Federal Buildings: More Consideration of Operations and Maintenance Costs Could Better Inform the Design Excellence Program

Since 1994, GSA has spent more than $8 billion to construct 78 new federal buildings through its Design Excellence program. Some design choices can affect a building's O&M costs and functionality.

GAO was asked to review GSA's ability to manage O&M costs under the Design Excellence program. This report assesses the extent to which: (1) GSA's design choices affect O&M costs; (2) GSA considers O&M costs and functionality when planning and designing buildings; and (3) GSA systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs.

GAO conducted a web-based survey of building managers for the 78 Design Excellence buildings. GAO also visited 10 Design Excellence buildings in three GSA regions selected based on several factors, including geographic and agency diversity. GAO reviewed GSA documents, and interviewed GSA officials and building tenants. Information obtained through site visits and interviews is not generalizable.

The goals of the General Services Administration's (GSA) Design Excellence Program are to creatively design federal buildings that meet federal agencies' functional needs and become public landmarks. Some design choices for Design Excellence buildings have decreased ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, but others have increased those costs. GSA's building managers and tenants told GAO that design choices that have reduced O&M costs include the use of durable materials and low maintenance landscaping. Other design choices have increased O&M costs. For example, according to GAO's survey of 78 building managers of Design Excellence buildings, multistory atriums often led to additional O&M costs, including the need to erect expensive scaffolding for maintenance.

While GSA aims to create Design Excellence buildings that are cost-effective and functional, it makes design choices without fully considering their effect on O&M costs and functionality. For example, GSA officials do not estimate the majority of O&M costs, such as the building maintenance associated with their design choices until the design is almost finalized. This outcome is partly because GSA procedures do not direct GSA officials to develop such estimates during the design and planning of Design Excellence buildings and because building and regional managers responsible for addressing the O&M consequences are also not involved in the design and planning process. As a result, important cost information that could help building project teams make the most cost-effective design choices is not available to help them. In addition, while building managers GAO surveyed reported that GSA's design choices generally support a building's functionality, they also reported that some design choices increased O&M costs without improving functionality. For example, they identified design choices related to material color and lighting that increased O&M costs but did not enhance the functionality of the building for the tenants.

Although GSA has developed some information on how design choices can affect O&M costs, it does not consistently collect and share such information. For example, GSA has evaluated the performance of only six Design Excellence buildings, and does not systematically collect information on how design choices have affected O&M costs in all existing buildings. Without a process to collect and share such information, future buildings may not benefit from these lessons, and problematic choices may be repeated.

GAO is making four recommendations to update existing GSA procedures for planning and designing new buildings to: (1) estimate full O&M costs; (2) obtain information from personnel responsible for addressing the O&M consequences of design decisions; (3) further consider how design choices may affect building functionality; and (4) systematically collect and share lessons from existing buildings. GSA agreed with these recommendations.

Since 1994, the General Services Administration (GSA) has spent more  than $8 billion to construct 78 new federal courthouses and office  buildings through the Design Excellence Program. Under this program,  GSA works with private-sector architects, interior designers, engineers,  and construction firms to plan buildings that meet the needs of  government agencies while also meeting certain design principles, such  as visually representing the dignity of the federal government and  avoiding uniformity. Beyond construction costs, some design choices,  such as multistory atriums, can also affect how much the government  spends for ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the  buildings. Design choices also can affect functionality of the building for  government workers and the public. Understanding how GSA considers  the tradeoffs between aesthetics, costs, and functionality is important as  the agency embarks on construction projects, including current plans to  spend billions of dollars more to construct courthouses and other federal  buildings.

You asked us to evaluate GSA’s ability to manage O&M costs for federal  buildings constructed under the Design Excellence Program. This report  assesses the extent to which:

GSA made design choices that affect O&M costs;

GSA considers O&M costs and functionality when planning and

GSA systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs  related to design choices in existing buildings.

Our review focused on the 78 federal buildings and courthouses that GSA  has constructed under the Design Excellence Program—referred to as  “Design Excellence buildings”—since the program started in 1994. To  address our objectives, we administered a web-based survey to the GSA  building managers of these 78 Design Excellence buildings and achieved  a response rate of 100 percent. The survey asked for information on the  extent to which certain design choices affect O&M costs and building  functionality. We also visited 10 Design Excellence buildings in three GSA  regions to view design choices and O&M activities. We interviewed tenant  agencies located in these buildings, GSA building managers responsible  for managing these buildings, and officials from GSA regional offices with  oversight responsibilities for these buildings. To ensure geographic and  agency diversity, we selected our site-visit locations based on several  factors, including location and the tenant agency. Although not  generalizable to all Design Excellence buildings, information gathered  from our site visits shows how O&M costs were considered in specific  buildings and the effects of design choices.

To address our objectives, we also examined relevant GSA documents  pertaining to all buildings included in our review, including those detailing  investment needs for maintenance and repairs and evaluations  commissioned by GSA on, for example, how well these buildings comply  with building standards and their overall performance. We also reviewed  applicable federal regulations and guidance, including GSA procedures,  policies and standards for designing, constructing, and operating federal  facilities; our prior work; and reports by other federal agencies and related  industry associations on topics including the standard costs of operating and maintaining office buildings. We collected information on the extent to  which Design Excellence buildings are visible and accessible to the public  and analyzed GSA data on project construction and O&M costs from  2000 to 2016. We assessed the reliability of these data through  electronic testing and a review of documentation on the data and  determined that the data were reliable for the purpose of illustrating the  extent to which O&M costs make up total building costs.

