue ribbon p ane l last year wh ich examined the i ssue of exce ssive courthouse construction costs .
Senator DORGAN . Senator Stevens .
Senator STEVENS . I have no statement .
Senator DORGAN . S enator McC a in .
OPEN IN G S TATENIEN T OF SEN ATOR M C CA INSenator MCCAIN . Thank you very much
,Mr . Chairman . I want
to thank you and Senator Cohen for your many years of efforts onthi s I think very important i ssue .
I would al so l ike to point ou t that thi s i s not a parti san i s sue .
Thi s i s an i ssue that has plagued both Republ i can and Democrati cadmini strations . I would also l ike to extend my congratulations toGSA Admini strator Roger Johnson
,who I bel i eve i s attacking thi s
i s sue with the vigor and with the dedication that probab ly shouldhave characteri zed previous adm ini strations .
There i s a serious problem here in the Congres s , also , Mr . Chai rman
,and that i s the unauthorized appropriations of proj ects . My
friend from Maine mentioned the situation in Ar i zona . As myfriend from Maine and North Dakota know , I opposed that proj ect ,but not on the grounds that Arizona did not need a courthouse .
They certainly do need a courthouse . They needed a courthouse ,however
,that went through the kind of authorization , scru tiny of
cost estimates and least cost to the taxpayers that should characterize every project that thi s Congress provides funding for , whether it be a courthouse or a submarine . And that proces s has beenroutinely circumvented in the Congress for years and years andyears .
I would just l ike to tell my friend from Maine that there was anorigi nal recommendation made by GSA that $8 mi ll ion should berequested to be spent
,and it ended up
,I bel i eve , that $ 198 mi ll ion
was appropri ated,without any kind of examination , without any
kind of GSA procedures which should have been followed . In fact,
it i s my understanding— and I think the Senator from N orth Dakota can confi rm thi s— there were no hearings in the appropriatecommittee for thi s and other courthouses .
I think that it would be good , i f every Am erican had a chanceto read the N ewsday article called
“
Th e H igh Cost of Justice .
” Iwish that there would be a simi lar study done on the courthousesin other S tates
,including my own . It i s a very excellent depiction
about the types of ci rcumvention of bidding laws and, of course , the
kind of featherbedding and luxury that i s added on once it leavesthe Congress
, to the tune , according to thi s article— and I have noreason to doubt i t— to the tune of tens of mi ll ions of dol lars in thi sparticular courthouse .
I do n ot mean to go on too long,I say to my friends
,but thi s arti
cle i s informative,because it also tells about a courthouse in New
ark that was bui lt which did n ot have the fri lls , which did n ot havethe cost overruns
,which di d not have the requirement for cherry
panel ing,custom l ighting
,coffered cei l ings
,operable windows ,
paneled doors wi th bronze hardware , mahogany-cheer veneers , e tcetera
,e t cetera
,wi thout showers for the judges
,which i s the kind
of project that proves can be done .
I bel i eve that the problem and the solution starts here in C ongress wi th a proper authorization request
,hearings
,scrutiny
,GSA
recommendations,biddable contracts
,e t cetera . And I think that
the effort by both my friend from North Dakota and Maine haveprobably brought us to a point where the Congress i s cognizantenough of its responsibi li ties , that maybe we can bring a lot of thi sto an end .
I want to thank the Chairman again for bringi ng thi s hearingand hi s continued efforts .
Thank you very much ,Mr . Chairman .
Senator DORGAN . Senator McC a in ,thank you very much .
Th e Senator from Arizona mentioned,and I want to ackn owl
edge , that there i s a wi de range of causes for thi s problem ,includ
ing Congress . We in North Dakota have had some Federal bui ldingproj ects
,too
,which are now on the books , both of whi ch I felt were
overpri ced and both of which I have taken action to trim becauseI think we cannot be talking about the need to slow down con struc
tion everywhere but ou r own States . We have got to be look ing atthi s in a broader way .
Abraham Lincoln pushed the construction and financing of thedome of the Capitol even during the C ivi l War
,under great eriti
cism . Some things are appropri ate to bui ld and to bui ld right forthe long term . Other things need to be bui lt in a more appropri ateway and in a most cost-effective way .
And we are talking about the general range these days of theconstruction of Federal bui ldings at a time when all the rest of theFederal Government i s tightening its belt
,and I hope thi s hearing
wil l contribute once again to understandi ng ways that we can startto s low down thi s process and bring the pri ce of Federal construetion more in l ine wi th what it should be .
I , too , want to say that I read the article that you referred to .
I thought it was well done,and I think that also contri butes to bet
ter publ i c understanding .
8
Th e first witness today i s a di stinguished senior distri ct Federaljudge , Judge Scott Wright , U . S . di stri ct court in Kansas C i ty
,Mis
souri .
Judge Wright , if you would p lease come to the witness table . Letme say that I have read your testimony . I appreciate very muchyour wi ll ingnes s to come and gi ve us your observati ons , as a di stingu i shed senior Federal judge . I expect that it i s not an easy thingto do
,to come and make obse rvations about how you think effi
cien cie s could be achieved in the court system . But thi s panel i s indebted to you for your wi ll ingness to S peak ou t .
Your entire statement wi ll be made a part of the record . Wewould encourage you to summarize , and I would ask you to begin .
TESTIMONY OF HON . SCOTT W RIGHT,1 SENIOR D ISTRICT
J U DGE , U .S . D ISTRICT COU RTJudge WRIGHT . I want to say at the outset that the judges are
my friends , at least they were prior to me coming here to testifytoday . $Laughter ]They are , by and large , a very hard-working , conscientious group
of peop le . I think there are some extravagances in ou r system andthose things I have touched on in my statement that I have gi vento the Committee .
Let me just talk a l i ttle bit about some of the things that Itouched on . Incidental ly
,Senator Glenn is not here , the Chairman
of your Committee,but he and I have something in common . We
were both Marine avi ators in World War II . Senator McC a in ,I
know you were a naval avi ator . U nti l thi s morning , I did not kn owthat your father was Admiral McC a in . You ought to let that bekn own more . That would be a good vote-getter .
Senator COHEN . It might gi ve him more credibi l i ty than he has .
$Laughter]Judge WRIGHT . I had a lot of adm iration for him .
Senator MCCAIN . Thank you very much .
Judge WRIGHT . The first thing that I touched on was some ofthese l ittle used courthouses . Some of them are not used at al l . Wehave one particularly in our di stri ct . I am from the western di strictof Missouri
,stationed in Kansas C ity
,Missouri .
The Jopl in courthouse,the clerk there retired and he has never
been replaced . There i s a l ibrary there,but it has not been kept
u p-to-date . No one uses that courthouse now , because some of the
judges tried cases over there and there was no equipment there ,you have nothing to work instructions on . I think the bankruptcyjudge uses it some
,but it i s only 5 0 mi les from Spring field , and
Springfi eld has a pretty large docket . It just does not make muchsense to keep that Open .
Incidentally,the Jop l in courthouse i s in Congres sman Hancock
’
sdi stri ct
,and he i s the b iggest budget-cutter I know
,but I have not
heard him talk about closing that courthouse .
I know that it i s very difficult for these Congressmen to advocateclosing courthouses
,because they mean a lot to the community ,
even though they are not used . That i s why I had recommended
1 The prepared statemen t of J udge W right appears on page 5 2 .
9
that they have some kind of a committee like they had for the closing of Army and N avy bases . Thi s committee would survey thoseand make recommendations and , unless the recommendation wasoverruled by the Congress , they would be closed .
One of the other things I touched on , of course , was the bui ldi ngof courthouses . In ou r district
,and I would be wi ll ing to bet that
it i s true in most or the di stri cts , the courtrooms are used less than20 percent of the time . I do n ot see any reason why judges couldn ot share courtrooms . I do not see why you need a courtroom forevery judge .
N ow , they built a new courthouse in Kansas C i ty , Kansas , andthey have just been in there for a couple of months . They bui lt thi son the shared coai rtreom idea . Th e courtrooms are on on e fl oor andthe judges ’ chambe rs on the fl oor immediately under or over . Ihave forgotten now . I vi si ted the courthouse before they moved in .
The y have chambe rs for the four judges . There are three regu larjudges there and a senior judge . But if they have any expansion
,
it i s going to add chambers , but they are going to share the courtrooms .
N ow , some of the judges complained that thi s i s too inconvenientbut in the Kans as C ity
,Kansas
,courthouse they have the judges
elevator and , of cours e , the stai rwell . They have on e judge therewho i s se verely handi capped . He had pol i o when he was very
I have not talked di rectly wi th him , but hi s wife i s on e of theU .S . attorneys in ou r distri ct
,and she said that he has been in
volved in a long case an d that it was not any problem at all forhim to use the elevator and that he could get up to hi s courtroom ,
and that he really l iked it . I talked directly to the senior judge overthere , and they all think i t i s very usable and very convenient .
Now , the reason that I am an advocate of thi s i s because whenthe judge ’s chambers are ri ght next to the courtroom
,they get a
propri etary interest , that it i s their courtroom and nobody elseshould be able to use it . By hav ing them on separate floors
, you
ge t away from that , and it cuts down on the bui lding costs , becausewhen you ha ve the chambers right next to the courtrooms , thecourtrooms have the higher cei l ings
,so the area above the cham
be rs i s lost space .
In the courthouse in Kansas C ity,Kansas
,the four judges are on
on e fl oor , of course , and they have a central l ibrary . We are goingto have in ou r new courthouse whenever it i s built
,each judge i s
go ing to have hi s own l ibrary . I think you can have a better l ibraryby havi ng a central l ibrary and save on expense .
In our courthouse,they have 13 district courtrooms proposed . I
do not know how they came up wi th that figure , but if we have 13courtrooms , we are going to be able to rent out courtrooms . Therei s no way in the foreseeable future we would ever need 13 courtrooms , and let me tel l you why .
I guess when they proje cted thi s thing , they projected that all ofthe cases are in Kansas C ity . Well
,only half of our civi l caseload
i s in Kansas C ity . The other half i s in Springfield,Jefferson C ity
and St . Joe . When I say Springfield,that includes Jopl in . Our
pending caseload now i s cases and or half of that,i s
in Ka nsas C i ty .
10
N ow, in Springfi eld they have a new courthouse . They have three
courtrooms there . There i s a senior judge there n ow . We only havefour active judges now , but when the two other judges come on ,
Iam taking part of that docket down there to gi ve the senior judgesome rel ief. But when the new judges come on , on e of the judgesi s going to have to help wi th that docket down there
,because that
i s a docket of 3 70 civi l cases,and they have a heavy criminal dock
e t down there .
In Jefferson C i ty,it i s a docket of 5 69 . We have two courtrooms
there,there are four judges using two courtrooms
,a magi strate
judge , a bankruptcy judge and two distri ct judges , and we do n ot
have any problem at all . We schedule in advance and we do n ot
have any problem at all of sharing those two courtrooms .
In the last year or year and a half,they started fil ing criminal
cases down there , so we are also going to have a criminal docket .Some day , there is going to have to be an addition onto that courthouse down there
,because the two fastest growing dockets in ou r
district i s Spring field,which has Branson— and I am sure some of
you have heard of Branson . That has become the country-westerncenter
,and I love country-western music
,so that suits me to have
it in ou r di strict or in ou r State .
But the docket has been increasing there and it has been in crea sing in Jefferson C i ty . But it has gone down in Kansas C i ty , becauseKansas C ity has got the same problems that a lot of cities are having now . People are moving out
,and a lot of the people are moving
ou t acros s the l ine to Johnson County,Kansas
,and so the docket
in Kansas C ity has really gone down .
I could not bel i eve thi s when I got the figures : Since the first ofthe year
,there have been two criminal cases tried in the western
di stri ct of Missouri,one of them in Spring field and on e in Kansas
C ity . In all fairness,the day I left
,yesterday
,one of the judges was
going ou t wi th another criminal case . But that i s three criminalcases . In civi l cases
,there has been 1 1 s ince the first of the year ,
that i s in 4 months, 1 1 civi l cases in Kansas C ity ,
2 in Spring fieldand 5 in Jefferson C ity .
I point that out just to show you that courtrooms can be sharedfor tri al , there i s just no question about it .
One other point I wanted to make : The courthouse in KansasC ity
,Kansas
,cost about $ 123 a square foot . Th e courthouse that
they propose to bui ld in St . Loui s i s going to be over $200 , and ourcourthouse
,I have heard the figure all the way from $ 160 to $ 190 .
Here i s the courthouse in Kansas C ity that was bui lt just acrossthe river from us at considerable less expense
,and I have got to
bel ieve that some of that cost saving was because they put thecourtrooms on one fl oor and the chambers on another floor .
Senator DORGAN . Judge,would you proceed to the point that you
made in your testimony about the C i rcuit Court of Appeals judges?
Judge WRIGHT . I was just getting ready to start on that .Now
,the C ircuit Court of Appeals judges in our circuit have
three chambers . They have chambers in St . Paul , they have chambers in St . Louis
,and then they have chambers where thei r home
Is .
The new courthouse in St . Louis , which incidentally was created ,l ike Senator McC a in was talking about , it did not go through the
12
And I do not think i t i s fai r for the rest of us to be bui lding courthouses far in excess of what we need and deprive them of a courthouse . I think we ought to be looking toward i s everybody havingwhat they need .
That concludes my remarks .
Senator DORGAN . Judge , thank you very much for your testimony . We appreciate your coming and being wi ll ing to share wi thus your thoughts .
To focus on a coup le of points , you feel strongly that the oneju dge/on e courtroom approach to design specifications for thesebui ldings i s what i s contributing to excess costs . Do you think theon e ju dge/on e courtroom rule i s just total ly unnecessary?Judge WRIGHT . I definitely do . These courtrooms are not used
that high a percentage of time,and there i s not any reason why
we could not do just l ike we do down in Jefferson C i ty . Before weset a docket down there , the judges call the clerk and say i s therespace Open on so-and-so days or so-and-so week ,
and if it i s,we set
a docket for that week or that 2 weeks,and if it i sn’t
,then we ar
range our schedule otherwi se .
Senator DORGAN . Are there other judges who share your feel ingsabout thi s , do you think?
Judge WRIGHT . Wel l , about sharing courtrooms ?
Senator DORGAN . About your feel ings generally about excessivecosts .
Judge WRIGHT . I wi ll tell you,almost 100 percent of the di stri ct
judges feel l ike that the ci rcuit judges waste a lot of money . I thinkthat the circuit judges think that the idea of sharing courtrooms forthe di stri ct judges i s probably a good idea . I think , overall , we aresuch a victim of ou r past and it has been kind of traditional thateach judge has a courtroom
,and so that i s the way they look at
it .
I tell the other judges,I say
,look
,i f we are ever going to solve
the deficit , everybody i s going to have to take a l i ttle bi t or givea l ittle bit on the thing
,and who would think the judiciary i s above
that . I think they ought to just take their hits l ike everybody else .
Senator DORGAN . Have you shared your recommendations withthe judici al conference?
Judge WRIGHT . Yes,I did . I wrote the executive committee of the
judicial conference,and I sent a copy of it
,because they invi te us
to write,of how money could be saved . And I wrote them and told
them the same things I have told you all today . I di d not hear fromanybody
,except R ichard Arnold
,who i s our circuit judge , and he
i s as fine a man as I know , but he disagreed with me . He did notbel i eve we ought to close down any courthouses , and he did n ot be
l ieve that there ought to be anything done wi th the circuit judges .
Now,he did not mention anything about sharing courtrooms , so
I do not kn ow whether he was opposed or against that .Senator DORGAN . Senator McC ain wi ll inquire .
Senator MCCAIN . Thank you ,Mr . Chairman .
Judge I want to thank you for being he re wi th us today . I appre
ciate very much your unique insight into thi s S ituation .
Th e GAO has alleged that courthouse construction and des ign i ssubje ctive
,n ot objective . Do you agree wi th that , judge?
13
Judge WRIGHT . Absolutely . In al l due respect to the Adm ini strative Office
,they do just what I would do if I was l ivi ng over there
an d working over there . I would do what the judges wan ted , because if they do not , they are ou t of a job . I know that when theyprojected 13 courtrooms , they took that figure of all the civi l casespending and then projected that over a period of time , and onlyhalf of those cases were in Kansas C ity .
Senator MCCAIN . Can you cite me any more examples of thi ssubjectivity?
Judge WRIGHT . Well , in the construction of ou r courthouse , Itri ed to convince the other judges that I thought it would be a goodidea to have the courtrooms on on e floor and the chambers on aseparate floor
,and I was ou t-voted . I do not have a vote as a senior
judge,so I was out-voted unanimously .
Senator MCCAIN . Judge , in your opinion , i s it necessary for theproper admini stration of justice for Federal courthouses to beequipped wi th private bathrooms and showers in each judge
’schambers ?
Judge WRIGHT . N o,that i s really ridiculous . I think if the publ i c
ever knew about that,I think they would be outraged . I think i f
the publ i c knew about a lot of these excesses of the judiciary— youknow
,judges
,whether they deserve it or not , they have a lot of re
spect in the community and they would never think that a judgewould do anything but what was fair . And if the general publ i cknew about some of the waste that has gone on in the judici ary
,
they would be very upset about it , because we are held in hi gh es
teem .
I have got to tell you thi s : My wi fe i s in a fund-rai ser and sheappeared on a radio show yesterday morning
,and the guy that i s
interviewing her said,
“ I understand you are married to a Federaljudge .
” She said,
“
That’s right .
” He said ,“How i s it l iving wi th a
Federal judge? ” She said,
“ It’s terrible .
” He said,
“How do you copewi th it?
”She said ,
“ I ’ve got a big whip,and when he gets to feel ing
too big , I use it on him .
”
$Laughter ]Senator MCCAIN . I think my wife might have gi ven the same ah
swer .
Judge just explain to me—and you may not be able to— we havea case that I have cited earl ier in my opening remarks of a courthouse that , according to media reports and other reports , not justmedia reports , that there are already cost overruns of
“ tens of mi ll ions of dol lars additional
,
” in thi s case $24 1 mi ll ion ,wi ll exceed
$300 mi l l ion when the construction i s completed . Yet , across theriver , i f my knowledge of geography serves me correctly , there i sanother courthouse in Newark
,New Jersey
,that i s much less ex
pensive , square foot Newark courthouse that costs $60 mi ll ion . One official estimated that the Foley Square one cost morethan $300 mi ll ion . How does that happen? How do you get in thesame geographic area one courthouse costs $60 mi ll ion and anotherone $300 mi ll i on?
Judge WRIGHT . Well , getting closer to home , because I am morefami l i ar with it , they bui lt the Kansas C ity ,
Kansas,courthouse
right across the river from us at least $30 a square foot , and it maybe more than that by the time we finish
,cheaper than we are going
79-34 7 0 — 94 — 2
1 4
to bui ld ou r courthouse,and it i s in the same labor area and the
same contractor .
Senator MCCAIN . How do you explain it?Judge WRIGHT . I wi ll exp lain part of i t by having the courtrooms
on on e floor and the chambers on another floor . But in some of
these courthouses,I think there are just a lot of extras that they
are putting in .
You mentioned about the S hower . In ou r courthouse we are presently in
,two of the chambers have showers in them . These were
bui lt back in 1932 . I did not even know they took showers then .
We l ived in the country and we did not have indoor plumbing . I
asked those judges , I said do you ever use those showers , and theysaid , heavens , no. Those showers have never been used , as far as
I now .
Senator MCCAIN . Judge,one of my theories i s— and following
witnesses I think can probably inform us better— i s that i f you giveany bureaucracy
,judges or immigration agents or anybody , i f you
say here i s $ 15 0 mi ll i on or $200 or $300 mi ll ion or whatever it i sand build a courthouse
,they are not going to gi ve any money back
to the taxpayers .
Judge WRIGHT . That i s exactly right .Senator MCCAIN . If you go through a process where you say , OK,
we want to bui ld a courthouse,we need a courthouse and let’s go
through cost estimates , let’s go through competitive bidding , let
’sgo through the proper procedures , very frank ly , that have been setup by Congress , then it seems to me that that i s a maj or factornot the only one factor
,but on e of the major factors— in why on e
courthouse costs $60 mi l l i on and one costing $300 mi ll ion , i s follow
En
gcorrect procedures so that we charge the taxpayers the least
0 lars .
Judge WRIGHT . I think that i s true and I think thi s St . Louiscourthouse
,i t started out at $290 mill ion . Now they have cut that
down , but that IS because it did not go through the regu lar process .
It was appropriated out of budget . I think that has a lot to do withIt
Actu ally , judges get i solated and kind of out of the loop , to behonest about it . You know ,
everybody calls you Your Honor,Your
Honor , Your Honor , you know ,and nobody— oh , they do under
their breath , but nobody comes out and tells you what they real lythink about you— so they get to thinking thatSenator MCCAIN . Those are commonal iti es between ou r profes
s ions,I think .
Judge WRIGHT . They get to thinking about whatever they do,i t
i s OK, it i s OK,we deserve it
,i t i s OK.
Senator MCCAIN . Thank you,judge . Thank you for your very cou
rageous testimony . We appreciate it very muchThank you , Mr . Chai rman .
Senator DORGAN . Judge,let me just ask one additional question
about security . I recognize that , in your profession , as i s the caseperhaps in many publ i c professions
,that there are security ri sks
from time to time . I noted last year that in design specifications incertain build ings
,they were talking about the need for bulletproof
desks , in essence , for all Federal judges , and so on , certain bulletproof or ball i sti c materi al being used in certain places .
15
Can you gi ve me some notion about security concerns in the judicia ry
? Let me phrase it a different way . Are there suffi cient securi ty concerns that would lead on e to say , wel l , as we construct abui lding
,let’s make sure that we have desks that are essentially
bulletproof for al lJudge WRIGHT . N o,
n o. I li ke to tell my other judges that if something happened to me , there are people , lawyers ou t
there that would l ike to have my job . Serious ly , we have electronicmonitoring of people coming into the courthouse and , although I donot l ike it
,I guess i t i s necessary , because it i s amazing what they
take off of some of those people , knives and guns and whatever .
No,I do not think they need bulletproof vests or bulletproof
desks . One of ou r judges wanted to have car telephones for security
,but we voted that down and I was glad we did , because it i s
not necessary .
Senator DORGAN . Judge , thank you very much for being wi ll ingto come to thi s Committee today and share with us your thoughts .
We appreciate it very much .
Judge WRIGHT . Thank you .
Senator DORGAN . Next we wi ll hear from the General AccountingOffice
,Charles Patton , Associate Director for Federal Management
I ssues ; Frances C lark ,Assi stant Director of Federal Management
I ssues ; K. Scott Derrick,evaluator-in -charge ; and Bonnie Stel ler ,
senior stati sti ci an .
Mr . Patton and Ms . Clark,thank you very much for being
present wi th us . Your entire statement wi ll be made a part of thepermanent record , and we would encourage you to summarize .
