B
Best Practices for Laboratories
The Office of Facilities and Property Management (OFPM) has several good tools and processes it uses to operate and maintain existing laboratories, as well as plan for ones for new construction. During the work of this committee, several analyses were presented to show facility physical condition and functionality, priority projects, and funding needs. There were also opportunities to discuss issues and ideas with researchers and OFPM staff.
While the committee report summarized findings, conclusions, and recommendations for restoration of existing laboratories and planning for new ones, questions about using best practices from industry came up more than once. The purpose of this appendix is simply to share ideas used by other facility managers for OFPM to evaluate, choose, and use. These are examples of potential continuous improvement.
Many of these came from the research and development (R&D) Council of the International Facility Management Association (IFMA); the council numbers approximately 100 members from industry, academia, and a few government sectors. In meetings and networking, topics such as benchmarking and best practices came up often for discussion, critique, and sharing.
INVOLVING “CUSTOMERS” AND STAKEHOLDERS
It is important for laboratory facility managers to have a good communication and input strategy with the facility occupants and researchers. One technique to strengthen communications both ways is to establish user groups, typically one to two users from each building, and have a facility manager representative meet with them quarterly. The purpose is to listen to concerns they have and deliver information or solutions from prior visits. The output can also be distributed to the population via emails.
User representative groups are good resources to evaluate technical criteria of proposed future projects, although a larger contingent may be more representative. One of the best gauges of how well operations and maintenance is doing is to openly find out what researchers really think. The representatives will also be a sounding board for ideas to change processes or procedures. One example is having a user group do the homework and evaluation of supplying small quantities of chemicals. Another is to work with engineering to provide bulk nitrogen supplemented with high-specification dewar flasks
Since communications should be two-way; set up bulletin boards at convenient areas of each building so people can view information that is pertinent. For instance, one could be a safety board with inspection results, evacuation maps, and key responsibilities. Another might be for operations and maintenance performance such as
electrical consumption, maintenance response times, and question and answer of hot topics. Individual laboratory hazards can be earmarked by door signs plus specific safety data by the main exit doors for familiarity.
The bottom line of this practice is to promote continuous, two-way communications with facility manager customers to ensure you understand their needs (and sometimes, their wants). They will be impressed if there is a regular open channel for staying in touch and surfacing problems.
COSTS AND ANALYSIS
The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) buildings have been constructed over decades with a wide variety of designs and architecture and engineering solutions. Given the many variations found in laboratories, statistics by individual buildings are the most meaningful to analyze and track. Averaging costs per gross square foot (GSF) over several facilities is easier than tracking each one but the conclusions will not be nearly as meaningful, especially if the intent is to benchmark with other organizations. A good approach is to develop tactical improvement plans, building by building, analyzing each building’s operation and maintenance expenses and then roll up the individual costs for the site or function.
A word about benchmarking is in order. It also must be done building by building when possible. The best results are obtained when dry laboratories, such as the majority of NIST’s laboratories, are compared to similar ones. If all laboratories on a site are included, then the important aspect is to ensure similarity of what’s in the numerator (staff, utilities, repairs, changes, energy, etc.). The biggest challenge is allocating staff costs, both for those who are directly managed by a facility manager and for those who are indirectly managed, such as staff responsible for central utilities, engineering, purchasing, etc. The general guideline of benchmarking and building cost analysis is that everything from the walls-in is facility manager accountability, while everything outside of that is subject to other expenses, including capital expenses and their analyses.
One of the strategies of laboratory management is to simultaneously maintain the facility for current operations and needs, while continuously improving the facility to meet evolving research demands. The idea of an original architecture and engineering product enduring for decades is not logical, neither from the standpoint of equipment age and function nor from the standpoint of increasing complexity and support requirements of new R&D instruments. A useful concept of building performance is how the laboratory facility serves the needs of researchers today and in coming years. It’s not the cost of the laboratory but how well it leverages the productivity of staff and their programs.
TECHNICAL CRITERIA
Laboratory performance begins with design and engineering that provides the building with a robust and flexible capability over time if it is well-maintained and updated. Some features are so rigidly built into the original design that they cannot (without undue cost) be altered. Examples are (1) basic laboratory module dimensions and their associated structure, which determines the vibration specification of the laboratory; (2) people and materials zones which promote efficiencies in circulation and supply as well as ensure safety and code provisions are met; (3) building volume, especially floor to floor heights for HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) and other utilities to be provided and serviced; and (4) expansion planning so no blockage occurs with the facility, traffic lanes, and support buildings in the future. Many times initial decisions preclude later, predictable changes or projects.
By establishing technical criteria for NIST laboratories, they will become goals for restoring and modernizing its existing laboratories as well as planning metrics for future ones. The latter are particularly important as there are many more options available to build capabilities that will last for decades. While the staff determines the best technical criteria for NIST, gauging requirements for programs and equipment might be cited as examples.
General HVAC needs to provide 6 air changes per hour (ACH) with the flexibility to increase to 10 if hoods are added or hazardous chemicals are handled. Night setbacks to 2 ACH are useful for conservation. Systems have to be developed for facility needs, but most laboratories now have building management systems to monitor and control air operation. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
used to advocate hoods to operate at 100 ft/min face velocity, but that has been lowered in practice to 60 to save energy and reduce turbulence.