In addition, we interviewed GSA officials located in the Washington, D.C.,  headquarters office and in four of GSA’s 11 regional offices. We selected  regional offices based on the location of our site visits and included one  additional regional office based on its having the highest total O&M- operating costs of the remaining eight regional offices. With GSA officials,  we discussed several topics including how O&M costs were considered  during planning and design and how information on design choices’ O&M  costs are shared. We compared GSA’s efforts to consider O&M costs and  functionality when planning and designing these buildings and their  process for collecting and sharing O&M information across these  buildings to the federal standards for internal control related to using  complete and relevant information when making decisions and designing  control activities and internal communications. We also compared GSA’s  efforts to consider O&M costs in the planning and design of these  buildings to guidance from GSA and the Office of Management and  Budget. Further details on our scope and methodology can be found in  appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to May 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government is the largest real property owner in the United  States with a vast inventory costing billions of dollars annually to operate  and maintain. Federally owned buildings include courthouses, offices,  warehouses, schools, hospitals, housing, data centers, and laboratories,  among other things. GSA acts as the federal government’s landlord, and  is responsible for designing, constructing, and managing federal buildings  for other federal agencies and the judiciary to occupy. There are  currently approximately 1,600 federally owned buildings under GSA’s  custody and control.

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), agencies,  including GSA, should have accurate information on acquisition and  “lifecycle” costs of current and proposed assets, including costs for  designing and constructing the building, O&M, and disposal. For  example, when planning and designing new federal buildings, GSA must  analyze building energy and water systems (e.g., for air conditioning and  heating) to identify those with the lowest acquisition and operating costs.  In addition, once the building is constructed, GSA building managers and  O&M contractors are responsible for maintaining the building, which  includes tasks related to recurring maintenance and repair (e.g., on  heating and cooling systems), maintaining the property’s roads and  grounds, cleaning and janitorial services, and paying for utilities.

In 1994, GSA instituted the Design Excellence Program, a process for  designing, constructing, renovating, altering, and repairing federal  courthouses and office buildings. This program was developed in  response to criticisms that federal buildings lacked architectural  distinction. It stresses creativity in the design of buildings with the intent of  constructing spaces that meet the tenant’s functional needs while also  becoming public landmarks. More specifically, the program aims to meet  several guidelines—called the Guiding Principles for Federal  Architecture— including designing spaces that:  reflect the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the U.S.  government; avoid uniformity; and are built in locations in which federal buildings can be incorporated  into the existing public streets and landscape.

According to GSA officials, the Design Excellence Program also  streamlines how GSA selects and manages the private-sector architects  and engineering firms it hires for new projects. The process consists of  four primary stages: planning for the prospective tenant’s needs and general project details  (e.g., request for proposal announcement);  selecting and working with an architectural and engineering firm to  design the building;  selecting a contractor to construct the building; and occupancy by the tenants.

The process is overseen by a GSA project team, consisting of a project  manager, contracting officer, officials from GSA’s Office of the Chief  Architect, and additional subject matter experts, who work with the federal  tenant that plans to occupy the space.

A large number of the federal courthouses and office buildings  constructed and controlled by GSA in the last 20 years have been  completed under the Design Excellence Program. Under the program,  GSA has constructed 78 facilities including 62 courthouses and 16 federal  office buildings, including a data center and laboratories. These  buildings account for more than 36-million square feet of space, are  located in 33 states and the District of Columbia, and many have won  architecture and design awards. Figure 1 shows examples of federal  courthouses and office buildings constructed under the Design  Excellence Program.

GSA Made Design Choices That Decreased and Increased O&M Costs

Some GSA Design Choices Have Decreased O&M Costs

According to interviews with GSA officials and building tenants, GSA has  made choices in some Design Excellence buildings intended to reduce  long-term O&M costs. For example:  Increased natural light. All 10 of the Design Excellence buildings we  visited were designed to include interior natural light, which some  building managers reported reduced energy costs. According to GSA  officials, natural light is not only aesthetically pleasing; it also  improves lighting quality for building tenants and reduces lighting  costs. For example, the First Street Federal Courthouse (Los Angeles,  California) has a light well as part of its atrium and a serrated glass  façade that maximizes natural light. Building officials said that 22 of  the 24 courtrooms in the building receive natural light from multiple  sources, reducing energy usage and requiring less frequent  replacement of lighting. In addition, building officials at the Albert  Armendariz, Sr., U.S. Courthouse (El Paso, Texas) reported extensive  natural light from a three story window wall and the front atrium; both  features provide ample light for building tenants. (See fig. 2).

