View larger image
I. The Concept Study
Major capital projects are initiated by contacting the Office of Planning and Project Development (PPD). Through consultation with the University Architect a Project Authorization Request (PAR) is developed for initiating a Concept Study. A Concept Study confirms and documents the need for a project at a preliminary planning stage and serves as the basis to seek approval of a project Concept and the authority to begin the Design Process. One of the assumptions of this project development process is that a viable project can be best assessed when the program and site are well integrated. The Concept Report consists of four basic modules:
- Requirements Confirmation
- Alternative Analysis
- Site Selection and Analysis
- Preferred Alternative
A. Requirements Confirmation
The purpose of the Requirements Confirmation module is to test and validate an expressed project need by translating a functional need into a space requirement. Or conversely, test an expressed space requirement by reviewing the functional aspects of the program. Summarized, the goal of this effort is to ensure that the requirements are well justified and properly scoped.
The primary effort of this module is a preliminary space program that documents the dimensions, area, ceiling height, and any special requirements of each room. This information is compared to College or University standards for space utilization on a room by room basis.
If the requirement is an expansion of an existing function an important part of requirements confirmation is an analysis and description of the amount of new area and the qualitative and quantitative basis for the growth. In the case of new requirements such analysis would include a comparison of similar functions at other universities.
During the confirmation of requirements, any site related issues are documented such as the need for functional adjacencies.
At the conclusion of the Requirements Confirmation module a potential project will have a preliminary program, an analysis of the cause and extent of growth and other project particulars necessary to begin the study of alternatives to accommodate the functions.
B. Alternative Analysis
The next module in the Concept Report is the analysis and documentation of several alternatives to meet the confirmed quantified requirements. The Alternative Analysis informs the business case justifying the eventual preferred alternative.
If reasonable, utilizing an existing building should always be one of the alternatives before justifying a new facility. Conversely, in renovation projects, the cost of renovation must be compared against new construction. The existing building must be assessed spatially and functionally. A review of its systems must be accomplished to assess the capacity to accommodate the program of the potential project. Additionally, the condition and life-cycle costs of the existing systems must be assessed on a 10 year cost horizon to determine the comparative cost against new construction. Replacement of major systems or components within the 10 year horizon such as boilers, chillers, windows, roof and other major maintenance costs would be part of the full costs of utilizing an existing building. Additionally, operational costs or savings due to energy efficiency or other factors should be assessed. Other factors such as life-safety and accessibility would be part of the comparison.
The location of existing buildings should be evaluated against the needs of the program. For most projects, the following alternatives will be the most common:
- Existing Building Adaptation
- Annex to Existing Building
- New Construction
In cases where the above alternatives are simply not feasible, such as an unfeasible annex, a simple graphic demonstration will suffice.
If a new project is justified, the Alternative Analysis is the source documentation for such a determination. Conversely, major renovation projects would be justified based on the comparison of replacing the asset with new construction. Some potential projects will not require the review of an existing building as part of the module. For example, in the case of a specialized function that requires a unique building type. The Office of PPD will determine if an existing building must be reviewed on on a project by project basis.
C. Site Selection
If a new project is justified, then a site must be selected. The site selection process begins with a review of the Campus Master Plan to seek at least three potential sites that would be well suited to accommodate the potential project program. Such considerations as building massing, utilities, transportation, development costs, future planning goals, compatibility with surrounding functions and other issues must be carefully studied for each site. Because of the possibility of competing University interests for proposed parcels, the site selection team must include representatives, and/or consult with other potential interested parties for a considered parcel. An analysis of best use for the subject parcels must be conducted in close consultation with the University Planner. At the conclusion of the Site Selection module, the best suited site is recommended for development as the preferred alternative. There is the possibility that several sites are somewhat equivalent and with outweighing strengths and weakness between the options. Since there will likely be an element of subjectivity in the final analysis, the project’s executive committee may need to reach consensus as to the preferred site through discussion or voting.
Typical evaluation factors for site selection include the following:
- Compatibility with the Campus Master Plan
- The Building’s Mission
- Site Circulation
- Servicing
- Public Space
- Appropriateness of Scale
- Planning and Cost of Enabling Projects (See Campus Master Plan)
The project team should work with the University Planner in developing the appropriate evaluation criteria for the project.
