The First Time

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 983 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 08:20 am:    Suddenly!!! The client is interested in LEED. Site package has been issued! Too late? Who is best to run the LEED show-- one of our LEED AP's or a consultant? Should we base our specifications on the advise of that constulatnt [if used[ or just strike out on our own [and hope!]? How long to produce first LEED/green spec???? Client wants production in January 2010. Sorry, need good quick answers Jerry Tims AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 71 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 08:31 am:    It's never too late.....well, sort of. But it's certainly not too late just because the site package has been issued. It sort of depends on the level of certification the client wants to attain. Our LEED APs run the show. I'd recommend using a consultant. 'Nuff said! As Yoda once said..."A LEED AP does not a qualified show runner make." In fairness to the LEED APs though, like anyone (including the LEED consultants), there is a considerable learning curve....and expense associated with "the first time". Same thing applies to writing LEED specs (in my humble opinion). There's a plethora (just thought of that word!) of "LEED spec info" out there....some of it really good, some of it crap (again, my opinion). And like I said in another thread, regardless of what the drawings or specs show, the degree of LEED success is very very dependent on the contractor being on board. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CCS Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 60 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 08:31 am:    Ralph - I have found that it is never to late. It just may cost more. I also believe that we as architects are best suited to run the show, and to often have been willing to pass off opportunities for responsiblity (and fee) to those willing to jump in. The biggest hurdle at this point in the game is commissioning. It is suppose to start at the DD phase. I have found that if you get an independant CX to do the review ASAP AND incorporate their comments into the documents, then this full fills the intent of the credit. Good Luck, Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEEDŽ-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 193 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 08:49 am:    Need to make sure they haven't totally blown any prerequisites - see the LEED Checklist. My friend Joel's Real Life LEED blog covered this topic very comprehensively and accurately in an entry a few months ago, as our firm has had several occasions where clients have asked us if a retro-LEED approach was possible. Often it is, at some greater expense, but there are also some times they've totally killed it. Many readers offered some additional comments - would be worth a Google search. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 871 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 03:31 pm:    its not too late, but you may need to retrofit the site package for retention ponds and some such things. if you don't have anyone in the office who has really "done" a LEED package, I would suggest having a consultant for this go-round and have your LEED AP guys shadow them. the consultants should be experienced enough to help determine what LEED points are feasible, and which points are less so, and help to strategize the project. As for the specs, the LEED AP folks are no more likely to know anything about specs than any other architect (and in some offices, considerably less, since in many offices, it is the much younger staff taking the LEED exam), so as the specifier, you will need to vet any suggested products for your office standards of performance. there have been numerous discussions in this forum about the usefulness of Masterspec for LEED projects. I've used the language successfully for as long as its been in the sections with no problems in the field. there are others on this forum who disagree. However, the Masterspec language at least will provide you with a sense of what to do and how to address the issues. in terms of learning curve -- there is one for the first few projects and then the issues become second nature. there is a cost associated with the submittals, and tracking of the data, and someone will have to absorb that. I'm in favor of the contractor doing it, but not all agree. Also, make sure the contractor is on board -- as you'll see from other posts, if the contractor is disinterested, it will take a lot more time on your end to verify and supervise what has been done. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 194 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:28 pm:    Posting to the USGBC website as the construction progresses is an integrated team effort. No one party is responsible for all postings. The LEED checklist should be expanded to flush out the responsible party or parties. Some credits are shared. At the end of the day, the GC is responsible for approximatley 12 credits. The remaining credits are shared or divided up among the GC/CM, A, Civil, and MEP. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 984 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 07:15 am:    I perceive LEED procedures as a scope issues on the project. BSD uses spec Section in the 013500 range for Special Procedures [MF04 lingo] which seems remote and misnamed; MasterSpecs uses the 018100 series of Sections which seem too removed from the scope Sections but are titled for Sustainability [per MF04]. Any right; any wrong? Thoughts: Can we use added Sections under 011000 to make the LEED info closely located to our otherscope information? Advisable or dumb? Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEEDŽ-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 195 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 08:00 am:    The processes involved to construct for LEED certification are both procedural and performance related. In their choices of location for this section, BSD has choseon to emphasize the procedural aspect of it, and Masterspec emphasizes the performance aspect. Personally I wouldn't want to split it up into multiple spec sections to assign scope, normally don't touch scope with a 10' pole because it is the GC's bailiwick per A201, and it would just create unnecessary work for the A/E. However, LEED does seem to deserve and maybe even require at least some assignment of duties so it will be clear who is doing what, if a project is too complex to just go by a rule of thumb like which ones are "design phase" credits vs. "construction phase" credits in the Reference Guide. On one recent project we added a column to the LEED checklist (attached to 018113) to show which entity would take primary responsibility for each credit. This was a design build project with an experienced GC, so it was not a problem to develop consensus on this and include in the specs without intruding on the GC's role of assigning scope. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 324 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 05:56 pm:    The hidden advantage of attempting LEED certification for a project is the degree of collaboration that is required. The less experience the team has the more collaboration is needed. This is a good thing. All too often, design teams familiar with a particular building/use type (a school, spec office building, etc.) will blow and go using the assumptions embedded in the group memory. This is not necessarily a bad thing, except some of the assumptions are outdated and should be reexamined. I am mindful of a design guideline I received from a client several years ago that insisted on plywood with DFPA markings on all plywood. I had to delve quite deeply (thank goodness for the internet) to find that the Douglas Fir Plywood Association had not existed since the mid-1960s--It was going to be very hard to get that done. I am somewhat surprised that the design guidelines I recently received from that client do not contain this requirement along with one for FSC wood. The inertia of group memory can be difficult to overcome especially if the group has produced a number of successful projects. Because LEED certification is not simply a design issue or a contractor issue (or even a LEED consultant issue much as they think it should be), people on the entire building procurement team must talk about this. I have been involved with a few projects where the Owner decided to go for LEED certification late in the game. It can be done, and it may require a significant degree of redesign if you want to go much beyond basic certification. I have also had to explain the concept of "prerequisites" to team members--these are not optional credits; they are do it or no certification. I believe that LEED certification does result in better buildings, but I also believe that this may be in large part to the collaboration required.