| Author |
Message |
Ann Baker (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 04:30 pm: |    |
I'm trying to get a grip on the difference in cost - read, time involved - for producing construction documentation for LEED projects as opposed to non-LEED projects, specifically the Project Manual. Any of y'all have an idea? I'm told that it shouldn't cost any more than any other project of similar scope, but it seems to me that basic coordination alone will add 40 hours of work, and if the specifier is doing the research associated with verifying that products or systems will contribute to LEED points and the certification effort then I'd add another 40-60 hours. Or am I just in "panic" mode because I've only just now become involved with this? Any thoughts? Anyone? Anyone? |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 427
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:00 pm: | |
Ann,
The first time I did a LEED certified project which including going from 0 documents related to LEED in my master to the finished product for that job as well as creating files and updates to files for my master (which included creating 4 new Division 1 sections, modification of another division 1 section and inserting language for recycle, voc and local fabrication into many other secctions did not take a total of 8 hours. That is 8 hours for the job related requirements AND setting up new and revised master files combined.
For jobs since then, I don't factor in any additional time for a LEEDs project. Oh, maybe it might result in close to an hour of additional time, but it would take me more effort to log and quantify it than to actually perform it. Thus I see nothing additinal for it.
For any project, first time through 10th time through, the Architect or Owner needs to have a LEEDs consultant. They even get a point for having a LEEDs certified consultant, so why not.
One of the responsibilities for doing that individual is providing or editing the new and revised Divsion 1 sections, providing the language for recycle, voc and regional fabrication. You are not the LEED certified person for the job, so the Architect or Owner must produce one. Those documents, and the specific wording for others as well as which sections the recycle/voc/regional wording is to be placed are all under his control much as structural sections 'belong' to the structural engineer. To put it all on you is no different than to state that they want you to provide the structural sections because they don't have a structural engineer. You may have structural sections in your master, but are you going to assume the liability?
There is no basic difference.
If for some reason the owner (or architect) has a LEED consultant but his contract does not include responsibility for these sections, then that is like the Owner have a contract for geotechnical for soils reports only and where the structural engineer is not responsible for earthwork. Are you going to write the earthwork (footings, foundations, compaction, soil retention) just because the Owner or Architect has not structured the resonsibilities of other contracts correctly? Not likely.
I only add that as a worse case scenario. I have worked with maybe 6 or more different LEED consultants on a whole number of projects over the past several years. I have found all of them more than willing to provide the documents themselves as well as the language and what sections (after they review your table of contents and maybe a draft after that).
Best yet is that in each and every case, not a single one of them has been a specifier (certified or not) and not one has been a CDT. Why is this a 'best yet' situation? Because they have been more than willing to provide their documents and wording and have you rework it to your liking. Some of their wording has been very strange (like, "the contractor shall make ever effort to comply with ..."). They want their work critiqued - and those we have worked with had no problem providing the documents to us even for future use. In turn, I offer them back electronic versions of how we issued them for their future use. Everyone benefits.
So first time through, I was fixing language. Second time through with a different consultant, I was providing him sections to mark up and return for my editing. Boy was that person happy. They in turn provided input that put another light on the subject so I again modified based on his edits and returned it to them. Very happy.
Later, the first one came around again, he got to edit my sections rather than write his own.
Each time both specifier and LEED consultant has benefitted.
So, create a game plan, but don't panic.
William |
Helaine K. Robinson CCS
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 184
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 11:06 am: | |
There is a huge amount of time and energy spent acquiring documentation from manufacturers and contractors during construction administration.
The following article in the July issue of The Construction Specifier was written by Mr. Len Harding CSI, CDT, LEED-AP of GBBN Architects & Cincinnati Chapter CSI:
Specifying LEED Under Public Bid Rules
http://206.112.82.159/s_csi/docs/11200/11119.pdf |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 32
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 03:17 pm: | |
I have 3 LEED registered projects under my belt. The most significant effort during DD and CD phases was meetings with the GC, our PM, LEED Consultant, M/E reps, Owners rep, and others deciding what is achievable, maybe achievable, and not achievable and attaching probable costs (significant thinking time). The actual production time for creating LEED specs (Divisions 01 to 14) was not significant but additional time is requried. 24-40 hours does not seem unreasonaable but I cannot backup this with hard numbers. Most of my spec sections employed LEED strategies before LEED became fashionable. Trying to be a good environmental citizen. Many products conformed to LEED strategies by default, such as batt insulation and gypsum board. AIA MasterSpec took alot of the trial and error out of the process.
The point for LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL can be any LAP on the team, not necessarily a third party consultant. That said, it was much easier to work with an LAP who had been there and done that more than once. The consultants in my region where in on the ground floor of the USGBC and LEED.
Wayne |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 428
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 04:42 pm: | |
All,
In all of the projects we have done to date, there is zero effort during the CA portion of the project. In every case, the scope of the LEED consultant included the collection of the LEED related submittals and everything else to do with them. And in talking with them, they have all indicated that as far as they were concerned, this was common practice.
