4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

Div 01 section for Sustainable Design... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Sustainable Design Topics » Div 01 section for Sustainable Design Intent - non-LEED « Previous Next »

Author Message
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin

Post Number: 249
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 09:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Anyone ever written one that they would be willing to share? Masterspecs is riddled w/ LEED references and by the time I try to take them out, there isn't much left
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 868
Registered: 07-2002


Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 10:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

in order to have a sustainable design section, you need to have something enforceable, rather than just good intent. obviously if the project is going to be LEED certified, that is typically part of the agreement that the contractor buys into and the owner can hold the contractor acccountable. I could see some things that are sustainable without being LEED:
1) the owner can require use of recycled contents but will have to determine how they will prioritize this use -- are they willing to pay more? (and actually this isn't that hard to have on your projects).
2) job site recycling: this is pretty easy to require of the contractor assuming its available in the project location. require them to contact the local authority and set it up.
3) commissioning: this benefits the owner but there is a cost. I would recommend it, since it generally makes for a better job, especially the MEP systems.
4) low odor/solvent free: you can just specify that stuff and make it a requirement for substitutions.

In addition, if you take the Masterspec section and simply edit out the actual reference to the LEED credits, you can get a pretty good section defining what recycled content is, and commissioning and all those other actions on the project. I found that not much more than 10% needs to be edited out to get a useable sustainability section. of course, without it covered contractually, the contractor can simply ignore it.
Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA
Junior Member
Username: rich_gonser

Post Number: 2
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 - 11:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I have one that has minimal references to LEED. It also has references to BEES and Greenguard along numerous other industry organization standards. It uses LEED more as a reference document or starting point. I've used it for some California Schools where CHPS is used. It also references with 01810 General Commissioning and 01812 Testing for Indoor Air Quality.

What really matters is the simple question is this: If it is a requirement of the spec, who is going to enforce it and how? Or is this "a feel good stroking" of the politicians in the green cult? (Reality = "why" doesn't matter, it's what the client wants...)

I can send them to you if your interested.
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick

Post Number: 1035
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 08:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

You can also use LEED as a reference standard, just like any other. For example, you could require the contractor to provide total recycled content using the LEED methodology and submittals, even though the project is not going to be certified. You may only choose to use the LEED guidelines as a reference standard for particular aspects of LEED.

I should point out that many of the LEED points are design-based, so a project can be extremely sustainable without any of the 'stuff' required of the contractor for a LEED project.
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 10:49 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

As others have indicated, LEED req'ts are your starting basis and proceed from there; I feel that LEED has established a "generally-accepted" level of defining what sustainability is, therefore, IMHO, anything less and "you" (or your client-designer) risk not "delivering" a sustainably-designed project to owner-client.

Also might want to consider Calif IAQ reqts for interior wall/clg finishes, upon which CHPS, and also Greenguard and SCS "IAQ standards", are based. Many mfrs are now "certifying" compliance with CHPS, which means interior finish materials selections must be selective.
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick

Post Number: 1036
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I completely disagree with Guest's assessment that bulidings not designed to LEED will not be "generally accepted" as sustainable. First of all, sustainability does not rise to the level of professional standard of care that the phrase 'generally accepted' implies. Secondly, LEED is not at all the only sustainability system available, even if others are similar. Third, as those who have worked with LEED, CHPS and other such systems know, they all have flaws in them that owners may choose to avoid by avoiding these systems. It's just not true to think that not 'getting certified' or choosing not to pursue a few particular LEED credits or prerequisites means the building has not delivered an 'generall accepted' level of sustainibility. Besides, every decision I've seen to be sustainable without LEED has come from the owner, not the designer. Many of them just don't like the cumbersome, overwrought, administratively heavy process that LEED entails.
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe

Post Number: 335
Registered: 01-2003


Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 10:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Why is it that “sustainable” specifications are treated so differently? Enforceability is no more an issue for recycled content or VOC emissions, or anything else, than it is for ASTM A36 steel or puce paint. If it’s in the specifications, it is a contract requirement and it is enforceable; the who and how are the same.

In contrast, typical LEED specifications I have seen include a section full of wishy-washy goals and “the owner really would like it if you picked some stuff that didn’t harm the environment” statements - which are essentially unenforceable as they are goals rather than requirements.

