B-306284, Architect of the Capitol--Payment for Electrical and Security the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, January 5, 2006

B-306284 Jan 05, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 1. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) ordered electric and security upgrades to the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building (the building) that were completed in 2000. Because both the electrical and the security work benefited all tenants and enhanced the value of the building and improved its capacity, we do not object to viewing them as capital improvements. 2. Under the Trust Agreement establishing, among others, the Operating Reserve Fund, such Fund was available to the extent of available funds for improvements generally to the building. Although the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) had other funding options available to it, so long as the Operating Reserve Fund has adequate available balances, we would not object to the AOC's use of the Operating Reserve Fund to cover the costs of the electrical and security improvements. 3. Whether, under the circumstances present here, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) should seek reimbursement from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for the electrical and the security work performed is a discretionary judgment reposed in him. Failure to obtain reimbursement would not be an augmentation of the AOUSC's funds because as capital improvements the AOUSC's funds are not directly available and because the AOUSC's appropriation does not constitute a specific and exclusive funding source for all improvements to the building. View Decision B-306284, Architect of the Capitol--Payment for Electrical and Security Improvements at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, January 5, 2006 Decision Matter of: Architect of the Capitol—Payment for Electrical and Security Improvements at the ThurgoodMarshallFederalJudiciaryBuilding File: B-306284 Date: January 5, 2006 DIGEST 1. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) ordered electric and security upgrades to the Thurgood MarshallFederalJudiciaryBuilding (the building) that were completed in 2000. Because both the electrical and the security work benefited all tenants and enhanced the value of the building and improved its capacity, we do not object to viewing them as capital improvements. 2. Under the Trust Agreement establishing, among others, the Operating Reserve Fund, such Fund was available to the extent of available funds for improvements generally to the building. Although the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) had other funding options available to it, so long as the Operating Reserve Fund has adequate available balances, we would not object to the AOC's use of the Operating Reserve Fund to cover the costs of the electrical and security improvements. 3. Whether, under the circumstances present here, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) should seek reimbursement from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for the electrical and the security work performed is a discretionary judgment reposed in him. Failure to obtain reimbursement would not be an augmentation of the AOUSC's funds because as capital improvements the AOUSC's funds are not directly available and because the AOUSC's appropriation does not constitute a specific and exclusive funding source for all improvements to the building. DECISION On September 30, 2005, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), as certifying officer, requested an advance decision pursuant to 31 U.S.C. sect. 3529(a) regarding certain fiscal matters related to the disbursement and reimbursement of funds for electrical and security work performed at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building (the building). Specifically, the AOC asks the following three questions: –(1) Whether the security and electrical upgrades are capital improvements and not tenant improvements; –(2) Whether the non-appropriated Operating Reserve Fund was an available source of funds to pay for these upgrades as directed by my letter dated June 22, 2005, or was there a more specific source of appropriated funds that should have been used for either the upgrades to the security system or upgrades to the electrical system; and –(3) Whether the AOUSC must reimburse the Architect for any of these disbursements from the Operating Reserve Fund?— For the reasons discussed below, we do not object to the AOC's view that both the electrical and the security work were capital improvements. Second, we have no basis to object to the AOC's use of the Operating Reserve Fund to cover the cost of the improvements at issue here. Third, whether the AOC should seek reimbursement for the cost of the work is a discretionary judgment for the AOC. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Public Law 100-480, 102 Stat. 2328 (Oct. 7, 1988), codified at 40 U.S.C.