Construction phase LEED and CHPS credits

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

Author Message John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1040 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 10:35 am:    We are wrestling a bit with this issue. There seem to be two basic approaches to achieving credits such as recycled content, regional materials, and FSC wood. 1) Specify the basics in a Div 01 Section and require the contractor to figure out what combination of products are needed to get the points. 2) We evaluate what products are needed to meet the goals; find out exactly what products contribute how much recycled contents, regional, etc.; and spec those. Contractor still must track and make sure they meet the minimums needed for the credits. What seems to happen in practice is a little of both simultaneously. Insufficient research is done during design on what products can meet the goals. (We're usually talking public work, so we need THREE that can do it.) Contractor's don't seem to be stepping up as they should and really figuring it out. (It has gotten better.) I think the contractors are in the best position to optimize the balance of costs and availability with the needs for recycled content, regionality, and FSC wood. On the other hand, sustainability advocates really want to put the detailed requirements into specification sections to make sure it really happens. I can sympathize with this instinct, though it means a high level of care to make sure the research is thorough. It seems to me this gives the implication to the contractor that the work is already done, and they don't really have to monitor it that closely. Leading, perhaps, to failing to achieve the needed results. How are you seeing projects specified, and more importantly, actually delivered? What is your opinion on the best way to specify? Jerry Tims AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 70 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 10:57 am:    So far our experience has shown that the contractor's willingness to cooperate in the LEED process has a huge impact on the success or failure of the job. Case in point. We currently have 2 LEED jobs under construction. The LEED related specs (both front-end and individual sections) are practically identical on both projects. On one of the projects, we've had a heck of a time getting the contractor to even provide the required LEED submittals on a timely basis, much less getting them to do the research they need to do to ensure the product selections meet the stated LEED requirements. The other project has proceeded incredibly smoothly. These jobs were our first 2 LEED projects, and obviously we've learned a lot in the process. However, it's pretty amazing how differently those 2 projects have progressed considering that the primary difference between the two (in terms of LEED) is the contractor. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 192 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 11:11 am:    John, I recently attended a CSI Institute Webinar (March 5/09) titled "Writing Sustainable Design and LEED Construction Specifications." I am able to share the PowerPoint presentation and other webinar documents if you so wish. It was a very good webinar. E-mail me at wayne.yancey@callison.com Wayne Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 863 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 12:12 pm:    Having worked with a couple of contractors willing to be part of a team approach to LEED®, I'm convinced that is the answer. And these contractors stated that it's not so much additional work and effort as it is a DIFFERENT work process and effort, but one that they are willing to do because they believe in the end result. I suggest meeting with the GC/CM as early as possible and explaining the goals to make them understand what you're trying to achieve. If they are not willing to grasp that intent, you'll have a battle. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEEDŽ-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 192 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 - 12:55 pm:    Tying LEED documentation to monthly pay apps tends to help. Masterspec has come around to putting it in the schedule of values now, but it still could be mentioned again as an item to submit for payaps with a cross reference to 018113. I have done that where allowed (assuming it won't fly on design/build where we are working for the GC though). It seems to help a lot. This might seem cruel but it is really a protection for the GC, and they should thank you in the end - it is nearly or completely impossible to collect the documentation from subs and suppliers at the end of the project, but much easier to do it in unison with the purchasing of products, services, and disposal trips. Contractors experienced with LEED tend to prefer to manage regional/recycled/etc as methods and means, and this works much better for us too - especially if doing design/build on public projects. That is less likely to work on design/BID/build on public projects though - you never know who you will get to work with, and it is an enormous burden to attempt to fully document from all 3+ mfrs for every product with pre- and post-consumer while still in design and material cost and total material cost is very fuzzy. Then it is probably better to rely on Division 01 more, and harp on it during prebid and at project meetings that as stated in Division 01 the GC needs to choose how to meet the LEED credits indicated even though certain materials may have minimum percentages, not to imply that those are the only ones to meet. However you'd better at least be sure not to hope for credits that don't jive with the design, for example banking on high recycled content from a building that is all wood. I find it helpful to list applicable LEED requirements in each section but leave it to the GC to choose how to meet them, and tie it back to Division 01. The subs and suppliers will not be in the dark then, and the GC will not miss out on opportunities to have high recycled content where they need it - and they know how to maximize their dollars better than anyone else can. I avoid getting extremely specific in the technical sections though. For example, why should we say MR Credit [4.1] [and 4.2] or [5.1] [and 5.2] - Seems much better to just say MR Credit 4 or MR Credit 5, and cross reference the LEED Checklist in Division 01. It already says which level of recycled or regional we are going for. If that changes during design I don't want to track that down in every section. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEEDŽ-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 197 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 03:05 pm:    I should clarify that when it comes to technical sections with do or die requirements, like many in the EQ category, I do get very detailed about spelling those out in the specifications. It is only the ones that are cumulative, such as recycled and regional, that I am suggesting the LEED-experienced GC maybe should be given some "methods & means" leeway for.