Durable and easily maintained materials and finishes. In most of the  10 Design Excellence buildings we visited, GSA officials and building  tenants reported selecting materials and finishes that (1) are highly  durable and easy and inexpensive to clean; (2) are expected to last a  long time; and (3) required little maintenance. For example, the lobby  walls and floors of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and  Courthouse (Santa Ana, California) are made out of travertine, a very  durable stone, which has lasted more than 15 years without the need  for repairs or replacement. In addition, officials at a few buildings  noted that the decision to install carpet tiles in lieu of large patches of  carpet has made it very easy and relatively inexpensive to maintain  and repair office spaces and courtrooms.

Low-maintenance landscaping. Several of the 10 Design Excellence  buildings we visited incorporated native flora into the landscape  design, which can reduce energy and water costs. For example,  officials planted native, drought resistant plants around the First Street  Federal Courthouse (Los Angeles, California). Building officials at the  Las Cruces U.S. Courthouse (Las Cruces, New Mexico), which is  located in a desert environment, also reported most of the native  landscape around the courthouse does not require watering.

Some GSA Design Choices Have Increased O&M Costs

According to our survey respondents—building managers at all 78 Design  Excellence buildings included in our review—certain GSA design choices,  such as multistory atriums and custom windows, have resulted in  increased O&M costs compared to an average GSA building without  those features. Almost all Design Excellence building managers (76 out  of 78) reported that certain design choices resulted in increased O&M  costs that would not have occurred had that design choice not been  selected. For example, 67 out of 78 building managers for Design  Excellence buildings stated that the effect of including multistory open  spaces, like atriums, increased O&M costs due to the challenges  associated with heating and cooling, making needed repairs, and  cleaning these spaces. (See table 1). Building managers and tenants we  spoke with confirmed our survey results, and provided examples of  design choices that resulted in unexpected O&M cost increases. For  example, officials noted increased O&M costs associated with separate  structures and multistory atriums that were difficult to access for cleaning  and repairs.

Separate Structures. Managers from only 21 of 78 Design Excellence  buildings reported having an attached, but separate structure (e.g.,  pavilions, rotundas, restaurants, and other additional spaces connected to  the building), but managers at 19 of those buildings stated that the effect  of such design features increased O&M costs. For example, one federal  building we visited had a rotunda with a domed roof that, according to  building managers, has multiple gutter leaks that are not currently  accessible due to the design of the space. As a result, maintenance staff  continuously patch the ceiling without addressing the cause of the leaks  (see fig. 3).

Atriums and Lobbies. Managers from 67 of 78 Design Excellence  buildings reported their buildings’ multistory atriums and lobbies  increased O&M costs. Several GSA managers we interviewed identified  additional costs to maintain a multistory atrium or lobby, including costs  for renting expensive scaffolding or mechanical lifts. For example, one  Design Excellence building we visited has water leaks in the lobby ceiling,  which can only be reached by extensive and expensive scaffolding (see  fig. 4).

Large, Custom Windows. Managers from 65 of 78 Design Excellence  buildings reported that the effect of design choices related to their  buildings’ windows increased O&M costs. In addition, several Design  Excellence buildings we visited had custom or uniquely shaped windows,  which occasionally increased the costs to replace, repair, or maintain  them. For example, GSA officials at one courthouse reported repairing  one two-story, custom-made window pane, which cost $80,000 to  fabricate and $50,000 to install. The courthouse had eight of these  windows, and a GSA official stated that the windows are an attractive  feature of the building that introduced natural light, but a different window  choice would have been cheaper to maintain (see fig. 5).

Mission Spaces. Managers from 48 Design Excellence buildings reported  that the effect of design choices related to mission spaces (i.e., spaces in  which federal employees conduct work) increased O&M costs.  Specifically, managers from 32 buildings stated that design choices made  in mission spaces increased repair costs, and managers from 30  buildings reported increased cleaning costs. GSA officials at several  buildings we visited discussed challenges accessing and maintaining  mechanical systems incorporated into tenant mission spaces. For  example, one Design Excellence building includes a heating, ventilation,  and air-conditioning (HVAC) system that is hidden under a raised floor  within mission spaces. Because building managers cannot easily access  the system, there are maintenance delays and challenges identifying and  making necessary repairs, which ultimately result in higher O&M costs.  Building officials reported they considered replacing the HVAC system,  but doing so would cost approximately $55 million. (See fig. 6).

Other Design Choices. According to Design Excellence building  managers that responded to our survey and at locations we visited, the  effect of several other design choices including energy efficient elements  (e.g., solar panels and green roofs), courtyards, floors, and circulation  (e.g., hallways, stairways, and elevators) increased O&M costs. For  example, according to these officials, (1) the design of green roofs led to  water leaks; (2) the design of courtyards led to problems maintaining  unique landscaping; (3) flooring choices, specifically selected materials,  led to premature scuffing and cracking; and (4) the design of hallways  and stairways made them difficult to maintain.

GSA Does Not Fully Consider O&M and Functionality Effects When Making Design Choices

With the Design Excellence Program, GSA aims to create buildings that  are cost-effective and function well for tenants. However, GSA makes  design choices for Design Excellence buildings during the planning and  design stages of new projects without fully considering the effect of these  choices on O&M costs and functionality.

