Skip to main content

Recovery Act: GSA's Courthouse Projects Illustrate Opportunities to Improve Management Practices and Analyze Environmental Outcomes

GAO-15-307 Published: Feb 12, 2015. Publicly Released: Mar 16, 2015.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

What GAO Found

The General Services Administration (GSA) developed eight selection criteria for utilizing its $4.5 billion in high-performing green (green) building funds—or more than 80 percent of its total $5.5-billion budget—under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). GSA used almost $800 million of its $4.5-billion green building funds on 15 full or partial modernization projects and the remaining funds were used on federal buildings or limited scope projects. For example, at the Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in San Antonio, Texas, GSA installed solar panels and a solar water heater on the roof, installed a green roof on the interior courtyard, and replaced the building's lighting. In addition, as of May 2014, GSA used $257 million of the $750 million in Recovery Act funds dedicated to federal buildings and U.S. courthouses to construct or acquire seven courthouses.

GSA management of selected Recovery Act courthouse projects did not always align with seven successful practices that GAO developed for managing large-scale investments. GAO's more in-depth review of 10 courthouses showed that while GSA generally provided top leadership support and sufficient funding, its management of these Recovery Act projects did not always align with the remaining five practices. For example, judiciary tenants at 3 of the 10 courthouses said that GSA management did not actively engage with judiciary stakeholders during construction. In one case, judiciary officials at the Federico Degetau Federal Building and Clemente Ruiz Nazario Courthouse in Puerto Rico said they were not consulted on the project's phased schedule approach that required the closure of all public restrooms in the operating courthouse for a year, except for one restroom on the seventh floor of the adjoining federal building. For the projects GAO reviewed, when GSA did not incorporate the successful practices, GAO found that projects were more likely to experience schedule delays, cost increases, or lack of tenant support. GAO found that most judiciary tenants were satisfied with the completed projects, although tenants at 4 courthouses said the projects disrupted court operations.

GSA set environmental goals by establishing minimum performance criteria (MPC) to guide how it designed green courthouse Recovery Act projects; however, environmental outcomes are not yet known. The MPC included dozens of environmental requirements for projects in areas such as energy, water, and material use. While some Recovery Act projects have been completed for several years and GSA has the necessary data to evaluate projects, GSA officials have not developed a schedule for analyzing building performance against the MPC. GAO evaluated the extent to which the selected courthouses with a year or more of operational data contributed toward the energy and water- reduction goals that GSA used to develop the MPC. GAO found that as of fiscal year 2014, 2 of the 5 courthouses with available data are contributing toward energy reduction goals, and all 4 courthouses with available data are contributing toward water reduction goals. Without evaluating the performance of courthouse projects against the MPC, GSA lacks important information that could guide the agency's future investments in green infrastructure.

Why GAO Did This Study

The Recovery Act provided GSA with $5.55 billion—over three times the agency's 2009 funding for new construction and renovations—to invest in federal buildings and U.S. courthouses. This amount included $4.5 billion to convert federal buildings and U.S. courthouses into green buildings that would reduce energy and water use, among other goals.

GAO was asked to review GSA's use of Recovery Act funds as they related to courthouses. This report examines (1) how GSA determined which courthouse projects to fund under the Recovery Act, (2) how GSA's management of selected Recovery Act projects aligned with successful practices and whether these projects disrupted judiciary operations, and (3) how GSA set environmental goals for courthouses and whether selected projects met those goals. GAO reviewed relevant laws and agency documents, collected cost and schedule data on courthouse projects, and analyzed environmental outcomes for 10 projects. GAO selected these 10 Recovery Act courthouse projects, based on project size, type, and location, and interviewed GSA officials and judiciary tenants about GSA's management and coordination.

