Contractor Profile

A project of discovery

At the Institutes for Discovery project, designers, owners and construction managers rethink the construction process in search of greater levels of collaboration, quality and efficiency.

By Clair Urbain

It seems as if everything at the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery is in itself an experiment.

The four-story building sits at the crossroads of several graduate departments at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s campus, arguably one of the most advanced life science research centers in the country, if not the world. It’s scheduled to open in December 2010.

By design, the facility aims to bring private and public resources together so top minds can nimbly address basic research. It will combine the disciplines of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology, says George Austin, building project manager for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), which is in charge of bringing this vision into reality.

“This is a collaborative project, and its construction process is equally collaborative. We have tried to be very innovative in thinking about how we can deliver this building in a way that builds an environment that nurtures cooperation between disciplines as well as public and private entities,” he says.
The $205 million facility draws funding from three resources; a lead gift from UW-Madison Alumni John and Tashia Morgridge; the State of Wisconsin and WARF.

From the start, the project hit the trifecta of leading-edge construction technology: Building Information Modeling (BIM), Lean construction practices and ambitious energy and water efficiency targets. Future research needs are designed into the structure, aiming to keep the building highly usable and efficient for the next 100 years.

A building for community
Visionaries looked for facility design features that encourage formal and informal interaction between researchers. The ground floor, called the Town Center, which is defined by the building’s exterior wall skin, has an in-the-round forum that can be set up in a variety of seating configurations to accommodate up to 300 meeting or conference attendees.

Its walls can be retracted into the ceiling, opening up its space and expanding the ground floor for even larger events. The ground floor also has several casual eating areas designed to encourage informal meetings and serve as a conduit for central campus traffic. A variety of gardens and an open design bring the outside indoors while efficiently maintaining the building’s environment. Three research floors arise inside the exterior wall skin. Built with post-tensioned concrete, the research floors have fewer building supports and greater open spaces. The building design mandated no straight hallways for better personnel flow and interaction and plenty of casual meeting areas to encourage research interaction.

“Connected by two open-air stairways, each research floor has three research pods that have ‘plug and play’ utilities for vent hoods, wet sinks and other components needed for specific research,” says Austin. “Offices and work areas are designed to encourage interaction between researchers.
“No one department will reside in the building; instead, multidisciplinary research teams will cycle in and out of the spaces over time on specific research projects. The lab space must be adaptable to meet these changing teams’ needs.”

Integrated Project Agreement
Just as the building is designed to encourage collaboration, so does the building agreement, which truly teams up the owner, construction manager and designer, says Jeff Madden, construction executive for Findorff |Mortenson, a joint venture between J. H. Findorff & Sons Inc. and Mortenson Construction.
“This joint venture effectively sets up a new company and allows us to rely on each others’ strong suits.

Findorff has worked on more than 100 university projects and Mortenson is well known for its work with Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Lean construction efforts. I think we will see more joint ventures, especially on larger, more complex projects like this. It offers the owner and the participating contractors a way to better share the risk and expertise,” Madden says.

The integrated project agreement put the designers, owners and builders all on the same team. “There is only one contract between the owner, the design team and the construction manager. We are all on one team vs. two or three teams. There is no decision made on behalf of any party – all are made on behalf of the project as a whole. It requires a change in human nature, but in the long run, delivers a quality project that’s on time and on budget,” says Madden.

A key tenet of the design procedure relies on using target value design/dynamic cost modeling, which Madden describes as a forward-looking design approach. “In a conventional design process, engineers and architects come up with a design that the construction manager uses to develop a budget to build that design. Most of the time, the plans then go back to the design team who redesign it to meet the budget.

“With target value design, the teams expand to include the construction manager, subcontractors and the owner to set a cost, then build the design based on that cost. It’s not a guaranteed maximum price.

“For example, our enclosure team came up with a very good design of combining the curtain walls and terra cotta exterior to achieve a façade that will be low maintenance, energy efficient, attractive and within the budget. By working together, they also designed a window sash system that incorporates the hydronic system in a way that looks great and reduced construction costs,” Madden says.

Ballinger and Uihlein Wilson were responsible for driving the building’s design, but Findorff | Mortenson were responsible to keep the data updated and disseminated to the appropriate parties. To ease that transition, the Findorff | Mortenson team developed a BIM Protocol Manual that sets up distinct rules and procedures for filing, tracking and submitting document changes. It’s been very successful, Madden says.
“The designers use Autodesk’s Revit modeling software to build 3Dmodels of all aspects of the building. Our BIM system had to assure that all parties involved could access and use the files the designers produced. That required much upfront thought and planning, but as we approach the 90 percent completion point on mechanical installation, we have had only one unexpected clash between building and mechanical systems. It’s also helped all of our subcontractors meet or beat their productivity levels and budgets,” Madden says.

