| The Region’s Expertise in Contstruction of Life Sciences Facilities is Deep and Broad There’s a weedy hilltop in Manhattan, Kansas that may someday be home to scientists who could save the world, or our little part of it. The federal government is currently deliberating over the choice of a site for its National Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NABF). The campus of Kansas State University is one of four possible sites the government is considering. The NABF will be a state-of-the-art bioscience re-search facility created for the purpose of strengthening the nation’s ability to protect its agricultural resources and to protect the public from biological threats. K-State is a logical location for such a laboratory. It’s agriculture and animal science faculties and facilities are internationally respected. And the I-70 corridor, from Manhattan to Columbia, Missouri, is heavily populated with life science research enterprises, both academic and commercial, many with a specific special-ty in animal health. The addition of the NABF to the Kansas City region’s burgeoning bioscience capabilities would fuel momentum toward achievement of the strategy articulated by the area’s civic and business leaders, and economic development officials, to establish the region as a center of excellence in the life sciences. The federal government has said that the NABF is likely to focus much of its re-sources studying foot and mouth disease, classical and African swine fevers, Rift Valley fever, Nipah and Hendra viruses, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, and Japanese encephalitis virus. Scientists at the facility will be charged with developing vaccines and other countermeasures to prevent and combat these diseases. There are four designated levels of bio-safety assigned to laboratories as a means of classifying the nature of the risk related to the kinds of research performed in the lab. The higher the number as-signed, the more precautions are required to work in those areas. Most of the laboratory space at the NABF will be designated Bio-Safety Level 3. Between 10 and 20 percent of the lab space will be dedicated to research of organisms requiring a Bio-Safety Level 4 category. It’s easy, even for a layperson, to understand that different safety measures must be put in place to address different levels of risk. However, designing and building research facilities that meet or exceed the specified safety precautions mandated by the government is far more complex and costly than most might imagine. Not just any engineering or construction firm can do the work. It requires highly specialized knowledge and resources. And though Kansas City is known for its world-class sports and entertainment venue architecture firms, the area is also home to several firms with significant experience in building highly sophisticated science and research labs. “Every kind of building project, whether it’s a warehouse, a school, a retail center, or an office tower, they each have their own inherent challenges,” says Kevin Brettmann, Director of Life Sciences at Kansas City’s J.E. Dunn Construction. “But a science research project poses an entirely different, much more complicated, set of challenges. The building needs to function in such a way that it facilitates the science that will be performed in it, and it has to protect the scientists and the public from the biological agents used in the research.” When his group bids on a project, Brettmann says it first asks four basic questions as a way of determining the scope and nature of the work: • What is the science that will be performed in the building? • What is the objective of the science? • How will the building be used? Will it be used to research, as in an academic setting? Or will it be used to produce a commercial product? • And what equipment will be needed? “If the building will be used to research biological agents it will need to meet certain bio-safety standards,” Brettmann says. “And, at a minimum, that requires specialized air handling, electrical, and plumbing systems. But, the greater the risk posed by the specific agents, the more complex those systems need to be.” Brettmann says the location of a build-ing can also present unique challenges. “One of our buildings was located near some railroad tracks. The experiments conducted in this facility required the use of highly sensitive electron microscopes. Well, the vibration caused by the railroad tracks, even as far away as they were, would have interfered with those microscopes so the labs had to be built to mitigate vibration. That gets tricky.” Keith Kettler, a core team leader at the Kansas City engineering firm Clark, Richardson & Biskup concurs with Brettmann’s observations regarding the unique nature of each project. “Frankly, that’s one of the things that I like most about this kind of work. No two projects are the same. These are not cookie cutter buildings. These facilities are designed from the inside out. It’s not that aesthetics aren’t important. They are. Especially if you want to attract and retain the best scientists. They not only need state-of-the-art labs to work in, but they need a positive environment to work in. It needs to be aesthetically pleasing and create an atmosphere that’s stimulating. But the first concern is the equipment and the functionality. You concentrate on that first, then you construct your building around that.” Kettler says that another primary consideration in the design and construction of science research facilities is flexibility. “To be of optimal value to the manufacturer or the start-up incubator or the university, the lab needs to be built with long term objectives in mind. The owner and builder need to anticipate future needs, and the building needs to be flexible enough for expansion and adaptation later. There needs to be enough modularity built in that the facility can be upgraded over time. The last thing you want is to find that a beautiful state-of-the-art lab becomes ‘landlocked’ when it comes time to add capacity or to add newer technology.” Dan Abitz, Principal and Senior VP at George Butler Associates, agrees. “These labs are too costly to build. You can’t afford for them to become obsolete. And