GSA and Judges in a deadlock

How do you resolve conflicting objectives in an expensive government construction project? In 2002 at Multnomah County an audit was issued that grappled with this problem. The audit found that many times elected officials drove the design of projects and that this increased the scope and cost. The recommendation was to put in place an extended design and approval process so that all costs were known, including costs that might be incurred for scope creep.

The GAO released an audit yesterday that noted construction costs had tripled for a new courthouse in Los Angeles and that there was no consensus on how to proceed. After Congress had approved a design and funded a 41-courtroom, of 1,016,300-square-foot, the General Services Administration (GSA) designed a 1,279,650-square-foot courthouse that contained 54-courtrooms. There is disagreement as to why that occurred. The GSA stated it was because of the judiciary and the judiciary stated that it was a joint decision and driven in part by planning criteria, which the GSA denies.

There are now three proposals on how to proceed, but no agreement on which to choose. Any of the choices will require additional funding. The judiciary supports the most expensive option and opposes the other two more "modest" options. Construction was originally to be completed by 2006. If a decision can be made, the end date is now projected for 2013 and costs have tripled to $1.1 billion. At least the audit puts the full story in the open so that the public can see that the reasons for the cost increases are more complex than ineptitude. Here's a newspaper story covering the audit.