What I have in my basic submittal section is a specific requirement related to the LEED submittals that they all be transmitted such that any package being sent includes ONLY LEED related submittlas and no other submittals, and that the outside of the package be clearly labeled 'LEED Submittals'.
That was in case they were submitted directly to us. However, during the preconstruction meetings so far, I think all but one of them have worked out so that these are sent directly to the LEED consultant with a copy of the transmittal to the Architect.
Regarding 'any LEED accredited professional', that may be true, but here in our area, the Owner's are using independent consultants. That may be driven largely by the current (though it evolves and changes) by one of the jurisdictions which has a large part of the new development taking place in it having their separate requirement that any LEED project, or any new project (since all are required to negotiate some minimal level of points with the county), the LEED Professional doing the accumulation of submittals must NOT be anyone on any firm of the design/production team or the contractor's employment or consultant.
William |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 06:55 pm: | |
No one has mentioned the fees charged by USGBC to register and certify the project. Although these are, in my view, reasonable, they will be in the thousands of dollars and are project overhead.
Commissioning will be another added cost. Basic commissioning is a prerequisite, more complete commissioning will earn a credit toward certification. Usually this is not something that a LEED consultant will be able to do. This can add as much as 1% of the construction cost to the total professional fee (usually, I believe this is on the lower side of 0.5%).
A full ASHRAE 90.1 simulation and analysis is something not done for smaller projects although it is my understanding that most of the software used by the MEP folks has some of this built-in. I have been told that this effort starts at $15,000 and goes up depending on the complexity of the building. Again, this is a prerequisite.
I would say that on a $10 to $20 million building, additional fees for USGBC, commissioning, and MEP can run in the $50 to $100 thousand range. This does not include the administrative costs of documenting compliance and assembling the package to submit to USGBC. A building in the $4 to 5 million range will probably cost more than 1/2 of that.
Of course, none of this includes increased construction cost for "green products" that are actually incorporated into the project. Although I don't have the experience that many of you have, I have suggested to people that responsible design teams should be producing projects capable of meeting standards for basic certification without incurring any significant additional cost for materials. |
Helaine K. Robinson CCS
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 185
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 09:41 am: | |
I am surprised by William Pegues' comment because (on the one project we did) I was the one who had to chase the contractors and the manufacturers asking for submittals/additional information during CA. There WAS a LEED consultant but he didn't do that. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 33
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 11:18 am: | |
I echo William's experience during CA with the LEED consultant managing LEED submittals, but for a fee.
In my region, the AHJ did not mandate an independent 3rd party LAP for the 3 registered projects I was involved with. We used a LAP consultant because we had zero LEED projects in the portfolio at that time.
Commissioning beyond prerequesite commissioning was not achieved for the cost reasons highlighted by unregistered guest.
FYI, my first LEED project was part of the pilot program for SHELL AND CORE and subsequent TI. Projects 2 and 3 were also shell and core. Commissioning beyond what is required for shell and core (the prerequesite) was not included in the point total.
Wayne |
Helaine K. Robinson CCS
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 186
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 12:55 pm: | |
Ah, but for a fee! |
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 224
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 12:56 pm: | |
Our office (we have done multiple LEED projects, including a LEED Platinum and several Golds) budgets anywhere from 40 to 240 hours for our LEED coordinator on the job. This person does product research, coordinates locations of products to meet the 500 mile radius, and meets with our consultants and works out project strategies. So.. that's one cost.
Invariably, our contractors are coming back to us saying that on their end, it is costing them 75% of a full time person: either one FTE for 75% of the project, or 75% of a person for the full project. That means on their end, we're talking about $50,000 minimum in personnel costs. Our project costs are a minimal upcharge -- 3% or so. However, the Owner will be paying about $50,000-$100,000 in administrative costs to have the project administered correctly. |
Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS
Senior Member
Username: dbrinley
Post Number: 45
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 01:24 pm: | |
Anne, that's our experience also.
FYI participants in this thread - USGBC did a study in finalizing LEED-NC Version 2.1 and determined Silver was +2.1%, Gold +1.7% and Platinum +6.5% additional to the cost of construction over a 'non-sustainable' building of the same size and type. These are cost of construction impacts - not 'soft costs' such as design fees, etc.
The explanation as to why Gold cost less than Silver was that the design team tended to approach the Gold levels more directly - but I think a better explanation is that the Owners contributed more points to those projects.
Platinum was higher because the available points became more significant; but also because technologies necessary to get more than 52 of the 69 points were (are) expensive.
One of several reports. (The reports I've read are so close to each other they may be reporting on the same basic data).
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/greenbuilding/Design/ManagingCost.pdf |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 34
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 03:56 pm: | |
As described in the Managing Cost report highlighted by Doug in the previous posting, one project suffered from mid-stream attempts to incorporate green. Should we or shouldn't, in again/out again, as the project went from DD to CD.
Another issue encountered, was attidude of management. They did not take the LEED concept very seriously at first and considered LEED more as a marketing ploy. Looks good on the resume.
Another influencing factor was the number of participants in the decision process that had different agendas. It became hard to come to consensus.
Wayne |
|
4specs.com Home Page