As inspections take place as the building progresses, punch lists are completed electronically using Latista software via handheld wireless units with a touch screen. The units also have a built-in camera so images of the repair work can be included in the report.

Once an inspection is completed, the wireless unit syncs with the system and notifies the contractor or other parties of deficiencies that must be addressed. “The whole punch list process can be a real beast, and this system streamlines it. So far, everyone really likes it,” says Madden.

Lean construction
The team is using the Last Planner concept of construction project Construction Institute. In essence, this process gathers all contractors and subcontractors, and together, they hammer out a building process for a specific building task.

Each party makes a promise to deliver their portion of the project in an agreed-upon time frame — as long as they get timely and proper delivery of the work from the contractor before them.

“We track each segment and see where we are. If there is a discrepancy, the data gives us the information to find the root cause of the issue, instead of just laying blame. It’s visited at every weekly work-planning meeting. We had a consultant, Peter Gwinn of Lean Implementation Services, train us in the process. It was very helpful,” Madden says.

Further, the construction teams have completed various kaizen events on the jobsite. Here, work processes are looked at objectively and ideas are shared on ways to reduce waste of time or materials on the task. “For example, one kaizen event looked at the gang wall form placement process, and we came up with a more streamlined way to do the job,” says Madden.

Energy and water efficiency
Research facilities are notorious for their energy and water consumption. On the Institutes for Discovery project, the owner benchmarked other research buildings on campus for energy and water use and then set a 50 percent reduction as a goal, says Austin.

Conservation efforts started with the first shovel-full of excavation. To date, 92 percent of the material demolished or removed from the site has been recycled. While the facility is tied into the university’s energy system, it also incorporates the use of geothermal heating and cooling through 70 wells on the property. “We estimate this will provide 15 percent of our building heating and cooling.

Solar panels will produce domestic hot water for the building and water purification systems will recycle treatment water through the toilet flushing systems and for irrigation. Due to the high water table, groundwater that is being pumped from one area of the building will also be used for irrigation.
“The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation wanted to look beyond just achieving a U.S. Green Buildings Council Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED) rating; it wanted to assure the building made a real difference in energy and water consumption over the life of the project. We still anticipate in achieving a Silver LEED rating,” Austin says.

“We are using chilled beam technology in lab pods to more efficiently maintain ambient temperatures near research equipment that create high point loads for the HVAC system. The chilled beam system delivers cooling right to the location, so it is much more efficient than trying to cool the whole area to account for the piece of equipment that produces a lot of heat,” says Madden.

To better manage solar heat gain, windows have mechanical shades that can be adjusted manually or automatically. They are tied into the building’s information system, which can control them automatically. This system will also monitor energy and water use by pod or department, so individual groups can see how their conservation efforts affect actual use.

100 years of useful life
Designing facility versatility and adaptability for researchers who are yet to be born takes some forward thinking.

“You can’t predict the future, but we’ve tried to be very smart about components that will allow this building to adapt and be flexible as science changes. For example, we’ve tried to make the floor and ceiling heights high enough so that, as the building is used over then next 100 years, we can add and subtract conduit and piping in away that doesn’t render the building obsolete. We’ve also oversized vertical chases so that if there is a need for a specialty lab on the lower level of the building in the future, we will be able to get the appropriate utilities to and from it,” Austin says.

“In a 100-year design, the tolerances are much tighter and there is a huge focus on the quality of materials used. Having a terra cotta exterior was one example of designing for a 100-year life. It’s a very durable material that will hold up very well over time,” says Madden.
<END>

Tom Peters uses a notebook computer to record a punch list item in an electrical room. The Latista system digitizes the punch list process, automatically tracking the items from discovery to resolution and electronically posts the item to the appropriate subcontractor for repair. The notebook has a self-contained camera that can be used to capture images to help illustrate the item needing attention.

George Austin building project manager, the Institutes for Discovery project.

Jeff Madden, construction executive, Findorff | Mortenson.

Integrated Project Management practices put the owner, designers, engineers and construction contractors on the same team. From the beginning, this working relationship allowed the team to meet owner needs AND meet budget  and constrution timelines.

The center red device on the ceileing works similar to a grage door opener, lifting Forum area walls to open the space up for use by larger groups. Facility flexibility was designed into every facet of this building.

The first floor (left) and  second floor layouts encourage interaction among the building occupants and the university at large.

Laboratories are designed to be adapted for changing research tenants.

Copyright 2010 Urbain Communications. All rights reserved.