TESTIMONY OF CHAR LES I. PATTON ,1 ASSOCIA TE D IR ECTOR ,
FEDER AL MAN AGEMEN T ISSU ES, GEN ER AL GOVER N NIENT
D IVISION , U .S . GEN ERAL ACCOU N TIN G OFFICE , AGOOM
PAN IED BY FR AN CES P . CLAR K , A SSISTAN T DIRECTOR, FED
ER AL MAN AGEMEN T ISSU ES ; K . SCOTT DERR ICK , EVALU A
TOR -IN -CHAR GE ; AND BONN IE J . STELLER , SEN IOR STATIS TIC IAN
Mr . PATTON . Mr . Chairman and Senator McC ain ,it i s a pleasure
to be here , and we welcome thi s opportunity to di scuss the statusof the judici ary’s response to GAO’
s recommendations for improvingtheir long-range space planning process .
With me today , I have Fran Clark , who is the primary person re
sponsible for this work . It has been a long and diffi cult work . AlsoK. Scott Derri ck , the evaluator-in -charge
,and Ms . Bonni e Steller ,
our chief stati stici an ,who have put a lot into thi s effort
,also .
I would l ike to first mention that the judi ciary was one of thefirst Federal Government organizations to develop a planning process for anticipating long-range space needs . The results of the planning process are used , as you know , by GSA to develop requests toCongress for new construction and expansion of court space in existing facil ities .
The basic assumption of the plann ing process i s their caseloadshould determine staff needs , which in effect should define the
1 The prepared statement ofMr. Patton appears on page 5 5 .
16
space needs . Whi le thi s sounds rather basi c,thi s i s a very complex
proces s .
Last September , we issued a report entitled Federal JudiciarySpace : Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revi sion .
” In that report , we identified three key problems that impai red the accuracyof the judici ary’s proj ections of space needs : ( 1 ) all judici al districtswere not treated consi stently ; (2 ) exi sting space plus unmet needsfor authorized staff was accepted as a basel ine
,without questioning
whether it was appropri ate , gi ven a di strict’s current caseload ; and ,
(3 ) proj ection methods were not stati sti cally acceptable and in
volved subj ectivity . We made six recommendations to correct thesekey problems .
In March and Apri l of thi s year,we reviewed the judici ary’s ac
ti ons to implement ou r recommendations . I am pleased to reportthat
,overal l , we found the judiciary has made progress in improv
ing thi s long-range planning process . The judiciary has imp lemen ted two of ou r recommendations
,one relating to the consi st
ency of the process , and the other relating to the time span coveredby the projections .
The judiciary has parti ally responded to other recommendationsdeal ing with the proj ection methods and the level of subjectivi ty .
Further , the judici ary has not implemented the two remaining recommen da tion s deal ing with improvi ng the method of grouping di stricts and establ i shing appropriate basel ines . However
,the judiei
ary has told us that they are evaluating options to address theseremaining recommendations .
I would now l ike to briefly explain the judiciary ’s actions on ourreport recommendations to the director of the Admini strative Offi ceof U . S . Courts , hereafter referred to as the AOC ,
which,as you
kno
l
v
g, i s the of fice responsible for managi ng the planning process
itse
Regarding the two implemented recommendations,first
,we rec
ommended that,through the consi stency and the long-range plan
ning process , AOC should prepare updated space plans for all district s whenever changes are made to the assumptions that affectspace and staff allocations . AOG i s now updating the long-rangeplans and intends to update all plans wi thin about 2 years of ourorigi nal completion date . The first round of updates wi ll be comple ted in Apri l 1996 , if the AOC fo llows its p lanned schedule .
In additi on,we recommended that to improve the rel iabil i ty of
the long-range planning process,AOC should l imit the time S pan
covered by the space proj ections to 10 years . Since ou r report,AOC
has changed the information gi ven to GAO for planning development . AOC n ow provides GSA with detai led 10-year space requirements for prospectus development and an overall summary of theneeds at the 30-year point for purposes of site plan .
Regarding the partially implemented recommendations , first werecommended that
,to improve the stati sti cal rel i abi l ity of future
space needs , AOC should identify and use a standard stati sticaltechnique that would generate more accurate caseload projections .
AOC officials no longer average the results generated from theregres sion equations used to derive caseload estimates . Al so , AOGoffi cials have adopted the stati sti cal method we used to make theestimates that appeared in our report . While we are encouraged by
17
thi s action,we have suggested alternative methods that could yield
results with narrower confidence levels . AOC officials said theyplan to test these alternative projection methods .
We also recommended that,to fu rther improve the rel i abi l ity of
the estimates of future space needs , AOG should reduce the subj eet ivi ty of the process , whi le el iminating use of arbitrary selected re
gre s s ion models and by veri fying the information provided by thelocal representatives .
AOG offi cial s have improved the rel i abil ity involved in projectingcaseloads by el iminating the subjectivity in choosing regressionmodels . However
,subjectivi ty sti ll occurs when local representa
t ive s change the estimates of staff requirements that were genera ted from caseload projections .
As for the two recommendations that have not been addressed ,fi rst
,we recommended to improve consi stency in the planning proc
ess,and AOG should devi se a method for classifying distri cts that
considers case complexi ty in addition to caseload .
AOG offi cials have not changed the method by which they class ify each of the 94 distri ct s into 1 of 4 groups . We discussed withAOC a stati stical method kn own as cluster analysi s , which couldbe used to develop groups of districts . AOC officials said that theyare evaluating several alternatives
,including thi s .
Finally,we recommended that to determine whether exi sting
space plus unm et needs was the appropriate basel ine,in l ight of
current caseload , AOC should revi se the process to require thatbasel ines be establi shed that reflected AOC ’
S assumptions regarding the relationships between caseloads , staff needs and staff requ iremen ts .
AOC has n ot yet addressed thi s recommendation,also . However
,
it has developed and implemented an automated system calledAN YC OU RT , which i s used to determine future space needs byconverting estimated staff needs to space needs . Whi le we did not
evaluate space allocations in ANYCOU RT ,in principle
,such a sys
tem could be designed to el iminate the subjectivity involved whenAOC identifies current space needs .
In summary , the judiciary has made progress in improving itslong-range planning process . Judiciary offi cials indicated that theyp lan to take the necessary actions to address our remaining con
cerns , and we have offered to assi st them in any way possible . Th e
changes already implemented,combined wi th ou r other rec
ommended actions , should correct the problems discussed in our report . We bel ieve , however , that the combined effects of the changescannot be assessed unti l they have been implemented for at least6 months .
This concludes my prepared statement . My colleagues and Iwould be glad to answer any questions that you might have .
Senator DORGAN . Mr . Patton,thank you very much .
That discussion of the models for needs assessments almost putsone to s leep
,doesn’t it?
Mr . PATTON . Yes,si r .
Senator DORGAN . In more earthy terms,what you di d was evalu
ate the needs of the court system,and you determined that they
had goofed by over $ 1 bi ll ion in evaluating what they might needin the next decade . Is that correct?
1 8
Mr . PATTON . Yes,si r , there were problems in the process .
Senator DORGAN . With respect to the models and so on that youare di scussing— I am looking at the stati stician behind us who i ssmi l ing . All of us have taken the required stati stics courses and re
member them,not always fondly . The models seem to me to be
very complex . Thi s i s probably not an easy thi ng to do , to estimatespace requirement and needs .
Yet,all of us also understand that it i s very easy to create a de
fined need . Once you set out to do that , you decide here i s whatwe would l ike in the end stage
,so let’s find methods by which we
get there , let’s bui ld up and justify that need .
Did you hear the testimony by the judge just before you?
Mr . PATTON . Yes,sir .
Senator DORGAN . He was talking about the proposed courthousein Kansas C ity
,and he said I am just convinced that they are
bui lding to meet a caseload in Kansas C i ty that , in point of fact ,i s spread around in several other courthouses . I s that l ikely to bethe case wi th thi s type ofmodel that the AOC uses ?
Mr . PATTON . Yes , s ir , that could occur . As I mentioned in the beginning , the key to thi s i s the caseload , which i s the basi s on whicheverything begins to bui ld
,and that , of course , has to be as accu
rate as possible . Both in our earl ier work and in thi s work,we have
suggested additional stati stical techni ques to make that more accurate .
Senator DORGAN . But if that could occur even under the des ignsthat you are now di scussing
,then you have dupl i cation of S pace re
qu iremen ts . Just to use that— and I do not kn ow the detai ls here,
but let me use the case he di scussed and describe it as a hypotheti cal . If you have a di strict , you have a proposed new courthousein Kansas C i ty , and , in fact , the cases are di stributed in severalother locations in the d i stri ct
,but you are bui lding the courthouse
in Kansas C ity to meet a caseload as if all of the cases were to bedealt with in that bui lding
,then you are overbui lding .
Would we catch that under the new design that you are recommending to the AOC ?
Ms . CLARK. I think so . The old system that they were us ing thatwas the basi s for our report looked at it primari ly from di stri ctlevel , so you should have captured the di stri ct
’s caseload and thenspread it to the individual courthouses . But there could be someproblem in that . Wi th their new system or any court , they are looking at it and can project needs more preci sely at the building , sothat should go to reduce that kind of possibi l i ty .
Mr . PATTON . That model wi ll hopefully wi ll use more preci sework measurement information
,and we had hoped that would be
a more accurate reflection of what their needs are . You need tobump that against any subj ectivi ty that may come from the localadjustments
,and then see if it i s reasonable and have at least a
better basi s to make a deci sion .
Ms . CLAR K. An d i t would consider need both from the di strictlevel and the individual court facil i ty level .Senator DORGAN . I think Ms . Clark used the term , I think so ,
andcIVIr. Patton used the word
,
“hopefully .
” I am trying to understan
20
proper procedures to assess needs,scope and timing for the project
has not been completed . Have you run across that in the course of
your investigation?
Mr . PATTON . N o , s ir , we did n ot look at individual projects perse . It i s a long-range planning process .
Senator DORGAN . If I might , Senator McC a in , I probab ly shareyour desire
,and probably Senator Cohen has the same desire . I
was sitting here wishing that the GAO had had a broader contextfor their study
,and we may want to have them look at a later time
the question of are these things overbui lt , are the design specs appropri ate . But they were talking about the space needs assessment .
I think the testimony by Jul i a S ta sch wi l l be testimony followingthi s panel during which many of these questions probably can beposed
,as well . I just wanted to make the point that I wish the
GAO study had been broader,but thi s i s really a needs assessment
evaluation that you did .
Mr . PATTON . Yes , si r .
Senator MCCAIN . Thank you ,Mr . Chairman . Perhaps together
we can decide whether addi tional GAO studies are required .
Thank you very much .
Senator DORGAN . Senator Cohen .
Senator COHEN . Mr . Chairman ,I wi l l pass up the opportunity to
ask question here,particularly in view of the fact that I mi ssed the
oral presentation,but also because the study itself was so narrow .
I was intrigued with the judge’s comments about the need to
take into account design,because design , according to hi s testi
mony , determines proprietary interest . I was intrigu ed by the noti on that he would have judges located on di fferent floors , for example , than the courtroom itself, and that would sever that proprie tary interest in the courtroom .
I also was intri gued by the notion that , perhaps i f you have fourjudges , you may want to have a completely different design of theinterior of a courthouse
,so that the offices would in fact be either
circular or have direct access to the same courtroom,thereby once
again severing any notion of a special proprietary interest . Ofcourse , that i s well beyond the scope of GAO
’
s examination .
Perhaps I could ask,just to follow up on what Senator McC ain
was touching upon,a question on the compari son of courthouses
with other Federal projects . I recall the sense of outrage about theHart Building when it was constructed . At the time i t was probablythe most expensive building in Washingt on . I cannot recall theexact figures now ,
but I think i t started out to be a $70 or $8 0 mi ll ion proj ect , and it finished up being about a $ 1 5 0 mi ll ion proj ect .
Most Members were reluctant to even move into it . As a matterof fact
,those of us who were sitting in thi s bui lding , the Dirksen
Buildi ng , as younger Members in those days , were evi cted from ouroffi ces by the senior Members who were afraid to move into theHart Building
,for fear of publ i c repercussions . A vote was taken
to force only the junior Members out of the Dirksen Bui lding andinto the Hart Bui lding to take up that palatial offi ce space .
Now many Members,of course
,have decided that , even though
we object to that horrendous Calder sculpture being in the centerof the Hart Bui lding— that the publ i c also has an expectation thatbui ldings that they wi ll come to vi s it over the years should be built
2 1
of good qual ity . When you take a look around thi s room ,for exam
ple,we have very hi gh qual ity . I am n ot sure it could be repl i cated
today,but would you call i t extravagant , to look at the lamps or
the qual ity of the wood that i s used to portray the sense of perman en ce that thi s particular room has?
That i s something that we have to take into account , when welook at Federal courthouses
,as well , because the courts , as com
pared to the Congress , I would say , i s held with a higher degreeof reverence , I suspect , than those of us here . There i s somethingspecial about walking into a courtroom where people are settl ingcivi l disputes or , indeed , resolving criminal prosecutions . It must beheld in a room that i s n ot so austere that it dimini shes the senseof respect for the proceedings .
By the same token,we cannot be so extravagant that we gold
plate everything and add unnecessary frills which are terribly expensive . I am not sure who was setting up the gu idel ines . I am n ot
sure what i s gold-plating and what i s something that real ly is donein good taste
,which wi l l have a sense of semi -permanence , wi ll last
for a long time , and when the publ i c enters these institutions willsay thi s i s a dol lar wel l spent .
N ow ,who i s in charge of setting those kinds of standards on a
National basi s?
Ms . CLARK. We did n ot look at that particularly . Th e designguide itself for the courts was done by the courts through theBui lding Science Institute or an institute with a simi lar name . Iam n ot sure I got i t exactly right . It was revi ewed by GSA . GSAhas some regulatory authority over office space
,and the combina
tion of the two organizations real ly look at the appropriateness ofthe design guide .
Senator COHEN . Senator Mccain pointed ou t in hi s openingstatement , however , we have example after examp le of courthousesbeing bui lt without any specific guidel ines
,without even au thoriza
tions,and the money i s spent two-fold or ten-fold
,wi thout any re
strictions . How i s that poss ible?Ms . CLARK. I thi nk there are really two questions . One , i s the de
sign gu ide appropriate , and then , two,i f it i s appropri ate , are they
being appl ied properly . I think both of those questions need to beexamined to get to the answer to the question . I think the panelthat GSA convened on court space was probably a good start inthat di rection
,looking at the appl i cation of the design gu ide , where
things could be reduced or money be saved , and that may be a goodstart ing point to explore that question further .
Senator COHEN . I think it i s on e thing to say that the courtshave their own institution to recommend the design and construotion of a courthouse or what judges feel really are necessary , butit has to have oversight and that i s GSA . I do not know what kindof gu idel ines you have in deciding whether something i s needed or
something i s excessive . I just do not think there i s anything inplace
,any guidel ines in place that allow you to make that deter
mination .
Second , the whole question of design itself, i t seems to me , hasto be reviewed . Otherwi se
,we wi ll never deal with the i ssue of the
design , that i s subj ect to the individual tastes of the judges who
22
make recommendations , whi ch are then approved . We never cometo gr i ps with the problem of controll ing the costs .
So it seems to me that there i s very l i ttle in the way of oversightand stri ct accounting and accountabil ity wi th the current system .
Am I wrong on that?
Ms . CLARK . Well,there i s a prospectus process by whi ch they get
evaluated and revi ewed and approved , and probably a more thorough exam with the prospectus i s to determine whether theseneeds are being sati sfied in an appropriate manner would be warranted . In that respect , because the courts and GSA share that responsibi l ity , there i s some diffu sed accountab il ity .
Senator MCCAIN . Ms . Clark,i sn’t that procedure short-ci rcuited ,
i f Congress specifically says we are going to spend x mill ions of dollars on thi s proj ect?Ms . CLARK . Yes .
Senator MCCAIN . Thank you . I appreciate your indulgence .
Mr . PATTON . On that point , the courts were directly justi fyingthe projects , there was more oversight , as was di scussed earl i er ,and there was a look at the design gu ide . The independent courtsbui lding program panel report itself, even in that report , there area seri es of good recommendations .
We have not evaluated it in -depth,but they suggest that we con
tin u e to take a look on an ongoing basi s , using value engi neeringprinciples
,at the design gu i de itself, which get to a lot of our ini ti al
points , both take into consideration what you really do need , gi venthe respect that i s due to the courts
,but also looking at that
against what the real ity of costs are today and the budget cri s i sthat we are in
,and make the closer deci sions
,and also looking at
the appl i cation of that design guide .
There i s most certainly work that could be done there , and quiteposs ibly the Congress could be better informed
,as these proposals
come forward,as to how well those particular design guide cri teri a
have been appl i ed , and we may be able to get at some of the excesses that were referred to here today
,if you had that informa
tion . But as far as we know,at thi s point that i s not done .
Senator COHEN . I think Senator McC a in has put hi s finger on it :Congress has not been exactly fulfill ing its oversight respon sibi lities , either . It ei ther i s not receiving adequate information or, i fit i s receiving adequate information
,it i s not paying much atten
tion to it . Because we have,as you have pointed out , an overe sti
mate of how much court space i s going to be needed over the nextdecade or so
,the level of spending on a Federal construction
pr
qject , compared to a State construction proj ect , i s quite su b stan
ti aIn any event
,I wi ll pursue it later with you
,and hopefully we
wi ll make a request of a much broader inquiry on the part of GAOin terms of des ign matters , as well .Thank you
,Mr . Chairman .
Senator DORGAN . Mr . Patton,let me ask you again , so that we
understand where we are : You completed a report last year inwhich you indicated the current methodology overestimates by over$ 1 bi l li on the needs for the courts , and you have made some recommen ded changes .
23
Has the Administrative Offi ce of the Courts made some progressin thi s area? Are you tel l ing us today that the AOC i s doing thingsat thi s point that gi ve you some confi dence they are movi ng in theright di rection and making some changes? Can you characterizethat?
Mr . PATTON . Yes,si r , I would characteri ze their actions as very
positive . They have been very cooperative , and I think they aremov ing in the right di rection . As I said , when you look at the sixmajor recommendations we made
,they have imp lemented two
fully,partially the other two . They are considering the other alter
natives that we have suggested to them , and I think they are making a genuine attempt to change the process along the l ines ofwhatwe suggested
,which
,as I mentioned earl i er , i f in fact they do make
these changes,most certainly it i s worth the effort to have a man
agemen t tool as they have developed here .
Again,i t i s a complex undertaking
,and I think there are prob
ably other institutions that could use thi s process in determiningspace needs
,once it i s perfected . There are benefits to be derived
from it,and I would say we have gotten good cooperation and wi ll
continue to work wi th them and continue to follow up and reportto you on that progress .
Senator DORGAN . I have been fairly criti cal of s ome of the construction projects and remain very cri tical , but thi s i s another instance in which times have changed . There was a time when therewas sort of a wi sh l i st
,and Congress would fund it , and the con
tractors would build i t to the design ,and nobody paid much atten
tion , because we did not have the kind of budgetary problems wehave today .
Things have changed . We have reached a fork in the fiscal road,
and we have gone the other way . It i s easy in hindsight be critical .These bui ldi ng projects take a long whi le in gestation
,and so we
are now examining deci sions that were made some years ago .
The main point that I want to understand from you i s whether ,from the information that has been developed by you ,
whether weare now making some progress and whether the AOC seems to bemoving in the right di rection and on the right road . I guess you saythat you have some confidence that i s the case .
Mr . PATTON . Yes,S ir.
Senator DORGAN . Let me just comment on a point that SenatorCohen and Senator McC a in made . Senator Cohen makes an aw
fully good point that no one is suggesting that the judi ciary meetin a double-wi de trailer some place . He also makes the point— Iguess he did n ot say it quite thi s way— that under the current circum stan ce s
, C i ti zens Against Government Waste or some otherself-appointed group would probably launch a major effort to prevent the bui lding of the Capitol
,i f we had to build it now . I doubt
whether we could bui ld the kind of U .S . Capitol we now have underthe current pol iti cal circumstan ces
,because such groups would look
at thi s piece of marble or that piece of art and consider it wi ldlyextravagant .
I think there i s a permanence to some important institutions,
and their bui ldings must be constru cted to denote that importanceand that permanence .
24
However , we al l of us are saying the same thing . We want publ i cspending to be done in a manner that gi ves taxpayers confidencethat we are making a wi se investment
,and not wasting their
money .
The contribution you have made on evaluating space needs andspace requirements and assi sting the AOC in movi ng in the rightdirection I think i s a positive contribution , and we thank you verymuch for i t .Mr . PATTON . Thank you .
Senator DORGAN . We thank you very much for being here today .
Senator DORGAN . Next we wi ll hear from panel III,composed of
Jul i a S ta sch , Deputy Admini strator of the GSA; Gerald Thacker ,Assi stan t Director for Faci l i ties , Security and Admini strative Services , Admini strative Offi ce of the Courts ; and two folks from theprivate sector involved in construction , Thomas Pinkerton , AIA ,
Group Vi ce President for Justice Faci l iti es,Hellmuth
,Obata
Kassebaum ; and Mr . Norman Delbridge,Vi ce President
,Thomp
kins Construction Company .
First we wi ll call on Jul i a S ta sch . Let me echo the comments Imade earl ier . I just must say
,and I think some of my colleagues
agree,that we have seen kind of a breath of fresh air at the GSA
wi th Mr . Johnson and yourself. I really l ike the aggressivenesswi th which you are tryi ng to achieve some effi ciencies , and I think
you have a good program that we wi ll have confidence in .
So we welcome you,Ms . S ta sch
,and we look forward to your tes
timony .
TESTIMONY OF J U LIA M . S TAS C H ,l DEPU TY ADM IN ISTR ATOR,
GEN ERAL SERVICES ADM IN ISTR ATIONMs . S TA S C H . Thank you very much
,and good morning
,Mr .
Chairman and members of the Committee .
It i s a pleasure to appear before you thi s morning . Before I begi n ,
I do want to thank you especially , and Senator Cohen and SenatorMcC ain for your leadership and support of the initiatives that wehave undertaken to review the needs and costs of our publ i c building projects .
I do have a formal statement which I would l ike to submit forthe record , but I have a short presentation with some exhib its thatI would l ike to share wi th you .
When Admini strator Roger Johnson and I came to the GSA lastyear , we were concerned that there was l ittle credibi l i ty in the ef
fective management of our building program ,and even less con
fi den ce in our abi l i ty to control the costs of the program .
We heard the call from Congress , from the private sector real e state market , and from the publ i c to examine closely the way inwhich these programs were being managed . Th e first result wasou r time-ou t and review of close to 200 new construction , modern ization and lease proj ects .
First , we went back to ou r cl ient agencies to reconfirm theirspace requirements . We asked them to take a fresh look at theirneeds , especi ally in l ight of the proposed Government-widedownsizing and ou r own portfol i o-wide pol icy of no net new square
1 The prepared statement ofMs . S tasch appears on page 5 7 .
2 5
footage . This resulted in reduced housing requirements of oversquare feet in the projects that we looked at alone .
