“You can deliver biocontainment facilities with contractors who haven’t done this type of work before. It takes a little bit of a different approach, project budgeting and planning, and a lot more involvement from everyone involved to pull it off, but it can be done,” says Jeffrey R. Zynda, associate at Payette. “However, the type of project execution typical of standard laboratory design and construction probably won’t work for a biocontainment project.”

The BST3 and Regional Biocontainment Laboratory (RBL) comprise a $142-million, 357,000-gsf facility designed to maximize the mix of research disciplines under one roof. More than 500 scientists, technicians, graduate students, and support staff research areas including drug discovery and vaccine development; computational, developmental, and structural biology; neurobiology; microbiology; radiology; genomics and proteomics; and neurodegenerative disease studies. One of the world’s largest high-field imaging facilities is paired with an animal imaging facility. Equipment includes three 600-megahertz NMR spectrometers, a 750-megahertz spectrometer, an 800-megahertz spectrometer, the first actively shielded 900-megahertz spectrometer, and a seven Tesla (7T) whole body MRI instrument.

Collaboration and Contractor Education

A new collaborative approach to project delivery for biocontainment facilities keeps stakeholders involved from the design process through completion. Building the right team of architects, engineers, the construction manager, the commissioning agent, the facility director, principal investigator, head veterinarian, environmental health and safety personnel, security, risk management and legal team ensures project representation from multiple viewpoints, and participation throughout the design and construction process, resulting in the ultimate success of the project.

“That is the only way the stakeholders will get the type of facility required for advanced research programs” says Zynda.

Although the contractor, Mascaro Construction, had experience with laboratory projects, it had never constructed a BSL-3 project. The benefit of working with a commissioning agent with biocontainment experience adds another critical set of eyes to the process. This agent can be helpful in not only providing a peer review during the design process, but also in offering a different vantage point on approaches throughout the process. Getting them involved early can help the process be more collaborative across the board.

As part of the BST3 ABSL-3 suite, numerous challenges helped to educate the trade contractors about the complexities of biocontainment construction. There were several specialized equipment utility changes that occurred after construction began. The University protocol determined that a half-inch water gauge pressure decay test needed to be included in the process. This was followed by a revision to add Select Agent research capabilities, which changed the way the lab would be used. Finally, the University wanted to have a convertible BSL-2/BSL-3, which affected exhaust systems in the space.

“There was not only a learning curve that we had to address, but also program changes,” says Edward P. Elinski, senior project manager, Mascaro Construction Company. “Things got a little gummed up, but we learned a lot which we applied later to the RBL.”

From the process lessons learned on the BST3 ABSL-3 suite, a more collaborative approach to the RBL project was required.

“Walking the contractors through each level of the program so they understood how details applied in different manners at different containment levels was critically important,” says Zynda.

“Our approach to the RBL was to prequalify experienced contractors who have good backgrounds in lab projects, but not necessarily with biocontainment projects as sophisticated as this. However, they understood the basic concepts and were able to bring good ideas to the project,” says Elinski. “The prequalification process was followed by a detailed scope review where we determined adequate project resources. Once you are satisfied with that, you make the award, and then all the fun begins.”

The RBL is organized into two major zones, in-vivo ABSL-3 and in-vitro BSL-3 biocontainment research spaces.  There are four ABSL-3 holding and procedure suites which are supported by an aerobiology suite, an operatory suite, a necropsy suite, and a cagewash/decontamination suite.  The RBL operates as a “single-pass” facility in which personnel and materials move from the clean spaces through each suite to decontamination in a linear fashion. The BSL-3 research zone is comprised of three suites consisting of a total of 10 laboratories for independent pathogen research. Each ABSL-3 and BSL-3 suite can be independently isolated for decontamination purposes. Supporting the biocontainment laboratories is a BSL-2 lab for research and preparatory work requiring lesser personal protective equipment protocols.

Program and construction detail review sessions were scheduled with the stakeholders and tradesmen to ensure greater project understanding with the goal of project success. One of the most important sessions was between the tradesmen and environmental health and safety (EH&S) staff from the University of Pittsburgh. The EH&S staff went through exactly what research could occur within the facility. They personalized the research by pointing out that the science outcomes have the potential to result in vaccines for their children, and how poor construction could result in pathogens being released within their own community. Because they were given “the big picture” regarding the facility and the message was personalized, the tradesmen were very interested in how to execute these details and get them done right.

“The workers take pride in the project they are building,” says Zynda. “Information is power, in my opinion. If the tradesmen are thinking about the big picture, then they can make the right decisions, or ask the right questions in the field and that leads to a better overall project.”

One of the technical components of this project was utilizing decontamination ports in almost every space so that they could be decontaminated through vaporized hydrogen peroxide or through chlorine dioxide gas.

“Most of these guys had never seen this equipment before, so they had a lot of questions about which end is installed into the room and how these valves are placed,” says Zynda. “In fact, there were some good check and balance items that took place in the process due to the contractor’s detail education program. When some spaces of the project program changed, and design changes were made, a pair of decontamination ports was overlooked in the revision. The guys in the field caught the fact that some of these boxes would have been installed in reverse. Because they understood what the ports were used for and how they were applicable to the project, it opened up a line of dialogue and the equipment was installed the right way.”

Evaluation and Quality Control

Poor detail execution, sequencing, and/or coordination are responsible for 90 percent of delays in biocontainment projects. These delays can be lessened with a thorough review of project details prior to the beginning of construction. Critical details include new construction techniques, unfamiliar product applications, multi-trade coordination, and proper sequencing.

Collaboration and sharing of information was emphasized heavily during the detail review process. Part of the detailed review was educating the trade contractors to understand the construction sequencing, and how biocontainment project details are sequenced differently than typical construction. Different biocontainment zones were defined for the contractors during the education process, emphasizing the differences in the applicable details.

The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing coordination process began with weekly meetings, and was the contractor’s opportunity to become educated about biocontainment. The question and answer portion resulted in different points of view and varied solutions.

A master punch list and deficiency log from the architect, engineer, commissioning agent, and users kept everyone on the same page. That team performed field observations bi-weekly and held commissioning meetings throughout the process. Random spot testing was conducted throughout the project. In addition, to track the progress of work on a daily basis full photographic documentation of all concealed work was recorded.

Quality control was managed through frequent incremental testing of individual rooms and sections of ductwork along the way. The team prepared a series of mock-ups, with all infrastructure installed, that allowed them to work through different possibilities with the tradesmen and arrive at details that would pass pressure decay testing and allow for ease of constructability. This eliminated revisions at the end of the project and ensured that the facility would operate the way it was intended. In addition, the commissioning agent’s testing protocols served to ensure that the project met the functional requirements intended for the facility.

Lessons Learned

There were five major lessons learned in the process: managing expectations, project team structure, construction sequencing, collaboration, and learning from other projects and disciplines.

Aligning construction methodology and costs with outcome expectations ensures the design meets program needs and budget.

Biocontainment projects are organized differently than typical projects in terms of fee structure, time allocation, and design/construction processes.

Collaboration includes all stakeholders in every aspect of the project. Providing the big picture allows the right decisions to be made in the field.

Cosnstruction sequencing of biocontainment projects differs greatly from typical non-containment laboratory projects. Understanding these sequencing differences is critical to projects success.

Learning from other projects’ mistakes and the academic model in terms of collaborating on research is paramount in a successful project.

“If we follow the academic model of the research community and  are more open about past problems and sharing ideas, we can learn from each other and be a more robust biocontainment community as a result,” says Zynda.

By Lisa Brown

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894