As discussed in the July issue of Laboratory Design newsletter, new lab construction costs this year are expected to fall 5 to 10% this year, due to recession impacts (including reduced profit margins being taken by firms involved in the construction industry in order to stay competitive). Most types of lab renovations will see decreases between 4 and 5%, slightly less dramatic than the declines for new construction, and less precipitous than the reductions in the 10% range for renovation costs seen between 2008 and 2009.

HLW International LLP, New York, N.Y., has been publishing lab construction and renovation cost reports annually since 1994. This year’s report was compiled with the assistance of Faithful+Gould, a New York-based consultant. Last month we focused on new construction; this month we'll look at renovation. (Refer to the July issue at www.rdmag.com/General/Laboratory-Design-News-Archive/ for information on how these statistics are compiled, as well as a chart of local multipliers that can be applied for more precise forecasting.)

Costs by facility type
The table below gives a summary of renovation cost ranges for various common lab facility types. Costs in this chart are pegged to the renovation market in the tri-state New York metropolitan area, within 50 miles of midtown Manhattan, but excluding the five boroughs of New York City (which have dramatically higher costs). Costs in domestic regional markets and international markets may be higher or lower, as shown in the July issue.

Assumptions for each type of facility, and the forecast average annual percentage changes compared with 2009 costs, are as follows:

• Biomedical (1). Major academic medical center research buildings that tend to be biology-intensive and chemistry-light, built since 1980. Assumptions include better available infrastructure, little or no across-the-board systems upgrades, general conformance with current codes, and manageable planning scenarios. Cost decrease in average facility rehab from 2009 level: 4.7%.
• Biomedical (2). Academic medical research centers as described above, but built earlier (pre 1980). Assumptions include outdated, non-adaptable MEP infrastructure, necessary upgrades to a wide variety of other systems, multiple code challenges, and significant premiums for overtime work. Ranges are up to 30% higher than for rehabs of biomed facilities discussed in category 1 above, and approach the costs for new construction. Cost decrease from 2009: 5.9%.
• Animal research. Discovery-phase animal research, procedural spaces, non-GLP systems. Cost decrease from 2009: 4.8%.
• Toxicology. Safety evaluation phase R&D, Phase 1-4 testing, GLP systems. Cost decrease from 2009: 5.2%.
• Chemistry research. Oriented toward organic/synthetic combinatorial, medicinal, and structural chemistry. Cost decrease from 2009: 5.2%.
• Biology research. Full range of basic and developmental biology sciences. Cost decrease from 2009: 5.3%.
• Analytical chemistry. Development-phase quality control, and QC in support of manufacturing. Cost decrease from 2009: 5.6%.
• Software development. Mix of dry labs with raised floor, and office space. Cost decrease from 2009: 4.2%.
• Hardware development. Same as software, with some physics and wet labs and some environmental and cleanroom spaces. Cost decrease from 2009: 5.6%.
• GMP production. Part of a larger building or facility, representing only part of the full building cost. Class 10,000 spaces encompass staging, cleaning, and assembly; cost decrease from 2009: 4.9%. Class 1,000 spaces may be used for solid dosage form production and other purposes; cost decrease from 2009: 5%. Class 100 facilities are suitable for sterile filling and preparations; cost decrease from 2009: 5%.
• BSL-3 lab spaces. Cost decrease from 2009: 5.1%.
• BSL-4 lab spaces. Cost decrease from 2009: 4.8%.
• Greenhouses. Cost decrease from 2009: 4.9%.
• K-12 biology/chemistry teaching labs. Cost decrease from 2009: 3.4%.
• Advanced physical science research. Unique, state-of-the-art facilities with apparatus that replicates nature itself. Cost decrease from 2009: 3.7%.
• Nanotechnology research. Cost decrease from 2009: 5.1%.

Variations within facility type
As noted in the table above, facilities that fall into identical categories may display a fairly broad range of ft² renovation costs. Level of invasiveness is the determining factor. The low end of the cost range represents minimally invasive work, such as:

• Cosmetic upgrade of lab space (countertops, finishes).
• Modest additional infrastructure in the form of additional outlets or piped service locations.
• Minor replacement of in-lab, above-ceiling MEP outlets, ductwork, and lighting.
• Minor bench removal and reconfiguration.
• Minor repartitioning and new doorways to create new spaces or links between spaces.

The high end of the range assumes the total replacement of lab corridor and support space, including MEP infrastructure. Only the building shell itself is reclaimable. Everything in between the high and low numbers represents an increasing extent of system replacement, new construction, and quality of finishes.

Small-scale refurbishments
As a practical matter, small-scale, focused refurbishments have become a popular method of implementing improvements to the lab environment in response to the volatile and fast-moving pressures of the R&D marketplace. Limited in both scope and cost, and easily accomplished in a short time, these targeted upgrades are an effective method of achieving improvements to meet evolving demands.

The table above shows typical small-scale refurbishment costs in the New York metro area, as well as in urban New York City. Costs outside of the major high-cost urban centers will be within 85 to 90% of the costs reported for metro New York; costs in urban centers may be closer to the New York City numbers.

Additional data
In addition to our analysis of costs for new and renovated lab facilities, the annual cost index includes comments about MEP construction cost allocations. For details, see this month’s digital edition: www.rdmag.com/General/Laboratory-Design-News-Archive/.

Allocation of construction costs
The annual HLW cost index also includes data about how construction costs are allocated for typical R&D buildings. The table below illustrates MEP cost breakdowns for the typical biochemistry lab and the typical animal research lab.

The “HVAC equipment” category includes boilers, chillers, air handling units, supply/exhaust fans, supplemental heating and cooling equipment, system pumps and fan coil units. The “HVAC sheet metal systems” category encompasses galvanized steel ductwork, noncorrosive duct systems, air devices, terminal boxes, dampers and diffusers.

In the “Electrical” category, “main distribution and panels” includes transformers, and “special systems” includes emergency generators. Under “Plumbing,” the “equipment” category includes booster pumps, circulating pumps, waste water pumps, oil-free compressors, high-priority water production equipment, and animal watering and feeding systems.

In the “Fire Protection” category, “equipment” includes fire pumps and jockey pumps. “Special systems” in this category includes pre-action, dry pipe and suppression (O₂ starving).

Ted Hammer, FAIA, is managing partner at HLW International LLP, New York, N.Y. (www.hlw.com). Also contributing to this report was HLW Associate Carlie Campesi. Additional information was provided by Iain McWhinney, VP/Bio Pharma, and Oliver Hamm, LEED AP, project manager, both of the consulting firm Faithful+Gould (www.fgould.com).

• Academic & Medical
• Commercial & Private
• Government
• Sustainability Focus

Latest News

more

Delta Kunststoffe Employs Coperion’sExtruder to Process Polymer Compounds

1 hour ago

Global Nanoelectronics Researchersto Present at 2012 Imec Technology Forum

1 hour ago

EpiGaN Opens New Site to Produce Gallium Nitride Epitaxial Material

1 hour ago

Industrial Nanotech Installed Initial Projects with Several Key US Manufacturers

2 hours ago

Shocking Technologies Raises Fund to Drive and Meet Demand for VSD Material

3 hours ago