If you were going to a 'Specification...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Joel McKellar, LEED AP Senior Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 27 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 11:26 am:    What would you want to hear about? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 896 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 11:37 am:    Speech or seminar? Prefer latter to include; "Nuts and bolts" of certification program[s]devoid of vagueness and veiled requierments. Information comparing the various certification organizations and programs that are now available and how [if?] they function in concert or at odds with each other. Specific and updated approaches to incorproating LEED related information in various spec Sections [similar to Ross Spiegel's seminar and book]. And a large and wide-ranging litany or directory of green products, to minimize the need and time required searching for such. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 11:50 am:    I would want to hear about specifying for LEED in the context of the history of buildings and architecture. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 794 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 12:16 pm:    Who's your audience? We who deal with LEED projects require and desire different information than say, contractors who are approaching their first LEED project, or an Owner contemplating a LEED building. It might be fun to do a roundtable - architect, engineer, contractor, supplier, owner - and address what the concerns, fears, and difficulties are. Where does the architect find that list of products/companies? How does the contractor manage the paperwork? How much more will it cost the owner? How important is it that everyone be on board with the goals of the project? [just for starters] Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 897 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 12:56 pm:    I'd go to Lynn's roundtable too. Why not tape it and sell the DVD for those who can't make it? Great idea so long as you get really good, informative panelists! Joel McKellar, LEED AP Senior Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 29 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 02:10 pm:    It's a CSI mini-convention with a 1 hour speech segment featuring only me. I'm actually sitting on a similar roundtable later this month for a different event, but no need to prepare too much for that! I think I'm going to focus mostly on: (A) different strategies for incorporating LEED requirements into specs (where the emphasis goes, who does what paperwork, etc...) (B) using the specifications as a risk mitigation tool (C) a review of the various guide specs' LEED language: masterspec = bad greenspec = better others? Thanks for your advice! Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 171 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 02:55 pm:    Joel Can you share your opinions about the various guide spec's LEED language? Joel McKellar, LEED AP Senior Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 30 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 03:17 pm:    I don't have time to give an accurate response today, and I promise to do so on my blog (reallifeleed.com - sorry for the spam!) after I've finished my presentation prep (and done the work already!) I've found a number of small, but potentially critical errors in some of the language from masterspec - misstated or inconsistent VOC levels that could easily be solved by simply referencing either the LEED reference guides or the referenced standards they refer to. They also give hard requirements for contractors to meet certain thresholds that could be unfair. What if the architect designs a project that doesn't allow for a 20% recycled content rate but requires it in division one anyway? I prefer to set material requirements in their respective sections and then forcing the contractor to track the recycled content of all relevant materials (MF95 div 2-10), even if they contain no recycled content. So instead of a blanket "all products must in total meet a 20% content level" I like "steel must have X% content, gypboard must have X%" etc. Generally you'll get the points (if the building is designed correctly) you need. It's also easier to verify submittals. If I'm leaving it to the contractor to hit the 20% by his own means, presumably I'm going to not have a recycled content figure for each material in the specs, and I can't hold him/her to a clear standard for each product. What if at the end of the project you don't get the point? Though you have the right to say that you put it in the spec that they must purchase materials that add up to a 20% level, the contractor could just as easily say you designed a building where that's impossible, and has a paper trail of submittals all approved by you essentially agreeing with him. I'm not being terribly clear here, know more about LEED than I do about specs, and am only discussing one issue, but in general we've had to edit the guide spec from masterspec so much that we may as well have started from scratch. I've honestly only found the greenspec guide specs from BuildingGreen today, and only taken a brief look at that, but at first glance it seems to have more clear language - I also love the recommended recycled content performance thresholds... Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 814 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 06:03 pm:    Joel: your approach (being prescriptive about percentages) works effectively only if you are familiar with all products available in one area and know that your numbers will not unreasonable. frankly, I think that smacks too much of means and methods because it will require the contractor to use specific sources. In the projects I've worked on, (dating back to the year 2000) we have typically required the contractor to make their own supplier list and meet the required percentage for the project as a whole. as for the editing of Masterspec: those specs are guide specs (of course) and are written to conform to the widest possible range of requirements. they are meant to be edited to conform to the location of the project if need be and also the LEED version that is in use on the project. There are locations, as you must know, where the VOC limits are far more stringent than what LEED requires (California, New Jersey) and clearly those sections must be edited to conform to those requirements rather than the baseline LEED requirements. if you do most of your work in a limited area and are very familiar with local products, systems and the like, I suppose going to the extra work of determining percentages makes sense; this would also only be applicable for projects built in a short time frame, since the availability changes regularly on recycled content. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 113 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 07:28 am:    I would like to hear about: - specific LEED projects - problems that potentially threatened to disqualify the projects from certification, and how the project team worked them out successfully - how LEED compares to other sustainability models - what certification costs the owner vs. a non-LEED project. - examples of how creative teamwork made LEED projects successful. - contractor and owner viewpoints on LEED I can think of nothing worse than listening to someone disecting sentences in guide specs and nitpicking on VOC levels and recycled content. I hear a lot of people talk about LEED from a theoretical point of view, but not too many people who have real experience. The theorists seem to dwell on obscure points, whereas the experienced people give you information you (and your clients) can use. Dave Wyatt J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 287 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 11:10 am:    I am moving toward Division 01 language in Section 01 60 00 that says something to the effect that (1) the Owner will attempt LEED certification at a certain level, (2) the contractor is responsible for the Project's construction budget and schedule, (3) the contractor is responsible for complying with project requirements, and (4) the contractor is expected to give preference to regional products and products with recycled content within the parameters listed above. I put these requirements in with other requirements governing product selection. The contractor may wish to spend a bit more for certain products to hit certain LEED point targets, but it borders on the bizzare to specify commodity products (such as gypsum wallboard) proprietarily if LEED goals can otherwise be met. Although this seems to shift more responsibility (and risk) to the contractor, it should actually give the contractor the ability to manage product purchase while minimizing impacts to cost and schedule. Other LEED issues are specific product requirements such as VOC and formaldehyde content and SRI for paving and roofs. These must be specified with particular products in the appropriate sections. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 330 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Sunday, September 07, 2008 - 01:44 pm:    Joel, As someone who's done half a dozen LEED project specifications successfully using MASTERSPEC with minor modifications, I'd like to know more about how your specification approach is so different from MASTERSPEC's that you find you have to do significant editing? The MASTERSPEC sections shouldn't be used without the accompanying Division 01 Section, but that's true of the whole of MASTERSPEC and the other commercially-available master specification libraries. It sounds as if you may have omitted the Division 01 requirements for Contractor LEED Action Plan and periodic LEED Progress Reports that are intended to prevent end-of-project discovery of contractor non-compliance with LEED requirements. I do agree with you that the architect needs to set realistic requirements for the general LEED credit point requirements for salvaged and refurbished materials, recycled materials, certified wood, and regional materials, that are based upon specific project conditions. However, I agree strongly with Anne that once those are realistically set, their fulfillment needs to shift to the contractor, rather than be dictated in detail by the architect, as the latter will create untold requirements for change orders as the procurement of the project evolves due to market conditions that the architect cannot accurately predict. Undertaking such predictions may well fall outside of the architect's insured services. Joel McKellar, LEED AP Senior Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 31 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Monday, September 08, 2008 - 08:32 pm:    A note - Please read the following in a voice that's not hostile but rather genuinely curious. Electronic text has a way of sounding harsh when my intent is only to provoke further discussion! Anne - I hadn't considered the fact that such a strategy (setting specific LEED-related performance requirements at the product level) could be construed as defining means and methods, and I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on the subject and your thoughts on a few more questions. I could see this as an issue concerning regional materials, but how is that fundamentally different from specifying that a product comply with the Buy America Act? Similarly, how is specifying a recycled content level different that requiring a certain VOC level, or a certain gloss for paint? Also, in at least one project, and it's looking like one or two more, we're earning exemplary performance credits for regional materials (over the 40% threshold) by using this strategy. I'm not sure we would get much beyond 20% if we only set a 20% requirement. That only encourages the contractor to do the minimum necessary to earn a point, not