With regard to requirements for the U . S . courts , the current poli cy i s to bui ld for the 10-year needs , as identified in the courts
’
long-range plans . In planning for their 30-year requirements , wewi ll adopt a strategy to accommodate thi s . We wi ll either preparea site or bui ld into the structure a way to accommodate expansion ,
i f necessary . We bel i eve that thi s 10-year pol i cy i s a very importantstep to l imiting our exposure to the possibil ity of overbui lding newcourt facil ities .
In our time-out review,we went a step further . In support of the
10-year analysi s,we developed a matrix approach to match the
judges ’ names with courtrooms . Thi s would help us have the con
fi den ce that the number of proposed courtrooms i s in l ine wi th thekn own requirements . We wi ll now continue to use thi s matrix anal
ys i s for al l fu ture courthouse projects .
The second step was to examine avai lable alternatives . Becauseof Federal budget rules , GSA, as you know , cannot choose amongall possible methods of acqui ring space . Of course , Federal construction and ownership i s appropriate for speci al-purpose space ,laboratori es
,border stations an d courthouses .
You are aware , though , that wi th l imited resources for con stru c
ti on or purchase,budget scoring rules do not allow for acquis ition
over time . GSA has to rely on more expensive leases for generalpurpose space . As the private real estate market has bottomed outand opportunities to acquire exi sting bui ldings presented themselves
,often at a fraction of their original value
,we were not able
to react and take advantage Of these opportunities .
In ou r review , we identified a series of lease proj ects that we bel i eve are strong candidates for ownership . We bel ieve that the marketplace should tel l us what the best solution i s for these longrange Federal needs . Therefore , in the proposed 1995 budget , $999mill ion was included as a request for conversion of leases . Thi s program would allow the marketplace to compete for purchases , leaseswi th Option to purchase
,straight leases or lease purchases
,and
they would compete against one another . And after careful an alysi s , we would pursue the most cost-effective Offer within avai lableresources .
The third step of ou r review was to confirm that we were gettingthe best value for our construction dollar . The most importantthing that we found was a system where there was no incentive fordeveloping an aggressive proj ect budget . No one ever wanted tocome back here and ask for more money . S o the top end of therange was always estimated and every contingency covered in thebudget request . This was the budget that was presented in the prospectu s , the budget documents , and then ,
typically,every dollar
was spent .
Our time-ou t and review has changed thi s focus . We have re
du ced project budgets and we continue to take aggressive action toinsure that future project costs are held to a minimum
,wi thout
sacrificing , as you said , both qual i ty and function .
This review has resulted in the identification of over bill ionof proj ect savings . Of thi s amount
, $693 mi ll ion wi ll be saved fromrents that we would have had to pay to private sector landlords for
26
space that we wi l l n ot now need . $5 07 mi ll ion wi l l be savedthrough reduction in scope and construction budgets for new con
struction and moderni zation projects .
As thi s chart indicates,the savings we have identified are app li
cable to more than ou r prev i ous ly appropri ated funds . Most of the$693 mi ll i on sav ings in the leasing program wi ll be saved over thenext 10 years ; i t represents the funding that GSA wi ll not have torequest and then pay to private sector landlords .
The $5 07 mill i on of savings in the new construction and modern iza tion program includes approximately $ 163 mi ll ion in previou sly appropri ated funds , and an addi tional $34 4 mi ll ion in current and future year requests .
Savings,as you can see on the chart
,are separated into two cat
egorie s , those in the site acqui sition ,scope change and revi sed
budget category,and those in what we call value engineering . Th e
savings in the first group have already been taken from proj ectbudgets
,as they represent funds that we kn ow we wi l l not require .
Of the $ 163 mi ll ion previously appropriated funds , $ 103 mi ll ion fal linto the category . In ou r fi scal 1995 program request , which i sawaiting authori zation and appropri ation , thi s was reduced bymore than $72 mi ll i on .
Thi s chart also shows that value engineering goals wi l l be aecom
p lished both during the design and the construction phases Of therojects . These goals of $ 1 8 9 mill ion during the design phase and$8 3 mi ll i on during the construction phase are program-wide . Whi lewe fully expect to meet or exceed these programs-wide goals , thesavings on indi v idual proj ects may be higher or lower than we havetargeted . Therefore , we bel ieve that most Of these funds shouldprobably remain with GSA
,with the project wi th which they were
origi nally associated unti l i t i s completed , and the actual amountof savings known .
We wi ll monitor our progress toward achieving all of these savings
,and we have committed to provide a quarterly report to C on
gress on the savings that we are capturing from the process unti lwe reach the bi ll ion .
As important as the savings that we have achieved are the lessons that we have learned while undertaking thi s review . Theseare the lessons that wi l l actually change the program . We must useaccepted industry standards as a basi s for ou r review of cost fi gures . Starting with these standards and then applying factors required for the construction of Federal faci l i ties , we wi ll then beable to insure that proj ect costs are within appropriate tolerances .
Thi s chart shows how we can use the R S . Means constructionindustry standard cost for the construction of a courthouse and develop it into an appropri ate basel ine for Federal courthouse construction . The R S . Means $99 a square foot cost for a courthouseconstruction i s a very appropri ate place to start with the analysi s .
Thi s represents construction contract award price for a typical mu
n icip a l or State court faci l i ty .
Most Federal courthouses are larger mid or high-ri se buildings .
Thi s requires an addition of a factor for heavier construction andvertical ci rculation . In thi s example that we have shown here , i t i s$9 a square foot for mid-ri se and an addi tional $23 a square footfor a high-ri se buildi ng . Federal courtrooms themselves are also
28
Th e final adjustment comes from escalation Of the proj ect to thepoint of construction award , and here we use the OMB-prescribedinflation escalation factors .
If thi s bui lding were proposed to be built in an earthquake-pronearea , there would also be a factor for associated costs related tosei smic structural considerations .
What thi s analysi s did was result in a value for thi s project offor the construction of the Brownsville courthouse faci l ity .
Th e budget review al so identified a unique site requirementwhich added another dollar per square foot . Thi s brought the“
Time-Out and Review analysi s of thi s proj ect to $ 13 5 a squarefoot and enabled us to take $ 10 a square foot from the budgetwhich had origi nal ly been establ i shed for the Brownsvi l le proj ect .
There i s an equally important initi ative which we are u ndertak
ing to make sure that ou r architects and engi neers develop creativedesigns which wi ll improve a bui ldi ng
’ s ef ficiency . Increasing aproject’s efficiency ratio can result in sign ificant cost savings withou t any reduction in the amount Of space provided .
This i s a specific recommendation from the Independent CourtPanel , which we were pleased to have convened with the AOC .
Th e efficiency factor i s a ratio of occupiable or actually usablespace to the gross size of the project . Th e unoccupiable areas inclu de publ i c corridors
,stairs and elevators , maintenance support
areas,toi let rooms
,and other such spaces .
Thi s i s a very s imple image of two bui lding floorp la te s andshould not be mistaken for an architectural design . Thi s very simple examp le contrasts two bui ldings , both of which would yi eld thesame amount of occupi able area , but one requires significantly lessgross square footage and therefore costs considerably less to construct .Thi s i s a floorpla te of our hypothetical bui lding . The building on
the left would sati sfy a requirement for usable square feet ,but due to a les s ef ficient circulation pattern , would require theconstruction of an gross square foot structure . At $ 170 asquare foot
,the construction cost of the building on the left would
be almost $ 1 4 2 mill ion .
The bui lding on the right also sati sfies exactly the samesquare foot usable square foot requirement
,but using a more ef fi
cient layout Of i ts nonusable spaces , it requires the construction Of
only a gross square foot structure . U s ing the same $ 170 asquare foot
,the building would cost $ 127 mi ll i on , a savings Of al
most $ 1 5 mi ll ion or more than 10 percent from the origi nal budget .
In addi tion to the cost lessons that I have discussed , we havealso learned that we need to continue to improve our long-rangeplanning process
,be more creative in our procurement methods ,
and work in even better partnership wi th our cl i ents , including thejudi ciary .
Finally , i t i s very clear that to do thi s , we need to undertake adifferent perspective on our overall portfol io respons ib i l ities . Weneed to make sure that we become a portfol io manager , as opposedto a manager Of a series of transactions .
29
This i s in l ine with the National Performance Revi ew’s fi ndingsand recommendations which said that GSA should create an own
ersh ip enterpri se which would Operate l ike an own er/in ve s tor , managi ng ou r portfol io for the optimum return to the taxpayer .
To implement these recommendations , we convened an AssetManagement Planning Group compri sed of experienced private andpubli c- sector portfol io managers . Th e goals of portfol io managementhere , in addition to a voluminous document Of principles of portfol iomanagement
,were the product of thi s group .
We propose to incorporate these goals into ou r real property program through the establ i shment of an organ i zation S pecifi callycharged with portfol io management . Its responsibi l ity would be abroadba sed strategy for investment , use , and di sposition of Federalassets for the optimal return to the taxpayer .
I want to thank you very much for thi s Opportunity to make thi sshort presentation
,and we value your interest in ou r program .
I would be pleased to answer questions that you might have .
Senator DORGAN . With the concurrence Of my colleagues , I wouldl ike to take the testimony of the witnesses , and then we wi ll askquestions .
Next we wi ll hear from Gerald Thacker , Assi stant Director forFaci l i ties
,Security
,and Admini strative Serv i ces , Admini strative
Office of the U . S . Courts .
Mr . Thacker,your entire statement wi ll be made a part of the
record,and we would appreciate it i f you would summarize . Thank
you .
TESTIMONY OF P . GERALD THA C KER ,l A SSISTAN T DIRECTOR
FOR FACILITIES, SECU RITY, AND AD NIIN IS TRA TIVE SERVICES, ADMIN ISTRA TIVE OFFICE OF THE U .S . COU RTSMr . THACKER . Yes
,thank you very much ,
s ir .
I want to fi rst ask your indulgence . I am a l ittle bit nervous thi smorning . I am not used to appearing before thi s much Nationalpress , but I understand the interest that thi s particular subject hasand the importanceSenator MCCAIN . It i s just the press that bothers you
,not the
Senators?
Mr . THACKER . Oh,goodness
,no . $Laughter ]
Mr . THA CKER . In fact,I
Senator MCCA IN . I can understand that .
Mr . THACKER . I al so wanted to say,in order not to waste your
time thi s morning,that I have a great deal of respect for your com
ments thi s morning and for your attention . I know that from yourquestions and statements
, you have given some very carefulthought to thi s area , and I also appreciate very much the com
ments of Senior Judge Wright,a very respected juri st on the Fed
eral bench , and of Mr . Patton and Ms . Clark ,who have worked in
the real property area , not just on the courthouse program ,but on
many others,for a number of years . And I do not want my com
ments to be construed as being di srespectful in any way .
1 The prep ared statement ofMr. Thacker appears on page 60 .
30
But again ,n ot to waste your time , I wi ll try to be very frank and
clear about where I di sagree wi th the comments that were made
ear Ier .
Just for a brief bit Of background,which I am sure you are all
fami l i ar with , in 198 7 ,the National Academy for Publ i c Adm in i s
tra t ion took a look at the space situation with the Federal courts,
primari ly as a result of a number of omnibus judgeship bi lls from1978 to 198 4 in which the size Of the Federal judiciary article I IIjudge was almost doubled .
Th e results Of that study were primari ly twofold . First it documen ted clearly that the taxpayers were wasting a lot Of money having Federal judges and support staff with no place to work . The av
erage length Of time for a new Federal judge to have permanentfaci l i ties after appointment at that time was 1 8 months . Itstretched as long as 7 years .
Thei r recommendation was that the fault lay n ot with G S A ,but
with the Federal judici ary not doing a good job Of defining ou r re
qu irem en ts , getting them into the GSA planning proces s in a timely way , so that those requirements could be— could go through theprocess that Senator Mccain outl ined and presented to the Congres s and executed .
The Judicial Conference of the U nited States , whi ch as JudgeWright pointed ou t
,i s the pol i cymaking body of the Federal judiei
ary in admini strative matters . I would point ou t , however , that iti s not dominated by Court of Appeals judges ; in fact , there are anequal number of representatives from the di stri ct tri al courts andcourt of appeals . In fact the chairman of the executive committeeof the judi cial conference of the U nited States , Judge Gary fromNew Jersey
,i s a trial court judge .
That body establ i shed a Standing Committee of Judges to oversee a revi s ion of the way the Federal judici ary was managing thespace program . That body was originally chaired by Judge RobertVance of Birmingham
,who was assass inated at hi s home Chri st
mas week some 5 years ago with a mai l bomb as a direct resultof hi s actions on the Federal bench .
H i s positi on as chairman was then taken over by Judge RobertBroom fi eld of the District Court of Arizona
,and Judge Broomfi eld
has been chairing that committee now for 5 years .
Th e two actions that the conference directed the committee tooversee were first to functionally revi ew how a modern Federalcourthouse works and to define in architectural terms , then ; thetypes of spaces that would be needed to carry out those functionsin a safe and economical way .
The second was to examine the space needs of the Federal courtsat the di stri ct level
,facil ity by faci l ity Nationwide and to do it in
a consi stent way and then to make those results available both tothe Congress and to the GSA ,
so that space deci sions could bemade not on an ad hoc basi s
,but
,in fact
,could be made in such
a way that there would be some context for the Congress and GSAto consider the immediate and long-term space needs of the Federaljudi ci ary .
3 1
I would disagree with the statement that Ms . Clark made . Infact , knowing the in -depth look she has taken at the planning process , I was a bit astoni shed to hear her say that ou r planning process aggregated requirements at the distri ct leve l . In fact
,that i s
not the case . Every plan that has been developed i s done on a faci lity-by-faci l ity basi s and does allocate projected caseload on a faci lity-by-faci l ity basi s . But perhaps a bit more about that in a minute .
S O those two initiatives,the conference felt
,were absolutely e s
sen t ial for the judiciary to take the responsibi li ty it should be taking for managi ng its program and making its requirements knownin a consi stent way and in a timely way to the executive branchand Congress .
When those problems were presented to the Congress— that i s ,when the Congress was made aware that the last major Federalbui lding program for the courts took place more than 60 years agoand that for the 10-year period from 198 0 to 198 9 when the Federal courts grew by some 8 7 percent in staff
,the General Services
Admini stration , ou r landlord , spent an average of $65 mi ll ion ayear during those 10 years to provide housing for the FederalCourts , and that , in fact , some 70 or so Federal courthouses wereoutgrown at the time the studies were completed
,outgrown in the
sense that everyone had been moved ou t of the bui ldings except forthe di strict court and the U .S . Marshals Servi ce and that therewere Federal judges and staff with no place to work .
Th e Congress , through its Publ i c Works Committees and Appropri ation s Committees , stepped into the breach and since 1991 hasauthori zed some 70 projects for housing the Federal courts .
I might point out as well that on the average only about 70 percent of that space in the new courthouses are actually occupied byFederal courts . The other 30 percent or so , on the average , i s forthe use of the executive branch— the U . S . attorneys
, U . S . marshals,
and trustees in bankruptcy and so on .
S O we are very appreciative of the action that the Congress hastaken , addressing what the National Academy and the Federalcourts and many of you real ized were very serious problems .
The s ize of the problem we gave you,the Congress
,naturally led
to a number of questions,many Of which you have raised thi s
morning , and I hope that we wi l l be gi ven an opportunity to an
swer them in a bit more detai l and perhaps even in writing atsome point .
But I think that i t has led to a number actions , as Ms . S tasch
has pointed ou t, many of whi ch wi ll have a di rect and immedi ate
impact on the cost of Federal construction,almost none of which
required any change in the design standards that were given to
GSA as sort of the special needs of the Federal courts .
I think , in fact , that the long-range planning process and theU .S . Court
’
s Design Guide serve as something of an enforceablestandard against which
,as both Senator Dorgan and Senator
McC a in pointed out , we can guard against sort of“
ad-hocracy”
proj ects ; that i s , of a particular architectural team or a particularset of judges sort of going Off on their own .
There are n ow judicial conference-approved design standards describing what i s adequate and functional for a Federal court
,and
I thi nk the Congress i s certainly more than welcome ; we appreci ate
32
the Opportunity to examine with you those standards,as we have
done wi th GSA and with the private-sector panel represented herethi s morning by two of its members
,which we jointly convened
wi th GSA . And I think that panel had some extremely valuablerecommendations to us , both about the courts
’ portion of the building program ,
as well as the GSA portion .
We were extremely pleased by one aspect of the report especiallythat said
,and I quote : “Perceptions that Federal courthouses are
goldp lated or extravagant and lead to proj ects costing twi ce asmuch as they should are simply incorrect . An d we agree wi th thatan d are very p leased to hear that the private-sector group came tothe same conclusion .
Some of their other recommendations,however
,have been quick
ly imp lemented . I am aware particularly of some recommendationsmade about the acousti cal standards that we are requi ring forsome of the spaces
,a suggestion that there were less expensive
ways to accompl i sh the sam e end goal,and
,in fact
,in average-s ize
courthouses,those changes would account for almost half a mi ll i on
dol lars in savings . We are very pleased to implement those wi thGSA very quickly .
On the Senate side , Senator Baucus , Chairman of the Envi ronment an d Publ i c Works Committee appointed a task force of threeSenators s itting on that committee , chaired by Senator Metzenbaum and accompanied by Senators Boxer and Simpson , who spentalmost a year looking at the Federal construction program . The
Federal courthouse program is a major part of that program rightnow in Federal courthouse construction . Thei r actions
,to a large
part , I suppose , have been completed now and have resulted in ab i ll introduced by Senators Metzenbaum
,Simpson
,and Boxer and
is now under consideration by the Publi c Works Committee .
We have had a very intensive and long seri es of di scuss ions wi ththe House Committee , the Publ i c Works Committee , and their staffabout the planning proces s and the design standards . The su gge s
ti ons that they have made have strengthened that process , I think ,
a great deal,and I hope we were able to explain to them some of
the reasons we were doing some things,and I think that Commit
tee has been extremely helpful in analyzing indivi dual projects,as
wel l as the process as a whole .
Th e General Accounting Office review,in itself
,as we have indi
cated,we found very helpful . The points on which we have agree
ment we have quickly implemented . Those on which we have somefurther questions or feel that perhaps GAO needs to clari fy withus , we are in the process of di scussing and revi ewi ng .
I think there are two— at least one point on which I need tostrongly disagree
,and it i s one that Senator Dorgan mentioned a
couple of times,and it certainly is a shocking assertion on the part
Of the General Accounting Offi ce,and I must say to you quite
frankly , i t i s absolutely wrong , and that assertion i s that the Federal courts now have more space than we need
,and therefore that
our future requests for space against that current inventory arenecessari ly
,then
,inflated .
As you pointed out,thei r estimate could be as much as 1 to 3
mi ll ion square feet of space . Let me repeat : That assertion i s ab solu tely wrong , and I wi ll explain why .
33
Th e assertion was made by overlooking two very importantpoints . Th e first i s , the calculations were made by assuming thatal l of the space in a gi ven distri ct are in on e bui lding . That i s n otthe case . Across the country , as you have heard di scussed thi smorning
,most di stri cts have multiple locations . That means that
in each of those courthouses there are dupl i cated spaces . There arecourthouses
,in fact
,in which there are no resident judges
,and
court i s held only periodically,and judges travel to those locations
and hold court .
Th e second mistake they made was in applyi ng new space standards to an inventory of bui ldings that , for the most part , i s over4 0 years old ; in some instances , over 60 years Old , an d in many instances
,even Older than that .
As M S . S tasch pointed out , a sl ight di fference in efficiency in abui lding
,going from 60 percent to 67 percent , can have a dramatic
impact on the amount of usable space in the bui lding . The bui ldings that house the Federal courts in the Federal inventory are not60 percent efficient
,but those Old buildings are more l ikely to be
5 0 percent to 5 5 percent effi cient .S O when those two factors are taken into account— the fact that
GAO did not account for multiple locations within a di strict,did
n ot account for the ineffi ciencies in aged bui ldings therein— we,in
fact,bel ieve we have accounted for that 1 to 3 mi l l ion square feet
Of space that they feel we now have too much of.The judicial conference itself
,in fact
,has undertaken at least two
of the studies that Judge Wright has suggested as something weought to be looking at .The i ssue of courthouses that are underuti l i zed i s one that the
judi ciary has looked at a number of time and again as last as 1990 ,
did a very extensive study on locations of holding court where therewere faci l ities an d no resident judges . We are looking at it again ,
and thi s time , I think , looking at it in a comprehensive way , tryingto calculate not only the cost of the space
,but also the cost of using
that space ; that i s , of util iz ing it more fully , staffi ng it , or the costto the local community and taxpayers
,jurors and l i tigants
, of goingto central locations as Opposed to having court held periodicallycloser to their homes . I think that study will be completed in an
other few months , and we would be very happy to share it wi thyou .
The second thi ng that we are looking at is the impact on the ab ili ty of judges to handle caseloads in varying courtrooms or havingfewer courtrooms than judges in a particular facil ity . And it i s ani ssue that comes up quite frequently ; it i s an i ssue that i s comingup now .
I think that something we need to real ize i s that judges sharecourtrooms all the times . They are sharing courtrooms al l acrossthe country right now
,as Judge Wright pointed ou t in hi s own dis
triet .I think it i s also important to know that the concept that he de
scribed of designing buildings so that courtrooms are grouped together and chambers are on other floors or not adjacent to thosecourtrooms i s a pattern that we are finding that courts are following in designing new courthouses . It i s being done not only in theKansas C ity
,Kansas courthouse ; i t i s being done , as I understand ,
34
in the Sacramento courthouse ; it i s being done in the Boston courthouse ; in fact , i t was done in the Foley Square courthouse .
S O I think the items that— Judge Wright’s points reflect not onlyhi s own thoughts in regard to ways Of cutting costs or the amountOf space the Federal courts use ; I think those are ideas that aretaken seriously by other judges and
,in fact
,are being examined
right now by us as we go forward .
I think the other action that has taken place that Ms . S ta sch described
,and I wi l l n ot go into any more detai l about
,i s the action
Of thi s new admini stration to take a very hard look at the 200 orso proj ects , many Of which were courthouse proj ects , and we wereagain very pleased to find out that their conclusion was that theseproj ects , in fact , can be bui lt at the same size usually and wi thoutany changes in functional requirements at less cost .
As I said,the recommendations of the private-sector panel are
valuable,and it i s something that we are looking forward to imp le
m en t ing even more completely . As I said , the one set Of recomm en da t ion s about acousti cal standards and how those might bechanged have already been implemented
,and new des igns wi ll
save half a mi ll ion dollars on an average si ze courthouse .
An d the judici ary itself i s in the continuous process of revi ewing ,with the National Insti tute Of Building Science and the help OfGSA and the National Center for State Courts
,the design stand
ards that have been promulgated by the judicial conference andhave made on its own a number of changes in those that we haveincluded as part Of ou r testimony and I think wi ll have some lesserimpact
,but an impact
,on the cost of Federal construction .
Now you might think wi th all Of those things going on , thosegrapes have been pretty wel l squeezed . But we do appreciate yourinterest in the program
,and I hope that as your investigation and
revi ew moves forward that we wi ll get some very good suggestionsand directions from those that would help us to contain these costseven more .