GSA Does Not Fully Consider How Design Choices Affect O&M Costs

GSA does not estimate most O&M costs during planning and design.  Specifically, according to GSA officials we interviewed and planning  documents we reviewed, when planning and designing new buildings,  officials estimate the costs of major energy systems, such as boilers and  chillers. However, based on our review of GSA and industry data, these  systems only account for about one-third of O&M costs in Design  Excellence buildings. GSA officials stated that they do not estimate the  remaining two-thirds of O&M costs—which include maintenance,  cleaning, and landscaping—until late in the building’s construction.  However, GSA officials also said that it would be costly to make  significant design changes at that point in the process. In addition, the  O&M estimates for maintenance, cleaning, and landscaping are for the  purpose of selecting a contractor to provide these services, not as a  means for addressing or reducing future O&M costs, according to  officials.

GSA building and regional managers who are responsible for addressing  the O&M consequences of design choices told us that they were not  always integrated or asked to participate in planning and designing new  Design Excellence buildings. Specifically, GSA building and regional  managers at several of the buildings we visited stated that they were  never, or seldom, consulted on O&M costs and issues during the design  process, nor did they have an opportunity to review design documents. A  few GSA building managers we spoke with stated that on rare occasions  when they were consulted their input was rarely incorporated, or was  requested too late in the construction stage to allow for necessary  changes. According to these officials, if given the chance, they could have  highlighted issues with certain design choices that would significantly  increase O&M costs and could have offered potential solutions to reduce  those costs. Officials responsible for overseeing the Design Excellence  Program told us that other officials with an understanding of issues  surrounding O&M are involved in the process for designing new buildings  through, for example, subject matter reviews of the design concepts.  Officials agreed, however, that more could be done to formally involve the  perspective of facilities staff, such as building managers, who are  responsible for the day-to-day management of O&M.

We found that GSA’s lack of consideration of how design choices may  affect the O&M costs of Design Excellence buildings could be attributed  to existing procedures that do not emphasize the need to consider such  costs during the planning and design stage. Specifically, GSA’s  procedures for planning, designing, and constructing new Design  Excellence buildings focus on design creativity, construction challenges,  budget, and schedule and do not direct GSA to estimate O&M costs  during planning and design. While these procedures promote several  factors to consider in a building’s design—including aesthetics,  functionality, and constructability—and generally require firms to submit  documentation on budget and schedule, they do not call for information  on expected O&M costs. In addition, these procedures do not include  seeking input on design decisions from facilities personnel who will have  responsibility for the ongoing O&M once the building is occupied.

Federal standards for internal control state that federal agencies should  use complete and relevant information when making decisions and  design control activities, including procedures, to achieve objectives.  These federal standards also state that federal agencies should ensure  the communication of information internally, for example through  procedures that allow management to receive quality information from  personnel, to help achieve the entity’s objectives. In addition, guidance  from GSA and the Office of Management and Budget directs officials to  consider and strive for the lowest possible costs, including O&M costs,  when designing buildings.

Information on how specific design choices could affect ongoing O&M  costs would allow GSA to better understand the impact of those choices.  Such information is critical as O&M accounts for a significant proportion of  resources dedicated to federal buildings over the long-term. According to  GSA and industry associations, O&M costs are significantly higher over  time than all other costs, including for construction, and typically account  for between 60 and 80 percent of building lifecycle costs. To illustrate  this point, we analyzed GSA construction and O&M data for Design  Excellence buildings. As figure 7 shows, we estimate that over an  average building’s age (60 years) the total construction and O&M costs  for GSA’s 78 existing Design Excellence buildings could be about $18  billion—$8.1 billion for construction (45 percent) and $9.9 billion for O&M  (55 percent). Because GSA’s procedures do not direct officials to  estimate about two-thirds of O&M costs or fully integrate officials with an  understanding of the O&M consequences of design decisions, officials  may not have been aware of how design choices would affect  approximately $6.6 billion (two-thirds of $9.9 billion) in O&M costs. In  addition, without procedures that clearly emphasize the need to more fully  consider O&M costs in Design Excellence buildings during the planning  and design stage, GSA and other stakeholders may not have a complete  picture of all relevant information necessary to make informed decisions  on how to best design future federal buildings.

GSA realizes that the focus of Design Excellence projects has been on  design and construction, not O&M costs, and, in September 2017,  initiated a process, called “Operational Excellence”, to more fully consider  O&M costs. This process includes considering ways to more fully  consider O&M costs during planning and design, including developing a  cost tool that would estimate future O&M costs. In addition, GSA is  considering ways to update existing procedures for designing and  constructing new buildings to include a more comprehensive evaluation of  potential O&M costs, for example, by more fully integrating  knowledgeable personnel at key stages. However, according to GSA  officials, they are still in the early stages of determining what needs to be  done in part due to a small staff, which includes one full-time employee  and one part-time employee. As of March 2018, GSA has not established  a schedule for updating its procedures to require considering O&M during  design.

