The ABCs of CBA: Choosing By Advantages for Lab Design

2025 Lab Design Conference speaker—Ellen Spell, design manager, BNBuilders

Navigating the complexities of modern lab design requires a systematic and objective approach to decision-making. At the 2025 Lab Design Conference in Denver, BNBuilders' design manager Ellen Spell and project executive Megan Coffland presented their insights in a talk titled The ABCs of CBA: Choosing By Advantages for Lab Design. The session delved into how the Choosing By Advantages (CBA) tool, a lean methodology, can be adapted to help project teams and owners confidently navigate the multifaceted challenges of lab construction, from initial programming to final project delivery.

The challenge of lab design

Designing a laboratory is a daunting endeavor, marked by a constant negotiation of trade-offs. As described in the session, teams must balance a multitude of factors, including "operations vs. future flexibility; performance criteria vs. systems capacity; access to daylight vs. maintenance and environmental controls—all layered within site, budget, and schedule." These early-stage decisions are critical as they define the fundamental character and long-term performance of the lab. A successful project ensures "long-term success for their clients—especially early in design when initial concepts define the fundamental character of lab spaces and their ability to perform over the next 50 years of industry evolution."

Given these complexities, BNBuilders has found a powerful tool in CBA, particularly on integrated project delivery (IPD) and design-build projects, where the general contractor (GC) is involved early in the process. According to Spell, CBA is particularly well-suited for lab design because it simplifies "highly technical and very complicated" decisions. The tool helps to weigh factors like "air changes per minute versus sustainability goals" or "overall number of fume hoods in a space for productivity and workflow versus the cost associated with it."

Coffland highlighted some of the key challenges currently facing the industry, which include budget crunches, infrastructure constraints, and the need to reconcile changing technologies with the project's lifespan. Other audience-cited challenges included "cost of capital," "partial constraints," and "schedule, timeline, decisions permits all complicating factors." These challenges underscore the need for a robust, objective decision-making framework, which is precisely what CBA provides.

The CBA framework: a discussion-based approach

While the formal CBA tool is score-based, Spell and Coffland presented the Lab Design Conference session audience with an adaptation they've found more effective for integrated teams: a discussion-based approach. This method shifts the focus from achieving consensus on individual scores to building consensus around the final decision. This is particularly useful for lab design, where a diverse group of stakeholders, from lab managers to C-suite executives, may have competing priorities.

The core components of their adapted CBA framework are:

• Alternatives: The options being compared. The speakers noted that the process can be iterative, with the number of options sometimes growing as the team delves deeper into the problem.

• Factors: The criteria for making the decision. As Spell explained, a factor should address the question, "what makes these options different?". It's crucial not to combine factors, for example, separating sustainability into different aspects like "lead points," "net zero energy," and "lifecycle analysis."

• Criteria: How each factor is measured.

• Attributes: The specific data or characteristics of each alternative as they relate to a factor.

• Advantages: The comparative benefits of an alternative when measured against others for a given factor.

• Non-differentiating factors: These are factors where all alternatives meet the minimum requirements so that they won't influence the final decision. Coffland emphasized that identifying and documenting these factors is key to "getting rid of the noise" and focusing on what truly matters.

One of the most critical aspects of the CBA tool is that it separates cost from the other factors. Cost is analyzed at the end to determine the "best value" option, which "optimizes your advantages in comparison to your cost." This prevents the team from defaulting to the cheapest option without fully understanding the value provided by other alternatives.

A real-world case study: mechanical unit placement

2025 Lab Design Conference speaker—Megan Coffland, project executive, BNBuilders

To illustrate the tool's power, the speakers presented a case study involving a private cGMP facility in Washington. The project, an adaptive reuse of an existing building, faced a complex decision regarding the placement of mechanical air handlers. Initially, the team considered three options: on the roof, in a yard, or inside the building. Through the iterative CBA process, they expanded the possibilities to six, combining various placements.

The owner's C-suite helped the team define three primary factors: "usable square footage," "permit risk," and "overall schedule risk." As Coffland noted in the Lab Design Conference presentation, these factors were in "direct conflict with each other," making this a perfect use case for the CBA tool.

After the team went through the rigorous process of filling out the matrix and creating a succinct executive summary, the owner was able to decide within hours, rather than the two weeks allotted. The result was surprising: the team chose to put the mechanical units inside the building. This wasn't a popular option at the outset, but the objective analysis made it a clear choice. The decision minimized both cost and project risk, which was visualized on a chart presented to the owner. Coffland recalled, "The irony of this situation is going in. Nobody thought this was the selection that was going to be made." This anecdote reinforces the importance of "support[ing] the process, not the outcome," as Coffland stressed.

Key takeaways and best practices

The presenters offered several key takeaways to the Lab Design Conference audience for successful CBA implementation:

• Do your homework: The process is rigorous and requires thorough investigation and input from all experts on the team.

• Don't skip steps: It is crucial to resist the urge to jump ahead to the conclusion before completing the whole matrix.

• Time is an asset: The team must work the matrix sessions into the project schedule and ensure all stakeholders, primarily those responsible for making the final decision, have dedicated time to participate.

• Bring the right people to the table: Including voices from different disciplines and roles, such as facilities managers or those responsible for long-term maintenance, ensures all factors are considered.

• Use an A3 executive summary: A concise, one-page summary is essential for communicating the findings to busy decision-makers who "do not have time to take into account 50 pages worth of input."

• Know when to "fold 'em": A project team recently started the process for a client, but the owner made a quick decision as soon as they saw the estimated costs, demonstrating that the tool isn't always needed, but it's valuable to have the option.

By focusing on advantages rather than personal biases, and by clearly separating cost from other decision-making factors, the ABCs of CBA tool empowers integrated teams to guide owners toward confident, reliable, and ultimately, best-value decisions for their projects. As Spell said, "I still think it was worthwhile for us to have started that process, because the owner felt so in control of the decision that they made."

The 2026 Lab Design Conference is heading to Orlando, FL, on May 11–14! Explore how objective decision-making tools and integrated project delivery models are shaping the future of lab planning. Get updates on the agenda, networking events, workshops, and lab tours at https://www.labdesignconference.com/.