University of Bristol Phi Strategic Brief

Decant Scenarios

Presentation to Physics

10 October 2007

Content

• Background and Purpose

• Decant Options – Preferred Option– Other Options– Preferred Option in Detail– Questions at the end please

• Questions/Conclusions

Background and Purpose

• Decant is the next big decision . . . . .• ‘Unlocks’

– Next Phase of construction– Disruption Tolerance– Ultimate Design (e.g. East Wing)

• Physics Input• Integral part of Strategic Brief, Stage 2

which concludes Christmas 2007• A Strategic Plan for Decant (not detailed)• £44M Phi Budget

Decant Issues• Downtime of Research Groups• Movement of Equipment• Squeezing Up• Reliance on Other Projects• Isolation of Services• Number of Moves• Duration of Overall Project• Cost of Moving Equipment (capital and

opportunity)

Decant Options

• All options involve continued use of Level 2 Teaching Labs and 5 main Lecture Theatres

• Strike a balance between all of the Decant Issues– The least pain (making the project journey

tolerable)– The optimum final design (making the

project journey worthwhile)

Option 1 (Preferred)

1.1 Principle• Particle, Astro and Theory (PAT/others?)

move out of HH Wills Building (desk-based activity)

• Construction is then completed in 3 phases

• Remaining 2/3 occupants ‘move around’ the construction

• PAT move back in at completion of Project

Option 1 (Preferred)

1.2 Headlines• Starts January 2008 and Completes April

2013 (5¼ years)• 36 months of construction within HH

Wills Building in 3 phases• 6 move operations (including 2 for PAT)• A 2 centre department (PAT/others) for

4½ years

Option 1 (Preferred)

1.3 Reasoning

• No major squeezing up• Quicker project duration• Does not heavily influence the final

design• Does not rely upon other projects

(creates own decant space)• Least ‘painful’ overall

Option 2

2.1 Principle• PAT move out (as Preferred Option)

• Remaining occupants split into two and must squeeze up

• 2 phase construction

• PAT move back in

Option 22.2 Headlines• Starts Jan 2009 and completes December 2012

(5 years)

• 36 months of construction within HH Wills Building

• 5 move operations (inc. 2 for PAT)• A 2 centre department for 4 years

2.3 Reasoning• Squeezing up during construction (2/3 of current

space for 3 years)• Not much speedier than Preferred Option

Option 33.1 Principle• Move PAT out of HH Wills Building• Move all from East Wing to HH Wills

Building• Demolish and Rebuild East Wing

(larger)• Move all into East Wing and refurbish

‘old’ building• Move all to final destinations (inc. PAT)

Option 3

3.2 Headlines• Starts January 2008 and completes

August 2013 (5¾ years)• 52 months of construction/demolition

within HH Wills Building• 5 move operations (inc. 2 for PAT)• 2 phase construction• 2 centre department for 5 years

Option 3

3.3 Reasoning• Major demolition disruption to both HH

Wills Building and NSQI• Add. £16M+ project cost• Long project and disruption duration• Higher risk profile

Option 4

4.1 Principle• Whole of HH Wills Building moves

out into vacated (and refitted) existing Bio-Sciences Building

• HH Wills Building refurbished in one phase

• All return to HH Wills Building

Option 44.2 Headlines• Commences mid 2010 and completes April

2014 (4 years)• Single phase construction within HH Wills

Building• 2 move operations for everyone

4.3 Reasoning• Reliance upon other projects (current issues)• Delay commencement until 2010 (inflation and

UoB commitment)• Some squeeze up necessary

Variants on Option 4

• As 4 plus demolition and rebuild of East Wing

• As 4 with 2 phase construction (due to non availability of all of existing Bio-Sciences)

Option 5

5.1 Principle• Piecemeal refurbishment of HH Wills

Building (small pockets of construction)• Multiple and small construction phases

5.2 Headlines• 8+ year project duration• Multiple move operations (10+)

Option 5

5.3 Reasoning• Many moves (4 for some users)• Decant influences final design• Services isolations (e.g. flooding risks)• Big Decant spend• High disruption

Option 6

6.1 Principle• Move into a bespoke new Physics building

6.2 Headlines• 4 year project duration• One (phased) move operation• Higher Project Cost• Await site availability (2015+)

Option 6

6.3 Reasoning• Questionable Site Availability• Delay to Start (Inflation and UoB

commitment)• Reliance on other Projects• Higher Risk Profile

Option 7

Do Nothing Option – Why Not?• Safety• Design Life (under investment)• Systems Failure• Environmental Constraint on Physics

Functionality (and reputation)

Preferred Option – Details

• Programme

• Diagrammatic Decant Sequence

Option 1 (Preferred)

A. Principle• Particle, Astro and Theory (PAT) move

out of HH Wills Building (desk-based activity)

• Construction is then completion in 3 phases

• Remaining 2/3 occupants ‘move around’ the construction

• PAT move back in at completion of Project

Preferred Option (1)

• 3 Construction phases split horizontally

• Certain areas remain in-situ

CPT Slides

Preferred Option (1)

1.3 Reasoning

• No squeezing up

• Quicker project duration

• Does not rely upon other projects

What Next …….

• Analysis of Physics’ Questionnaires• Estates Meeting 15/10/07• Decant Details inc. Briefing developed• Strategic Brief complete by Christmas

’07• Start design of Phase 2 – January ’08• First Decant – September ’08• Construction commences April ‘09

Questions / Discussion

Feedback