LEED certification does not prove a building is sustainable; it proves only that a process was followed. Granted, following that process may result in a building that is greener than a similar building that did not follow the process, but it is my understanding that there are LEED certified buildings that consume more energy than similar non-certified buildings, and there are buildings that are unbelievable energy misers that do not meet LEED requirements.

The real difficulty is knowing what really is more green than something else; that’s where LEED and other standards come into play. By setting standards, USGBC essentially eliminates the need to do extensive research on the green aspects of products and procedures. It would be a mistake to not investigate other aspects, but existing projects indicate that has been done, sometimes with unpleasant results.

Although some of the LEED certification requirements could be better, it is impossible for any person or firm to know enough about everything to decide with confidence the most sustainable products, let alone the most sustainable collection of products. And face it - it's a lot easier to go with the flow than to try to convince someone that a non-LEED compliant solution is better.
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener

Post Number: 436
Registered: 04-2002


Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 - 01:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

"It's not easy to be green." - Kermit the Frog
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 869
Registered: 07-2002


Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 - 08:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Sheldon: the enforceability of sustainable specifications is an issue if there is a cost differential between the "green" product and something else. If the specifier has done exhaustive research and names products in the specs that meet recycled content, close-to-the-project manufacturer, and a variety of other criteria, then of course the spec is enforceable. However, requiring job site recycling and commissioning may be an additional cost that the owner has to buy into. I know of one "green" architectural firm who declined to recycle during an office remodel -- because of the cost.
Now, if the contract between owner and contractor had sustainable goals as part of the contract then of course its quite enforceable. my experience though is that even when requirements are in the specifications, the contractor will often chose a cheaper option as part of the bid and assume the owner will approve. I think without LEED or some other system in place, there is little incentive for the contractor to comply.
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe

Post Number: 336
Registered: 01-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 - 09:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

So the contractor gets to decide what is enforceable, based on cost. Thanks for the clarification!

How is a goal enforceable? "We'd like to have a building that doesn't use much energy" is better than specifying the building envelope and the mechanical systems?

I keep hearing the same arguments about substitution requests. "If we allow substitutions, the owner won't get the quality we specified." Where is it written that by entertaining substitution requests that lesser quality products must be accepted?
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, April 02, 2009 - 01:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I totally agree with Sheldon.

Anne, you're position that a goal is an enforceable component of a specification is both bizarre and alarming.

Goals are not enforceable. Any specified goals that a Contractor has ever complied with is likely to have been something that was ill-defined to begin with (no way to prove or disprove that the goal was met - like "Use as many recycled content materials as possible"), or because it was not a bottom-line big cost issue.
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, April 03, 2009 - 12:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

One needs to understand that there are certain specific requirements related to "green" products that must be complied with by individual products/systems in order to obtain the LEED credit, and other requirements that are not necessary related to specific products.

If one is going after the air quality credit for low VOC carpet, the carpet (and pad) must meet the requirement. On the other hand, if one is going after credit(s) for recycled material, compiance by a specific product may not be required. In a steel-framed high-rise office building with a glazed curtain wall, the basic LEED credit for recycled material may almost be obtained through structural steel and glass systems without other consideration. In certain parts of the country, getting the regional material credit may simply be a matter of doing the calculations on concrete materials.

In my Division 01 section where I specify the Contractor's options for product selection, I have begun to shift the responsibility for recycled and regional material content to the Contractor with inserting language requiring the Contractor to consider the Owner's LEED goals when making "buy-out" decisions subject to the primary goals of budget and schedule. Unless the Owner wishes to be extremely agressive on obtaining LEED certification, this seems to work.

If the overall goals for recycled materials are being met on a 75,000 sf project, I am not particulary interested in the recylcled content of the 20 lf of wall and base cabinet in the employees' break room. Any "green leech" who is going to double the cost of that item and hold up delivery for 3 months needs to get some perspective on professional responsibility.
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza

Post Number: 380
Registered: 12-2002


Posted on Monday, April 06, 2009 - 09:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The provision of a LEED [or Sustainable Design] project plan requirement tied to monthly reporting and progress payments is a component of the MasterSpec Division 01 sustainable design sections. It can be used to translate a client's requirements into contract requirements. It's a mechanism that would allow Unregistered Guest to successfully transfer the specifics of procurement (how much steel from where?) to the contractor, who is often in a better position to make the procurement micro-decisions than is the designer. Plus the contractor is able to set his/her price, whereas designers' fees have a ceiling that does not allow an infinite amount of time to be spent specifying minutiae.

