Calibrate the Technical Requirements (TR’s)

As mentioned in Section 3, the Technical Requirements (TR’s) are a set of documents that specify comprehensive building requirements across all disciplines and for all programmatic space types. The TR’s are typically developed during Phase 1 (Business Case) or at the beginning of Phase 2 (Procurement) by University leaders and the Technical Advisors. They are often written two to four years in advance of Phase 3 (Design and Construction). TR’s should be project-specific, balance both prescriptive and performance based requirements, vary in detail based on space type, and include area data sheets and functional layout diagrams for all spaces in the project. The following is an outline of items to consider when creating TR’s:

TR’s Should Contain Intent, Goals, and Priorities Defined by University Stakeholders

Projects delivered under traditional methods such as Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, or CM-at-Risk have an early process for defining intent, goals, and priorities to establish performance metrics, such as sustainability targets, building usage targets, and the ways in which these goals align with the broader institutional mission. In P3 projects, the project requirements for physical, economic and sustainability goals should be identified with Technical Advisors during a stakeholder engagement period, and embedded into the TR’s. The Procurement phase should include a built-in a process for the Development Teams to engage with University leaders and Stakeholders to clarify intent, goals, and priorities. A functional explanation of the TR’s might accomplish this goal without reopening conversations with the Stakeholders that could derail the schedule. This additional layer of information can support a meaningful dialog between the University and the Development Teams during procurement.

As P3 evolves, qualitative metrics could focus on:

  1. Health, well-being, and user comfort

  2. Active design

  3. Biophilia

  4. Indoor / outdoor connections and landscape integration

  5. Informal social spaces: quality, quantity, and variety

  6. Diversity and inclusion

  7. Identity / brand

TR’s are not Guidelines: Avoid Disruptive and Costly Changes  

In P3, once a Project Agreement is in place, the TR’s become “the law” that the Design Team must adhere to during the Design and Construction phase. Once the contract is underway, University-requested revisions to the TR’s can be time-consuming and costly, as the University may be held accountable for bearing costs for revisions that are deemed to be outside of the scope of the TR’s. Thorough and interactive Stakeholder engagement during the development of the TR’s — and documentation thereof — can lead to a clear set of requirements that result in fewer RFI’s and revisions during the Design and Construction phases. Likewise, Design Team RFI’s about the TR’s should be submitted as early as possible, and discrepancies or conflicts should be addressed and resolved during the Procurement phase.

The TR’s are “the law”. Engage Stakeholders to define required minimum performance goals and articulate specifics for achieving them.

TR’s Should be Specific and BALANCE Performance VERSUS PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS 

TR’s require calibration and specificity of programmatic, functional, place-making design, and environmental performance requirements to reduce conflicts, save resources, and deliver the highest value to the University. The kind of information typically articulated in a Detailed Project Program (DPP) — such as area data sheets, functional layout diagrams, furniture and equipment layouts, and corresponding narratives, is recommended. Different space types require different degrees of specificity, and the most complicated spaces should be defined in the greatest level of detail. Building adaptability and flexibility (as required by lab buildings, for instance) should be acknowledged, with contingencies built into the contract to address the reality of future unknowns as related to technological advances, changes in research, and evolving learn/work modalities. This level of specificity helps both the University and the Developer make thoughtful and informed decisions when proposed changes arise that impact the project’s quality and financial feasibility.

WRITING THE TR’s: GET Specific!

  1. Provide detailed performance specifications, especially for specialized spaces, such as teaching and research laboratories.

  2. For spaces with extensive requirements, provide a functional description or layout diagram of the intended use.

  3. Factor in the academic program and/or institutional leadership structures being served by the building.

  4. Delineate in detail and by space type the basis of design, specifications and associate infrastructure requirements.

  5. Specify spaces to suit a given retail function and size them to what the market demands and/or regulatory agencies require for certification.

Encourage Innovation

The selected Design Team brings a range of expertise, creativity, and a fresh set of eyes to the project. As such, the TR’s should be crafted in a way that puts those skills to work for the University. Conversely, if the TR’s are overly constrained, they can limit opportunities for innovation, and may result in buildings that are built to the lowest minimum requirements. Consider structuring the Project Agreement to include an “Alternative Technical Concepts” section to allow the Design Team to submit innovative design strategies that go above and beyond, allowing the process to bring the highest value to the University.