“Because of the cost premium for nanoscience buildings, it is critical to establish priorities for limited funding,” observes architect Ahmad Soueid, who as principal with HDR Architecture Inc. in Alexandria, Va., has directed several nanotech projects. “It’s also vital to select the right project delivery method.”

While construction projects for most other building types have a rich history of moving forward under alternative delivery packages, parallels in the nanotech category are much more limited, Soueid points out. Similarly, “a delivery method that works very well for a university classroom or dormitory project may not necessarily be the right approach for an advanced research laboratory facility,” he advises, stressing how important it is for planners to have clear priorities in this area. No construction delivery method is off limits, as long as the team selection and the project execution are carefully considered, he adds.

“The basic premise in selecting the ‘right’ technique lies in the overarching concept of balancing the three legs of the footstool: scope, price, and schedule,” he explains. “An owner must recognize and prioritize the importance of each of these pillars. Depending on what is more important, there is a delivery method that is right for the project.”

Gamut of Delivery Options

Among the diverse project delivery options devised to meet the gamut of owner needs, Soueid cites traditional project delivery methods such as design-bid-build, design-build (D-B), construction management (CM) at risk, and CM as agent. Other alternative delivery methods include developer-based design-build-operate or lease-back, and varying forms of public-private partnerships (P3).

“For each delivery method there are multiple ways to select a construction contractor, such as direct select (no competition), hard (low) bid, negotiated bid, invitation for bid, request for proposal, and other methods such as best value selection, which requires both a technical and a price proposal to be evaluated separately. The latter process is often employed on government projects,” Soueid explains.

Which is best under what circumstances?

A few higher education institutions are employing CM methods on current nanotech projects; however, among completed facilities, the traditional design-bid-build approach has been the most common in the nanotech arena. Just as the owner holds sequential contracts with the designer and the builder, the project moves forward serially, with construction starting only after design completion.

In a design-bid-build environment, multiple general contractors might provide competing bids based on a complete set of construction documents. Institutions may then choose to select the lowest qualified bidder.

“The process is very linear, and there is little opportunity to accelerate the schedule under this model,” Soueid remarks.

CM for an Early Start

Owners who want to move more quickly, especially those seeking to break ground early, should investigate the various construction management techniques available. Cautioning that it’s very easy to oversimplify when talking about CM’s “many different flavors,” Soueid notes that while designer and builder still perform under separate contracts, this model often entails early builder involvement, allowing the institution to benefit from both pre-construction services and realistic financial input.

Some permutations of this method enable owners to transfer risk and budget obligations sooner in the process, an advantage if a head start on construction is the goal.

“Several items on the schedule can be done quite a bit earlier, like site development and utilities infrastructure upgrades, and even actual building construction based on the core-and-shell concept,” he says, adding, “Building the project in multiple packages eliminates the linear design-then-construct flow and allows for an accelerated schedule. This is one of the biggest advantages of this delivery method.

“A CM-at-risk will typically sign an agreement that stipulates a guaranteed maximum price at a certain milestone on the project schedule,” he continues. “The earlier the milestone, the less complete are the construction documents and the less defined is the project scope. Owners wishing to lock in a price early tend to ‘transfer the risk’ sooner with performance-based construction documents than owners that wish to control the design solutions with more prescriptive documents.”

Control of existing site vibrations and ambient EMI/RFI levels are critical to the success of a nanotech facility, he notes, advising designers to benchmark existing conditions before starting any design activities.

“Most of this preparation does not require invasive methods with a construction crew,” he points out. “Some of the measured source of ‘noise’ on the site can be fixed by having an early construction package that includes relocating a road or a major electrical feeder (overhead or underground) or demolition of an existing building that contains out-of-balance mechanical equipment.

“I would then recommend a resurvey be done prior to the start of a new building construction in order to establish a site environmental ‘signature’ with a clean bill of health,” he says.

Another advantage of early construction is the possibility of “un-earthing” unknown existing subsurface conditions that might not have been discovered by a geotechnical survey. Detecting such information during the design phase allows architects and engineers to adjust their designs and save the additional costs and delays of later construction changes.

Design-Build

When schedule is an important driver, the design-build (D-B) approach, which can also offer the quick turnaround some nanotech projects require, is another alternative Soueid mentions.

“The architects and engineers work under the contractor, and the construction documents are developed jointly by the design and construction subcontractors. Construction does not have to wait until 100 percent documents are completed. Much of the detailed documentation follows in the form of installation or shop drawings,” he explains.

In this delivery method, the agreement signed by the owner with the D-B team is based on documents that are largely performance based. Because well-defined building criteria and performance are so crucial to the nanotech facility’s future success, this must be done by a qualified team with prior relevant project experience, he insists, warning, “Otherwise, a construction delivery method that boasts faster schedule turnaround might actually take longer to ‘effectively’ complete.”

Two elements are absolutely critical for success with this method: strong bridging documents and project team expertise. Bridging documents consist of the contractual design documents attached to an agreement between an owner and a design-builder. The documents can take a variety of forms—a set of performance-based requirements stated in a narrative before any design is started, or drawings and specifications at various points of design completion.

“The later the ‘handover,’ the more prescriptive the bridging documents become,” Soueid explains. “Without a good bridging document communicating the owner’s needs to the team that will build the building, you’re apt not to know what to expect at the end.”

