Fast-tracking helps KU create complex building in just 15 months By Jeffrey H. Nudi At night, the Univ. of Kansas Multidisciplinary Research Building is a welcoming, transparent showcase for the exciting activities within. The cascading open stair that encourages collaboration and chance encounters within the building is emphasized. Photo: Michael Spillers. Click to enlarge. The 106,000-ft2 Multidisciplinary Research Building (MRB) at the Univ. of Kansas is designed as a multidisciplinary center for collaborative research, supporting research in bioinformatics, pharmaceutical chemistry, engineering, bioanalytical chemistry, medicinal chemistry, and geology. The MRB responds to the university’s growing need for advanced research facilities on its Lawrence campus. It is designed to accommodate 200 people, including 20 faculty principal investigators; 25 post-doctoral fellows; and 155 graduate and undergraduate students, technicians, and support staff. The facility includes 56,700 ft2 of net assignable space: 45,000 ft2 of interdisciplinary labs and lab support; 3,300 ft2 of BSL-3 space and nanofabrication space of Class 100 and Class 1000 cleanrooms; 8,400 ft2 of office space; and 15,000 ft2 of central plant mechanical space, designed to supply 500,000 ft2 of future expansion on the West Campus. Cannon Design, in association with Gould Evans, was commissioned to design the $40 million project. The firm received authorization to proceed with program refinement and design on Sept. 16, 2004. The target date for occupancy was Dec. 15, 2005—just 15 months later. Although such a project would normally entail a longer start-to-finish time frame of ~50 months, completing the project in 15 months would enable the university to reduce construction costs by $12 million and qualify for several million dollars in federal research grants. With this in mind, the project team—made up of the owner, the Univ. of Kansas; Cannon Design as planners, architects and engineers; associate architect Gould Evans Associates; and JE Dunn, the construction manager—committed to the construction of an efficient laboratory building that would break new ground in collaborative research at the university, on a schedule that many thought was impossible. It was a commitment to timely decision-making, a modular lab design concept, use of a concrete structural frame, pre-purchase of major equipment, and effective communications throughout the course of the project. Building a partnership Following a day-long strategy session, the team formed a clear vision of each member’s role and project milestones to be achieved. Although there was no formal partnering contract signed, the meeting laid the foundation for effective communication; accelerated the university’s and CM’s approval of design solutions; and promoted the timely resolution of other issues throughout the course of the project. The university was very comfortable with this arrangement since it had already had an established relationship with Cannon Design, stemming from a large-scale lab project the firm had undertaken for the Univ. Medical Center. Warren Corman, the university architect and special advisor to the chancellor of the Univ. of Kansas, was key in eliminating the red tape that can sometimes hinder a project with many constituencies. James Modig, KU’s director of design and construction management, ensured that all of the necessary project management controls were enforced in a manner that would not impede progress. A researcher manipulates media in the nanotechnology laboratory suite, which includes certified Class 100 through Class 1000 cleanrooms. Photo: Michael Spillers.Click to enlarge. Modular design concept Although there was a preliminary program developed by the university, Cannon Design began design using a modular laboratory design concept even before its planners completed the program. Cannon typically sizes research laboratory modules at approximately 10.5 ft 3 31.5 ft to establish efficient spacing for lab benches and traffic flow through the space. These modules are planned within a grid, and as the owner identified specific research program requirements within the facility, the designers were able to determine if one, two, or more modules of space were needed. Concrete frame Two factors determined the use of concrete rather than steel structural framing: the need for the structure to be highly resistant to vibrations that might have an adverse effect on sensitive laboratory equipment; and the deadline for project completion. Steel-frame construction involves a fairly lengthy process that includes design by the structural engineer, preparation of shop drawings by the fabricator, review of the shop drawings by the engineer, placement of the order, and waiting for delivery and erection. Use of a concrete framing system allowed the structural engineer to quickly estimate the quantity of reinforcing steel, which was ordered before design completion. During this period, the laboratory planners and MEP engineers coordinated the locations of services requiring chases and sleeves through the concrete floors. The structural engineers could then locate reinforcing steel for these openings. A scientist works in a laminar flow biosafety Cabinet in a BSL-2 lab, part of a suite of biocontainment spaces that includes BSL-3 labs as well. Photo: Michael Spillers. Click to enlarge. Excavation and site preparation drawings were delivered within two weeks of project initiation, with excavation work occurring less than two weeks later. Cannon delivered structural foundation construction documents on Nov. 1 and the remainder of the structural frame construction drawings on Nov. 24. Building design was accomplished using AutoCAD with Architectural Desktop, Autodesk Building Systems, and other commercially available design software, as well as proprietary design and engineering software developed in-house by Cannon Design. Pre-purchase of major equipment Major equipment, including boilers, chillers, cooling towers, air handling units, laboratory exhaust fans, electrical switchgear, and emergency generator, were specified and bid in a pre-purchase arrangement while systems design was underway. While there can be some risk associated with pre-purchasing major equipment, the risk was considered minimal compared with the risk of missing the project completion deadline. Cannon’s planners, architects, and engineers drew on the firm’s long track record of laboratory designs, including its database of “Room Criteria Sheets,” to calculate building loads for these systems. Design experience plus quantified benchmarking enabled decisions to be made with a high degree of certainty early in the design process. This also locked in equipment prices early and ensured that the equipment would be delivered on time. Construction of the structural frame proceeded rapidly as details were developed for the remainder of the building design. Over the next few months, as more researchers became candidates for space in the facility, “generic” modular labs were transformed into user-specific spaces. Mechanical and electrical equipment was delivered and installed while the building frame was being constructed. Installation of piping, ducts, conduits, and many other components progressed from the basement up through the first and second floors while the concrete on the roof was curing. A topping-out party in early April 2005 celebrated the completion of the concrete frame.   Soon thereafter, building construction, installation of casework and equipment, finishing, testing, and commissioning proceeded as more and more trades worked on the project. Some trades scheduled their work off-hours and on weekends to maximize the efficiency of their efforts. However, this schedule did not negatively affect the construction budget. A twilight view of the building emphasizes the north wing of modular labs, with the entrance walkway canopy reaching out into the campus. Photo: Robert Pettus. Click to enlarge. Effective communications To facilitate accurate and timely communications, the project team used Cannon Design’s ftp Internet site to transfer and share electronic files within the project team, who were geographically dispersed among three Cannon offices, two Gould Evans offices, and offices of other consultants in civil and site design. Cannon’s FTP site was also used to deliver updated drawings to JE Dunn and the MEP subcontractor. Team members used the firm’s Autodesk Building Systems files as a starting point for their own in-house coordination checks and shop drawing production. This method of document distribution saved days and dollars over printing and shipping materials to multiple locations. Nevertheless, there is no substitute for face-to-face communications. Effective communication is essential on every project. It becomes crucial on a fast-track project, as the compressed schedule intensifies the urgency of every decision. The owner, architect, and CM held review meetings twice a week throughout the project. Status review meetings were held every week, or whenever necessary, involving key contractors and subcontractors to resolve issues and keep the project moving forward. When construction begins before design is completed, there is always the potential of having to revise the work. That can endanger the project budget and schedule. The fact that this project was completed on schedule and under budget is a testament to the willingness of those involved to work through, rather than dwell on, mistakes, to work collaboratively to make the necessary changes, and to think on their feet. Jeffrey H. Nudi, PE, LEED AP, is an associate principal of Cannon Design and the director of engineering for the firm’s Midwest Region (www.cannondesign.com). Nudi has more than 20 years’ experience in the design of mechanical systems for educational, institutional, and healthcare facilities, and is based in the firm’s St. Louis office.