Recommendations

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

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
General Services Administration GSA should examine incorporating successful management practices--such as consistently involving tenants at various stages of the project--into its capital investment process to ensure that projects are managed efficiently and that tenant disruptions are minimized.
Closed – Implemented
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the General Services Administration (GSA) with $5.55 billion to invest in federal buildings and U.S. courthouses, create and preserve jobs, and promote economic recovery. As part of the Recovery Act, GSA updated or constructed 259 federal buildings and U.S. courthouses. In 2015, GAO reported that GSA's efforts managing 10 selected Recovery Act courthouse projects did not consistently align with seven successful practices for managing large-scale investments that GAO developed in prior work. GAO's more in-depth review of 10 courthouses showed that while GSA generally provided top leadership support and sufficient funding, its management of these Recovery Act projects did not always align with the remaining five practices. For example, judiciary tenants at 3 of the 10 courthouses said that GSA management did not actively engage with judiciary stakeholders during construction. Specifically, in one case, judiciary officials said they were not consulted on the project's phased schedule approach that required the closure of all public restrooms in the operating courthouse for a year, except for one restroom on the seventh floor of the adjoining federal building. For the projects GAO reviewed, when GSA did not incorporate these successful practices, projects were more likely to experience schedule delays, cost increases, or lack of tenant support. GAO also reported that most judiciary tenants were satisfied with the completed projects, although tenants at 4 courthouses said the projects disrupted court operations. Consequently, GAO recommended that GSA examine incorporating successful management practices-such as consistently involving tenants at various stages of the project-into its capital investment process to ensure that projects are managed efficiently and that tenant disruptions are minimized. In 2018, GAO confirmed that GSA had examined incorporating these successful management practices and that officials had incorporated them to varying degrees in an effort to improve how it manages courthouse construction projects. For example, according to officials, GSA now requires project managers to communicate with tenants and involve them earlier in the process. Specifically, GSA officials told us they now require staff to initiate discussions with tenants 60 months before the project must be complete. Moreover, according to officials, GSA now has dedicated planning managers whose entire role is to coordinate with tenants to plan projects to ensure that staff are consistent and stable. Similarly, GSA officials told us that they have improved accountability for project managers. For example, according to officials, tenants are now provided with a regional and national level GSA contact to escalate issues on projects that cannot be resolved by the project manager. As a result of implementing these practices, GSA is in a better position to manage Recovery Act projects more efficiently and with minimal disruption to tenants.
General Services Administration To ensure that GSA's green Recovery Act projects meet relevant requirements, GSA should analyze environmental outcomes against relevant requirements for each of its full and partial-modernization Recovery Act projects and apply any lessons to future projects.
Closed – Implemented
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the General Services Administration (GSA) with $5.55 billion to invest in federal buildings and U.S. courthouses, create and preserve jobs, and promote economic recovery. GSA was directed to use at least $4.5 billion, or 80 percent of its total $5.5 billion budget, to convert its buildings and courthouses to high-performance green (green) buildings by improving energy and water efficiency, among other environmental goals. In 2015, GAO reported that GSA established minimum performance criteria (MPC) to guide its design of Recovery Act investments in green buildings and to measure outcomes. The MPC included dozens of environmental requirements for projects in areas such as energy, water, and material use. However, GSA had not yet evaluated the environmental performance of its Recovery Act projects against the MPC despite the fact that some of these projects had been completed for several years and the agency had the necessary data to conduct the evaluations. According to GSA officials, the agency was considering how it might measure building performance against the MPC, but the agency had not developed a schedule or plan to analyze results. GSA officials cited various challenges to their ability to report outcomes of Recovery Act projects, such as establishing a representative baseline year against which to measure the MPC. Without evaluating building performance against the MPC, GSA is limited in its knowledge of whether projects have achieved expected outcomes. Therefore, GAO recommended that GSA analyze environmental outcomes against relevant requirements for each of its full and partial-modernization Recovery Act projects. In 2018, GAO confirmed that GSA had taken steps to track the environmental outcomes of its green Recovery Act projects against relevant federal requirements. For example, GSA developed an "On Green" report, which tracks the extent to which active new construction, and major modernization projects comply with MPC and meet applicable environmental requirements. In addition to tracking projects, GSA also has a "Quality Control Tracker" that allows GSA to track, analyze, and report environmental outcomes for projects against anticipated benefits. Further, according to officials, GSA's Office of Facilities Management reviews environmental outcomes of completed projects. As a result, GSA is in a better position to understand building performance and outcomes to ensure that its Recovery Act projects meet relevant requirements and inform the agency's efforts to prioritize future infrastructure investments.

Full Report

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Environmental goalsEnvironmental impactsCourthousesFederal buildingsGreen buildingsBudget obligationsEnergy efficiencyEvaluation criteriaFacility constructionFederal courtsFederal fundsFederal office buildingsFederal property managementFund auditsGovernment facility constructionPerformance measuresProgram evaluationProgram management