If I may comment for just a couple of minutes onSenator DORGAN . Mr . Thacker
,I want to ask you to summari ze
,
so that we wi ll have plenty Of time for questions,but you have been
about 1 5 minutes,and I want to have you summarize
,so we can
hear from the final two wi tnesses,and then we wi ll have sub stan
ti al time for questi ons .
Mr . THACKER . Sure , yes . Well , let me just mention a couple ofpoints that maybe I would feel that I have some personal kn owledge about and would hope to again di sagree wi th some statementsthat were made previously .
First,we focused a great deal on judges
’ space in courtrooms . Letme make a couple of points that may help us keep focused on perhaps a much larger context .
In a large courthouse,say the size of Boston or New York or
Phoenix,the special court spaces
,courtrooms and judges ’ cham
bers , are a small part of the total space , only 8 to 12 percent .
Th e second point,I think
,i s that sometimes we confuse the Fed
eral courts with State courts in terms of s ize . There are fewer than
36
Your full testimony , Mr . Pinkerton,has been submitted to us
,
and I have read it,and , Mr . Delbridge
,your testimony has been
submitted , and I have read it as well . It contributes an evaluationfrom those who are involved in construction
,a perspective on thi s
subject , and we appreciate very much your wi ll ingn ess to do that .
If you wi ll summarize for us your testimony and then be wi ll ingto stay here and be avai lable for questions as well with the entirepanel
,we would be most appreci ative .
Mr . Pinkerton,would you proceed?
TESTIMONY OF THOMA S G . P IN KERTON ,1 AIA , GR OU P VICE
PRESIDEN T FOR J U STICE FACILITIES, HELLMU TH , OBATAKA SSABA U M , IN C . , S T . LOU IS , MOMr . PINKERTON . Yes . First of al l
,I would l ike to thank you for
your invitation to be here and discuss these important i ssues .
First of all,I am an archi tect
,and I special ize in courts’ design ,
but there are some i ssues which I wi l l not be able to address .
But I would l ike to start by saying that previous to the currentefforts , the last major Federal courthouse building program was 5 0or 60 years ago ,
which was in an era which predated televi sion orthe common usage Of the automobile
,at a time when ou r Nation’s
population was only half of what it i s now . But due to the qual i tyOf the investment Of the Congr ess at the time and the ski lls Of thearchitects of the day , as well as ongoing maintenance of those faci litie s , we are sti ll using most of those Federal courthouses .
But many of the faci l i ties are S imply wearing out wi th the passage of time
,but more importantly thei r functional characteri sti cs
are from a different era . Those courthouses are unable to meet thedemands of larger and the very di fferent kinds of documents , thegrowing need for courthouse security including separation Of thevarious partici pants in the court
, greater attention to special userneeds
,and the changi ng technology .
Many of concerns of today were gi ven l i ttle attention or wereeven undreamed of by the bui lders of courthouses of that era . Concerns which affect courthouses today range as widely as di sparatelyas the hi story Of the past 5 0 years , which includes vastly increasingcivi l l itigation in the Federal courts
,includi ng the civ i l rights
movement ; greater attention to earthquake design ; greater attention to the accessabi l ity by the di sabled
,ADA and its counterpart
for Federal buildings,uniform Federal accessibil ity standards ; two
income fami l ies and the need for chi ld care at the workplace ; greatly increased urban population concentrations ; widespread use andtraffi cking of i ll i cit drugs ; the common use of handguns ; commu
n ication s and , in fact , all other technology ; bankruptcies ; new Federal court juri sdi ctions as defined by thi s Congress ; envi ronmentalawareness ; and lawsuits with large numbers of l itigants .
With regard to the high cost of construction of Federal courthouses , attention must be focused on the differences between Federal courthouses and other bui lding types . Relative to Office buildings and other common bui lding projects of the 198 0s , both Stateand Federal courthouses are far more complex bui ldings .
1 The prep ared statement ofMr P i nkerton appears on page 65 .
37
Courthouses of today contain three circulation systems to com
p le te ly separate the publ i c , in -custody defendants,judges
,staff
,
and juries .
A n d in courthouse design ,there i s only on e budget . All interior
spaces are provided within the initi al construction budget and haveunique and compl icated usages . Whi le the initi al budget for— especia lly for Offi ce bui ldings , there are actually two budgets . There i sa shell with primary ci rculation and cores and a second budget forfi tting ou t those spaces for tenants which frequently are n ot evenknown at the time of the ini ti al construction .
Courthouses are also a part of ou r publi c infrastructure and ou r
l ink to other governmental and institutional faci l ities and functions
,thereby l imiting their s iting and location opportuniti es . Suit
ab le urban sites were obvi ously far more readily avai lable in the1930s than they are today , and it makes today
’s construction of aFederal courthouse
,which i s by and large in urban areas
,a for
m idable task . Demol ition to clear exi sting construction and con
tam in a ted or hazardous waste in soi ls are examples of commonproblems in ou r current bui lding program .
In comparing the relative construction cost Of State and Federalcourthouses
,Federal courthouses are more expensive . Whi le both
projects have basically the same programmatic requirements or thesame basic use
,State and local courts have varying expectations Of
longevity . Federal courthouse must also comply with special Federal regulations . Examples are the Davi s-Bacon Labor Rates Act ,the metric design pol i cy , the Buy American pol i cy , and , in fact , theuseful l ife expectancy of Federal buildings are quite a bit different .
Additionally,Federal courthouses must also follow guide l ines ,
which I can discuss in more detai l,i f you wi sh , but it i s the U . S .
Court’s Design Guide,which has already been mentioned
,and
GSA’
s P S B— 100 faci l ity standards,and there are no uniform Na
tion a l guidel ines that exi st for local courts , and , in fact , very fewStates have their own gu idel ines .
Rep lacing ou r Federal courthouses n ow wi l l doubtless ly be apainful process monetari ly . But the cost of building materials andlabor wi ll doubtless increase over time
,and the necessary replace
ment of ou r agi ng courthouse inventory will never cost less thanit does now . Furthermore , indi cations are , wi th the passage of time ,in the near future
,the Federal courthouse bui lding program wi l l
have increasing difficulty in competing with the revi tal ized privatesector construction industry .
Thank you .
Senator DORGAN . Mr . Delbridge .
TESTIMONY OF N ORMA N G DELBRIDGE ,1 VICE PRESIDEN T,
THOMPKIN S CON STR U CTION COMPANYMr . DELBRIDGE. Thank you ,
Mr . Chairman,members of the Com
m ittee . I thank you for inviting me to comment on the Federalcourthouse construction pol i cies and practices
,specifically as they
relate to the panel report which has been mentioned .
I want to commend the initiative of the General Servi ces Admini s tra tion in seeking frcm industry their recommendations on how
1 The prepared statemen t ofMr. Delbridge appears on page 66 .
38
best to cut costs and more effectively manage thi s monumental andcomplex constru ction program .
As a member of thi s voluntary industry panel composed of architeets , engi neers , construction contractors , and deve lopers currentlyinvolved in major Federal courthouse projects
,I can assure you
that we approach thi s task seriously and wi th the intent to recommen d improvements which would not only produce a productthat was both functional ly suffi cient and cost-effective
,but also
prov ides a vi s ible,lasting
,and aesthetically p leasing structural
presence in communiti es throughout the Nation,a structure
,in
fact,in which all Am eri cans can take justifiable pride .
Th e pane l report properly identifies that the greatest opportunityfor cost savings— and I wi l l speak specifically or generally towardthe contracting or the construction phase— iden tifi e s that the greatest opportunity for cost savings occurs at the beginning of a proj ect .A S a project progresses
,changes become more dif ficult and more
costly to execute .
Other than the construction agent,who must provi d%in thi s
case GSA— who must provide the funds and certainly the Congress,
perhaps no on e i s more aware of the impact of change orders ona proj ect , on project cost , on time schedules , than the contractor .
It i s thi s area of the report with whi ch I was personally involvedand wi ll address as it pertains to a modified management structurewhich we have recommended to the General Services Admini strati on .
Contract changes result from various circumstances,some relat
ed to design criteri a,some to acts of God— weather , et cetera— and
others to ons ite changes initi ated in the interest Of value engi neering or simply— and thi s i s an important one— based on the owner’sdes ires .
Some changes are inevitable . However,changes can be mini
mized with a systems approach,particularly in a large program
such as the court’s bui lding,by tailoring the exi sting management
organization to address the unique features of proj ect complexity ,construction agency
,and owner relationships , the geographic di s
persion ,and the standardization requirements . U ti l ization of an ex
isting management structure , which GSA already has in place ,minimizes the layering and personal disruption which might beconsidered another layering proposi tion .
Th e contractors group Of the panel recommended such a management structure
,the courts management group , which we finally re
ferred to as the C MG,a joint— underl ine the word— GSA and
courts central management organization to address several diffi cu lti es encountered in the current system .
We found the current management system was fractured between GSA and the courts and was further diluted by GSA ’
S decen
tra lized program management at the regional or local level .Proj ects were addressed on an indivi dual bas i s , as Opposed to a systems approach .
We have found thi s traditional ly in Government in the past , andas you look back at the construction of our missi le systems and soforth
,that you simply cannot look at proj ect by a project through
a straw ; you must gi ve it a broad overall systems approach .
39
Th e C MG wi ll n ot be another layer of bureaucracy . Th e C MG hasan Offi ce staffed by senior procurement , design ,
and construction Of
fi cia ls with extensive experience in the development and deliveryof Federal courthouse proj ects .
This staff should be drawn from GS A,regi onal and National , the
courts,and representatives from the U . S . Marshals Service . Th e
C MG S hould act as the single representative for the Governmenton each project .
Th e C MG wi ll establ i sh an effi cient system to manage the develOpm en t , the design , and the construction of Federal courthouses .
Proj ects would be overseen by a core team Of experts,el iminating
the constant reinventing of the wheel currently occurring at the regional level . Th e number of Government personnel could be subs tan tia lly reduced , which would reduce costs and enh ance deci sionmaking . Th e ski lls of the project team would be continually improved by integrating knowledge gained from previous success andfai lures .
Al so effecting close coordination between GS A and courts and theC MG during the design and procurement phases wi th both partiesagreeing to binding deci sions should minimize many Of the onsitechanges which have plagu ed projects . We put ou r finger on that asbeing on Of the principal problems that perhaps thi s systems approach would fix .
As a final note,Mr . Chairman ,
let me add that the courts managemen t group i s not a new and untried systems approach to managing a complex program . Th e elements were drawn from a s imi larsystem used by the U . S . Corps Of Engi neers in the procurement Ofmedical faci l i ties for the Department of Defense .
C i rcumstances were simi lar to those found wi th GSA and thecourts . In 1976 , the Corps was cri ticized by the House Congress ion a l S u b C omm ittee on Installations and Faci l ities for substantialcost overruns on medical faci li ties construction . Th e program wasvery large
,s imi larly to thi s on e
, $3 to $4 bi ll ion to date in that hospital program ,
and very complex . Contractors find it i s more diffi cu lt to build that than almost anything you can think of.
Facil i ties were scattered worldwi de . The Corps organization con
s i sted of a series of decentral ized divi s ions and distri cts , not unl ikewhat we found in GSA
,and the customers
,the Department Of De
fen se medical commanders . extending from Washington down tohospital commanders
,all had a sl ightly different idea of how to
bui ld a hospital .Since the formation of the Corps ’ Medical Facil ity Design Office ,
these problems have virtually disappeared . Hospital projects , whi chin some cases had cost overruns in the past from 30 to 100 percent ,have come in on time and on or under budget . The most recent casei s Madicon General Hospital at Fort Lewi s
,Washington ,
which hadchange orders amount to on e -quarter to on e-half of 1 percent on a$275 mi ll i on hospital . The origi nal authorization of that projectwas about $330 mill ion . There were some savings
,needless to say ,
though , at that particular time and an excellent bidding cl imate .
The bottom l ine to my statement,Mr Chairman
,i s that the in
du stry panel , which has experi ence wi th both systems , feels thatimp lementation of the C MG as a management improvement , which
4 0
i s currently underway within GS A at thi s time would provide similar benefits .
Let me also add,Mr . Chairman
,that during the course of ou r
pane l meetings wi th GSA and the courts,I have been impressed by
the energy , the enthusiasm ,the knowledge
,and the leadership by
the staff Of GSA and the courts . Particularly I would l ike to s ingleout Mr . Johnson
,but particularly also Ms . Jul i a S ta sch as the pow
e rhou se who has made things happen .
It has been a p leasure working with thi s Committee . I wi ll bep leased to answer any questions you may have .
Senator DORGAN . Let me ask just a couple Of brief questions , andthen I wi ll call on my colleagues
,and then I have a number of
question .
Ms . S ta sch,can you gi ve us a review —I do not know whether
you have the records present with you— but a revi ew Of the currentlarge proj ect courthouses under construction and the square footcosts Of the large proj ect courthouses?
Ms . S TA S C H . I can gi ve you a representative sampl ing .
Senator DORGAN . Would you do that?
Ms . S TA S C H . I do n ot know exactly what you had in mind , butI can gi ve you a range .
1
Senator DORGAN . All right .
Ms . S TAS C H . A S I indicated to you ,the Al exandria courthouse ,
with some of its atypical conditions,i s low , approx imately $ 104 a
square foot .
Senator DORGAN . The Boston courthouse?
Ms . S TAS C H . Th e Boston courthouse : right now ,ou r estimated
cost at the si te i s $33 5 . Thi s i s n ot the Washington , DC-basedbenchmark cost .
Senator DORGAN . $22 5 a square foot . Foley Square?
Ms . S TA S C H . I do not have that on my l i st .
Senator DORGAN . Atlanta?
Ms . S TA S C H . I am not fami l i ar with the courthouse in Atlanta .
Senator DORGAN . Proceed with some other courthouses .
Ms . S TAS C H . OK. I am sorry that Senator McC a in has gone , butthe latest cost estimate for the Phoenix courthouse i s $ 171 asquare foot .
I am sorry I was not fully prepared for thi s one . I will be happyto submit a schedule for you
,but if I could just pick out a couple
of examp les , I would be happy to provide the information .
Senator DORGAN . That i s fine . If you wi ll just look through thatfor a second , I am going to ask the question of Mr . Thacker , the“
Time-Out and Review” produced,I think
,what , $270 mi ll i on in
savings?
Ms . S TAS C H . $227 mi lli on for courthouse proj ects .
Senator DORGAN . $227 mi ll ion for courthouses . And I am goingto ask you : How does GSA produce that savings? An d you did notproduce it . What did they see that you did not see with respect tothe p lans you were working wi th?
Mr . THA CKER . Well,I am a l ittle confused by the question . Th e
estimates Of construction costs that are submitted to Congress aredeveloped by GSA
,not the Federal judiciary . S O the number at
1 S ee page 73 .
4 1
which the cuts were made— that i s,the estimates made — and the
savings calculated were budget estimates that were developed bySA .
S enator DORGAN . And they do n ot relate to changes in design?
Mr . THACKER . N o.
Senator DORGAN . But you indi cated in your testimony— let metake some of the smaller items— you said : Well , but we are n ot
doing showers anymore . At least you made some references to somechanges .
Those would be design changes , I assume , with respect to the future bui lding of courthouses .
Mr . THA CKER . Standard changes,yes .
Senator DORGAN . And that would relate to costs .
Mr . THACKER . Th e on e about showers i s an insignifi cant cost .The on e
,for example
,that I mentioned on acoustical change , the
changes in acoustical standards,were n ot implemented at the time
the “
Time-Out and Review” calculations,recalculations , Of con
struction costs were made .
S O I think the savings that you are seeing are target savi ngs .
Senator DORGAN . Right .
Mr . THACKER . Are based on earl ier construction . I would behappy to submit— I happen to have received just yesterday fromthe House side an analysi s prepared by GSA Of a particular courthouse budget estimate
,both before and after the “
Time-Out andReview” process
,detai l ing where the savings on thi s parti cular
proj ect are expected to be taken,and I would be happy to submit
th a tf or the record .
Senator DORGAN . If you would , I would appreciate it . I understand the answer i s that thi s deals wi th value engi neering and awhole series of things that you go through wi th respect to cost estimates a t GSA,
and it i s not related necessari ly to design change s .
Let me ask a couple of questions,Mr . Thacker
,about Mr .
Wright’s testimony . You heard the testimony about on e ju dge/on ecourtroom . I assume that all judges would l ike their own courtroomand their chambers attached to it . What i s theMr. THACKER . Well , I am not sure that i s a fair statement .
h
S en a tor DORGAN . Well,I assume that most judges would want
t at .
Mr . THACKER . That would be a fair statement .Senator DORGAN . That would be a fair statement?
Mr . THACKER . Yes .
Senator DORGAN . What i s the current position of the AOC wi threspect to that in bui lding requests?
Mr . THACKER . Well , our position i s , we have been directed by thejudi cial conference to evaluate the impact on the abi l ity to managecaseload , which i s the important thing , I think you would agree , inthe process— it i s getting cases l itigated and ou t the door— of having fewer courtrooms than judges .
I think to have a fair assessment,I am not the person to answer
the question for you . I would be very happy t o submit some in formation about caseload management and the differences in caseloadmanagement between the Federal and State systems
,for example ,
and how that somewhat drives the need for immediate access to a
4 2
courtroom in a schedul ing way by a Federal judge,where in some
State court arrangements,it might n ot be as necessary .
But I can only say that we have been directed to assess the impact , try to work wi th our stati sti cal staff to determine if therewould be an impact on a di fferent ratio of courtrooms to judgesthan 1 to 1 and what that impact might be on the abi l ity to process a case under the time constraints establ i shed by the Congress ,Speedy Tri al Acts and the C ivi l Case Management Acts .
We just do not have a complete accident . As I said , in fact , thereare courthouses being b uilt today wi th fewer— new ones— wi thfewer courtrooms than judges . The Boston courthouse i s one ; theKansas C ity courthouse i sSenator DORGAN . But most requests come in asking for a sepa
rate courtroom for judges,each judge
Mr . THACKER . Yes,yes .
Senator DORGAN $continuing] . Including senior status judges ; i sthat n ot correct?
Mr . THACKER . Well , the facil ities for a senior judge —that i s , on ewho i s
,in effect
,working for nothing
,has reached the abi l i ty to re
ti re and i s continuing to carry a caseload— i s based enti rely on theamount of work the judge i s doing ; that i s , the staff that i s re
quired to support the judge— a law clerk and secretary— and howmuch space they need . S O there are someSenator DORGAN . Well , the working for nothing , senior judges
are compensated for l i fe .
Mr . THACKER . That i s right .Senator DORGAN . It i s true they could elect to do nothi ng or elect
to do something .
Mr . THACKER . Exactly .
Senator DORGAN . But they are nonetheless compensated .
Mr . THACKER . Oh ,yes
,yes
,yes . But they are el igi ble to reti re
and receive thei r salary for the rest of their l ives at that point andhave chosen not to do that
,but to continue to carry a caseload .
Senator DORGAN . Judge Wright referred to the Kansas C i tycourthouse
,in hi s judgment , that that courthouse was built to meet
a caseload for the di stri ct,despite the fact that much Of the case
load i s handled, Or a fair amount of the caseload i s handled , not
in that courthouse,but in other courthouses in the di strict .
Can you respond to that?
Mr . THACKER . Yes , absolutely . In fact , I would l ike to submit forthe record— and have the permission of the chief judge of that di striet to do so— a letter he has wri tten to Mr . Roger Johnson aboutthat parti cular matter .
1 And hi s point i s,I think , that perhaps
Judge Wright does not have all of the current information aboutcaseload for that di strict and where that caseload i s occurring .
And as Judge Stevens,who i s the chief judge , discussed wi th me
yesterday,certainly there are sign ificant caseloads in other loca
tions,but none of those locations , in the Vi ew of the court , warrant
establ i shing a resident judge and concurrent staff; that i s , supportstaff
, U .S . marshal security staff, on a permanent basi s at those 10cations .
1 The letter referred to from the chief judge appears on page 67.
4 4
Mr . THACKER . I do not have the exact number in my head,but
there were approximately twice as much judges to be housed in Alexan dri a as in Greenbelt .Senator C OHEN . Well
,my understanding— from the article
,I
think it said there were as many courtrooms to accommodate thesame number of judges , rather than twiceMr . THACKER . That was incorrect
,absolutely incorrect .
S enator COHEN . OK. Well,if you would gi ve me that analysi s ,
that would be helpfu l .Mr . THA CKER . I wi l l indeed
,yes .
Senator COHEN . Al so,Ms . S ta sch ,
you indicated the price on thecourthouse in Phoenix was down to 190-what?
Ms . S TAS C H . N O,I indi cated that the “
Time-Out and Review re
;u lted in a Phoenix courthouse proposed per square foot cost of171 .
Senator COHEN . $ 1 7 1 . Last Augu st , the Phoenix Gazette , againtaking into account the press i s not to be bel ieved on each andevery occasion
,had it at $2 16 per foot ; i s that correct?
Ms . S TA S C H . Wel l,I did not see that article
,but there i s a source
for the $2 16 a square foot . Th e very earl iest iteration of thinkingabout that proj ect
,it was origi nally proposed to be significantly
larger and to house some executive agency space users . It wasorigi nally budgeted at a much more conservative constructionbudget
,and the original roject estimate , prior to really any p lan
ning,was $ 190 mi l l ion . 120 mi ll ion was appropri ated for it . An d
after some very careful reprogramming ,“
Time-Out and Review ,
really pushing back on what we think i t ought to cost , we have thetotal project down to $ 1 1 1 mill ion . So there are savi ngs off of theactual appropriated dollars as well .Senator COHEN . Have you made any analysi s in terms ofwhy the
State su reme court bui lding was able to be bui lt in 1991 forroughly 93 a square foot compared to the now $ 171 for the Federal courthouse per square foot?
Ms . S TAS C H . N O,I have not . I have not . But if you think that
would be a useful exerci se,we certainly can do that . 1
Senator COHEN . Well , i t would be useful because we have hadsome testimony here— Mr . Thacker has talked about the threat toFederal judges . I would submit to you that State court judges areequal ly subject to the same types Of threats and perhaps even moreso
,since they tend to deal wi th ' a level of crime at the local level
which may be even more vi olent than that at the Federal courthouse , from time to time , at least .
S O I would suggest that these factors ought to be looked at .Mr . Pinkerton
,I think you are correct . Dav i s-Bacon does inflate
the cost ; Buy Am erica does inflate the cost . I am not sure aboutlongevity
,as to why State legi slatures would want to bui ld court
houses that have any less a useful l ife than Federal courthousesdo. I was notMr . PINKERTON . Well , actually part of that reference was a bit
Obl ique . The fact i s that the expansion strategy , for example , interms Of the longevi ty or the continued use of the courthouse i s afactor . An d what that means i s that we are required in some cases
1 S ee pages 74 - 75 .
4 5
to bui ld a structural frame and other major parts of the courthousebuilding , or in the worst-case scenario— that i s to say where the enti re bui lding would become courtrooms at some point in the future— and meanwhi le where you have large spaces l ike thi s , cei lings are just dropped in , and Offices are put it into it temporari ly .
