News & Insights

Every life sciences project hits the same moment. The numbers come back over budget, the team gathers around a conference table, and someone starts working through the drawings, looking for places to cut. Value engineering (VE) is a normal and necessary part of construction. In a typical commercial building, it usually works. A lower-grade floor tile, a different light fixture, a substitution on the curtain wall. These decisions trade aesthetics or finish quality for cost relief, and the building still functions exactly as intended.

In a life sciences facility, the same exercise carries a fundamentally different weight. The systems most often targeted for VE savings are frequently the same systems responsible for maintaining product integrity, environmental classification, and regulatory compliance. A substitution that looks like a sensible cost reduction on the construction budget can quietly create a problem that surfaces months later, under a different budget owner, with a price tag many times larger than the original savings.

This is not a hypothetical risk. It is one of the most common and most expensive patterns in life sciences construction, and it is largely preventable.

The $10,000 decision that becomes a $500,000 problem

The economics of value engineering in regulated environments are deceptive. Savings show up immediately on the construction line item. The costs they create show up later, often in a different phase, often under a different budget, and often without anyone connecting the two events.

Consider a real-world scenario. A design includes four temperature sensors in a controlled space, placed to verify that the environment maintains tight temperature regulation across the room. During value engineering, the question gets asked: do we really need four? Could we get by with one? On paper, one sensor still satisfies the requirement to monitor temperature. The substitution saves money, and the change goes through.

What was lost in that decision is the ability to verify that temperature is uniform across the space, that no localized drift is occurring near a wall or a return air grille, and that the cascade of conditions actually holds under realistic operating loads. The single remaining sensor reports a temperature. Whether that temperature represents the true condition of the space is now an open question.

This is a small example. The same logic applies at far greater scale. A substitution on a control valve, a downgrade on a variable frequency drive, a change in HEPA filter configuration, a simplification of a redundancy scheme — each of these decisions can save real money during construction and create real exposure during  operation.

Value engineering becomes uniquely risky in life sciences because the systems on the table are rarely cosmetic. HVAC, process utilities, and controls infrastructure are exactly the systems that govern environmental classification, pressurization cascades, contamination control, and the parameters that regulatory agencies will inspect against. And because the consequence may not surface until validation, qualification, or even an inspection, the chain of cause and effect is often invisible to the people making the original VE decision.

The structural problem: who is in the room

Value engineering decisions are typically made by the parties focused on construction cost and schedule. The general contractor, the construction manager, the owner’s project manager, sometimes the design team. The people who will eventually have to commission the system, validate it, operate it, and defend it during a regulatory inspection are frequently not in the room.

This means substitutions move forward without input from the parties who understand the downstream consequences. A controls contractor may not know that a sensor reduction affects the documentation a validation team will need. A designer may approve a change that satisfies the spec language while losing the design intent. The maintenance staff who will eventually run the facility almost certainly have no visibility into the decision at all.

By the time the substituted system reaches functional performance testing, the change is often impossible to reverse without significant cost, schedule impact, and rework. The system is installed. The walls are closed. The contractor is approaching demobilization. Going back is an option, but one with high costs.

The deferred cost problem

There is a structural mismatch in how VE costs and savings are tracked. Savings are immediate and visible. They show up on the construction budget, attributable to a specific decision, often celebrated in a project meeting.

The costs created by those decisions are deferred and distributed. They emerge during commissioning when systems do not perform as expected. They emerge during validation when protocols fail and require rewrites. They emerge during operation when systems drift out of acceptable range or fail to meet the conditions monitoring requires. They emerge during regulatory inspection when an investigator asks a question the documentation cannot answer.

These costs land under different budget owners than the one who captured the savings. The construction team has long since closed out the project. The validation team, the quality assurance (QA) team, the operations team, and ultimately the owner absorb the consequences. The original tradeoff is rarely revisited and almost never quantified.

How commissioning changes the equation

The most effective protection against destructive value engineering is the presence of a commissioning provider who is involved early enough and structured to be in the room when these decisions are being made.

Consider that each project contains the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR), a document that captures the owner’s operational intent, critical parameters, and performance expectations before design begins. A commissioning agent who has helped develop the  (OPR)  carries that documented baseline into every subsequent conversation. When a VE proposal arrives, the commissioning agent can evaluate it against the OPR rather than against an interpretation of design intent. If a substitution affects a parameter the owner identified as critical, that conflict surfaces in the same meeting where the substitution is being proposed, not six months later during functional performance testing.

This requires commissioning to be retained early. A commissioning provider brought in at substantial completion has no influence over VE decisions at all. They inherit the consequences and document them, but the leverage to prevent the problem in the first place is gone.

It also requires the commissioning provider to be structured as the owner’s advocate rather than as a contracted vendor executing a checklist. A vendor-mode commissioning provider may not push back on a VE substitution that affects long-term operability. An owner’s advocate will, because their accountability is to the owner’s long-term operational success rather than to the construction team’s budget targets.

What sound VE in life sciences looks like

Value engineering itself is not the problem. Cost discipline is necessary in any project, and there are real opportunities to reduce cost without compromising the systems that matter. The problem is VE conducted without the right parties at the table and without a documented baseline to evaluate proposals against.

One issue is that the building is built through a capital budget (CapEx) and operated through an operational budget (OpEx). These two distinct funds are governed and managed by completely different teams. The commissioning provider can help connect the stakeholders on both sides to facilitate a successful transition from construction to sustainable operations.

Sound value engineering in a life sciences project includes the commissioning agent and, where appropriate, the owner’s quality and validation representatives in the review of any proposal that touches a regulated system. It evaluates each proposal against the Owner’s Project Requirements, not just against the construction documents. It quantifies the downstream risk of each change, including potential impact on commissioning scope, validation protocols, and ongoing operational complexity. And it documents not just what was changed but why, so that the chain of decisions remains traceable through the life of the facility.

When VE is conducted this way, the savings that survive the review are real savings. The substitutions that would have created larger downstream costs get filtered out before they become problems. The owner ends up with a facility that is genuinely less expensive to build and that still performs as intended.

How Salas O’Brien can help

The cost of catching a problem at the design phase is essentially nothing. A redline on a drawing, a conversation in a coordination meeting, a revised specification. The same problem caught during construction costs rework, schedule impact, and contractor coordination. Caught during validation, it costs failed protocols and weeks of delay. Caught after occupancy in a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)  environment, it can cost a production hold, a deviation report, a regulatory finding, or in the worst cases, a product rejection.

Salas O’Brien provides full commissioning, qualification and validation services for our clients with deep experience in life sciences, pharmaceutical manufacturing, biologics, and research environments serving as client advocates for built environments and beyond.

Reach out to discuss your project with one of our experts. Contact us at [email protected] or reach out to one of our contributors below.

For media inquiries on this article, reach out to [email protected].