Also: a schedule of values line item for sustainable design documentation is a reminder throughout the project that these "goals" or "targets" are actual contract performance requirements that must be documented for which the contractor is being paid, or not.
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 - 12:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The MasterSpec section that addresses LEED is fraught with peril when used as is, out of the box. And I'll tell you why. It attempts to shift responsibility to the Contractor for recycled content, regional, rapidly renewable, certified wood, and salvaged/refurbished materials points. In a Design Build project delivery method, this is completely appropriate. But, most of us aere still in the Design/Bid/Build world (along with several variations on that such as GC/CM, Integrated Project Delivery, GMP, etc.). ARCOM doesn't fully get this LEED thing. Folks like Phil and Unregistered Guest use may use this section out of the box thinking that they have solved the problem, but all they have done is establish contradiction and give the hapless designers and Owners a false sense of security.

MasterSpec shifts the responsibility to the Contractor by requiring an "Action" plan to get the LEED points for the above listed materials credits. Lists are required to be provided with a "proposal" for the sourcing of the materials. This gets the team no closer to actually achieving the points. Contractor can submit laundry lists of proposed materials but how does this relate to the specified products from Division 02 onward? Do these lists supersede the specified products? Does Phil's asphalt built up roof automatically get the axe in favor of the contractors proposed 25% recycled content single ply membrane? No. Phil doesn't like single ply membranes, and the Owner won't pay the preminum for it. This is a PROBLEM.

The MasterSpec section goes on to require that the Contractor provide materials necessary to meet various threshold levels in LEED for the materials points. The "green" specifier, being ever so environmentally conscious, goes for the max at each bracketed option and requires that the Contractor be wholly reponsible for providing the materials necesary to get the LEED materials points. Again, this is a really BAD idea. It's an impossible situation for the Contractor in everything except Design/Build. Drawings and specifications are littered with prescriptive product and material requirements that are most certainly not open to negotiation with the Contractor - in most cases. The items that the Contractor may have selection authority over are NOT the big ticket items that influence whether or not the LEED materials points will be acquired.

For the smart, seasoned spec writers like Sheldon, this MasterSpec section poses no real problems, because Sheldon will not use this section as is, if he uses it at all. He will instead explain to the Owner and the team that acquisition of these LEED materials points has everything to do with how the building is designed, and amazingly little to do with the Contractor and his limited authority over the selection of materials and products. The MasterSpec section does pose a problem, however, for those that unwittingly drop it into the Project Manual thinking that their LEED materials credit problems are solved in using the section. It's quite the opposite.

Mr. Green Jeans
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza

Post Number: 382
Registered: 12-2002


Posted on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 - 06:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Mr Green Jeans and I have several points of agreement; to begin, I believe that any MasterSpec, SpecText, SpecLink, or office master section used out of the box is fraught with peril. Master guide specifications are just that ... master documents intended to be competently edited to fit project circumstances. A design professional should no more use a master guide specification section "as is" then he or she should import a drawing from another project and issue it.

In the case of using the MasterSpec approach to specifying selected LEED MR requirements as Contractor-managed components, I've used it successfully on a handful of LEED projects, and many other MasterSpec users have used it successfully on hundreds of LEED projects.

As a specifier, I would prefer to not have to determine which plant of which manufacturer the material used at a particular site is likely to come from at the time it is actually purchased and delivered. That's more like a contractor's job, unless we're looking for unique design items. Contractors have shown that they can manage the LEED process well. And if they're reasonably skilled, with a LEED AP staff person on board as is typically required for LEED projects, they've shown they can meet LEED requirements without resorting to uninvited substitution requests. Similarly with FSC wood requirements - between the time I specified a school project and the material was procured, several new sources for FSC wood emerged within 500 miles of the project site. Great! If I'd written a source-specific proprietary specification, then we'd have to write a change order. This way, the contractor while doing her job identified the source when it came time to procure the material. No false sense of security there. We saw the submittal. It helped fulfill the FSC credit requirements. On to the next.