necessarily to maximize the sustainable procurement of the project. Admittedly, a counter-argument could be that there may be a construction premium for that extra regional percentage. When at least three bids are necessary, we try to find a level that three products can meet. This definitely takes a significant amount of due diligence on our part, but isn't the whole point that we become aware of where our building products are made and what they're composed of? Shouldn't the architect/specifier bear at least as much of the burden as the contractor? Phil - It's actually only division 018113 that I'm referring to - I should have been clearer earlier. Looking at the 02/07 revision, it's actually better than I remember, but there are still a number of small errors that make me nervous and add up to a poorly crafted guide spec. I should also clarify that I'm not a specifier by trade, and to date have mostly been asked to simply review 018113 with respect to specific LEED projects. There may be other division 1 sections that cover some of the examples I provide below - a few examples (David - be warned of a nitpicky dissection): 1. No mention of SSp1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention ESC plan requirements - if the contractor doesn't comply with this we no longer have a LEED project! (covered elsewhere?) 2. No mention of SSc5.1 site disturbance requirements (covered elsewhere?) 3. Always lists MRc6 and MRc7 as certified wood credits, with no indication that one (MRc6) is for LEED-CS projects and the other (MRc7) is for LEED-NC projects... There is no mention other than in the definition for LEED NC's MRc6, Rapidly Renewable Materials. 4. Two definitions for "recycled content", neither of which reference ISO 14021 5. No mention of MRc1.1 - MRc1.3, Building Reuse (covered elsewhere?) 6. Decides to create it's own definition of "project materials cost" in the 1.4 SUBMITTALS section - nothing in "definitions". LEED references MF95 div 2-10, which, though frustrating, is what we need to go by. No mention of 45% default cost option, and later references to sourcing X% of materials according to cost do not accurately reference exactly what cost they're referring to. Potential nightmare! 7. Section 2.3 incorrectly references NC 2.1 requirements 8. Lists VOC levels instead of citing the referenced standards. The definitions are tricky and the standards themselves are a bit more clear. Try figuring out the right level for a firestopping sealant from the list provided. 9. Incorrectly lists flat primers as having a requirement of 50 g/L... All primers have a VOC requirement of 150 whether flat or non. In general, I think my problem with the 018113 section is that it in general takes the tone that "Well, we got the first 15-20 points, it's up to the contractor to figure out the last 10..." One sets levels for regional materials, recycled content, VOC's, for the whole project and let the contractor sweat the details? Also, I've been told (but can not say for sure from experience) that many subs will not receive, nor tend to read division one requirements. I would prefer again to put as much product level data into their respective sections than have them listed as much as is listed here, particularly the VOC levels. Are we not supposed to list things only once? To Anne and Phil - A few questions about shifting responsibility to the contractor: How do you accurately determine whether those points are achievable in the first place? My concern is writing a requirement that can't be achieved. How do you write a spec for a contractor to hit a 75% waste diversion rate or a 20% regional level without knowing that ahead of time? We've just seen the first LEED related lawsuit pop up (see post by Ron), and there's only going to be more as time passes. Would you comment on the scenario I suggested with the contractor claiming a building design not allowing for a 20% threshold? What power does the architect have in that situation to verify that submittals are appropriate in relation to LEED? Thanks all of you for all your advice! It's certainly helped me refine my thoughts... Thanks again! Joel Joel McKellar, LEED AP Senior Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 32 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 12:00 am:    http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/docs/11200/11119.pdf Good article discussing some tricks to cost control (deduct alternates for different LEED thresholds as opposed to add alternates) and contractor/architect choice over materials. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 953 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 08:46 am:    Joel, You comment "Well, we got the first 15-20 points, it's up to the contractor to figure out the last 10." I believe that this is it exactly. Without the contractors full attention and cooperation, those last 10 points cannot be achieved. As to the idea that Anne raised of some of this being means and methods. I agree with that observation to the extent that--taking recycled content, for example--there are an infinite number of combinations of individual product recycled content that could achieve the overall building recycled content goal. The contractor is in the best position--I would argue the only position--to know what individual products are readily available in the project's market place, with what recycled content, and what current pricing is. From this, they determine what combination will most effectively achieve the overall recycled content specified. That's means and methods. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 201 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 09:10 am:    Why would a spec address Building Reuse? The Contractor has nothing to do with that decision, it has already been made by the Owner. Since the specs are addressed to the Contractor, building reuse is a non-spec issue. There are only a certain number of points on which a Contractor can have an effect. Those points are the only ones that should be addressed in the spec. Joel McKellar, LEED AP Senior Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 33 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 09:17 am:    Don, What about a major renovation project? There are tracking requirements that the contractor needs to perform, specifically measuring and documenting what is left compared to what is thrown away. If he's removing hazardous materials (moldy gypboard, rotten floorboards, etc), he should have to document why they're being removed. None of this is complex, but it needs to be stated somewhere. Where would you place them? Thanks, Joel Eugene Buz Groshong, LEED AP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 05:14 pm:    Joel: Thank you for your thoughts regarding some LEED items in MasterSpec. I took another look through the different MasterSpec sections dealing with LEED to see how they measured up against your concerns. Disclosure: I am the primary author of the model LEED language in MasterSpec and will take your thoughts into consideration for future updates. ARCOM recognizes that specification professionals will weigh the appropriateness and location of LEED requirements within a project manual and will carefully judge what goes where. MasterSpec tries to offer clear, coordinated, and consistent model specification language that truly reflects the different LEED version requirements. I am responding to points from your September 9, 2008 posting. By way of explanation, MasterSpec places LEED requirements in Division 01 sections that are general procedural and administrative requirements. These are supplemented with additional LEED requirements in individual sections in other Divisions. 1. No mention of SSp1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention ESC plan requirements - if the contractor doesn't comply with this we no longer have a LEED project! (covered elsewhere?). Reply: Yes, in Section 015000, 1.4 B. 2. No mention of SSc5.1 site disturbance requirements (covered elsewhere?). Reply: Yes, in Section 011000, 1.12 C. 2. 3. Always lists MRc6 and MRc7 as certified wood credits, with no indication that one (MRc6) is for LEED-CS projects and the other (MRc7) is for LEED-NC projects... There is no mention other than in the definition for LEED NC's MRc6, Rapidly Renewable Materials. Reply: An editor's note preceding requirements for certified wood indicates that MR 6 is for LEED-CS and MR 7 is for other versions of LEED. 4. Two definitions for "recycled content", neither of which reference ISO 14021. Reply: Definitions are quoted in Section Text from the appropriate regulations/standards, including ISO 14021 and the FTC. Editor's notes indicate which definitions apply to which versions of LEED. 5. No mention of MRc1.1 - MRc1.3, Building Reuse (covered elsewhere?). Reply: These Credits are largely a design issue, although Section 024119, 1.6 C. does deal with the requirement to maintain the required elements. 6. Decides to create it's own definition of "project materials cost" in the 1.4 SUBMITTALS section - nothing in "definitions". LEED references MF95 div 2-10, which, though frustrating, is what we need to go by. No mention of 45% default cost option, and later references to sourcing X% of materials according to cost do not accurately reference exactly what cost they're referring to. Potential nightmare! Reply: MasterSpec's Division 01 "Sustainable Design Requirements" section, Article 1.4 "Submittals" repeats the definitions language from the LEED rating systems. It could be expanded to make it more definitive or could refer to the particular LEED reference manuals for definitions of "project material cost." Thank you for pointing out this out, we will look into improving this language. 7. Section 2.3 incorrectly references NC 2.1 requirements. Reply: These are LEED-CI requirements, as the editor's note states, not the outdated LEED NC Version 2.1 requirements. 8. Lists VOC levels instead of citing the referenced standards. The definitions are tricky and the standards themselves are a bit more clear. Try figuring out the right level for a firestopping sealant from the list provided. Reply: MasterSpec lists VOC limits instead of referencing the standards, because these standards may not always be available. SCAQMD, for instance, may choose to delete them from their web site when they become outdated and it might be quite some time before USGBC updates the affected LEED versions. Specific VOC limits are also included in individual sections where they apply. This eliminates the need for the Contractor to later figure out the applicable limits. Division 01 "Sustainable Design Requirements" Section requirements are intended to cover situations where other sections indirectly specify products with VOC content, such as by stating "install according to manufacturer's written instructions" without mentioning the adhesive, sealant, or touchup paint that the manufacturer recommends. 9. Incorrectly lists flat primers as having a requirement of 50 g/L. All primers have a VOC requirement of 150 whether flat or non. Reply: LEED-CI 2.0 recognizes that primers should be considered separately from topcoats and is not concerned with whether they are flat or not; LEED-NC 2.2 and LEED-CS 2.0 do not recognize this distinction. I hope this helps to answer your queries. If you have more, please feel free to contact me at egroshong@arcomnet.com. Joel McKellar, LEED AP Senior Member Username: joelmckellar Post Number: 34 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 09:01 pm:    Eugene, Well... I'm certainly a bit embarrased for not referencing the editor's notes and taking a closer look. I certainly will do so in the future. Thanks for your efforts on what was and is an undoubtedly herculian task! Joel Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 203 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 07:57 am:    Joel: OK, you got me. I would mention the Credit in Div 01 and the specifics in Selective Structure Demolition.