Well,Obvi ous ly that increases your volume ; i t increases the cost
of structure you would normally pay for.
So there are expansion strategies . There are also,in fact
,qual ity
differences . One thing I would l ike to point out,for example , i s that
Means i s good data , but it i s hi stori c data , and in projecting intothe future , our costs are different from what Means shows now ,
ofcourse
,with inflation .
But nonetheless , if you take$Senator COHEN . When you say it i s hi stori c , how hi stori c i s the
Means data?
Mr . PINKERTON . Well , Means reports what things actually havebid for , whi ch means tha t they are already behind us . An d whatwe are designi ng now i s , of course , ahead of us .
But in any case , there are qual ity differences , too . I mean , thereare lots Of them
,in fact . But i s intended in the Federal court guide
l ine to be sure that , from a l i fe-cycle cost basi s , the material s andequipment that are put into the facil ities are going to last and notbe a big maintenan ce problem .
For example , even l ittle things l ike wood base which i s positivelyfastened into the wall either with screws or nai ls , frequently— infact , most Of the time— we put vinyl base , and the vinyl base justcomes off, in State courthouses , and it has to be put back up thereagai n .
And then sometimes veneers are put over sheetrock . There reallyare quite a few corners you can cut that make a courthouse lookjust as good in the initial Opening phase
,but wi l l not last quite as
well as the standard calls for,and again there are not standards
or anythi ng in States .
Senator COHEN . I s that your experience,though , on the State
level,that the State legi slatures are less concerned about qual ity
or durabi l ity of the interior?
Mr . P INKERTON . Well , first of all , State legi slatures usually donot control that . The States provide the judges and the funding forjudges , and the counties are responsible for actually provi ding thespace , the bui ldings themselves . And indeed , county commissionersare , by and large , very concerned about getting reelected and keeping their overall budgets down
,besides which
Senator COHEN . As compared to Members Of Congress? $Laugh
ter .
Mr . PINKERTON . I cannot speak to that . There are lots of differen ce s between State courthouses and Federal courthouses .
Senator COHEN . Have you made an y analysis in terms of the percentage of additional costs incurred from Dav i s-Bacon
,and Buy
Am eri ca , on the longevity factor that you have described now asbeing one of durabil i ty and expansion? What do those factors contribute in terms of the added costs compared
,for exam ple , to State
court construction?
Mr . P INKERTON . Actually I would l ike to defer to Ms . S tasch’
s
earl i er chart , which I think addressed that i ssue .
4 6
Mr . THA CKER . If I could make a couple of points as well , Senator ,you mentioned the State court bui lding in Phoenix . You may be referring to an appel late courthouse again
,it i s a good example for
us to look at , and we certainly wi l l— whose construction costsmight be substantially different from a trial courthouse
,as I am
sure you are wel l aware .
We did take a look a several projects from 1990 and some from198 8 ,
State court proj ects , for ou r own information a couple ofyears ago, some that were design award-winning projects from theAmerican Institute Of Architect’s Committee on Justice in Arch itecture
,and I would be glad to submit that for the record with the
understandi ng that it i s ou r best— we tried to get the best information we could about constru ction costs
,but the constructi on costs
for State courts ranged in one set Of example from the JeffersonCounty courthouse in Colorado from $ 101 a square foot to SantaC lara County courthouse in Cal ifornia
, $ 165 a square foot , andthose were largely 198 7— 198 8 numbers .
S O inflating them even for 3 years would bring those costs , on theaverage
,up to about— again
,average a square foot
,which i s
not terribly far from the low of the range that Ms . S ta sch was talking about .
We went back further to 198 8 to a set of courthouses , and theyranged from $5 7 a square foot , a courthouse bui lding in Torra n tCounty
, Texas , to a high of $ 134 a square foot , again for a courthouse in Cal i fornia
,for an average cost , again with 5 years of infla
ti on,of about $ 130 a square foot .
S O I am n ot sure that we really are talking about a lot Of difference in some ways . I think we may find the differences lyi ngvery much in some Of the points that Mr . Pinkerton rai sed aboutFederal procurement requirements
,and as you could see from
those numbers,a very wide range of costs that cannot be identified
just wi th sites . I think the qual i ty factor that you mentioned do appear in some of these proj ects
,even though they are award-winning
projects .
But I would be happy to submit that information for the record .
1
Senator COHEN . Fine . Just one final question .
Ms . S ta sch or anyone on the panel , does it make more sense fromthe financial point of vi ew to explore greater renovation than construction?
For example,in Portland
,Maine
,we are undergoing a renovation
as opposed to construction,saving
,I assume
,quite a few thousand ,
i f n ot more,Of dol lars .
As a general propos ition,can you make any kind of statement as
to whether we should be exploring greater util ization of renovatingexi sting faci l i tie s as Opposed to starting from scratch , or i s thatsomething which i s unique and on an ad hoc basi s we have to analyze?
Mr . Pinkerton .
Ms . S TA S C H . Let me take a first cut at it . We actually have asa pri ori ty the analysi s of the continuing use of ex i sting faci l ities .
An d i f you look at many Of the projects as described in theprospectuses
,they do include the continuing use Of an ex i sting
1 S ee Attachment C on page 65 .
4 7
court faci l ity that has been outgrown for members of the court fami ly that can be housed separately . For example
,bankruptcy courts
are frequently separated from the balance of the court family .
S ometimes , though , an entirely new project really i s the leastcostly , i f there i s n ot an appropriately adjacent site or if there areother conditions that make spl i t court faci l iti es not feasible .
One of the things we have to begin to look at , I think ,i s not just
the l i fe-cycle cost of construction and maintenance,but the sort of
l i fe-cycle cost analysi s of Operations .
Funding for U . S . marshals i s something that i s n ot really con sid
ered in the overall analysi s of the feasibi l ity of a project .I think that i f we are going to be very prudent , we have to start
looking at the total cost over time Of the program that we are proposing to see if spl i t faci l ities really work because of increased coststo the marshals serv i ce and others .
S O I would say that we have a bias toward continued use,and
we wi l l always come down on that side unless it really does not
work .
Senator COHEN . That’s fine .
Senator DORGAN . Senator McC a in .
Senator MCCAIN . Thank you ,Mr . Chairman
,and I want to thank
al l the witnesses for their excellent testimony .
Ms . S ta sch ,let me give you a scenari o , OK, of an actual case , an
actual si tuation,concerning a courthouse .
Sometime in 1991 , I bel ieve , the Admini strative Office of U .S .
Courts came to the GSA on the need for a courthouse in Phoenix ,
Arizona . Th e Senate Appropriations Subcommittee appropri atemi ll i on for fiscal year 1992 and reprogramming for a site a c
qu is it ion for a courthouse in Phoeni x ,Arizona .
Th e Admini strative Office of the Courts and GSA , in a document ,unsigned and n ot offi cial , noted that the cost of bui lding thi s courthouse would be and that they should request authority to S pendOn July 22
,1993 ,
no prospectus having been sent to the SenateEnvironment and Publ i c Works Committee by the GSA
,the Senate
Appropri ations Committee appropriated $ 199 mi ll i on based on GSAand court-suppl i ed nonoffi cial estimates .
On August 3 ,1993 ,
an amendment offered on the floor transferred $ 19 mi ll ion from the Phoenix courthouse to the Sacramentocourthouse— just transferred .
In 1994 , a Trea su ry/Postal Appropriations Conference report conta in ed a l ine- i tem appropriation of $ 120 mi ll ion for a Phoenixcou rthouse .
In January of 1994,your boss
,who I applaud enormously
,you
and hi s work , and I meant to preface my remarks with that , wroteasking for my help due to the fact that GSA had not been presented the scope or timing of the project .Tell me what i s wrong with that scenario
,Ms . S ta sch ?
Ms . S TA S C H . It sounds sort of l ike a top-down rather than a bottom -u p approach . We really support the approach which i s the result of a careful review of requi rements ; as you have indicated , athoughtful , but aggressive , preparation of cost estimates ; and thenthe proposal to Congress for appropriation for
,first of all
,site and
4 8
design , or i f we propose a different procurement strategy,the en
ti re amount .Notwithstanding the fact that the Phoenix courthouse did not fol
low the more rational approach , I hope that you are pleased wi thwhere we have finally brought thi s proj ect within the realm of poss ib ilitie s .
As I indicated when you were out of the room,we were at a mo
ment in time at approximately $ 198 mi ll ion ,and that was where
the $2 16 a square foot that you mentioned earl ier was derived .
Through di scussions with the courts and,as I said
,aggressive
reprogramming and pushing back on the project budget,we now
be l i eve that the entire project can be completed for approximately$ 1 1 1 mi ll ion , saving dollars even Off of the $ 120 mi ll i on that hasbeen appropri ated . And our preferred approachSenator MCCAIN . As opposed to the origi nal $ 198 mi l l i on .
Ms . S TAS C H . Exactly . So not only would we not have to comeback for additional dollars over and above the $1 20 mi l l ion ,
therei s another $9 mi ll i on wi thin that appropri ated amount .
Senator MCCAIN . Well,I want to thank you
,because $ 1 1 1 mi l
l i on i s a savings Of $97 mill ion over— I do not kn ow where thoseestimates came from
,and that i s why— Mr. Thacker
,do you know
anything about the information that was provided by your Officethat thi s courthouse should costMr . THACKER . Well
,as Ms . S ta sch said
,I think the normal proc
ess i s always preferable .
Senator MCCAIN . N O . My question ,Mr . Thacker
,i s that informa
tion came from your Of fice to the Senate Appropri ations Committee ,in a document unsi gned and not offi ci al , that the cost of the bui lding would be DO you kn ow where that— how thathappened?
Mr . THACKER . Yes , I do .
Senator MCCAIN . Could you please respond?Mr . THA CKER . It was an estimate developed by GSA for a bui ld
ing of a certain size .
Senator MCCAIN . And what was your input into that estimate?
Mr . THACKER . Into the estimate? None whatsoever .
Senator MCCAIN . Well,the information I have i s that your offi ce
submitted that document .Mr . THACKER . We did .
Senator MCCAIN . Why did you transmit it , i f it was from GSA?
Mr . THACKER . Well,you asked where the estimate cam e from .
We submitted inform ation at the request of the Congress that wehad access to that had been developed by GSA that indicated that
the cost of building the courthouse in Phoenix would be $ 198 milIon .
Senator MCCAIN . And you just based that simply on a GSA estimate?
Mr . THACKER . That i s correct , yes .
Senator MCCAIN . Just passed it on?Mr . THACKER . Yes
,s ir .
Senator MCCAIN . You had no responsibi lity to veri fy whetherthat was
,indeed
,the costs or not?
4 9
Mr . THACKER . N o,we were n ot asked to verify . We have been
told repeatedly by the Congress that that i s n ot ou r responsibi l ity .
That belongs to the executive branch .
S enator MCC AIN . S O you felt your Offi ce had n o responsibi l ity tocheck on whether $ 198 mill i on was the appropriate figure for thecost of a courthouse in Phoenix , Ari zona?
Mr . THACKER . By statute , the executive branch i s responsible fordeveloping that information , and we gave Congress the informationwe had access to that had been developed by the executive branch .
Senator MCCAIN . Why did you even— why were you even in theloop?
Mr . THACKER . I have n o idea why that information was n ot subm itted directly by GSA .
S enator MCC AIN . You submitted the information wi thout havingany background information concerning whether those estimateswere right or wrong?
Mr . THACKER . I am sorry . I am not sure what you mean bybackground information .
”
Senator MCCAIN . I mean, you had no access to cost estimates or
anything else .
Mr . THACKER . How those were developed? N o, we usually do not .Senator MCCAIN . You had no reason to question them?
Mr . THACKER . N O .
Senator DORGAN . And you never question or scrutinize information you receive from GSA?
Mr . THACKER . Well , I suppose we all question information we seeoccasionally . I had no reason to bel ieve that that information wasany less trustworthy than any other information GSA prepare forthe Congress .
Senator MCCAIN . Well , if all you do i s transmit cost estimatesand information that you get from GSA
,I wonder why you are in
business , Mr . Thacker .
Mr . THA CKER . Well,we do not normally do that , Senator . That
i s GSA’
s responsib il ity . I do not know why they did not provi de theinformation to the Congress in that instance .
Senator MCCAIN . But the fact i s,you did . The fact i s you did .
Mr . THACKER . We were requested to provide information that wehad access to. Are you suggestingSenator MCCAIN . Well
,I think you have a responsibil ity— I am
suggesting that you have a responsibil i ty,if you put the name Of
your Office on information that i s transmitted to Congress , that youhave some responsib i l ity for it . That i s what I am suggesting .
Mr . THACKER . I assure you if we put ou r name on anything submitted to the Congress , we will take responsibil i ty for i t . That information was not developed by us
,and we did n ot verify it . We
submitted information that was developed by the entity design atedby the Congress to develop that information .
Senator MCCAIN . And I suggest again,i f you transmit informa
tion to the Congress of the U nited States , you should have someresponsibi l i ty as to the accuracy of that information
,Mr . Thacker ,
and if you choose not to accept that responsibil ity , that i s entirelyup to you . ButMr . THACKER . I did make it clear
5 0
Senator MCCAIN . But when I get information from agencies of
Government , I expect them to be able to verify that information .
So , Ms . S ta sch, you are comfortable now that the $ 1 1 1 mi ll ion i s
an appropriate figure for this courthouse and comfortab le wi th theway the process has now been proceeding?
Ms . S TA S C H . I am comfortable with where we are n ow , comfortable that we scrutinized its s ize and that the 10-year need i ssupported by actual known judges and courtroom requirements andthat we can bui ld it for the dol lars ind i cated .
Senator MCCAIN . OK .
Senator DORGAN . Senator McC a in , we have 5 minutes remainingon the vote
,and I would ask
,what i s your pleasure? Would
you
Senator MCCA IN . I do not want to keep the wi tnesses , Mr . Chairman .
I just would make one additional comment about the Newark/New York compari son . A judge
,Judge N i cholas Pol itan
,a 6-year
veteran of the New Jersey Federal bench , call s what i s happeningin New York : “ It i s pomposity
, grandiose , he said , when he wasasked if he can think of a reason for the elaborate furni shing of theFoley Square courthouse .
Maybe that should be the subject of another hearing .
I want to thank the wi tnesses,both Of you and Mr . Thacker .
An d,Ms . S ta sch ,
I again want to express my appreciation forwhat you and Admini strator Johnson are doing , and I look forwardto working with you in a constructive fashion in trying to get theseunneces sary costs and overruns under control . I think we have anObl igation to do so
,and I wi ll also suggest that it i s long overdue .
I thank you,Mr . Chairman .
Senator DORGAN . Well,all of you have submitted some very use
ful information today . And I regret we are running short of time .
We have a vote in about 4 minutes . Th e vote i s underway with 4minutes to the end of i t . S o we must rush to the vote .
And I think rather than keeping the wi tnesses over , we wi l l adj ourn the hearing
,and we would l ike to be able to submit questions
to you for your response .
Thi s hearing i s now adjourned .
$Whereupon ,at p .m .
,the Committee was adj ourned ]
5 2
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON . SCOTT O . WRIGHT
Members of the Committee , I have been invited to come here today to ta lk to youabout some of the things I think could be done to save money in the Judiciary .
Let me state at the outset that there are some th ings that are a lready being doneby members of the Jud iciar to cut down on costs . Th e have not rep laced some emp loye es in the various Cler s
’
Offi ces who have retire or terminated their emp loyment . There has been some reduction in ersonnel in the Administrative Offi ce .
More personne l may have to be e liminated, u t there comes a point where reduction
of personne l is counter-productive in the processing of cases and , of course , no onewants to see that happen . Since I am a Jud e and not in the Administrative branchof the Judiciary
, erson s other than myse l wou ld be more fami liar with how savings cou ld be ma e in that branch of the Jud iciary . What I am more fami liar withare some of the things that the Judges themse lves cou ld do to reduce the budget .I regret to say that up to the present time
, the Judges have done very little tore lieve the budgetary crisis in the Judiciary . I am going to discuss some of theth ings that I th ink the Judges cou ld do to reduce costs without affecting the efficiency of the Judiciary . I have three basic top ics to d iscuss .
Th e fi rst th ing I wou ld like to discuss is the c losing of some of the se ldom ly usedcourthouse s . There are a number of d ivisiona l courthouses that cou ld be closed without any loss of effi ciency to the courts . Most Of these divisiona l courthouses wereinstituted in the horse-and-buggy days when a distance of 4 0 or 5 0 mi les was a substan t ia l distance to trave l . Now , of course , that is no longer true . We have modernh ighways and the automobile and fast trans ortat ion . Here is an examp le to i l lustrate my point : We have two divisiona l court ouses in the Western District of Missouri that probab l shou ld be c losed . On e of them is in Jop lin , M is souri . That cou rthouse has no Cler personne l in residence . Jop lin is on ly 5 0 mi les from Spring fie ld ,Missouri
,wh ich is less than an hour’s drive and there is a n ice , new courthouse in
Springfi e ld . I th ink that one of the Bankruptcy Judges in th e Western District ho lds
some ankru ptcy hearings in Jop lin from time to time but , essentia l ly , that is theon ly use that is being made of that courthouse . Those bankruptcy hearings cou ldbe he ld in Spring fie ld without any inconvenience to the part ies . We have anothercourthouse in St . Joseph
,Missour i , which is on ly 5 0 miles from Kansas City and ,
as you know , there is a nice , big courthouse in Kansas City . There are not morethan three or four cases a year tried in St . Joseph , M is souri , and because of theshort distance between that courthouse and Kansas City , it cou ld very easi ly bec losed without any inconvenience to th e parties . I am convinced that there are sim ilarly situated courthouses a l l over the country that are being used very infrequently , if at a l l , yet they remain open and the Judiciary pays rent to keep the
gou rthou ses open and pays the costs of keep ing libraries supp lied in those cou rtouses .
I rea lize that it is very troub ling to the Congressmen in the affected Districts topropose c losing down the courthouse . Lawyers and the citizens in those areas wi l lpu t great pressure on the ir Congressmen to keep those courthouses open . They fee lthat closing the cou rthouses , even if they are not being used , hu rts the commun ity .
I think the on ly way you cou ld have necessary courthouse c losures wou ld be to havea commission
,sim i lar to the commission for the c losing of mi litary bases . The com
mission wou ld make recommendations for the closing of courthouses and that recommendation wou ld be uphe ld un less the Congress voted to overru le the commisS ion .
The second p lace I think there cou ld be great savings is in the construction of newcourthouses . I rea lize that courthouses are more expensive to build than your standard offi ce bui ldings . Courtrooms are , undeniab ly , expensive to build , or at least moreexpensive to build than an offi ce in an ordinary commercia l building. Grant ing that ,I think there cou ld be great savings made in the construction of courthouses if theJudges wou ld utilize the cou rtrooms better . Most Judges are used to having theirchambers adjacent to their courtroom . In other words , the chambers are on thesame floor with the courtrooms . Th is causes construct ion costs to in crease becausethe cei lings in the courtrooms are considerab ly higher than in the chambers . Whena chamber is bui lt adj acent to a courtroom , the area above the chambers is wastedspace . Th is waste of space cou ld be avoided if the chambers were a l l put on one floorand the courtrooms were pu t on the floors immediate ly above or below the chambers . N ow
,this wou ld require a Judge to either go up one floor or down one floor
to get to a courtroom . This is a s light inconvenience , bu t it is not rea l ly a prob lem .
Most of the courthouses have a Judges ’ e levator and stairwe l ls to go up and downso the Judge cou ld proceed to the courtroom in private , if he chose . Having thecourtrooms on a separate floor wou ld e liminate the tendency we Judges have to become proprietary about courtrooms .
5 3
In the past , the Judges have fe lt that there shou ld be a courtroom for everyJudge . I cannot see the necess ity of that . Most of the courtrooms are not used even20%of the time . There isn ’t any reason why courtrooms shou ldn ’t be shared byJud es . If a Judge has a case schedu led for tria l on Monday morning
,she wou ld
not i y the Clerk ’s Offi ce that she needs a ju and a courtroom . The Clerk ’s Offi cewou ld then assign an avai lab le cou rtroom . T e p lacing of courtrooms on one floorand the chambers on another floor wou ld encourage the poo ling of cour trooms . Furthermore , if a l l of the Judges were to ether on one floor , they cou ld a l l use a centra llibra instead of having a separate li rary for each Judge’s chambers . As you know
,
lega l
r
fibraries are very expensive to acquire and maintain .
A new courthouse has just been comp leted and recent ly occup ied in Ka nsas C ity ,Kansas
,which is just across the river from our courthouse in Ka nsas City , M issou ri .
It was bui lt for less than $ 130 er square foot which is considerab ly less than thecost I have seen in a number of
pproposed court houses to be bui lt . This courthouse
in Kansas City,Kansas
,has the courtrooms on one floor and the chambers on an
other floor , and I have to be lieve that has contributed to the re lative ly low cost ofthe bu i lding . Although there is a courtroom for every Judge in residence in Ka nsasCity
,Kansas at the present time
,if and when new Judges are added
,they are going
to share the courtrooms .
Fina l ly,one of the greatest wastes of money attributab le to Judges invo lves the
C ircuit Court of App ea ls Judges . I wi l l exp lain the situation by reference to theE ighth Circuit Court of Appea ls , as I am most fami liar with that Court . In theE ighth Circuit
,every Circuit Court ofAppea ls Judge has three chambers : they have
a chambers in St . Pau l,a chambers in St . Louis , and a chambers in the ir home
town . A lmost a l l of the cases heard by the E ighth Circuit are heard either in St .Pau l or St . Louis . There is on ly one Judge on the E ighth Circuit Court of A ea lswho lives in St . Louis and on ly one active Judge who lives in M inneapolis . $iii therest of the Judges live in their home towns
,and when they 0 to hear cases e ither
in St . Louis or St . Pau l , they have the expense of airfare an a per d i em for themse lves , the ir law c lerks and , many times , their secretary . They have proposed a newcourthouse in St . Loui s and it includes chambers for every one of the E ighth C ircuitCourt of Appea ls Judges , p lus C ircuit courtrooms . There is a new courthouse proposed for Kansas City and it provides for four chambers for Circuit Court of Appea lsJudges in Kansas City and a lso a C ircuit courtroom . I t is very se ldom that caseson app
ea l are heard in Kansas City , bu t if th e Circuit Judges did want to have aspec i a hearing of a pane l in Kansas City
,they could certain ly use a District court
room . I am not entire ly familiar with the other Circuits except that I do know thatJudges in other Circuits have chambers in their own home town and then they a lsohave chambers where they hear cases .