We can't expect that everyone using a commercial guide specification or an office master is using it with complete competence. It's a human process, and interns who are learning the ropes deserve some support from more seasoned staff so they don't just issue a spec "out of the box" but come to understand their trade and apply it. None of the available commercial guide specifications are intended to be "specs for dummies." If it were that simple, anyone could do the work.
Randy Cox
Senior Member
Username: randy_cox

Post Number: 55
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 07, 2009 - 06:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I am working on a multifamily housing development where each of the multiple buildings will be LEED silver certified. This time, we are using LEED for homes, which is slightly different from LEED NC. I started out with a lot of compliance goals, but in the process of creating biddable and enforceable documents I had to spend a lot of time with the LEED checklist, trying to the best of my limited ability to forge our documents so that conformance to them would create LEED compliance. Isn’t that what everyone does?
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick

Post Number: 1037
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Wednesday, April 08, 2009 - 08:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Pretty much.
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard

Post Number: 207
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 08, 2009 - 10:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

We have had several projects where LEED was to be used as a "guide" with the intent of making the project meet design requirements of LEED Silver, but not register the project with USGBC and do all of the paperwork. A couple of these projects have suddenly become a "real" LEED projects after bidding and award of the contract. We find that our design drawings are OK, the specs need only minor tweaking to reinstate the LEED templates, but the contractor has come back and asked for a substantial change request for all of the LEED paperwork, waste diversion/recycling records, and legwork necessary to buy out the job with local materials. In theory, he was required to perform his contract to meet all of the requirements, but now he has to hire a full-time LEED AP and actually fill out the LEED templates.

It is clear to me that the contractor has much to do in a LEED project that is not related to the design. We design all of our projects in the spirit of sustainable design, so our cost to do a LEED project is more or less already in our fees. However, contractors cannot similarly build in the cost of LEED if they want to be the low bidder.
Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: peggy

Post Number: 29
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 08, 2009 - 11:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

A note on the LEED documentation process:

As we all know, Credits within LEED require documentation, which feeds into the calculations that result in identifying total recycled content, for example. The MR Credits are calculated during construction and are therefore known as Construction Credits - not 'Contractor Credits' - Construction Credits. LEED documentation is a team effort, and many of the calcs and Templates for MR Credits involve the Contractor.

Responsiblities: The design team's responsibility for the recycled content Credit is to design with that in mind, and the Contractor's responsibility is simply to tally the RC amount in the materials for that project according to the LEED formulas. Contractors do not to select materials, but rather they document the total recycled content value of the materials that the designers have specified. The Action Plans help to keep that documentation on track during the construction process, so that it does not become an overwhelming and expensive burden during post-construction.
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan

Post Number: 322
Registered: 05-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 08, 2009 - 02:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

There seems to be some misunderstanding about specifications and the Contractor's role in product selection. Many designers belive that product selection is specification so they will direct that I specify a particular brand of single-ply roofing system, e.g., JM. In point of fact, there may be a number of single-ply product that are offered in the area that would be acceptable. My specification includes a requirement that the product meets the SRI requirment to qualify for the LEED credit. However, if GAF, Firestone, and Mule Hide all offer products that meet all components of the specifications and can be installed by acceptable installers, why should the specification be further closed by restricting the Contractor's product options to a regional manufacturer or a particular theshold for recycled content.

In making the Contractor's making the actual purchasing selection, he is responsible for providing (furnishing and installing) a single-ply roofing system that complies with all requirements. He is also free to provide a system which exceeds requirements (e.g., a higher SRI). All other things being equal, he should be encouraged to purchase regional products with recycled content (and of course document that). If the goals of LEED certification can be met without this product's being regionally manufactured or having recycled content, AND if the product carries a premium price or has an unacceptable delivery schedule, then I would suggest that the prudent course of action would be to allow the Contractor to exercise the responsibility that is really his under the construction contract. I would also suggest that this approach is more consistent with public policy and regulation regarding project procurement.

I will occassionally see designers go overboard on selecting green products whose impact on the project with regard to sustainability is inversely proportional to the impact of schedule or budget. These decisions, of course, will almost completely ignore the impact of structural steel, concrete, and glass on LEED credits (it's a lot, gang!), making a big fuss over a $20,000 installation on a $5,000,000 project (a typical material value of $10,000 out of more than $1,750,000 of materials on the project to be counted for LEED recycled and regional materials credit).