Design Excellence Buildings Generally Function Well, but Some Costly Design Choices Did Not Improve Functionality

Most design choices made for Design Excellence buildings, including the  shape and size of courtrooms and the lighting in hallways, have had a  positive effect on overall building functionality (i.e., helped the tenant  agency achieve its mission), according to officials we surveyed and  interviewed. For example, GSA building managers we surveyed reported  the functionality of at least one design choice in most buildings (72 of 78  buildings) as good or very good. Specifically, they reported that in most  buildings, the overall functionality of design choices was good in many of  the areas we asked them about. In addition, building managers reported  that the functionality of the following design choices was also good or  very good:  selected material color (53 buildings) and lighting (58 buildings);  shape and size of the space (61 buildings); pedestrian circulation (61 buildings); and  temperature control in the areas critical for a building’s operation,  such as courtrooms or office space (46 buildings).

GSA and tenant agency officials whom we interviewed were also positive  about how the design choices affected the functionality of their buildings,  especially the use of windows and atriums to allow natural light. Tenants  also reported they enjoyed other features of the new buildings, including  commissioned artwork and the design of the interior and exterior.  Tenants’ satisfaction with the function of Design Excellence buildings  may, in part, reflect the condition of their previous office space. For  example, one tenant noted that moving from temporary trailers into a  state-of-the-art courthouse was a substantial functional improvement.

However, we found that increased spending on certain design choices did  not always provide improved functionality for the building tenant. For  example, GSA building managers reported that in many buildings (67 of  78) atriums and lobbies (i.e., vertical penetrations) have increased O&M  costs due to higher repair, cleaning, and energy costs. At the same time,  building managers reported that in 51 of those 67 buildings, choices  made in the design of multistory atriums and lobbies, e.g., material color  and lighting, did not have a positive effect on building functionality (see  table 2). Similarly, the decision to install solar panels and green roofs  (e.g., energy efficient elements), increased O&M costs in several areas,  particularly repair costs, but in over half of the buildings with these  features, building managers did not report an improvement in  functionality. For example, in two courthouses we visited solar panels  installed with the intention of saving on energy costs are not supplying as  much power as expected and, therefore, have not yet provided the  expected energy benefits.

Tenants we interviewed also noted that in some cases, design choices  have not functioned well and are costly to maintain and operate.  According to a tenant at one Design Excellence office building, while the  decision to construct a multistory atrium has added aesthetic value for  federal employees, it has also resulted in challenges balancing air  pressure between the atrium and the adjacent office spaces. These  differences in air pressure have resulted in uncomfortable working  conditions, such as fluctuating temperatures, which have hampered  productivity. Another tenant told us about design choices such as long  hallways and elevators that do not stop at all floors, making it difficult for  tenant employees to move efficiently through the building. Some of these  design choices, such as elevators with mechanical systems at the bottom  of the elevator shaft, have proven costly to maintain as they age more  quickly. Other tenants noted that the selection of heating and cooling  systems, which automatically adjust building temperatures based on time  of day, for example, have not functioned as planned, resulting in variable  temperatures and employee discomfort.

In addition, GSA has sometimes made design choices in buildings that do  not apply to one of the primary functional goals of the Design Excellence  Program—to serve as a landmark that positively represents the federal  government to the public. Specifically, GSA does not consider that some  buildings, due to their purpose or location, are unlikely to function as  landmarks because they have limited interaction with or limited visibility  by the public. In this regard, we found that most Design Excellence  buildings (66 of 78) are visible and accessible to the general public, i.e.,  “public-facing”. Many of these buildings have succeeded in becoming  public landmarks and several have won awards for their design.  Specifically,

62 serve as courthouses, which are visible from public streets and  people may enter to observe judicial proceedings or conduct personal  business. See figure 8 for an example of a Design Excellence  courthouse with publicly visible exteriors and interiors.

Four serve as office buildings for various federal agencies that are  publicly accessible.

In contrast, we found that 12 Design Excellence office buildings restrict  the public from accessing interior spaces. Specifically,

Seven can be seen from public sidewalks or roads, even though the  building is not open to the public, such as the U.S. Secret Service  Headquarters and FBI field office buildings. As a result, these  buildings’ exteriors could be public landmarks that represent the  federal government, but the interior design features are not publicly  accessible. For example, the Ronald H. Brown U.S. Mission to the  United Nations Building in New York City has an impressive and  publicly visible exterior façade but restricts public access to a multi- story rotunda and art space (see fig. 9).

Five have obstructed views from public roads and sidewalks in  addition to restricting public access to the interior. Neither the  exterior nor interior design choices, which can be expensive to  operate and maintain, in these buildings can be seen or appreciated  by the public. For example, according to the tenant agency and GSA  officials, the visually impressive interior atrium and courtyard at the  Ariel Rios Federal Building have proven logistically challenging and  expensive to maintain and are not accessible to the public. In addition, the façade of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  Satellite Operations Facility, which, according to GSA officials, is  expensive to maintain and repair, is not accessible by the public. (See  fig. 10).

According to GSA officials, when they carry out their planning and design  for Design Excellence buildings, they do not differentiate between  buildings that will be public-facing and those that will not. This approach  may be in part due to the fact that GSA’s procedures for planning and  designing new Design Excellence buildings do not call for consideration  of how design choices may have different functional benefits, including  whether the interior and exterior of planned buildings would be accessible  to the public. Federal standards for internal control state that federal  agencies should use complete and relevant information when making  decisions and designing control activities, including procedures to achieve  objectives. By taking a “one size fits all” approach and not considering  the functionality of design choices, such as how a building’s location and  intended use will affect the public’s ability to see the exterior and interior,  GSA may be selecting design choices that increase O&M costs without  improving functionality.

