As biotechnology, nanotechnology, and a host of other “technologies” have exploded, so has the need for industrial, research, and academic laboratories. The traditional methods of delivering laboratory facilities—design by an architect, receiving bids, and constructing the facility—have been stretched. Industries such as pharmaceuticals require new labs to be brought on line in months. Due to the nature of their grant funding, even laboratories in the public sector need to be designed and constructed in shorter time frames than ever before. In general, the design/bid/build approach won’t accommodate this rapid a schedule. A different model is required.  

A growing number of institutions and companies are examining a different approach to designing and building lab facilities. That approach is highlighted by bringing the construction professionals—the general contractor or construction manager—into the project much earlier than the bid phase. A growing number of owners are recognizing that the construction team should be in place simultaneously with the architect’s design team. This is a departure from standard project delivery and requires the traditional “triumvirate” of owner, architect, and contractor to work together in new, more collaborative ways.

The benefits, however, of involving the construction entity at a laboratory’s project inception are well worth the effort. Those benefits extend to better management of the project budget and project schedule, and increased quality of the finished facility.

Budget Nearly every laboratory project is “designed to a budget” instead of “budgeted to a design.” In a traditionally delivered project, owners are apt to receive bids for construction that are in the range of 10 to 20% over budget. This necessitates that the owner adjust his budget upward (never a popular move) or that the architect must make design changes to find the savings (also an unpleasant task, which can result in additional design costs and schedule delays).

An experienced laboratory contractor can help evaluate project costs, particularly if the firm is part of the design process from the beginning.
 

SAFC Biosciences, a division of Sigma-Aldrich, worked closely with their construction manager, McCown Gordon of Kansas City, Mo., before constructing a new 28,000-ft2 facility in Lenexa, Kan. When the construction manager learned that SAFC was likely to outgrow the proposed 28,000 ft2 facility and require another 12,000 ft2 within two years, the team proposed a construction approach that provided significant longer term value to the owner. That approach was to construct the shell of both facilities (a combined 40,000 ft2), fully completing only the initial 28,000. By doing so, items like steel and roofing systems could be ordered and constructed with one mobilization. The savings realized compared with completing the two sections separately was $500,000.

In addition, expansion considerations were made for both the mechanical and electrical infrastructure during phase one at a fraction of what those costs would have been to retrofit and/or replace the systems in the future.

Schedule The design/construction schedule is always critical on a laboratory project. By having the architect and contractor working together from the beginning, many tasks can be overlapped; that’s the essence of fast-track scheduling. Because the contractor is engaged during the design process, early cost information can be developed while there is still time to make design changes. Additionally, materials and equipment with long lead times can be ordered by the contractor, further accelerating the schedule.

Extremely precise scheduling allowed Sanofi-Aventis to maintain full production of Allegra at that company’s renovation of a 90,000-ft2 facility in Kansas City. By carefully phasing the project in seven phases, temporarily relocating key equipment and mechanical systems, and working round the clock, McCown Gordon was able to complete the renovation on time with no impact to production. The cost savings were inestimable.