Historica l ly , Circuit Judges were the tria l Judges and they had to trave l aroundthe Circuit to try cases . With the advent of the District Jud es , who are now thetrial Judges
,the Circuit Judges exclusive ly hear appea ls . T ere isn ’t any reason
why the Appea ls Court shou ldn ’t sit in one location . Th e Judges wou ld a l l live inthat location
,as wou ld their law clerks and other staff. The lawyers cou ld trave l
to that location to make their ora l arguments . The United States Supreme Cou rtsits in Washingt on , D C . and the attorneys for the parties trave l to Washington ,DC . to argue the case . Some Circuit Judges argue that they sit in different p lacesfor the convenience of the parties
,but the expense of doing this is so overwhe lming
that it cannot be justifi ed,and often the lawyers have to trave l even under the cur
rent system .
I have proposed a l l of the things in this presentation to the Executive Committeeof the Judicia l Conference and to a l l of the members of the Judicia l Conference . Iam afraid that a l l of my proposa ls have fa l len on deaf ears . If there is ever goingto be any necessary reforms in the Judiciary
,it wi l l have to come through the bu dg
et process and by legis lation . I rea lize that most Judges wou ld like to continue doingthings as they have done in the past and that is human natu re . In view of the largebudget defi cit and the severe monetary restraints
,I don ’t be lieve that any of us , in
c luding Judges,can continue to do business as usua l . You must remember that
Judges are not subj ect to the wil l of the e lectorate ; they are appointed for life sothey do not have any compe l ling reason to change the way they do things .
You wil l have to be lieve me when I te l l you that there are a number of Judgeswho agree with me and the roposa ls that I have set forth in this resen tation , butthey are not going to come fgrward and make a pub lic statement . t is not easy forme to come here and criticize
,but under the circumstances
,I fee l compe l led to do
so .
I know that there wi l l be some Judges who wil l be critica l of me for coming forthand making a pub lic statement , but I am not doing this to hurt or embarrass anyone . I am doing this because we have a serious defi cit prob lem in this country and
5 4
if a l l of us don ’t do everything we can to cut down on the expense of government,
we are going to leave a legacy to our children and grandchildren we w il l sure ly re
gret .
I wou ld recommend that the Congress appoint a committee to eva luate the n ece ss ity of keep ing certain divisiona l courthouses open . If the committee recommendsthat certain courthouses be c losed , that recommendation wou ld stand un less overru led by the Congress .
There is a need for some new courthouse construction around the country , but Iwou ld recommend that new courthouse construction be temporari ly suspended unti lan independent commission is appointed to determine where new courthouses areneeded , and to determine the number of court rooms needed in that particu lar District .
Last ly , and p robab ly the most controversia l of my recommendations , wou ld bethat the Circuit Cour t of Appea ls have one p lace in the Circuit to hear appea ls
,and
the Judges on that Court be required to live at that location to hear and decidecases . This wou ld not prevent them from occasiona l ly going to law schoo ls in theCircuit to hear arguments for the benefi t of the students and the lawyers . Th iswou ld on ly serve to make the ir operation much more effi cient and wou ld save mi llions of do l lars in trave l and per diem and the costs of bui lding chambers a l l overthe Circuit .If we can reform hea lth care and we lfare
,we can a lso reform jud icare .
I we lcome any questions you may wish to ask ofme .
U .S . D IS TR ICT COUR T ,WES TER N D IS TR ICT OF M IS S OUR I ,
Ka nsa s C i ty, M iss ou ri, October 2 7, 1993 .
MR . ROGER JOHNS ON ,
Admin is tra tor, Genera l S ervi ces Adm in is tra tion , W a sh ington ,DC .
DEAR MR . JOHNS ON : It is my understanding that , as the new Admin istrator of
GSA, GS A is taking a closer look at the needs of these new federa l court build ings
being built . It is my be lief th at the proposed courthouse here in Kansas City , M issouri has more District Judges ’ chambers and courtrooms than are needed or wi l lbe needed in the distant future . There are 13 proposed District Cou rt chambers andcourtrooms in the new facility . W hen we are at fu l l strength , we wi l l on ly have 6active judges . One floor of District courtrooms can be e l iminated , leaving 9 DistrictCourt chambers and courtrooms , which wi l l be more than adequate .
I wou ld a lso contend that there is no need for Circuit Court of Appea ls chambersand a court room in this new building. The Circuit Court ofAppea ls does not sit herein Kansas City except on rare occasions , like two or three times a year . The CircuitCourt of Ap ea ls Judges cou ld very easi ly stay in the bui lding where we are present ly located
)
. By cutting the District cou rtroom from 13 to 9, one floor cou ld betaken ou t , and de leting the Circuit Cour t ofAppea ls chambers and courtroom woul dtake ou t one floor and a cou rtroom .
I wou ld hope that your organization wou ld take a rea l good look , not on ly at th iscourthouse bu t at a l l of the new court houses , because I be lieve that many of themare in excess of what we need .
If you or any member of your organization wou ld like to discuss th is further withme , p lease fee l free to contact me .
Yours very tru ly ,S C O’
I'I‘ O . WR IGHT ,
S en ior U . S . Dis trict J udge.
U .S . D IS TR ICT COUR T,WES TER N D IS TR ICT OF M IS S OUR I ,
Ka nsa s C i ty, M issou ri, N ovember 9, 1993 .
MR . ROGER JOHNS ON ,Adm in is tra tor, Genera l S ervices Adm in is tra tion ,
W a sh ing ton , DC .
DEAR MR . JOHNS ON : I am in rece ipt of the letter d irected to you by Chief JudgeJoseph E . Stevens
,Jr .
I n his letter Judge Stevens fails to point ou t that we have two very fi ne d istrictcourtrooms in a re lative ly new courthouse in Spring fie ld
,Mis souri
, two districtcourtrooms in Jefferson City , on e of wh ich is a very fi n e courtroom and the othersma l ler court room is adequate to try civi l cases . We have a very fi ne district courtroom in St . Joseph
,M issou ri and a district court room in Jop lin . If we go a long with
the present proposed p lan ,we wou ld have 19 district courtrooms in the Western
5 5
District of Mis souri . We have a very heavy civil docket in Jefferson City,Mis souri
and a heavy civi l docket in Spring fie ld,and we a lso now have a crimina l docket in
Jefferson City and a very heavy crimina l docket in Springfi e ld . Almost ha lf of thecivi l docket for the Western District ofM i ssouri is in Springfi e ld and Jefferson City .
All of those cases are tried in Jefferson City and Spring fie ld and not tried in KansasCity . Counting the court rooms we have outside Ka nsas City , if we have nine courtrooms in Kansas C ity instead of 13 proposed
,it wou ld be more than adequate to
satisfy our needs for the next 5 0 years .
Judge S tevens states in his letter that this new courthouse has been approved bythe Admin istrative Offi ce
,GS A and the Judges on this Court . In the p ast , the
Judges ’ budget has rea l ly not been scrutinized by anyone . They have been givenabout what they want . I fee l that because of the huge federa l debt , the Judiciary ,a long with the other branches of government , needs to take a hard look at the waythey are spending our money .
As I p ointed out in my letter to you of October 27 , 1993 ,I was not just ta lking
about the courthouse in Kansas City . I th ink that a l l of these proposed new courthouses shou ld be carefu l ly examined to determine the ir actua l needs and , be lieveme , I do not be l ieve that has been done in the past .Both of our United States Senators are strong be lievers in not raising taxes and
cutting the budget and I agree with them . Therefore,I fee l that the Judiciary’s
budget shou ld be scrutinized the same as , hopeful ly , the Executive and Congress ional budgets are being scrutinized . We are at a rea l crossroads in th is country andif we do not change the way government spends money
,we are not going to have
anything to leave to our grandchildren .
I get the fee ling from Judge Stevens ’ letter that he fee ls that I am trying to sabotage the new cou rthouse . Noth ing cou ld be further from the truth . We defi nite lyneed a new adequate courthouse . The word “ adequate” is very crucia l . That is thereason I wrote you the letter asking you
,as the new head of GSA
,to take a good
c lose look at these new court houses to be su re we are not building court houses thatare far in excess of need in the foreseeab le future .
I must say that I have to admire the Senator from N orth Dakota who cut thebudget in ha lf for the courthouse in Fargo , North Dakota , in spite of the fact thatGS A and the Administrative Offi ce had approved a budget of $ 4 6 mi l lion .
Yours very tru ly,
SCOTT O . WR IGHT ,S en ior U .S . District J udge.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES I . PATTON
Mr . Chairman and Members of the Committee :We we lcome this opportunity to discuss the status of the judiciary ’s response to
GAO’
s recommendations for improving the judiciary’s long-range space p lanningprocess . I n September 1993 ,
we issued a report , Federa l J ud icia ry S p a ce : LongR a nge P la nn ing Process N eeds R evis ion (GAO/GGD—93— 132 , Sept . 28 ,
wh icheva luated the reasonab leness of the judiciary ’s process for proj ecting long-rangespace needs . The j udiciary was one of the fi rst federa l government organizations todeve lop a p lanning process for anticipating long-range space needs . Th e resu lts of
the p lanning process are used by th e Genera l Services Admin istration (GSA) to deveIOp requests to Congress for new construction and expansion of court space in existing faci lities .
In 198 8 , to anticipate future space requirements , the Jud icia l Conference of theUnited States , the policymaking body of the judiciary , directed each of the 94 distriet cou rts to deve lop a long-range p lan for its space needs . It a lso d irected the Admin istrative Offi ce of the U .S . Court s (AOC ) , the administrative body of the judieiary , to provide the districts with the necessary p lanning guidance . The basic assumption of the p lanning process was that case loads shou ld determ ine staff needs ,which in effect shou ld defi ne space needs .
Our report identifi ed three key prob lems that impaired the accuracy of the j ud iciary
’
s proj ections of space needs : ( 1 ) a l l judicia l districts were not treated consistent ly , (2 ) existing space p lus unmet needs for authorized staff was accepted as abase line without questioning whether it was appropriate given a district ’s currentcase load ; and (3 ) projection methods were not statistica l ly acceptab le and invo lveda high leve l of subj ectivity . We made six specifi c recommendations in our report tocorrect these key prob lems .
5 6
In March 1994, we were asked b the Subcomm ittee on Pub lic Bui ldings and
Grounds , Committee on Pub lic Works and Transportation , House of Rep resentat ive s , to assess the judiciary
’s actions to imp lement the recommendations in our report . To respond to this request , we interviewed judiciary and GS A offi cia ls , examin ed documents re lating to the judiciary
’s long-range p lan n in process,and dis
cussed a ltern ative statistica l methodo logies with judiciary o i cia ls . Overa l l,we
found that the jud iciary has made progress in improving its long-range p lanningprocess .
Th e judiciary has imp lemented two of our recommendations— one re la t in to theconsistency of the process and the other re lating to the time span covers by theproj ections . The j udiciary has art ia lly responded to two other recommendationsdea ling with the projection methods and the leve l of subj ectivity and has indicateda wi l lingness to take further actions to fu l ly imp lement these recommendations . Thej ud iciary has not imp lemented the two remaining recommendations— improving themethod of grouping districts and estab lishing appropriate base lines (current 8 aceneed s ) . Jud i ciary Offi cia ls to ld us that they are eva luating op tions to address t esetwo remain ing recommendations . I wi l l now briefly exp lain the jud iciary
’s actionson our report recommendations to the Director of AOC
,the offi ce responsib le for
managing the p lanning process .
IMPLEMENTED RECOMMENDATIONSGAO recommenda tion : To imp rove con s is ten cy in the long -ra nge p la nn ing p rocess ,
AOC shou ld p rep a re up da ted sp a ce p la ns for a ll d is tricts whenever cha nges a re
made to the a ssump tions tha t affect s taff sp a ce a lloca tionsIn our report
,we expressed concern that the districts whose space p lans were
comp leted ear ly in the process received lower space a l locations than did those comp leted later . AOC is now updating the long-ran e p lans and intends to update a l lp lans w ith in about 2 years of their origi na l compfet ion date . AOG has comp leted theupdating process for 1 5 d i str i cts , and the process is underway for another 15 . Th efi r
fit
go
l
u n d of updates wi l l be comp leted by 1996 if AOC fo l lows its p lanned biennia ls e e u e .
GAO recommenda tion : To imp rove the relia bili ty of the long -ra nge p la nn ing p rocess ,AOC shou ld lim i t the time sp a n covered by the sp a ce p roj ecti ons to 10 yea rsIn our report , we stated that ( 1 ) 20 and 30 ear proj ections lack precision and
(2 ) GS A uses on ly the 10-year space estimates fbr its p lanning purposes . Since ourorigi na l eva luation ,
AOC has changed the information given to GS A for p lan deve lopmen t . N ow
, whenever a decision is made to proceed on a particu lar bui ld ingproj ect , AOC prov i des GS A with detailed 10-year space requirements for prospectusdeve lopment and an overa l l summary of need s at the 30-year point for purpose s ofsite p lanning .
PAR TIALLY IMPLEMENTED RECOMMENDATIONSGAO recommenda tion : To imp rove the s ta tis tica l relia bili ty of the fu tu re sp a ce needs ,
AOC shou ld iden tify a nd use a s ta nda rd s ta tis tica l techn iqu e tha t wou ld genera te a ccu ra te ca seload p roj ections wi th defi ned confi den ce in terva ls
AOG offi cia ls to ld us they no longer average the resu lts generated from the re
gre ss ion equations used to der i ve case load estimates and no longer ap ly arbitrarymu ltip liers to the resu lts . AOC offi cia ls told us they have adopted t e statistica lmethod we used to make the estimates that appeared in our report . W hi le we areencouraged by this action
,we suggested— both in our report and in our discussions
with AOC offi cia ls— a lternative methods that cou ld yie ld resu lts with narrower confi den ce interva l s— a statistica l measure indicating the accuracy of the projections .
AOC off i cia ls said they p lan to test a lternative proj ection methods . This task is ofprime importance for the overa l l p lanning process because accurate case load projection s are necessary if accu rate staff needs are to be estimated .
GAO recommenda tion : To further imp rove the relia bili ty of the es tima tes of fu tu resp a ce needs , AOC shou ld redu ce the su bj ectivi ty of the p rocess by elim i na ting the
u s e of a rb i tra ri ly selected regress ion models a nd by verifying the informa tionp rovided by the loca l rep resen ta tives
AOG Offi cia ls to ld us they have improved the re liabi lity invo lved in projectingcase loads by e liminating the subj ectivity in choosing regression mode ls . AOC offi
cia ls informed us how they now use a defi ned and consi stent proj ection methodo logyfor a l l districts . However
,subj ectivity sti l l occurs when loca l representatives change
the estimates of staff requirements that were generated from case load proj ections .AOG offi cia ls said they wi l l begin comparing the information provided by the loca l
5 7
representatives to the information from the statistica l p rojections to determine thereasonab leness Of the staffi ng estimates .
RECOMMENDATIONS N OT YET FULLY ADDR ES S EDGAO recommenda tion : To imp rove con s is ten cy in the p la nn ing p roces s , AOC shou ld
d evise a me thod for cla ss ifying d i s tricts tha t con s iders ca se comp lexi ty in a dd it ion to ca se load
AOC offi cia ls have not changed the method by which they c lass ify each of the 94districts into 1 of 4 groups— what the jud iciary ca l ls growth mode ls— wh ich are usedto estab lish the ratios for converting case loads into staff needs . We discussed withAOC a statistica l method known as cluster ana lysis , wh ich could be used to deve lopgroups of districts that wou ld a l low for the use ofmu ltip le factors , such as case comp lexity ,
rather than using on ly tota l case load . AOC offi cia ls said that the are eva luating severa l a lternatives for class ifying d i stricts . This task is crucia l or p lann ingu rposes because the average current case load within each group determines the rea t ion sh ip between case loads and numbers of key personne l requ ired .
GAO recommenda t ion : To determ i ne whe ther exi s ti ng sp a ce p lu s u nmet need s wa sthe ap p rop r i a te ba seline in ligh t of cu rren t ca seload s , AOC sh ou ld revi s e the
p rocess to requ ire tha t ba selines be es ta blished tha t reflected AOC’
s a ssump tion srega rd i ng the re la tion sh ip s be tween ca seload s , s taff n eed s , a nd sp a ce requ iremen ts
AOC has not yet addressed this recommendation . However,it has deve loped and
imp lemented an automated system , ca l led ANYCOU RT , which is used to determinefuture space needs by converting estimated staff needs to s ace needs . AOC offi cia lstold us that the space requirements generated by ANYC U RT are a p roximate ]20-percent higher than those produced under the p rocess they prev iou sfy used . AOof ficia ls said they are seeking to identify the reasons for this increase . Whi le we d idnot eva luate the space a l locations in AN YCOU RT , in p rincip le such a system cou ldbe des igned to e liminate the subj ectiv i ty invo lved when AOC identifi es cu rrentspace needs .
I n summary,the judiciary has made rogress in improving its long—range p lan
ning process . Judiciary offi cia ls indicate that they p lan to take the necessary ac
tions to address our remain ing concerns,and we have offered to assist them in any
way possib le . Th e chan es a lready imp lemented combined with our other recommen ded actions shou l correct the prob lems discussed in our report . We be lieve ,however
,that the combined effects of the changes cannot be assessed unti l they
have been imp lemented for at least 6 months .
Mr . Cha irman,this concludes my prepared statement . My co l leagues and I wi l l
be p leased to answer any questions .
PREPAR ED STATEMENT OF JU LIA M . S TAS C H
Mr . Chairman,it is my p leasure to appear before you today to discuss the basic
resu lts , actua l and anticipated savings , and lessons learned from GS A’
s time-outand review . Th is review was conducted to provide the most effective response topub l i c concerns about the process by which projects in the pub lic bui ldings programare p lanned , funded , and executed . From ear ly September 1993 through mid-Marchof this year , GSA has been engaged in the review of new construction , modern ization
,and lease rojects , not yet awarded for construction or lease . Ou r goa ls were
to ensure that t ese proj ects are sti l l needed in the light of chan'
ng c lient agencyrequ i rements , to exp lore new a lternatives for meeting c lient nee s , and to providethe most cost-effective imp lementation possib le for projects recommended to proceed .
I be lieve we have current achievements and a strategy for continuing success in re
a liz ing these goa ls .
One measure of success in private enterprise is the bottom line . For GSA ’
s timeout and review the bottom line is an estimated bi l lion in tota l savings . We expect our review of proj ects to yie ld $38 5 mi l lion in savings in GS A
’
s new con stru c
tion program, $ 122 mi l lion in the modernization pro am
,and $693 mi l lion in the
leas ing program . I would like to say a few words a out each of these categories ,starting with the leasing program . Th e primary driver of program costs and , therefore , the key to savings are client requirements . Reductions in c lient agency spacerequirements trans late directly into do l lar savings for our program . By leasing fewersquare feet of space to house our client Federa l a encies , we wil l need to spend lessand therefore can request lower funding leve ls t an otherwise would be the case .
Of cou rse , these savings are not availab le up front , but are rea lized over the termsof the leases with reduced or can ce led requirements . We expect to rea lize $4 8 0 4
5 8
mi l lion , or 69%of the sav ings p rojected for the leasing program ,by the end of fi sca l
year 2005 and to ach ieve the ba lance of the $693 m i l lion in cumu lative savings bythe end of fi scal year 2023 .
Th e savings in new construction and modern ization proj ects can be rea lized overa shorter timeframe . Th e $ 5 07 m i l lion in savings estimated for the new constructionand modernization p rograms are th e result of site acquisition ,
scope reduction , revised construction budget , va lue engineering, and design cost savings expected to berea lized during fi sca l years 1994 through 2000 . The site , scope change , and revisedbudget p ortion of these savings , representing 4 6%of the tota l , we expect to achieveby the end of fi sca l year 1996 .
Scope reduction savings have been identifi ed through the reeva luation of c lientagency and proj ect requirements to ensure that GSA does not now propose a largerfaci lity than can be j ustifi ed by proj ected need as shaped by the current impetustoward downsizing the Federa l workforce . Revised construction budget savings areachieved through the app lication of benchmark cost and effi ciency criteria to prop osed p roj ects . We now use accepted industry standards as the basis for our reviewof cost figures . Starting with these standards , and app lying factors that are uniqueto the construction of Federa l faci lities , we are ab le to ensu re that our proj ect costsare within appropriate to lerances . We are also cha l lenging our arch itects and engin eers to deve lop creative and imaginative des igns , wh i le focu sing on increas ing theeffi ciency factor of the buildings they des ign . Bu i lding effi ciency is measu red as theratio of occupiab le space in a faci lity as compared to its gross size . In creasing aproj ect’s effi ciency ratio can resu lt in sign ifi cant cost savings without any reductionin the amount of space provided to bui lding tenants . S ite savings , scope change andbudget reduction savings can be taken from proj ect budgets immediate ly , since theyrepresent amounts we wi l l no longer need to de liver projects as current ly proposed .
Th e remaining 5 4%of the savings proj ected for the new construction and modern iza t ion programs represents the col lective savings goa l to be ach ieved throughth e app lication of va lue engineering techniques during the design and constructionphases of the proj ects in these programs . Va lue engineering can be defi ned as anorganized effort directed at ana lyzing the functions of systems , equipment , faci lities ,services and supp l ies for the purpose of achieving the essentia l functions at the lowest life-cyc le cost cons istent with required performance , re liab i l ity , qua lity and safety . During the design phase of GS A
’
s new construction and modernization project s ,the proj ect team systematica l ly eva luates the building program , systems , compon en ts and materia ls to determine the best a lternative with the least initia l and lifecyc le cost . During th e construction phase , construction contractors generate proposa ls regarding bui ld ing systems
,components and materia ls .
Th e specifi c savings targets estab lished for each proj ect in the design and construction phases are based on the aggressive use of va lue engineering in a contextcharacterized by continuing opportunities to further scrub program requirement s ascustomer agencies ’ space and faci lity needs are refi ned ; by feedback from the private-se ctor design and construction community through proj ect-based discussionsand the Independent Pane l on Courthouse Construction ; through an expected cont in u at ion of favorab le market cond itions ; and through active pursuit of specifi c savings goa ls through part nering in the design and construction stages .
GS A’
s imp lementation of time-ou t and review project recommendations requiresus to estab lish tracking systems and management accountabi lity to ensure thatproj ects are deve loped and savings rea lized in accordance with those recommenda
tions . The fi rst step“ in this process has a lready occurred . Proj ect specifi c memorandahave been sent to GSA ’
s regiona l offi ces notifying the regiona l managements of theresu lts of the rev iew and p roviding instruct ions on how to proceed . A ctua l proj ectsavings wil l be compared to the savings goa ls estab lished by the review process inquarterly tracking report s . GSA p lans to submit quarter ly report s to the Congres sindicating our progres s in meeting these goa ls . The performance contract s of re
gi ona l managers wil l be keyed to the achievement of these savings goa ls . We w il la lso en su re that proj ect funding is consistent with time-ou t and review decisions bycontro l ling the flow of proj ect funds to the regions through our a l lowance proce ss .
The continuing success of time-ou t and review for GSA , the Federa l community ,and the American taxpayer is dependent upon our abi lity to institut iona lize thethinking
,the goa ls
,and the commitment which have characterized it as a process .
