|
Planning for installation of large equipment, such as this blender and product collector, is eased by preconstruction participation from a CM. Photo of SAFC Biosciences, Lenexa, Kan., by Paul Kivett Photography
|
Laboratories of every type—academic, research, and production—continue to be designed and constructed even within the current economic recession. As the biotech and life science industries increasingly grow, the timely and efficient creation of these facilities has become crucial, so much so that architects, engineers and construction managers must re-examine previously accepted project delivery methods.
The traditional design-bid-build approach, based on the owner, architect and contractor triad, has demonstrated several limitations within the laboratory building type. These limitations generally center on cost control and schedule delays.
Both of these factors—cost and schedule—are so critical that any project-delivery approach that can lessen the uncertainty associated with them will produce a dramatic decrease in risk to the owner. Delays and cost overruns in laboratory projects will negatively affect time to market in a production facility, for example, or impair the educational program and research mission in an academic facility.
Recent experience in completing laboratory facilities has shown that early inclusion of a construction manager creates a material advantage to the overall project. The involvement of a construction professional may take several forms depending upon the design and construction contracts appropriate to a particular owner; regardless of the contract form, collaboration with the construction manager will provide early and frequent cost and schedule data. Here is a look at several key issues of professional collaboration and the construction manager’s contribution to the project.
Designing to a budget
The construction manager should be involved at the commencement of design. An initial “order of magnitude” cost estimate, based on the facility’s mission and uses, square footage, types of laboratory and office spaces, and design and size of major building systems, is prepared at this stage. While this early cost estimate will include a contingency, it will serve to establish and validate the overall scope of the project.
As design proceeds, the construction manager will continue to refine the cost estimate and simultaneously develop the construction schedule and evaluate quality of systems. This iterative approach allows the architect/construction manager team to constantly evaluate the value of each design decision and, in conjunction with the owner, adjust the design as needed or desired. Once construction documents are completed, the cost estimate, having been continuously developed, will be reasonably accurate and should have a contingency in the 3 to 5% range.
|
A well-informed CM can improve planning and costing for complex infrastructure. Shown here: a mechanical room at SAFC Biosciences, Lenexa, Kan., including piped nitrogen. Photo: Paul Kivett Photography
|
One can think of this process as “designing to a budget” instead of “budgeting a design.” The approach is markedly different from the standard design/bid/build method.
Modular construction and layout
Modular construction and layout of the building can realize significant cost savings. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems, which represent as much as 50% percent of the total construction cost, can benefit from modularization. Repetitive elements of the laboratory should be identified and placed to maximize efficiency and ease of construction as much as possible. Multistory buildings can take advantage of stacking MEP systems, particularly those that will rarely require reconfiguration in the future. Long-lead items, such as fume hoods and casework, can be designed and fabricated in advance to obtain cost advantages.
Retaining future flexibility
Concurrent with modular design is the need for flexibility with future expansion or reconfiguration.
The construction manager can evaluate the building shell and MEP systems with regard to cost-effective future expansion. For example, major components such as chillers, air-handling units, the mechanical distribution system, various lab utility systems and exhaust systems may be selected with a higher capacity to support future additions. The additional capital investment in larger units often is less than the future cost to replace these components when expansion of the lab creates increased loads.
In addition, the team can collaborate on the design of laboratory interiors to gain the most efficiency in the manufacture and installation of casework, the electrical system and lighting fixtures. The designation of “flex zones,” or non-modular areas that can be reconfigured for new uses, may be an attractive strategy.
Design for flexibility is particularly important to the owners of incubator facilities, where the needs of future tenants cannot always be predicted. Costlier systems, such as compressed air and vacuum, may not be incorporated in the design but may be installed when the tenent moves in. Plenum and chase space may be allocated for those future systems, lowering the initial construction cost. The cost of completely building out an incubator facility vs. a phased build-out should be evaluated during design. Where an owner is confident about an expansion in the near future, it may make economic sense to build out the entire facility. The design/construction team should continuously analyze decisions of this nature throughout the design process.
Sustainability is another key area where early collaboration pays off.
|
Since HVAC is a major capital and operating cost for lab buildings, well-informed construction coordination and costing is a must. At Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, Mo., a spacious and well-organized central plant supports operations. Photo: Bill Manginelli
|
Fast tracking the project
Fast tracking the project
Fast tracking” a project can provide significant cost savings and value to the owner. The collaborative approach allows for overlapping the design phase with procurement and construction phases, as opposed to bidding a complete set of construction documents. Site work, the foundation and structural systems can generally commence while MEP, architectural and interior design are still underway. Long-lead items can be ordered early to allow construction to proceed more quickly. In general, the overall design and construction schedule of a laboratory can be compressed by 30 to 40% compared with traditional design-bid-build schedules.
Challenged with the uncertain costs and the schedule delays inherent in the traditional design-bid-build approach, owners are seeking a better ways to deliver expanded, renovated or new laboratory facilities. Project collaboration that includes the construction professional has proven advantageous; when the right team of architects, engineers and construction professionals work together from the inception of a project, they deliver increased quality, efficiency and value for the laboratory owner.
Ramin R. Cherafat is a partner and VP/operations with McCownGordon Construction, Kansas City (www.mccowngordon.com). Cherafat has extensive experience in construction management, design/build and general contracting for the biosciences field. Design for sustainability Today, many owners are also asking their project teams to incorporate energy-efficient, sustainable engineering and construction technologies into new lab facilities. These include energy-efficient HVAC and fume-hood systems, sustainable building products, natural lighting and energyconserving lighting controls, and overall building control systems.
Published in Laboratory Design Newsletter: Vol. 15, No. 1, January, 2010, pp.1 & 4-5.