GSA Does Not Systematically Collect and Share Information on Common O&M Cost Experiences That Could Affect Design Choices

According to GSA officials, GSA currently does not systematically collect  and share information on how design choices made for previous Design  Excellence projects have affected O&M costs with the project teams— consisting of a project manager, contracting officer, and other GSA  officials—that are responsible for overseeing the planning and design of  new buildings. GSA has evaluated what is and is not working effectively  in some existing Design Excellence buildings and has on occasion shared  these evaluations with project teams. For example, GSA has evaluated  the performance of 6 out of 78 Design Excellence buildings. These  evaluations included identifying design decisions that led to higher O&M  costs and, on one occasion, developed a formal presentation to share  these lessons with the team working on a new Design Excellence project.

According to officials, GSA requires agency personnel with subject matter  expertise to review building design concepts provided by private-sector  architects and engineers. GSA also fosters information sharing through  procedures that encourage project teams to exchange ideas, lessons  learned, and concerns. However, these processes either (1) are not done  in a consistent or systematic way, or (2) require information sharing  among a small group of officials, i.e., a project team, which might not  have visibility over the extensive design choices made in all existing  buildings. While all of these information-sharing initiatives offer benefits,  GSA’s procedures do not include a systematic collection and sharing of  information with the project teams responsible for managing new Design  Excellence projects on how design choices affected O&M costs in  existing Design Excellence buildings. According to GSA officials, they are  considering formalizing this sort of information collection and sharing as  part of the Operational Excellence process, but as previously noted, GSA  is in the early stages of setting up this initiative and has not established a  schedule for completing its actions or updating its procedures.

As discussed, some design choices in existing Design Excellence  buildings have decreased or increased O&M costs. Since GSA does not  systematically share how these types of design choices affected O&M  costs with teams responsible for planning and designing new buildings,  similar issues could occur in future buildings. For example, we previously  mentioned that building managers indicated that using durable materials,  low maintenance landscaping, and energy-efficient lighting can reduce  long-term O&M costs.

Building managers also reported common issues caused by design  choices that led to increased costs including:  Inefficiently located mechanical systems. Building managers reported  the location of mechanical systems in Design Excellence buildings  often led to increased cost. Specifically, building managers reported  the location of these systems increased repair costs (41 out of 77  buildings) and energy costs (32 out of 77 buildings). In the Design  Excellence buildings we visited, building managers and tenants  reported issues with the location of mechanical systems (4 buildings).  For example, officials indicated that air-conditioning systems were  placed in inefficient locations that required more energy usage  because water had to be pumped unnecessarily far distances (see fig.  11).

Difficult-to-access lights. Building managers reported that design  choices for the location of interior lights increased maintenance costs  in the majority of Design Excellence buildings (55). In particular,  managers reported that the location of lights in atriums and lobbies  (38 buildings) and courtrooms and other mission spaces (33  buildings) increased costs. In addition, GSA officials at locations we  visited said that lights above tall staircases, ceiling lights in atriums  and auditoriums, and lights directly above permanent structures led to  additional costs, including the need to use scaffolding or rent large  equipment to maintain these lights. (See fig. 12). One way that a  majority of GSA building managers (61) we surveyed are attempting  to mitigate high maintenance cost for lighting issues is to install  energy efficient equipment, such as light-emitting diode (LED) lights.

Difficult-to-maintain materials and finishes. In 68 Design Excellence  buildings, building managers reported that materials or finishes were  chosen that are easily worn. Similarly, in buildings we visited (4  buildings), GSA officials reported that decisions on the materials used  or configuration of exterior surfaces (e.g., the roof or façade) of a  Design Excellence building led to repair and maintenance problems,  particularly water leaks. (See fig. 13).

Hard to clean surfaces. Cleaning surfaces, especially in atriums, can  be a challenge for maintaining Design Excellence buildings. For  example, building managers we surveyed reported that the decision to  install certain types of window treatments increased cleaning costs  (49 buildings). In three buildings we visited, building managers and  tenants also said Design Excellence buildings required special  equipment or scaffolding to clean windows or surfaces, which led to  increased cleaning costs. (See fig. 14).

According to federal standards for internal control, agencies should use  and communicate complete and relevant information when designing  control activities, including procedures to achieve objectives. Without a  formalized process for systematically collecting and sharing how design  choices affected O&M costs in existing buildings, designs for future  Design Excellence buildings may not benefit from the successful  strategies used by others to reduce O&M costs or may continue to repeat  problematic choices that may result in increased O&M costs.