D. Preferred Alternative
Having validated the program, determined the best means to accommodate the program, and having selected a site; a realistic project budget and project concept proposal can be developed. The previous three steps support the Preferred Alternative through incremental validation in a structured decision making environment. The purpose of the Preferred Alternative is to develop and finalize project particulars such as scope, budget, schedule, surge and present the summary of the prior three steps to the Administration and Trustees for approval of the Concept and authority to proceed into Schematic Design. This comprehensive summary provides the approving bodies with sufficient information to assess the full viability of the proposed project within the context of a recommended site. At a minimum, the Preferred Alternative module of the Concept Report will include the following:
- Summary of Past Three Module Findings
- Cost Estimate Addressing Site Costs
- Surge Strategies if applicable
- Schedule for Design and Construction
- Total Project Costs
- Site Development Guidelines
III. The Concept Report Project Team
The Concept Report is led by the PDC Project Manager under the guidance of the Office of Planning and Project Development. The PPD has developed and maintains standard scope of services for the Concept Report.
The final output of the Concept Study is fully scoped project based on an accurate program integrated with the preferred site.
While every effort must be made to explore each alternative carefully through thoughtful research, some of the issues related to the definition of a project are subjective in nature. For example, the competition between institutions for top students and faculty may necessitate a new facility when an existing facility could accommodate a functional requirement. The site selection process with its potential to engage competing interests for a prized parcel could be resolved beyond the scope of the Concept Report. For this reason, it is important that on major projects an executive committee be established that includes several University wide key stake-holders. Consult with the University Planner to establish an effective project executive committee.
The Concept Report Consultant
One of the objectives of the Concept Report is to provide decision makers with credible information to understand the potential benefits and liabilities of different options in the development of a major project efficiently and effectively. To this end, consultants performing this type of work should be familiar with the Cornell campus and the overall project approval process. Proximity to the University is a benefit to attend meetings and conduct site investigations. Also, the Concept Report Consultant should ideally be different than the eventual project designer who is selected utilizing Cornell Design Excellence Processes led by the University Architect. One of the purposes of the Concept Report is to finalize scope and budget, so that a Project Designer can be selected on a well established scope of work. Another benefit of this strategy is that Cornell’s leverage during the negotiation of A/E fees is optimized by having a finalized scope of work and services prior to starting the project.
Architect Selection
Approximately four months prior to seeking design funding authorization from B&P, the University Architect(UA) and the project manager begin the architect selection process for the proposed project. This is to facilitate a contract award to the architect upon approval by the Trustees to begin design. The UA establishes the evaluation criteria and recommends the evaluation team to the Vice-President of Facilities. Formal appointment of evaluation team members is established by a letter of appointment by the VP of Facilities.
IV. Design Process
The design process begins with Pre-Schematics that consists of three basic efforts. The first two activities are programming and site analysis. These are extensions of the efforts concluded in the Concept Study. Programming during the Concept Study was limited to establishing the overall space requirement for developing a budget to seek design approval. In design, the programming effort is much more detailed and serves as the basis for the design of the actual building.
As part of the pre-schematic the architect is required to develop three distinctly different design schemes to explore alternatives to the design problem. Each scheme must be within the established budget and be sufficiently detailed to develop a rudimentary energy analysis. Depending on the schedule of the project, and at the discretion of the UA, the three schemes could be brought to the Architectural Advisory Committee for review. The project team will select one of the pre-schematics, or a hybrid of any combination to develop into the final schematic. The final schematic is submitted by the UA to the Administration and the Trustees for approval. Any final schematic presented to the Trustees must be within the established budget and scope. A preliminary assessment of the energy use by floor area as well as a statement of the LEED target must be part of the presentation.
At the start of design, the Public Art Committee must be notified to explore the possibility of integrating art into the schematic design. A public art committee including the architect could be convened to select an artist or an art piece for one of the project’s primary public areas. The selected artist or art piece is presented to the Trustees as part of the Schematic Design Approval.
With the conclusion of Schematic Design, the project is transfered to PDC to complete the design process and proceed into construction. The UA must review and approve the Design Development and Construction Documents to ensure that the project still preserves the design presented to the Trustees at the end of Schematic Design.
The Pre-Schematics provides for three distinctly different design approaches at the beginning of design as a means to assess the implications of general large scale issues.
