Courthouse plans reflect current costs

By Bond R. Faulwell

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- I would like to respond to the July 9 editorial, "Courthouse costs: Who's doing the math?" My goal is to correct inaccuracies and clarify misconceptions in the editorial to give the citizens of Southeast Missouri a clear understanding of the General Services Administration's plans to build a modern and secure U.S. courthouse in Cape Girardeau.

Some of the figures concerning the Eagleton Federal Courthouse in St. Louis were incorrect. I also have provided estimated figures for the Cape Girardeau U.S. Courthouse.

The Eagleton courthouse contains 26 courtrooms and was the largest in the United States in terms of gross square feet at the time of construction. If one measure courthouse size by the number of courtrooms or cost per square foot, the federal courthouses in New York and Boston are larger.

The construction cost of the Eagleton courthouse was $202 million, or $195 a square foot.

The total project cost of the Eagleton courthouse was $248 million, or $239 a square foot.

The estimated construction cost of the Cape Girardeau courthouse is $49 million, or $285 a square foot.

The estimated total project cost of the Cape Girardeau courthouse is $55 million, or $357 a square foot.

The inference that it is irresponsible that the planned Cape Girardeau courthouse would be the "most expensive courthouse in the world" and significantly more expensive than the Eagleton courthouse is misleading. Multiple factors must be taken into consideration when analyzing the cost of new federal construction.

The figures for the Eagleton courthouse are 10 years old. Construction costs have increase 26 percent during that time period.

Costs differ with various locations. Labor costs and seismic issues when building on a fault line (Cape Girardeau is on the New Madrid Fault line, which St. Louis is not) are just two examples of location factors that impact construction costs.

Additional measures are required since the 1994 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that were not factored into construction prior to the attack. Examples are progressive collapse, blast glass protection and numerous security measures.

These are just some of the factors that account for the difference between the total project cost per square foot of the Eagleton courthouse ($239) and the planned Cape Girardeau courthouse ($357).

The architectural plans purchased from the Chicago architectural firm were portrayed as a waste of time and money. While not selected as the final plans, they provided important functional information for GSA's future programming efforts that will not have to be repeated at a later date.

The $75,000 paid to three contractor-architect groups currently competing for the project is a stipend to cover their expenses for their work. The selection process requires the competing firms to complete 20 percent of the courthouse design. This is an expensive process for the competing firms, and the stipend is intended to act as an incentive for the best firms to provide the best designs.

While the estimated construction cost ($49.3 million) of the planned Cape Girardeau courthouse is accurate, the "alarm bells and whistles" statement is misleading. The construction costs for the new courthouse are explained above. Moreover, construction costs are based upon national benchmark unit costs submitted annually to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget. These national standards serve as a baseline to establish construction costs while taking location factors into consideration, as explained above.

The comparison between the planned courthouse and local school construction also is misleading. There are a number of expenses that must be incorporated in the construction of a federal courthouse that do not apply to a school.

U.S. courthouses are constructed to be monumental buildings, long-term assets to the community and fully functional for at least 50 years.

New federal construction plans take into consideration the workload increase of the judicial system. Thus, plans include the capability for future expansion.

There are a number of security measures that U.S. courthouse require. Examples are secure parking, progressive collapse and blast glass protection.

Courthouses require detention equipment, holding cells and separate circulation patterns for the public, judges and prisoners in custody.

The final misunderstanding deals with the statement that "only in Washington would anyone think about spending $57.5 million -- that's the tally so far -- on a courthouse in Cape Girardeau without having building plans in place."

This statement, referring to the design-build concept, is false and based upon a faulty premise. The estimated total project cost is actually $55. 3 million, of which only a small portion has been obligated or spent on site acquisition, demolition and structure moving ($1.8 million) and design ($725,000).

The reference in the editorial that the site acquisition and "some design work" totaled $6 million is inaccurate. This figure represents the total amount budgeted for site acquisition and associated activities, not the amount spent to date.

Moreover, the statement implies that design-build construction is uncommon and negligent. In fact, design-build construction is widely accepted and frequently utilized in the private sector. Design-build construction has many positive aspects.

It speeds up the construction process, as noted in the editorial.

It give local responsibility for the project to one entity. Final decisions are not spread among architects, engineers and construction contractors. This reduces the occurrence of disputes among the project team that waste time and money.

The GSA places great importance on its roles as responsible stewards of the American taxpayer, and we endeavor to serve as a good neighbor to the communities in which there is a federal presence. We seek to complement the efforts of the people of Southeast Missouri as they work to improve their community and to consistently seize opportunities to better serve the American taxpayer by maximizing government efficiency.

Bond R. Faulwell is the deputy regional administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration's heartland region.