Through the Design Excellence Program, GSA has achieved excellence  in architecture and the design of federal buildings. Buildings constructed  under the Design Excellence Program have created unique and  aesthetically pleasing workspaces, have met the functional needs of  tenant agencies, and have become public landmarks. However, because  GSA does not have program procedures that call for consideration of how  certain design features may affect O&M, it may not be fully aware of the  costs of including these features in its building design and plans.  Specifically, GSA does not estimate or gather all perspectives from  building and regional managers on the full O&M costs of design choices,  or consider the extent to which they will improve the functionality of the  building for tenants and the public. For example, GSA’s one-size fits all  approach in designing these buildings does not consider whether non- public buildings need the same costly architectural elements as buildings  intended to serve as public landmarks. Further, GSA is missing  opportunities to improve future building designs by not systematically  gathering and sharing information on the common design choices that  had both positive and negative effects on O&M costs. Without a clear  picture of the ongoing costs of these choices, GSA and other  stakeholders are missing critical information to better inform the design  and construction of new buildings. While GSA has just begun an  Operational Excellence initiative to help identify future O&M costs, it is not  clear what actions GSA will take to improve consideration of O&M costs  during planning and design or when it will take those actions.

We are making the following four recommendations to GSA:

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should  update existing procedures to require GSA officials to estimate the full  operations and maintenance costs of design choices in the planning  and design process for new Design Excellence buildings.  (Recommendation 1)

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should  update existing procedures to require GSA officials to obtain  information from personnel responsible for addressing the operations  and maintenance consequences of design choices at key decision  points during the planning and design of new Design Excellence  buildings. (Recommendation 2)

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should  update existing procedures to require GSA officials to further consider  and document, during the planning and design of new Design  Excellence buildings, how design choices may affect building  functionality, such as whether a building is publicly visible and  accessible. (Recommendation 3)

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should  update existing procedures to require GSA officials to systematically  collect and share information with project teams responsible for  overseeing the planning and design of new buildings on the positive  and negative effects of common design choices on operations and  maintenance costs in existing Design Excellence buildings.  (Recommendation 4)

We provided a draft of this report to GSA, the U.S. Administrative Office  of Courts, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of  Justice, and the Department of Commerce for comment. In written  comments, reproduced in appendix IV, GSA stated that it agreed with our  recommendations and provided several technical comments. GSA  clarified its policies for selecting and analyzing the lifecycle costs of  building systems. In addition, GSA stated that table 2 in our report did not  capture the full functional benefits and reasons for making certain design  choices. As we noted in the report, this table does not preclude that a  specific design choice may be functional or have functional benefits. We  also included several of the examples GSA highlighted in their comments,  such as the functional need for a separate structure, which may serve key  security functions. GSA also stated that our conclusions did not indicate  that most Design Excellence buildings functioned well. We added  language to the conclusions to clarify this point.

The U.S. Administrative Office of Courts, the Department of Homeland  Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce  did not provide comments.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Administrator of the General Services Administration,  Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Attorney General, and  the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Commerce. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report assesses the extent to which: (1) the General Services  Administration (GSA) made design choices that affect operations and  maintenance (O&M) costs; (2) GSA considers O&M costs and  functionality when planning and designing buildings; and (3) GSA  systematically collects and shares information on O&M costs related to  design choices in existing buildings.

To address all of our objectives, we reviewed applicable federal  regulations; GSA procedures, policies, and standards for designing,  constructing, and operating federal facilities, including specific policies  and procedures for Design Excellence buildings; our prior work; and  reports by other federal agencies and related professional organizations  on topics, including the standard costs of operating and maintaining office  buildings. Our review examined 78 federal buildings and courthouses that  GSA constructed under the Design Excellence Program—referred to as  “Design Excellence buildings”—since the program started in 1994. At our  request, GSA provided a list of all buildings under the agency’s custody  and control that were constructed under the Design Excellence Program.  Based on input from GSA officials indicating that large campuses were  unlikely to have reliable O&M data, we excluded nine buildings that are  part of the White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland. We reviewed  relevant GSA documents pertaining to the remaining 78 Design  Excellence buildings, including the most recent Asset Business Plans  detailing investment needs for maintenance and repairs, strategies for  efficient operations, building use, and tenant satisfaction. We analyzed  GSA-provided historical data on construction and O&M costs from 2000  to 2016 for the buildings in our review and projected O&M future costs. To  calculate our projection, we made several assumptions, including (1) that  annual O&M costs would increase at the same level as 2016 O&M costs  ($174 million), and (2) that Design Excellence buildings will reach the  average age of all current GSA buildings (60 years). We assessed the  reliability of these data through electronic testing and reviewing documentation on the data. We determined that the data provided were  sufficiently reliable for the purpose of illustrating the extent to which O&M  costs make up total building costs.

We also conducted a web-based survey of GSA building managers  responsible for overseeing O&M for the 78 Design Excellence buildings  included in our review. The survey addressed the extent to which certain  design choices affect O&M costs and building functionality. We developed  the survey based on our objectives, prior GAO work, and site visits to 10  Design Excellence buildings. We pretested the survey with GSA officials  at three Design Excellence buildings, which were selected based on  building age, location, total square feet, fiscal year 2016 O&M costs, and  the building’s primary use (e.g., office or courthouse). As part of our  pretesting, we asked GSA building managers to explain their  understanding of survey questions and made edits based on their  comments. We conducted the survey from November 2017 to March  2018 and our response rate was 100 percent (78 out of 78). See  appendix III for a copy of the survey and summarized responses.