GS A is committed to app lying the lessons learned from time-out and review to themanagement of the pub lic bui ld ings program in the future . That future begins now$Th is requir es us to increase long-range p lann ing based on an understand ing of theneeds of Federa l agencies with in the community and marketp lace where they arelocated . GSA
’
s p lanning process has a lready adopted the community strategy as the
60
PREPAR ED STATEMENT OF P . GERALD THACKERMr . Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee :Thank you for the Opp ortunity to appear before you today to discuss the Judi
ciary’
s housing needs and actions that have been taken over the past few years tomanage our construction program effective ly .
The Pub lic Works Committees of the Congress have acknow ledged the space re
qu iremen ts of the Federa l Judiciary through the authorization of over seventy majorrenovation and construction projects since 1991 . We appreciate the consideration ofthose requests and want to assure you that the Judiciary is committed to workingwith ou and your staff to ensur e our requ i rements are reasonab le and cost-effect ive . e a lso have had a number of discussions w ith Senator Dorgan and h is staffabout the construction program over the past ear .
The size of the Jud iciary judges an over staff) has expanded constan tly and dramatica l ly , particu lar ly with in the last two decades . That growth isapt not to abate . Space for such striking growth ,
and security in it for its personne l,
are essentia l for the Judiciary to carry out its constitutiona l ro le .
The prob lem , as you we l l know , is that the bui lding program has come in the midd le of simi lar dramatic shifts in funding avai labi lity . Budget batt les
,defi cit redu c
tion efforts,ba lanced budget amendments and a genera l notion of cutback manage
ment pervade the process .
Th e Judiciary is who lehearted ly committed to cost containment . I ts po licy-makingbody
,the Judicia l Conference of the Un i ted States
,and its Committee on Security
,
Space and Faci lities,chaired by Judge Robert C . Broomfi e ld , have been sensitive to
that need and have been focuss ing on it for the p ast severa l years .
Th e Jud iciary ’s bui lding program has proceeded pursuant to a we l l thought-outlon range p lanning process and is being managed prudent ly , consistent with theJ u iciary
’
s governance structure . I t has been subj ected to some criticism within thelast year . I ho e my remarks today not on ly u t in context that criticism but a lsocommunicate t e strengt hs of the program and
pthe reasons and need for it .
U N ITED STATES COU R TS DES IGN GU IDETh e approva l by the Jud icia l Conference in March 1991 of standards for a l l court
occup ied spaces pub lished in a U n i ted S ta tes C ou rts Des ign Gu ide has provided GS Aand its architects with the specifi cations they need to desi functiona l new courtspace . Prior to the is suance of the Des ign Gu ide there was fi
r'i t le guidance avai lab le
to the Jud iciary , GS A or the design community . With few standards in p lace , it wasdiffi cu lt to manage the process . Continuing review of those standards by the Security , Space and Facilities Committee has resu lted in many cost -saving changes S incethe time the Gu ide was fi rst pub lished in 1991 .
The circuit judicia l counci ls (which have reapons ibilit ies for administering thebusiness of the court s ) have the statutory authority to approve the need for a givencourt “ accommodation” (28 U .S .C . 4 62(b When it approved the Des ign Gu ide
standards in 1991,the Judicia l Conference a lso vested authority to approve excep
tions to the standards in the circu it j udicia l counci ls . Consequent ly , the Jud icia lConference ’s Security
,Space and Faci lities Committee has fostered awareness on
the part of the circuit counci ls of their critica l ro le in enforcing the Conference-approved standards and in containing construction costs . For examp le , CommitteeChairman Broomfi e ld has spoken at meetings of Chief Circuit Judges and the entireJudicia l Conference (over which the Chief Justice of the United States presides )about the need for fi sca l restraint and to enforce the Gu ide. The j udicia l councils ,indeed , have exercised contro l over requests for exceptions to Des ign Gu ide standards . Considering the size of the facilities program ,
there have been re lative ly fewrequests for exceptions .
The Judiciary is attempting , through its Security , Space and Faci lities Committee ,the Administrat ive Offi ce of the Un ited States Courts and the various circuit j udicia l counci ls to be econom ic , prudent and cost-conscious in this effort . In fact , substan t ia l cost savings have occu rred . A t its September 1993 and March 1994 sessions
,the Judicia l Conference approved a number of amendments to the Des ign
Gu ide that wi l l reduce the cost s of courthouse construction to GSA . A listing of
those cost containment items is attached to this statement (see A ttachment A ) .Changes in acoustica l standards a lone wi l l save about a ha lf a mi l lion dol lars in theaverage-sized new cour thouse .
RELATIONS H IP WITH GSAAs you know , the Judiciary has no d irect authority to secure faci lities for its
j udges and staff, whether in courthouses , Federa l buildings or leased space . That
61
respons ibility l ies exclus ive ly with the General Services Adm in istration,by law . I t
is GSA ’
S responsibi lity to p lan for the space needs of it s cl ients , wh ich is essentia l lymost of the Federa l government . The current GS A Adm inistrator Roger Johnsonand h is Deputy Ju lia S ta sch have worked c lose ly with us and have been sensitiveto and supportive of our needs . I cannot say that p rior adm in istrations were as W i l ling to work w ith us . Certain ly Mr . Johnson and Ms . S ta sch have taken a new approach to rea l property adm inistration . However
,in the past GSA had not addressed
long term housing requ irements . Ou t of necessity,the Jud iciary has had to fi l l this
p lann ing“ void .
”
LONG RANGE PLANN ING PROCES SIn March 198 8 the Judicia l Conference approved a recommendation that requ ires
each jud icia l distri ct to deve lop a p lan of its faci lities projections in both the shortand long term , based on a consistent methodology . The p lans provide a context inwhich the Congress and GSA can make informed rea l prop erty decis ions . E ightyfive districts have comp leted their p lans . The few d istricts that have not comp letedthe ir p lans are not expected to need additiona l faci lities in the long-term .
Th e innovative p lanning process has been refi ned continua l ly since it fi rst beganin January 198 9 . The initia l phases of the p lanning project were particu lar ly cha llengi ng, since the distri cts with the most urgent hous ing prob lems were addressedfi rst . The statistica l methodo logy and p lanning assump tions a lso have evo lved overtime . The Judiciary has imp lemented an updating procedure to bring a l l long rangep lans u p -to-date in terms of data gathering techniques , case load forecasts , p lanning
procedures
,and supporting documentation . To date , 30 d istrict-wide p lans have
een updated or are in the p rocess of being updated . Proj ections for individua lproj ects within districts are routine ly performed to ensure that a l l space estimatesconform with current p lanning assumptions . Over 100 project-S pecifi c updates havebeen performed to date .
As far as we can te l l , no branch or agency of substantia l size with in the Federa lgovernment had undert aken to p lan for its long term S pace needs until the Jud iciary
’
s effort commenced in 198 8 . In that sense we are a fi rst .
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTUnfortunate ly , there has been criticism of the Judiciary’s p lanning p rocess . Much
of the criticism directed specifi ca l ly at the courthouse construction program hasstemmed from a re ort of the GAO’
s review of the Jud iciary ’s long-ran e faci lityp lanning, initiated by a former GSA Administrator and requested by t e HousePub lic Works Committee .
GAO asserted that the initia l case load projections used in the p lanning processwere statistica l ly fl awed , and that a l lowing court managers and judges to participate in deve loping the long range lans permitted too much subj ectivity . Consequent ly , the GAO study team conc nded that the resu lts of the p lans cou ld not
be used by the Congress to make decisions on authorizing and funding new construction proj ects . The GAO report a lso asserted that the Judiciary has more spacethan it needs for current staff and more staff than it nee ds for current workload .
Al though some minor statistica l fi ne-tuning is warran te d and a lready has beenaccomp lished , the GAO report did not consider the age of the current courthouses(and attendant space ineffi ciencies ) and the existence of mu ltip le facilities in eachdistrict (with attendant dup lication between faci lities of such spaces as jury assemb ly rooms
,pub lic areas of clerks offi ces , grand j ury rooms , The study did not
address GS A po licy decisions to separate bankruptcy court s and d istrict courts andthe costs to the Jud iciar y of having sp lit court operations , including court securityoffi cers at mu ltip le locations . A lso , the study app lied fi sca l year 1991 ratios of staffin on board to current case load rather than using work measurement formu las(w ich would have revea led that the Judiciary is some 15 percent understaffed atpresent ) .The study a lso did not recogn ize that our long range lanning process is but onein a series of steps in the proj ect deve lopment process . t is important to recognizethat the Judiciary is not making proposa ls on courthouse construction in a “vaouum . The long range lans provide a context for the Judiciary , GSA , OMB , and theCongress to make a ecis ion about a specifi c proj ect . I have attached to this statement a chart that disp lays the decision points in the entire proj ect deve lopmentprocess ( see Attachment B ) .Upon rece ipt of the GAO report , the Judiciary asked the N ationa l Center for StateCourts to critique the Judiciary ’s p lanning program ,
especia l ly in comparison to
what is done by state courts . The N ationa l Center’s report conc luded :
62
The method s used by the AOU S C in its long-range p lanning program areat least as rigorous as genera l l accepted practices used by state and loca lgovernmenta l j urisdictions . Wit some minor excep tions the AOU S C ’
s
process shou ld be considered a mode l to be fo l lowed by other jurisdictionsthat might wish to take a com rehen s ive look at their cou rt faci lities
We hOpe that you wi l l agree t at the Judiciary’s p lanning process
,with some
minor modifi cations,is a usefu l p lanning too l .
GAO U PDATE
In March of this year , the House Pub lic Works Committee asked GAO to eva luateour progress with imp lementation of the recommendations it made in its report .
Based on two briefi ngs we have had with GAO staff, it is fair to say that , in spiteof the reservations we have about the report itse lf and its conclusions
,sign ifi cant
progress has been made . The Jud iciary has a lready addressed , or is in the processof address ing, a l l of the ma
'
or recommendations in the GAO report .
We have just been provi ed with a copy of GAO’
s most recent letter re ort to theHouse on our rogre ss . Based on that ana lysis
,it seems that suffi cient a justments
have been ma e to satisfy GAO’
s concerns . At a hearing on Apri l 2 1 , 1994 , membersof the House Pub lic Works and Trans ortat ion Subcommittee on Pub lic Bui ldingsand Grounds expressed their support flit the progress we have made with refi ningthe p lanning process . The House Subcommittee members a lso seemed p leased withthe coo era t ive working re lationsh ip that has deve loped between the Judiciary , th eGeneral
)
Services Administration and the Genera l Accounting Offi ce . The Admin istrat ive Offi ce staff wants to work with GAO staff to refi ne the process furt her .
INDEPENDENT COUR TS BU ILD ING PROGRAM PANELIn September 1993 , the Jud iciary and GS A j oint ly convened a private-sector pane l
of arch itects , engineers , and construction industry professiona ls fami liar with stateand Federa l courthouse construction to su gest ways of reducing construction costs .
Th e program p ane l was created , as state on page 7 of its December 1993 report ,to “ provide a rea listic and candid assessment of the $courthouse construction ] ro
gram and to identify any possib le opportunities for cost savings . The pane l stu iedthe courthouse construction process and made a series of recommendations , most ofwhich were directed at ways GS A cou ld change its procu rement process and bettermanage the process in genera l .A primary pane l recommendation was that a j oint GS A/C ourts Cour thouse Man
agemen t Group (C MG) be estab lished to serve as the centra l management organization for the courthouse construction program . The group wou ld serve as the nationwide “ center of expertise” on court construction and wou ld act as the single repre sen ta t ive of the Government on each courthouse proj ect .With th e Government speaking with “ one voice” vested in the C MG ,
it wi l l nolonger be nece ssary to “ re invent the whee l” each time a new courthouse proj ect begi ns . Consistent interpretation of GSA and Judiciary construction po licies and
guide lines wi l l be a natura l resu lt of this process . It is anticipated that the courtouse construction program wi l l continue to improve over time because the C MGmembers wi l l learn “what works and what doesn ’t work” based on their experiences .
The Judiciary strongly support s this pane l recommendation and has been meetingfrequent ly with GS A to guarantee its succes s .
Th e ane l a lso reviewed in detai l the U n ited S ta tes C ou rts Des ign Gu ide . I t madeseveral
pobserva t ion s and some recommendations that were adopted by the Judicia l
Conference in March 1994 . Those cost savings measures had to do with e liminationof secure parkin for service veh icle s , reductions in doors requiring locks , and inclusion in the Gu i e of langu age that wil l caution GSA ’
s architects not to overemphasize the exterior design of a courthouse . It is important to note that th e independentpane l observed in its report that : “Perceptions that federa l courthouses are goldp lated or extravagant which lead to proj ects costing twice as much as they shou ldis simp ly incorrect .
”
TIME OU T AND REVIEWMr . Chairm an
,we have heard that GSA has comp leted its fi na l report on the
Time Ou t and Review . Since that proce ss was an Executive Branch initiative andth e methodo logy emp loyed was deve loped by the Administration , I must defer toGS A to describe how the courts wi l l be affected .
As you know , the Judiciary does not ca lculate the bui lding project budgets— thatresponsibi lity is vested in GSA and the Offi ce of Management and Budget . The
bu get reductions GS A hopes to rea lize,as we understand it , are based main ly on
63
assump tions of va lue-engineering”i .e .
,objective ly eva luating design decisions with
an overa l l look toward cost effectiveness . We support GS A in these efforts but havenot been provided with the detai l of how the cost savings wil l be ach ieved . We wil lwork c lose ly with GSA to ensure tax do l lars are saved without impeding thefunctiona lity of cou rt space and understand that GS A is committed to working withus .
As noted throughout the Independent Courts Building Pane l Rep ort , an aggres
sive,we l l-organized construction proj ect management p rogram shou ld be put in
p lace by GS A . The Pane l ’s report , on page 1 8 , states :“Va lue Engineering
,as cur
ren t ly practiced on courthouse p rojects , has p roduced mixed resu lts . Futu re VEteam members shou ld be se lected part ly on the basis of their comm itment to common project goa ls .
” We be lieve that a commitment through enhanced managementas envisioned by the Pane l is virtual ly the on ly way savings can be ach ieved .
Mr . Chairm an,on beha lf of Ra lph Mecham , the Director of the Administrative Of
fi ce of the United States Cou rts , and Judge Robert Broomfi e ld , thank you for theopportun ity to appear before you today . Should you have any questions , I wou ld behappy to answer them at this t ime .you have any questions , I wou ld be happy to answer them at this time .
ATTACHMENT A
THE JU DIC IARY COS T CONTA INMENT MEA S URES COUR THOUS E CONS TR UCTIONPROGRAM
Th e Judiciary ’s space standards are under constant review by the Committee onSecurity
,Space and Faci l ities of the Judicia l Conference of the Un ited States ( the
Judicia l Conference is the Ju diciary’
s po licy-making body ) . Th e fo l lowing are the sign ifi cant cost containment changes that have been adopted by the Judicia l Conference :
1 . Reduction in the acoustica l ratings of wa l ls in court space , proj ected to savein the average courthouse .
Reduction in the cei ling height requirements for courtrooms in leased spaces .
De letion of showers in judge ’s restrooms .
E limination of the S pace standard for meet ing/tra in ing rooms .
Add ition of language emphasizing the need to share conference rooms , stafflounges , and staff toilets by court offi ces .
E l imination of the requirements for a separate emergency exit stairwe l l forj udges and prisoners .
E limination of smokers ’ lounges in jury assemb ly areas .
Reduction of lighting leve l standards .
Reduction in the number of doors requiring locks .CO
CD
Q
C)
01
;p
64
S te ps ln TheA ll C ourt Ofiices W hole PrOC e S SU . S . Marshals S en/ ice
Loc
65
ATTACHMENT C
Th e fo l lowing are courthouses taken from the AIA/C J A exh ibition brochures ;proj ects are n ot a lways pure courthouses ; they may a lso be j ai ls , and may a lso inclu de renovat ion s . Costs are a lso sometimes estimates .
The Following A re From the 1990 AIA / C J F B rochu re, a nd A re Ba sed on the C os tof C ons tru ction D ivided by the Gros s S qua re Footage :
Alaska State CourthouseS a nta Clara Count (CA) Ha l l of JusticeJefferson County ovt Admin Courts (CO )Dakota County Courts addition (MN )King Fed B 'ldg Cour thouse
,N eward , N J
Average
Plus 3 Years Infl ation of 1 8%The Following Are From the 198 8 AIA C J A Brochu re :
Lamoreaux Juveni le Justice Family Law Ctr (CA)Au ru ra Mun icipa l Justice Center (CO)DuPage County Judicia l Offi ce Faci lity ( IL)Tarrant County Courts B ldg (TX )Chesterfi e ld County Courts B ldg (VA )
Average
Plus 5 Years Infl ation of 30%
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS G . PINKERTON
Previous to the current effort , the last major federa l courthouse bui lding programwas 5 0 to 60 years ago in an era which predated te levis ion and common usage of
the au tomob ileh at a time when our nation ’s popu lation was one ha lf what it istoday . Du e to the qua lity of the investment of Congress at that time , the ski l l ofthe architects of that day
,and the ongoing maintenance of those faci lities , we are
sti l l using most of those federa l court houses ; but many of the buildings are simp lywearing out with the passing of time
,and their functiona l characteristics are of a
different era . Those courthouses are unab le to meet the demands of larger and verydifferent court dockets , the growing need for court house securi ty inc luding separation of the various court participants
,greater attention to specia l user needs and
changing techno logy .
Many concerns of today were given litt le attention or even undreamed of by thebui lders of yesterday’s federa l cou rthouses— concerns wh ich great ly affect the designof courthouses
,rangi ngas wide ly and dis arately as
o Vast ly increase civil litigation inc uding the civi l right s movementGreater attention to earthquake desiGreater attention to accessibi lity by the disab led (ADA )Two-income fami lies and the need for chi ld care at the workp laceGreat ly increased urban population concentrationWidespread use and traffi cking in i l licit drugsCommon use of handgunsCommunications techno logyBankru tcies
N ew fe era l court jurisdiction as defi ned by CongressEnvironmenta l awarenessSma ll and d is advantaged business provisions
0 Lawsuits with large numbers of litigantsWith regard to the high cost of construction of federa l cou rthouses , attention must
he focused upon the distinct differences between federa l courthouses and otherbui lding types . Re lative to offi ce build ings and other bui lding types common to the’
8 0’
s, cou rthouses (both state and federa l ) are far more comp lex . Courthouses of
today contain at least three circu lation systems to separate the pub lic , in -custodyprisoners , and the judges , staff, and juries . In courthouse design
,a l l interior spaces
are provided within the initia l construction budget and have unique and comp licatedusage , while initia l budgets for spe cu lative offi ce bui ld ings inc lude on ly she l ls w ith
66
primary vert ica l circu lation cores . Separate fi t-out designs and construction budgetsare ta i lored to future tenant requirements .
Courthouses , as a part of our pub lic infrastructur e , are linked to other governmenta l and institutiona l functions , thereby lim iting their s iting and location opportu n it ie s . Su itab le urban s ites were far more avai lab le in 1930 than in 1990
,making
the design and construction of today’s federa l courthouse on a downtown site in amodern city a form idab le and cos t l task (demo lition to clear an urban site of ex istin g construction and contaminate a zardou s soi ls are examp les of common p roblems in the current federa l courthouse design program ) .In comparing the re lative construction costs of state and federa l courthouses
,fed
era l courthouses are more expensive to bui ld than state courthouses . W hi le bothproj ect types have sim ilar programmatic criteria
,state court jur isdiction s have vary
ing expectations of criteria,state court j urisd ictions have varying expectations of
longevity ; federa l construction must comp ly with specia l federa l regu lations . For examp le , federa l courthouse construction proj ects must conform to the Davis-Bacon( labor rates ) Act , metric design po licy , buy-America policy , and very long usefu l lifeexpectancy standards . Add i tiona l ly
,federa l courthouses must fo l low specifi c guide
l ines and standards , such as the U .S . C ou rts Des ign Gu ide and GS A’
s PBS /PQ— IOO,
wh i le no uniform nationa l guide lines exist for state and loca l courthouses .
Rep lacing our federa l courthouses now wil l no doubt be a painfu l roces s , monetarily . But the cost of bui lding materia ls and construction labor wil doubtles s increase over time
,and the necessary rep lacement of our aging federa l courthouse in
ven tory w i l l never cost less than now . Furthermore , ind i cations are that with the
passage of time the federa l courthouse bui lding program wi l l have increas ing d ifi cu lty in competing with a revita lized private sector construction industry .
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN G . DELBRIDGE ,JR .
Mr . Chairman,Members of the Committee :
Thank you for inv it in me to comment on Federa l Courthouse Construction policies and practices
,speci i ca lly that which re lates to the recent R ep ort of Indep enden t
C ou rts B u i ld ing P rogram Pa nel, December 1993 . I commend th e initiative of theGenera l Services Administration in seeking from industry their recommendations inhow best to cut costs and more effective ly manage this monumenta l and comp lexcon struction program .
A s a member of this vo luntary industry pane l composed of architects , en'
neers ,
construction contractors and deve lopers currently invo lved in major federa cou rthouse proj ect s , I can assure you that we approached this task serious ly and withthe intent to recommend improvements which wou ld not on ly produce a productthat was both functiona l ly suffi cient and cost effective but a lso provide a visib le ,lasting and esthetica l ly leasing structura l presence in communities throughout thenation . A structure in wfiich a l l Americans cou ld take justifi ab le pride .
The pane l report properly identifi es that the greatest opportunity for cost savingsoccurs at the begi nn in of a proj ect . As a proj ect progresses , change becomes morediffi cu lt and more costfy to execute . Other than the construction agent in th is case ,GS A
,who must provide the funds
, erhap s no one is more aware of the impact of
change orders on a proj ect cost andtime schedu le than the contractor . I t is th isareas of the report with which I was invo lved and wi l l address as it pertains to amodifi ed management structure .
Contract changes resu lt from various circumstances , some re lated to design criteria , some to acts of God (weather , etc. ) and others to oh -site changes initiated inthe interest of va lue engin eerin or simp ly b owners desires . Some changes are inevitab le . However , changes can e minimize with a systems approach , particu larlyin a large program such as the Court s Bui ldings , by tailoring the existing management organization to addres s the unique features of proj ect com lexity , constructionagen cy/own er re lationsh ip , geograph ic d ispersion , and stan ard ization requirements . Uti lization of the existing mari a emen t structure to the greatest extent possib le m inimizes layering and personne l (
glisru pt ion .
The contractors group of the pane l has recommended such a management strueture , t he
“Courthouse Management Group” (C MG) , a joint GSA/C ourts centra l management organization , to address severa l diffi cu lties encountered in the current system . Th e current management system is fractured between GSA and the Courts andis further di luted by GS A ’
s decentra lized program management at the regiona l orloca l leve l . Proj ects have been addressed on an individua l basis as opposed to a systems approach .
Th e C MG wil l not be another layer of bureaucracy . The C MG is an offi ce staffedby sen ior procurement , design and construction offi cia ls with extensive experience
68
numbers add u p to th i rteen , the exact number of courtrooms present ly lann ed .I n
add ition to that need for courtrooms , there w i l l be an indisputab le need)
for chambers for that many jud es .