Let the contractor execute his/her responsibility within the parameters of contract requirements, and hold the contractor responsible for those decisions through good reporting throughout the construction phase.

While I would not argue that "green" products should be used throught the design, I would suggest that few Owners, would accept a significant cost/schedule overrun for extra LEED credits that do not result in earning the next level of certification.
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: robert_w_johnson

Post Number: 8
Registered: 03-2009
Posted on Wednesday, April 08, 2009 - 03:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

In relation to LEED credit requirements that involve multiple products (recycled content, regional materials, certified wood, waste management); there is obviously multiple different ways to meet the requirements among all the products included in the project. It does not make sense for the design professional to tell the contractor exactly how to accomplish those requirements. The design professional needs to ensure that the work results specified allow for the requirements to be met – specify products that allow for the overall requirements to be met. The contractor can make his own decisions on what particular subcontracts and purchase orders to make that meet the overall LEED credit requirements and at the same time are best in terms of his other requirements such as time schedule, service, cost, etc.

I don’t think that the design professional wants to become the purchasing officer for the contractor – as a former contractor I know I wouldn’t want that to happen. The MASTERSPEC Division 01 section also includes early submittal requirements (LEED Action Plans) to ensure that the contractor does have a viable plan to meet the LEED multiple product credit requirements. In this scenario, the contactor is more than just a collector of data to document meeting the LEED credit requirements – he has a role in choosing the particular providers of products to meet some of the LEED credit requirements that at the same time meet his other goals and requirements. It provides the contactor some of the tools he needs to properly manage the construction.

The situation is different of course for other LEED credit requirements that relate to a single work result such as VOCs, SRI, etc. In that case the design professional is responsible to ensure that the products specified meet the requirement. More competitive pricing will usually result when there is more than one particular product to meet the requirements.
Randy Cox
Senior Member
Username: randy_cox

Post Number: 56
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 09:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The thing I don't understand is the design community's obsession with regional credit. I understand that energy is expended in shipping materials from place to place, and that there is some LEED credit when you use local sources. How much of the total energy use is spent on transportation? How many points are gained on a typical product for regional points?

They don't seem to add up unless they are major components of the building. Maybe that’s just my perspective in the manufacturing deprived and decidedly non-central region of New England. In this area, we can maybe get regional points for wood products, but not for steel, concrete, carpet, or most manufactured items.

One of the greened-up carpet companies has an interesting chart in their traveling show. The chart divides the amount of energy used in each of the common lifecycle phases of a typical product. Their point is that a little savings in refining the raw material or in recycling easily offsets all the energy embedded in shipping. On a different track, CSX is advertising on National Public Radio that are way more energy efficient than trucks.

I guess I just don’t like the regional credit game because it seems arbitrary to me. I’m also troubled by it from a public policy perspective. It penalizes manufacturers who are located less than 500 miles from borders or major metropolitan areas. If it was taken seriously, it would further depress the economies of already hardscrabble parts of the country.
Colin Gilboy
Senior Member
Username: colin

Post Number: 185
Registered: 09-2005


Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 09:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Randy,

I view the regional credit is somewhat different. Living in Utah we are not concerned with controlled detention of rainwater - as it does not rain very much. Most of the moisure is snow and much of that evaporates onsite. Colorado has a very different problem with 6" of rain in a very short period.

I viewed this credit as a way to focus on regional issues of temperature, moisture, etc. that would not be viewed in other regions as important.
Colin Gilboy
Publisher, 4specs.com
435.654.5775 - Utah
800.369.8008
Unregistered Guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, April 09, 2009 - 07:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It seems that some of those here do not understand what a master specification is all about. A master specification contains language that can be used, revised, or deleted as the specifier chooses.

MasterSpec's Division 01 section for LEED requirements does not require the contractor to provide materials meeting the LEED requirements for recycled content, regional materials, certified wood, etc., rather it provides the specifier the option of imposing such requirements on the contractor. MasterSpec's technical sections offer the specifer the option to go the other route and require that certain materials contain recycled content, be regional products, be made of certified wood, etc. The choice is yours; it is not imposed by MasterSpec.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Password:
E-mail:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration