Speaking with One Voice: How Owner’s Reps Streamline Life Sciences Permitting

Life sciences organizations spend enormous amounts of time and energy planning their laboratories, focusing on matters like optimizing workflows, accommodating specialized equipment, and anticipating future growth. And yet, one of the most consequential factors shaping these facilities receives far less strategic attention: the permitting process.

In my role as an owner’s representative and permitting lead embedded with a major US biopharmaceutical company, I support project teams by centralizing and coordinating permitting efforts across a large campus. I’m not there simply to submit permits; my role is to centralize interactions and elevate the relationship between the company, its design partners, and the city. For large life sciences campuses, this distinction matters. 

When scale changes everything

The client I support operates a campus with thousands of employees and a continuous pipeline of projects, all within a single municipal jurisdiction. At any given time, there may be dozens of active permits in progress. These range from minor lab renovations and equipment installations to major building upgrades and new construction.

Each project involves its own mix of architects, engineers, contractors, and internal project managers. Without a centralized approach, this complexity can quickly overwhelm both the organization and the city reviewing the work.

This is especially true because permitting coordination is often delegated to design teams. While architects and general contractors are equipped to manage individual submissions, problems arise when multiple firms with their own habits, assumptions, and communication style interact independently and simultaneously with the same permitting authority.

From the governing jurisdiction’s viewpoint, this can mean inconsistent submissions, annoying duplications and clarifications, and avoidable administrative errors. From the owner’s perspective, it creates risk: uneven quality, unclear priorities, and longer review timelines.

This is where the owner’s representative model comes into play.

Centralize the process and the messaging

In a centralized owner’s representative model, a single, accountable conduit is established between the owner and the jurisdiction. All permit submissions flow through one channel. More importantly, all messaging does as well.

This centralization isn’t about control for its own sake. It’s about clarity and efficiency. The jurisdiction knows exactly who to contact. The client gains confidence that submissions reflect consistent standards. Design teams receive clearer guidance and expectations about what is required before documents ever reach intake.

Equally important, the communication flows both ways. When the jurisdiction raises concerns or identifies recurring issues, this feedback is captured, translated, and shared across all project teams. Over time, this feedback loop improves the quality of submissions and reduces friction for everyone involved.

In life sciences projects, where schedules are tight and technical complexity is high, this level of coordination can make a measurable difference.

Quality control as a strategic function

Technical depth is a highly advantageous quality in this process. My background spans civil engineering, architecture, and life sciences project management. This allows me to review submissions not just for completeness, but also for intent.

This expertise is critical in lab environments, where small drawing inconsistencies can create outsized confusion. For example, in one urgent lab project, I reviewed a permit set that included both demolition and new construction floor plans. The demolition plan correctly used dashed lines to indicate elements to be removed. But that same legend was mistakenly copied onto the new floor plan, where dashed lines were intended to represent future lab equipment. Left uncorrected, the drawings advised active demolition in areas slated for new work. An oversight such is this is an easy mistake to make, but one that would have triggered city comments, confused the contractor, and slowed the project. Catching and correcting issues such as this before submittal helps ensure clarity for regulators and downstream teams alike.

By conducting detailed administrative and technical reviews before submittal, a qualified owner’s rep can catch these problems early. The result is fewer intake rejections, fewer city comments, and clearer documents for contractors in the field. For the city, this means less time spent sorting through preventable errors. For the owner, it means greater predictability and fewer downstream surprises.

Balancing advocacy and partnership

A critical, sometimes delicate part of this role is balance. As a consultant, my responsibility is to advocate for the client’s interests. At the same time, long-term success depends on maintaining strong, respectful relationships with regulators.

Permitting authorities are often viewed by organization as obstacles to overcome. In practice, they are partners who help to ensure that facilities meet safety, code, and community standards. When submissions are precise, well-reasoned and complete, the entire process works better.

Part of my role is managing who speaks for the project and when. On large campuses, it is common for project managers—who are naturally focused on what’s best for their own projects—to all request an expedited review. In my role, I provide a portfolio-level perspective, helping to prioritize these requests based on overall impact rather than perceived urgency.

This holistic view allows the client to focus its energy where it matters most, and it helps the jurisdiction allocate its resources more effectively.

From permit expediting to owner advocacy

This role is more than just traditional permit expediting: tracking forms, managing submissions and responding to comments. While these tasks are certainly part of the job, the role quickly evolves into something more strategic. By actively reviewing submissions, providing feedback to design partners, and holding all parties accountable to shared standards, the position shifts from facilitation to management. The emphasis moves from speed alone to quality, consistency, and continuous improvement.

This evolution reflects a broader philosophy of recognizing that for complex facilities like life sciences labs, owners need more than administrative support; they also need informed advocates who understand the pressures facing project teams, regulators, and internal stakeholders alike.

Why this matters for lab managers

For lab managers and facilities leaders, the message is clear: permitting isn’t merely a box to check; it’s part of the machinery that keeps lab projects moving. When this system is fragmented, projects slow down. When it is centralized, technically informed, and consistently managed, it becomes a strategic asset.

This approach is especially valuable for organizations with large footprints in a single jurisdiction, but the principles apply broadly across the life sciences sector. Laboratories, pilot plants, and research campuses all benefit from clear communication, consistent standards, and strong relationships with regulators.

By bringing structure and accountability to the permitting process, owner’s representatives can help life sciences organizations focus on what they do best—science and innovation—while ensuring that the built environment keeps pace with their needs.