What can’t be overlooked in this type of arrangement is the effect of the unknown—a building that merely meets local or national building codes may not meet the stated objectives of the science it will house. A structural design that meets seismic conditions may not be “stiff” enough to achieve the stated vibration specifications.

In addition to vibration, EMI, and RFI, items as simple as ceiling heights and corridor widths need to be viewed with an eye to accommodating tools or instruments still unknown. Improper loading dock location or elevator placement could also be very costly to remedy after construction completion.

“The design-build delivery method can yield a fast schedule turnaround, but the building criteria and performance objectives must be agreed on (contractually) very early in the design process,” says Soueid.

This is especially true in cases where the nanotech facility’s ultimate customer or tenants have not yet joined the institution. As a consequence, such criteria can’t always be firmed up at the start of design. Soueid points out that several nanocenters built around the U.S. are dubbed “user facilities,” meaning that they will eventually operate as “sophisticated research hotels” with fully built-out amenities.

“More and more institutions are using the building itself as a recruiting tool to hire scientific and research talents,” he says, remarking, “It’s very difficult to develop a fixed building. Not every user knows what he wants five years down the road when it’s time to move in.”

More than the minimum infrastructure is needed, but it can be difficult to decide which features to include and what fit-up to postpone. For that reason, he recommends focusing on developing a flexible approach to accommodate changes in research needs throughout the life cycle of the building. Such flexibility is hard to describe in a performance-based contract, he notes.

As for team composition, on the owner side it’s important to include both facilities personnel and building users, who, given the tender age of the specialty, can provide the needed insight into the requirements of a nanotech environment. The architects and engineers should have experience on similar projects so they can advise the client team about what other features to consider “without learning on the owner’s nickel.” It’s also imperative for the contractor to have a solid understanding of technical buildings to avoid the need for remedial work.

Public-Private Partnerships

When an institution lacks the capital budget to fund a nanoscience building, Soueid suggests initiating some version of the public-private partnership (P3).

“More public-sector agencies are turning to this mechanism to effectively navigate their budgetary, procurement, and compliance issues,” he says. “I think there is good merit in this approach. Without the funds, it may be the only way to build a nanotech facility.”

The special considerations about project schedule and building scope—quality and quantity of space, plus environmental criteria—are even more important in this delivery method.

Other caveats are also attached to this path as well. For example, in the long run, the building will be more expensive for the owner because of the extra layer of profit inserted to compensate the developer for his leading role. However, weighed against no building at all, this drawback is easy to counter.

More complex is the question of incorporating the right features and quality of space essential to support the program in a type of building that doesn’t have much precedent. Again, Soueid views the project team membership as a key ingredient.

“If one party isn’t aware of the nuances and the description of the outcome is vague, the project will not be very successful. To eliminate surprises at the end of construction, the developer, in particular, must understand what has to go into the building,” he counsels.

This particular delivery method requires even more vigilance on the part of the owner team in order to successfully navigate through the process and achieve the proper building performance at move-in.

For that reason, many public agencies have found that the most effective way to undertake P3 is with the guidance of an outside advisor, one steeped in the intricacies unique to P3s and able to steer these projects toward optimal outcomes. If the owner does not have the input of nanotechnology user groups and in-house facilities staff, it is a good idea to employ an advisor who also understands the needs of a nanotechnology facility.

Benchmarking

With any project delivery method, it is very important to start with a realistic project budget that is representative of an accurate building scope. A project benchmarking exercise provides a good comparative analysis. Soueid has seen costs for these advanced research facilities range anywhere from $250 per sf up to $400 per sf—“and even higher.” But he warns that for benchmarking purposes the numbers can be deceptive because of what they leave out or include, such as project-specific scope items that may not be relevant to other similar projects.

For instance, in June 2005, the low bid awarded for the 94,500-gsf Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island, N.Y., totaled $38.5 million, or $400 per sf. Bid two years earlier, in July 2003, Purdue University’s 215,000-gsf Birck Nanotechnology Center in Lafayette, Ind., came in at $47.4 million, yielding a cost per sf of $245, the low end of the spectrum.

However, the Birck Center contract was awarded under favorable market conditions in the area, and prices for steel and concrete weren’t affected by the surge in construction projects overseas. In addition, the base construction contract scope did not include utility relocation, site work, and landscape architecture, all performed under other contracts and computed separately. Nor was the contribution of the campus central plant factored into the cost.

Both projects employed a design-bid-build delivery method, and the construction contract was awarded to the lowest construction bidder. Had either been delivered under a different method, it would be impossible to quantify the impact (negative or positive) on the bid pricing, he comments.

One generality that has surfaced is that mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, and controls systems typically consume about 50 percent of total building costs. But other influences—function (office space costs less than a cleanroom in the same building), local cost structures, the availability of construction materials, bidding environment, and who else is competing in the market at the time—must also be taken into account.

To do a good benchmarking exercise, Soueid recommends several refinements to the process. Owners must look not only at the real scope of the job, but then they must translate the numbers into a geographic common denominator. The last step is accelerating the figures to the year when construction will actually take place.

“This method brings a clearer focus on the margin of accuracy, so instead of comparing apples to oranges, you are now comparing Granny Smith to Golden Delicious apples,” he says, concluding, “Benchmarking will help get you going in the right direction, but you can’t take the numbers at their simple face value.”

By Nicole Zaro Stahl