I n 1933 and 1934 t e build ing in which we now ho ld court was constructed tomeet short term needs . Th e court grew out of it p rompt ly and S i nce the end ofWorldWar II , a lmost fi fty years , court facilities and executive agencies have been juggl ingand shuffl ing to try to adjust to the inadequate space .
The im e tu s for the p lann ing of a new bui lding in this district came as a resu ltof an in ep th study of the needs of the courts nationwide conducted b Wa lter G .
Moon of the Space Faci lities Division of the Admin istrative Offi ce 0 the Courtsw ith the fu l l part icipation of th is court (of which Judge Wright was Ch ief Judge )and severa l high ranking offi cers of the Genera l Serv i ces Admin i stration . That report was u blished in March of 1991 .
After t e Moon report , the GS A emp lo ed Gou ld-Evans As sociates , P C . to prepared a design program . Again with the u l l and informed cooperation of a l l of thej udges and without dissent from any that program spe l ling out details of the courts ’need s was prepared and submitted to the court in late 1992 .
In November of 1992,the E l lerbe Becke tt/Aben d Singleton consort ium was se
lected as design architects for the roject . This work has been ou -going s ince thattime and they and the cou rt ’s bui l ing committee have kept a l l of the judges fu l lyinformed as the p lans deve loped .
I t was during this last year that the architects and the court committee rea lizedthat the p lans imp lementing the design rogram had put the proj ect over budgetand in excess of the space specifi cations of
Pthe AO ’
s Courts Design Guide . Therefore,
in August of 1933 a who le fl oor was removed from the p lans , cutting back threecourtrooms and associated chambers and reducing s ace for administrative functions . I n other words
,this project has a lready had its ime-Ou t and Review .
”
Three other quick points : First,this court uses innovative and un ique docketing
systems u the acce lerated crimina l and civi l dockets —which are copied nationwide .
It is essentia l for each judge to have an assigned courtroom at a l l times for thosedockets to work . Second
,assi ed courtrooms accommodate the mandates of the
Speedy Tria l Act and the C J Compe l ling sharing of courtrooms by changing thedesign of the Kansas City courthouse wil l serious ly impair th e court ’s ab ility to comp ly with those statutes .
Fina l ly, if the GS A concludes that it wants to bui ld a new faci lity wh ich wi l l be
obso lete and overflowing the day the court moves in,then pay some heed to Judge
Wright’s counse l . If on the other hand , th e GSA p lans to bui ld a courthouse to meetthe need s of the court in the reasonab ly foreseeab le future , than disregard it .
Th e point of a l l of th is is to impress upon you that the new Kansas City , M is souricourthouse is a carefu l ly p lanned proj ect design ed to meet the present and proj ectedneed s of the court at the time it is occupied and for reasonab le time after its comp le
tioWith respect to Judge Wri ht ’s comments about the Court of Appea ls
,I have the
strong fee ling that it is totafly inappropriate for a district j udge to couns e l aboutthe operation of the Court of Appea ls . I be lieve , however , that you wi l l be hearingfrom C ircuit Judge John R . Gibson
,an appropriate source
,about the needs and
p lans of that court .
I am sorry that this proj ect which has evolved as a very happy cooperative effortbetween the court , the AO and the GSA is being mudd led up by suggestions madeas a resu lt of lack of information .
Yours very tru ly,
JOS EPH E . STEVENS ,JR .
C h ief J udge .
$From The Wash ington Pos t , De c . 6 ,1993 ]
JURIS TS ’ PRUDENCE ON TR IALCONGRES S ALS O BLAMED FOR COS TLY COUR THOUS ES
(By Ke nt Jenkins , Jr . )
Come and take a tour of two courthouses . Both are being bui lt by the fe deral governmen t in th e Washington suburbs , less than 20 m iles apart . Both are ded i catedto th
le princip les of justice and equa lity . Bu t the se cou rthouse s are anything but
equa .
One ,in Greenbe lt , wil l have seven judges and one cou rtroom for each . The other ,
in A lexandria , a lso will have seven judges , bu t wi l l have twice as ma ny courtrooms .
69
The bas ic courtroom i n Greenbe lt wi l l have 16 -foot-h igh ce i l ings and wood veneerwa inscot ing . Alexandria ’s bas ic court room w ill have 20-foot-h igh vau lted ce ilingsand wa l ls trimmed top to bottom in wood .
In Alexandria,every judge ’s chamber w i l l have a k i tchenette and a p rivate bath
room w ith a shower . Greenbe lt judges W i l l have to do w ithout .F i na l ly
,there ’s this d i fference : Th e courthouse in Greenbe lt wi l l cost $38 m i l l ion .
Th e pri ce tag for the A lexandria courthouse is $68 m i l l i on .
Al l over the country,the federa l jud iciary and members of Congress eager to bring
home the pork are under attack for constructing cour thouses that are too b ig,too
expens ive and too extravagant .
“We are spend ing too much money for courthouses that refl ect the ego aspect ofCongress and federa l j udges , sa id Sen . Howard M . Metzenbaum (D-Oh io ) . “
Therehas been no overs ight on this
,and we ’re going to have to change that .
”
Some members of Congress and sen ior offi cia ls in the Clinton adm in istrati on areca l l ing some court construction a wastefu l bu i ld ing b inge .
For examp le :0 In St . Louis
,federa l judges proposed a courthouse with 36 courtrooms . Under
pressure from Rep s . Wi l liam Clay (D) and Richard A . Gephardt (D) , the number ofcourt rooms was cut to 27 , saving $ 15 mil lion .
0 In Charleston,W .Va . ,
a prop osed federa l courthouse would have as its crown ingfeature a huge , perforated-stee l dome designed to create a glowing ba l l of l ight onChar leston ’s n ight sky line . Th e dome wou ld be 18 2 feet in d iameter— 25 p ercentlarger than the dome on the U .S . Cap ito l . The proj ect has been de layed because const ruction bids exceeded the $6 1 mi l lion budget by $ 15 mil l ion .
0 A rizona ’s senators are fighting over a proposed new courthouse in Phoenix . Sen .
Dennis DeC oncin i (D) , a senior member of the Appropriations Committee , has putmoney in the budget for the building . But Sen . John McC a in (R) , saying he is concerned about its price
,has he ld up the proj ect .
1» In the U .S . Virgi n Is lands , De l . Ron de Lugo (D ) has fought w ith federa l judgesover not one but two courthouses . At a courthouse bui lt recently in St . Cro ix , judgesmore than doub led the space they initia l ly p lanned to occupy . In St . Thomas
,judges
were dis satisfi ed with a p lanned courthouse addition and proposed an entire ly newbui lding
,which has not been bui lt . De Lugo ca l ls the judges “
incred ib ly arrogant”and has vowed to stop any new bui ld ing.
The need for more judges and more space to put them is rea l enough across thenation . Last yea r , the number of cases fi led in federa l tria l courts set a record , rising more than 10 p ercent , to near ly That reversed a three-year decline
,and
some specia lists do not foresee any easing of that upward trend in the next decade .
Courthouse construction has become a kind of gu erri l la war between the threebranches of government— the jud icia l branch , wh ich design s and uses the facilities ;the legis lative , wh ich provides money for them ; and the executive , wh ich overseescon struction .
I n some cases,judges
,who are a pointed for life , simp ly issue demands and
refuse to budge until they get what t ey want . Other times , members of Congressfund courthouses to de liver pork-barre l projects to their con stitu ten ts .
Rep . John J . Duncan Jr . (R the senior Re ublican on the House pub licbui ldings subcommittee and a former state court ju ge , said the courthouse
“ construction that’s going on and what’s being bui lt are in no way justifi ed .
”
“
Th e way we build courthouses is like te l ling somebody you’ l l build them any kindof house they want , Duncan said .
“
Once these judges have time to s leep on it,they
think of more things they want . From what I ’ve seen , this whole thing is j ust ridiculou sl outra eou sly exorbitant .Officia ls o the federa l cou rt system , responding to criticism ,
note that they established uniform design guide lines two years ago to lower courthouse costs . And
judges in some areas have agreed to save money by shari ng expensive facilities suchas courtrooms and law librar ies .
“
The standards we use are not too different than those used by the executivebranch of government , said Wil liam J . Lehman , a constru ction p lan ner for the Admin istrative Offi ce of the U .S . Court s . Our j udges get about the same type of offi ceas a senior appointee in the executive branch .
”
Court offi cia ls say federa l judges can override the new construction standards andsometimes do . Th e A lexandria courthouse , designed before the guide lines were issued and now under construction , exceeds the standards in severa l areas . Th e
gu ide lines ca l l for lower courtroom cei lings than those in the A lexandria faci lity andprohibit the private showers and kitchenettes being bui lt there for j udges .
FecLeral judges in Virgi nia and Mary land took opposite approaches to the two new
court ouses .
70
In Virginia , judges pushed for a courthouse to rep lace an agi ng hod epodge of facilit ies in Alexandria and were heavi ly invo lved in design i ng the fu ild ing. Thej udges who he l ed lan the cou rthouse wi l l work there when it Opens next year .
But in Mary an a lmost a l l court activities historica l ly have been quartered inBa ltimore , and judges there active ly op osed efforts to bui ld a courthouse in theWash ington suburbs . The jud es eventu a ly lost , but none of those who he lped oversee the design of the Greenbe t courthouse wi l l sit there on a regu lar basis .
Judge James C . C ach eris, chief j udge of Vir
‘
nia ’s Eastern District and a keyp lanner of the A lexandria cou rthouse , defende its featu res in an interview lastweek . He said he be lieves that high ceilings in courtrooms contribute to a more orderly atmosphere for tri a ls and noted that showers in judges ’ chambers were a llowed when the courthouse was designed in th e mid-l 98 os .
“H igh cei lings add a great dea l to the dign ity and decorum of a courtroom,
C ach eris said .
“Psycho logica l ly , trying a case in a large-cei ling courtroom can makea b ig d ifference . Peop le come in angry
,and you can keep their fee l ings under control
if you give them some room .
”
A key difference between the two courthouses is the way the wil l accommodategrowth . The Greenbe lt court house has one court room for each 0 its sittin judgesonce they are named— and one fl oor that can be converted later from 0 i ce sp aceinto four more courtrooms . A lexandria wi l l open with twice as many courtrooms asit has active judges but no room for ex an sion .
C acheris said that Al exandria wil l ave so much unused space in part becausethe bui ld ing’ s sma l l site makes ex an s ion diffi cu lt . The Alexandria courthouse wi l lbe a 10-story bui lding— twice as ta 1 as Greenbe lt ’s— and federa l rea l estate offi cia lsdecided to bui ld a l l its p lanned courtrooms at once .
C ach eris a ls o said Al exandria expects to add severa l so-ca l led senior status , orsemi-retired , j udges before th e end of the decade . Senior status judges are a l lowedto reduce their work loads to any leve l they like whi le retain ing their offi ces andstaff. C a cheris said A lexandria ’s senior judges have in the past continued to hand leheavy case loads .
Duncan,the Tennessee lawmaker and former judge , said he be lieves that the
amount of cour troom space in both Greenbe lt and Alexandria is wastefu l .“You don ’t need one court room for every judge , let a lone 14 courtrooms for seven
judges,he said . There are judges a l l over this country in state courts who share
courtrooms,and it doesn ’t ki l l anybody . Federa l courthouses are some of the most
expensive construction around
,and it wou ld behoove us to try to save some money .
ome federa l courts are adopting cost-saving measures like those su gested byDuncan . The fl oor p lan of a court house under construction in Ka nsas City , Kan . ,
wi l l encourage judges to share courtrooms and inc ludes a centra l , shared law library . In St . Louis judges are p lanning to share cour trooms in a courthouse nowon the drawin boards .
The A lexan ria and Greenbe lt courthouses have far less flexibi lity , pairing eachjudge ’s chamber with a courtroom and law library of its own . C acheris said he opposes courtroom sharing .
“ I did it when I was fi rst starting out ,”C acheris said .
“ Ithink having my own courtroom increased my effi ciency by 15 percent .”Duncan and other lawmakers said they expect Congress wi l l soon begin forcing
the federa l courts to adopt such money-saving initiatives . Just before their winterreces s
,lawmakers cut this year ’s $4 4 0 m il lion court construction budget by 10 per
cent to indicate their disp leasure .
Rep . James A . Trafi can t Jr . (D-Ohio) , chairman of th e the House pub lic build ingssubcommittee
,said that un less the judiciary presents more modest p lans for future
court houses , deeper cuts are coming.
“Maybe next year , Trafi cant said ,“we ’l l do 20
percent .”
The Clinton administration a lso has weighed in . The Genera l Services Adm in istra t ion ,
the federa l government ’s land lord,has put some courthouse proj ects on ho ld
wh i le Offi cia ls review the need for them . Th e agency ’s d irector , Roger Johnson , hasrecommended that p lans for two courthouses be scrapped .
Duncan said he p lans to investigate whether Congress can stil l impose some limits ou the Alexandria courthouse , which is less than ha lf comp lete. Bu t lawmakerswho have tangled with federa l judge s over other courthouses say Duncan and Congress have their work cut out for them .
0
For examp le,Rep . Peter J . Visclosky (D-Ind . ) recently championed efforts to bu i ld
a $60 mil lion federa l offi ce bui ld ing and cou rthouse in Hammond , Ind . , a depressedindustria l city just south of Ch icago . The federa l courts agreed that the faci lity wasneeded
,but when a site was chosen in downtown Hammond , the two judges who
ho ld court there ba lked .
The judges , who wanted the courthouse bui lt c loser to the suburbs where theylived
,is sued an u lt imatum : If the courthouse was bui lt downtown , they wou ld not
71
move in,Visclosky said . The threat brought the project to a ha lt , and now Clinton
adm instration offi cia ls are recommend ing that money for it be withdrawn .
“
These judges can do just about anything they want to , Visclosky sa id . On themerits
,there is no justifi cation for this . But the merits aren ’t what count .
”
(FROM THE ADM INISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U N ITED STATES COURTS )
THE FACTS ABOUT COUR THOUS E CONS TR UCTION : A RES PON S E TO THE WA S H INGTONPOS T AR TICLE OF DECEMBER 6 ,
1993
STORY : One,in Greenbe lt , wil l have seven judges and one courtroom for each .
The other , in A lexandria , a lso wi l l have seven judges , but wil l have twi ce as manycourtrooms .
”
FAC T : A lexandria current ly has four active district judges , one sen ior judge , andthree magistrate judges for a tota l of eight . A lso , the Fourth Circuit Court of Aea ls wil l have s ace for one judge in the bui lding. The court either current ly qua ifies or wi l l ua li y in the near futu re for an add itiona l magistrate judge and districtjudge . I n add ition , Ch ief Judge C ach eris is like ly to take senior status in 1998 . I nfact
,a l l four active district j udges in Alexandria wil l be e ligib le for senior status by
2005 ,ten years after moving into the courthouse . Th i s was taken into account in
p lann ing for the roject . As suming a court of appeals j udge is housed in Alexandriaand an add itional
)
magistrate judge is authorized in the near future , ten of the 1 4courtrooms wou ld be used e ither at , or very c lose to , occupancy . Th e decision tobui ld out the four other courtrooms at this time rather than waiting was reached
pyGS A based on its ana lysis of the comparative costs of construction now or in the
uture .
STORY : The basic cou rtroom in Greenbe lt wi l l have 16-foot-high ce i lings and woodveneer wainscoting . A lexandria’s basic courtroom wil l have 20-foot-high vau lted cei lih s and wa l ls trimmed top to bottom in wood .
”
AC T : In A lexandria the cou rtrooms wi l l have vau lted cei lings of 20 feet on ly atthe highest po int . There wi l l be wood veneer wainscoting wi th wood base and crownmo lding. Th e pane ls above the wainscot wi l l be an acoustica l materia l . The cei lingswi l l be a in ted . No courtrooms or chambers wil l have fl oor to cei ling wood . I nGre enbe t the courtrooms wil l have wainscot p ane l ling on three wa l ls , with on ly therear wa l l of the bench to be fu l ly pane l led in veneer stained red oak .
STORY : “
The cou rthouse in Greenbe lt wil l cost $38 mi l lion . The price tag for theA lexandria courthouse is $68 m il lion .
”
FACT : The story fails to take into account that A lexandria is the primary p laceof ho lding court in the Eastern Distri ct ofVirginia whi le Greenbe lt is a new sate l litelocation for the District of Maryland , which is based in Ba ltimore . Consequent ly ,there wi l l be near ly twice as much staff occupying the Alexandria faci lity . The Alexandria courthouse wil l provide net square feet , and the Greenbe lt court $
house net square feet . Wh ile it is diffi cu lt to make comparisons on a coster square foot basis , A lexandria at $ 103 per gross square foot and Greenbe lt at51 5 3 per gross square foot are we l l be low the nationa l average of $ 18 0 to $24 0 asquare foot .STORY : “Cou rthouse construction has become a kind of guerri l la war between th e
three branches of government— the judicia l branch ,which design s and uses the fa
ci lit ies ; the legis lative , wh ich provides money for them ; and the executive , whichoversees construction .
FACT : Courthouses are not designed by the Judiciary . They are design ed by anarchitect under contract to GSA . The entire process is open to pub lic scrutiny at numerou s stage s . Congress appropriates money for each proj ect based on GSA ’
s budgetestimate (not the actua l cost because construction contracts cannot be awarded unti lfunds are fi rst appropriated . ) Th is must be voted on in subcommittees and fu l l comm ittees in the House and Senate and signed into law by the President . Th e processis not carried out in the darkness and secrecy of th e j udicia l branch .
STORY : “Court offi cia ls say federa l judges can override the new construction standards and sometimes do .
FACT : Th is cannot be done uni latera l ly by a judge . Since the approva l of designstandards by the Judicia l Conference in March 1991
,the jud icia l counci ls have exer
cised substantia l restraint when exceptions have been submitted for consideration .
Few exceptions have been approved . Most of the exceptions that have been approvedare necessary to accommodate hea lth and safety concerns , to rov ide flexibi lity sothat magi strate , district , bankruptcy and visiting judges can s are facilities , or toaccommodate the shape of an existing bui lding . Dur ing the fi rst six months of 1993on ly two exceptions were granted by circuit counci ls nationwide .
72
STORY : The gu ide lines ca l l for lower courtroom cei l ings than those in the A lexandria faci lity and proh ibit the private showers and kitchenettesFACT : The current Design Guide a l lows for ga l leys but not showers . The ga l leys
are noth ing more than a p lace to make a cup of coffee,typica l ly occupy ing about
4 0 square feet .STORY : “Senior status judges are a l lowed to reduce the ir work loads to any leve l
they like while retaining their offi ces and staff.
”
FACT : 28 U .S .C . requires that sen ior judges be certifi ed each year ashaving met specifi c work load requirements in order to retrain their chambers andstaff. Under Judicia l Conference po l icy
,each jud icia l c ircuit has estab l ished stand
ards for eva luating a senior judge ’s staffi ng needs . Each circuit conducts and annua lreview of the staffi ng requirements of i ts senior judges . As a group
,sen ior judges
provide inva luab le assistance with hand ling the courts ’ work load . They are essent ia lly working for free since they receive their sa lary whether or not they performjud icia l duties . The size of the faci lities provided senior judges is based on the number of staff a l lowed .
STORY : “A key d ifference between the two courthouses is the way they wi l l aecommodate growth .
FACT : The sites of the two cour thouses are so different that they warrant d ifferentapproaches to future growth . The A lexandria courthouse is on a tight s ite where future construction of an annex or extension wou ld be d iffi cu lt and d i sruptive . Therefore , GS A
’
S proj ect manager determ ined that it is time and cost effi cient to bui ldout the S pace during construction .
STOR Y : “
The j udges (in Hammond Ind ) , who wanted the courthouse built c loserto the suburbs where they livedFACT : The judges in Hammond have provided a number of documents detailing
the reasons that they found the site unsuitab le , noting that the maj ority of the litigants and attorneys come from other parts of the district and that the downtownsite is more d iffi cu lt to reach than other sites under considerat i on . Therefore , thecourt
,with the statu toril required support of the seventh circu i t j udicia l counci l ,
has taken the pos it ion t at construct i on of the courthouse on the p roposed sitewou ld be a waste of $5 3 mil l ion in taxpayers
’
money , since the proposed S i te— on lya few b locks from the existing bui lding— d oes/ not so lve the present access prob lems
73
EN CLOS UR E 1
C OU R THOU S E C OST C OMPAR ISON
NOTES'S ignificant indoor parkmglnon-court S pace has reduced dollars /gross square foot (SJGS F)
Bolded Projects are currency unde rcons truction orProjects not lis ted due to doltars orscope not fu lly defined Brooklyn NY, Bechley W V
'
W heeling W VAlbany GA Orh ndo FL; C leve land OH Youngs town OH, C ape Girardeau. MO. S e attle W A
BOS TON PU BLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05 98 2 964 6
EN CLOS UR E 2
n ag i g n ; C omp a r e t h e c on s t r u c t i on c o s t s f o r t h e Ph o e n i x Fe d e r a lBu i ld i ng - C our t hous e ( PB —C T ) a n d t h e Ar i z ona S t a t e S up r eme C our tBu i l d i ng .
Answe r ; Th e Ge ne r a l S e r v i c e s Admi n i s t r a t i on (GS A ) h a s r e v i e we dt h e a va i l a bl e c o s t i nfo rma t i on on t h e t wo p r o j e c t s . Th e A r i zonaS t a t e S up r eme C our t Bu i ld i ng , wh i c h wa s c omp l e t e d i n De c embe r1 9 9 1 , i s a l ow- r i s e bu i ld i ng a n d i nc lud e s on ly 3 c our t r ooms a n d
2 2 c our t c h ambe r s . Mo s t o f t h e bu i ld i ng wa s f i n i s h e d a s op e ng ene r a l o f f i c e s p a c e . Th e Ph o en i x FB - C T , wh i c h i s n o t y e t und e rd e s i gn , wi l l b e a h i gh
- r i s e bu i ld i ng a nd wi l l p rov i d e 1 8 fu l lyf i n i s h ed c ou r t rooms a n d r e l a t e d s up p o r t f a c i l i t i e s .
Be c au s e t h e s t a t us a n d s c op e o f t h e t wo p r o j e c t s a r e s o
d i f f e r e nt , GS A c a nno t ma ke a d i r e c t c o s t c omp a r i s on a t t h i s t i me .
Howev e r , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o r e l a t e t h e c o s t s o f t h e p r o j e c t s t o
p ub l i s h e d c o s t d a t a . Th e a t t a c h e d f ac t s h e e t c omp a r e s t h e c o s t o f
t h e Ar i zona S up r eme C our t Bu i ld i ng t o t h e 1 9 9 3 R . S . Me a ns c o s t
ba s e l i ne f or c our t fa c i l i t i e s a nd s h ows how S sA 's be nc hma r k c o s t
for t h e Phoe n i x FB - C T i s d e r i v e d f rom t h e s ame ba s e l i ne . A l l
c o s t d a t a a r e i n do l l a r s p e r gr o s s s quar e foo t ( S /GS F )