We visited 10 Design Excellence buildings in three GSA regions to view  design choices and O&M activities. As part of these site visits, we  conducted interviews that included tenant agencies located in these  buildings, GSA building managers responsible for managing these  buildings and officials from GSA regional offices with oversight  responsibilities for these buildings. To select our site visit locations and  ensure geographic and agency diversity, we considered several factors  including building operating costs, size, location, and the tenant agency.  Based on these criteria we selected the buildings listed in table 3. The  interviews and tours we conducted during our site visits do not allow us to  generalize the findings to all Design Excellence buildings. Information  gathered from our site visits did allow us to show how O&M costs were  considered in specific Design Excellence buildings and the effects of  design choices.

We also interviewed GSA officials located in GSA Headquarters within  the Office of Design and Construction, including the Chief Architect, and  the Office of Facilities Management. We also interviewed GSA regional  officials within the Office of Facilities Management in four of GSA’s 11  regional offices: Greater Southwest Region, National Capital Region,  Pacific Rim Region, and Southeast Sunbelt Region. We selected regional  offices based on the location of our site visits and included one additional  regional office based on it having the highest total O&M operating costs of  the eight remaining regional offices. We discussed several topics with  GSA officials, including how O&M costs were considered during planning  and design and how information on the O&M costs of design choices are  shared.

To determine the extent to which GSA considers O&M costs and  functionality when planning and designing buildings, we analyzed Federal  Real Property Profile (FRPP) data. Our analysis of U.S. government- owned office buildings that are less than 40 years old, occupied, and  needed for a tenant’s mission, identified five potentially relevant variables  to explain variation in the O&M costs: building type (i.e., whether a  building was constructed under the Design Excellence Program), size,  age, and condition of the building, as well as the median hourly wage of  O&M services in the building’s location. After controlling for these  variables, we found that size and median hourly wage but not building  type had a statistically significant relationship to O&M costs. We  assessed the reliability of these data through electronic testing as well as  a review of documentation for each federal data source. We determined  that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of  describing our attempts to identify factors that influence O&M costs in  federal buildings. We also requested and received additional information  from the building managers of Design Excellence federal office buildings.  Specifically we asked for information on the extent to which these federal  office buildings are public-facing, have restrictions on public entry and are  visible from public sidewalks or roads, and what the daily volume of public  visitors was.

We compared GSA’s efforts to consider O&M costs in the planning and  design of Design Excellence buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government on using complete and relevant  information when making decisions and design control activities, including  procedures, to achieve objectives, as well as on communicating  information internally. In addition, we compared GSA’s efforts to consider  these costs in the planning and design of Design Excellence buildings to  guidance from GSA and the Office of Management and Budget that  directs agency officials to consider and strive for the lowest possible  costs, including O&M costs, when designing buildings. We also  compared GSA’s efforts to consider functionality when planning and  designing these buildings to pertinent Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government on using complete and relevant information when  making decisions and design control activities, including procedures, to  achieve objectives.

To assess the extent to which GSA systematically collects and shares  information on O&M costs related to design choices in existing Design  Excellence buildings, we reviewed Post Occupancy Evaluations  commissioned by GSA on six Design Excellence buildings. These  evaluations contain information, such as how GSA buildings are  performing and the extent to which they comply with GSA’s federal  standards for public buildings. These evaluations can include reviews of  operations and maintenance documentation, interviews and surveys with  building occupants, and interviews with relevant GSA staff, architectural  and engineering design team staff, and an on-site evaluation. We also compared GSA’s process for collecting and sharing how design choices  affected O&M costs in existing buildings to pertinent Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government on using and communicating  complete and relevant information when designing control activities,  including procedures, to achieve objectives.

Appendix II: Buildings Constructed under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Design Excellence Program

GSA created the Design Excellence Program in 1994. Under this  program, GSA has constructed 78 buildings in 33 states and the District  of Columbia, buildings that range in size from about 35,000- to over 3- million gross square feet (see table 4).

Appendix III: Survey of General Services Administration (GSA) Building Managers and Summarized Results

This appendix provides a copy of the survey completed by managers for all 78 buildings constructed under GSA’s Design Excellence Program included in our review. The appendix also includes the responses received for each of the close- ended questions (1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a, 3a, and 4a); it does not include information on open-ended responses (1d, 1f, 2b, 3b, 3c, 4b, and 5). The purpose of this survey was to gather responses on how design choices affected operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and building function. See appendix I for additional information on our survey methodology.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Lori Rectanus, (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant  Director); Matthew Cook (Analyst in Charge); Eli Albagli; Sarah Arnett;  Colin Ashwood; Melissa Bodeau; Lacey Coppage; Caitlin Cusati;  Terrence Lam; Joshua Ormond; Dae Park; Minette Richardson; Kelly  Rubin; Ardith Spence; and Dave Wise made key contributions to this  report.

Since 1994, the General Services Administration has spent more than $8 billion to build 78 buildings under its Design Excellence program. Agency officials told us that some design choices—such as use of durable materials—decreased operations and maintenance costs. But others—such as multistory atriums— increased them. We found that the agency

makes design choices without fully considering effects on operations and maintenance costs

does not consistently collect and share information on how design choices affected these costs in existing buildings

We made 4 recommendations, including that the agency update procedures to address these issues.