there’s more than just money at stake. These facilities play an important role in their regional economies.” George Butler Associates’ distinct role in the building of a bioscience laboratory is “commissioning” the facility. “Commissioning is a process of verifying, at each step of the process of designing and constructing the building, that the facility will function properly, primarily in meeting its bio-safety criteria,” says Abitz. “If the facility is a bio-containment lab, our responsibility in the process is to verify that it contains whatever biological agents it’s that it’s supposed to contain. We consult with all interested parties, before and during construction. It’s far better to avoid problems along the way, than it is to try correct them later.” Abitz cites the example of a research facility built on the campus of the University of Georgia. “The lab cost $20 million to build. But it couldn’t be commissioned. There were too many problems built in. The facility stood empty and unused for years. It took $40 million to fix it. Basically, the university had to renovate a brand new building that had never been occupied. That’s why the process of verifying a building’s functions as the process progresses is so critical.” Abitz says most of the risk is in the installation and functioning of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. “That equipment has to be installed properly. The air coming in has to be 100 percent exhausted out; it’s called ‘single pass air flow.’ It can’t be re-circulated. The air coming in needs to be filtered and cleaned, and the air going out needs to be filtered and expelled completely from the building. In some of the facilities that deal with extremely dangerous agents pressurized rooms and airlocks need to be in place. The higher the risk, the more complex it gets.” Kettler points out that the air handling system is the heart of the building’s safety function. “It’s the primary way you protect the public and the people working in the lab. And there are internal systems that need to be in place as well. You need to protect the scientists from the experiments, and you need to protect the experiments from the scientists. Contamination can go both ways.” Tim Moormeier’s firm, Kansas City- based U.S. Engineering Company, is just completing work on its $55 million contract for the mechanical systems of a $200 million dollar life sciences facility on the Anschutz Campus of the University of Colorado. Moormeier, president of the company, says the lab, when com-plete, will be one of the three largest of its kind in the country. “There are so many layers of complexity in facilities such as this;” he says, “mul- tiple air handling systems, each highly specialized; multiple plumbing systems for various functions; pipes for gases used in the experiments, pipes to manage acid waste. All this is extraordinarily energy intensive. So, recovery of energy that would otherwise be wasted is of prime concern. Not just from a sustainability stand point, but because of the cost savings.” Moormeier says his firm has been involved in the design and construction of several state-of-the-art vivariums—enclosed facilities where research animals are kept and cared for. “The value of these animals is extremely high,” he explains. “Sometimes they represent many years of research data. If their lives are lost due a malfunction of the building itself, that’s just unacceptable. For that reason, the drinking water systems have to be absolutely reliable. The temperature controls for the space have to be highly sensitive and exceptionally accurate. The animals need to be safe, comfortable, and healthy. The coordination and inter-action of these systems needs to be very precise. There’s no room for error.” Because Moormeier, Kettler, Abitz, and Brettmann, and their firms, have been involved in life sciences projects in metropolitan areas across the country, they are in a unique position to observe and evaluate the implementation of life sciences- based economic development strategies in other regions, and to compare Kansas City’s progress in achieving its strategy to that of other regions. “Lots of states have used tobacco settlement money to try to stimulate development of a life sciences economy,” Brettmann reports. “Obviously some have succeeded more than others. The Coasts are aggressive in pursuit of academic life science research capabilities as well as commercial bioscience companies, and they seem to have a definite competitive edge. The Cambridge-Boston area is exceptionally strong. And, obviously, so is the Research Triangle in the Raleigh-Durham area. Kansas City has some catching up to do, but we’ve got some strength and critical mass in the animal sciences. That will help us. But we need a wet lab incubator that can nurture the growth of science-based enterprise.” Abitz sees similar patterns across the nation. “Every region, every major metropolitan area of the United States, they’re all chasing the same dollars. There’s only so much federal research money available. And there’s a limit to how much private research money can be generated from corporations or foundations. There’s not really enough to go around. Everybody wants to be the one to launch the next Amgen or Genentech. Very few can succeed at it. Kansas City does have an ad- vantage in the fields of animal health and food safety. That works for us.” “My observation is that Kansas City enjoys a much higher level of private funding for life science research,” says Moormeier. “In virtually every other city we’ve operated in, life science projects are directly related to an academic center; financially and organizationally. Here there’s a significant commitment of local private money. That broadens the base of support and makes it less vulnerable.” Kettler says he’s seen major markets across the U.S., and even in Europe, all working to implement the same strategy. “Everybody wants to be to bioscience what Detroit once was to the auto in-dustry. Obviously, that’s not realistic. Kansas City has some assets that other regions don’t have, however. Specifically, its strengths in animal science. There’s a lot of academic and commercial strength. If we can continue to build on that foundation, we’ll compete.”
|