Electrical panels, best located in service corridors outside a 600 net square feet laboratory itself, could be specified with 20 110 volt (V) circuits, 5 220 V circuits, and 440 V circuits as needed for specific equipment. These do not include power for lighting, usually set at 50-75 lumens or foot candles at benchtop heights (36 inches). Task lighting and plug-in equipment would be powered from the generously supplied plugs with duplex outlets every 2-3 feet. As with all such electrical designs, code requirements must be followed.
Utility chases throughout the building should be sufficiently large for future growth and accessibility for capacity additions and maintenance. These may include hot and cold water, selected gases (air is the most common, but also inert gases) but choices need be made between central supply of a common specification versus in-laboratory cylinders with a higher spec. Use of house vacuum systems are discouraged mainly due to fluctuations in levels and occasionally contaminated by volatile chemicals. Individual pumps give higher vacuum with better control, but decibels must be dealt with by choice of location or insulation, or both. Central deionized water systems may be chosen, but quite often specifications vary widely by laboratory use. A general supply throughout the facility, followed by individual laboratory wall-mounted units to “polish” it to a higher spec can meet more rigorous requirements.
Information technology (IT) infrastructure is so unique and demanding to NIST that its provision and operation would be best handled by the OFMP staff and its in-house experts.
DESIGN STANDARDS
There is much work being done these days by organizations and architects and engineers (A&Es) and regularly featured in publications, seminars, and workshops. These goals and techniques are seeking to promote flexibility, collaboration, image, new ventures, multi-disciplinary laboratories, and less cost to the owners as cited in dollars per GSF project results.
The IFMA R&D Council frequently discussed the role of facility managers in leading projects and the key consideration was that they need to be very capable. The best description was that the facility manager is like an orchestra conductor who ensures that everyone plays from the same sheet of music. This role involves leadership in collaborations with laboratory users, A&Es, code officials, executives, and others to ensure a balance of requirements is established and achieved.
Since every organization has its own process, style, and expectations, an explanation of the design standard is appropriate. As mentioned earlier, a standard laboratory module must be selected that meets NIST needs but setting it for multiple laboratories or “neighborhoods” (which are evolving) is possible. A typical size for a laboratory might be 20-22 feet wide and 24-36 feet long with exit doors at either end to link up with people, materials, and equipment corridors. This range has proven to be most adaptable over time to new programs and equipment. Thus, a 20-feet by 30-feet laboratory (600 GSF) is a good size guide for 3 to 3.5 researchers. Laboratories with different designs and functions would have other guidelines for the number of laboratory staff for a typical laboratory module.
Regular and custom configurations of casework can be flexible but aisles need to be wide enough for work room and safety egress. The front-to-back aisles might be set at 5 feet for emergency exiting with those at the front and back “crosses” at 4-5 feet. There is no set location for casework and its layout needs to be driven by user requirements. But use standard vendor-supplied benches and cabinets for inter-changeability. Any requested customization by users will be expensive to buy and install.
The end walls can be concrete or block to meet fire codes, but interior ones can be drywall (much cheaper to install and change than those that are demountable). The basic laboratory can be opened-up for large or shared equipment to be 40-feet wide for a “double” and 60 feet for a “triple” without a structural problem when columns are kept out of the interior walls.
Laboratories have been built for decades with service corridors that are single (laboratories on one side) or double (laboratories on both sides), with a corridor width of at least 12 feet for equipment or cabinets along either side and 6 feet clear for supply traffic. Both the laboratories themselves and the service lanes can have open ceilings
(not always liked in some organizations) that offer great flexibility to run in utilities, harbor tall equipment, or easily access HVAC damper valves. The floor-to-floor heights may be 18-20 feet to allow sufficient room for these chases.
Some R&D organizations model new building concepts using their space standards, and then work with A&Es on design concepts prior to schematics. Modeling is always a fruitful exercise because it enables the teams to debate options, pros and cons, and construction costs with an approximately 30-35 percent range and long-term adaptability. (Some people believe ultimate flexibility is best, but no homebuilder plumbs a music room to enable future conversion to a kitchen.)
Many organizations are evaluating the impact of virtual employees on offices. Current surveys indicate that 40-45 percent of those displaced during COVID-19 prefer to continue working offsite or from home. This is truer for office workers, as 85-90 percent of laboratory personnel are generally more hands-on. The trend continues, but piloting of new office sizes and usages is under way everywhere, including NIST. The final design tip is that once laboratory spaces are determined, adding 15-20 percent more for general support (storage, testing, aging, etc.) is a useful rule of thumb. Similarly, once office areas have been computed, adding 10-15 percent for admin storage, copy centers, and conferencing is a good guideline. There are publications about sizing meeting rooms as well.
While conceptualizing projects, a useful preparation is to investigate A&E firms that might be candidates for later requests for proposal. Some facilities managers issue a formal request for qualification to identify prospective firms for laboratory design. There are publications that show those who could produce a high-quality project for NIST. It is a good practice to contact facility managers associated with new laboratories to verify claims in these articles; and networking is always very productive. The purpose of this process is to gather a well-qualified list of A&Es who are excellent with laboratories as a good starting point for sending requests for proposals when NIST project scopes are determined.
