CI 2009 MRc3.2: Materials Reuse—Furniture and Furnishings

Pamela,

I have not worked with this form before, but I assume you're working on the LEED-online v3 form for this credit? 

If so there are a few things you could try:

If there is any part of the form that does not apply to you make sure you're putting zeros or n/a in those parts. Sometimes a form will not show up as complete unless there is a zero in every unused space.

If that doesn't work:

What version of the form are you using? If it's before v3 then it's a beta version and they sometimes have bugs. You could try upgrading the form, but you will have to re enter any data that is non one-to-one, so make sure you save everything.

Good luck!

I thought I was in LEED V3 forms, but I'll double check - I appreciate the input!

Hi Rebecca,

Yes, you can use this credit as an ID credit. Though I'm not sure if you will be required to include furniture in your other MR credits. 

Rebecca, I believe I have heard from other projects that they did have to include furniture in the other MR credits in this situation.

And as an alternative to 'gifting' the furniture to another corporation for their use as furniture, just in case there is some furniture that does not fit into the plans of the other corporation, what if our client puts this furniture into storage to be used in a future project? Does this portion also qualify for MRc3.2 credit calculation purposes? (I thought I read this somewhere before but I am unable to find that comment again.)

Thanks.

Raymond,
If I understand you correctly you are asking if the furniture your project donates to another project can be included in your project's calculations for MRc3.2. In this case you cannot claim material reuse for furniture you donate but you can include it in your MRc2 Construction Waste Management calculations as diverted from the landfill.

To get credit for MRc3.2 you would have to be using any 're-use furniture' in your own project.

Reynaldo - From the sound of comment you're good to count the reused furniture for MRc3.2. However, you cannot count the furniture for MRc2 (either for or against you) since it is furniture being reused as furniture. Read the last paragraph above under Construction Waste Management.

Could I get a clarification on the comments to this question "50% Furniture Used at Another One of Our Offices".

Reynaldo, are you asking about the 50% of furniture that is moved to another site or about the 50% of furniture that will be reused at the same site after completion of the project?

Susie, is your response that they could count both 50% and 50% reuse towards the MRc3.2 credit calculation? And to confirm my understanding of not qualifying for MRc2, is that the furniture is not going to be reused for 'another' purpose.

Thanks.

I understood that Reynaldo was pursuing LEED CI for his office renovation and would be reusing 1/2 of the furniture that is currently there in the renovation and the other 1/2 of the furniture would go to a new (but existing) office that is not seeking LEED certification. The furniture that is being reused in the office being remodeled (and seeking certification) would count for MRc3.2. The furniture that is leaving the office being remodeled to go to their other office would count for MRc2 as it is being diverted from the landfill ,but that half of the furniture would not count for MRc3.2 in the remodel project as it is not being re-used in the project seeking LEED CI.

Clear as mud, right?

Yes. You need to provide a cost to refurbish existing furniture as well as a cost to provide that furniture as new in todays market prices. The larger of the two numbers should be attributed as the product cost for both the furniture reuse, as well as the other cost related MR credits. Though re-used furniture wont qualify for recycled content, it will contribute to regional distance. The template should extract the reused cost from the recycled content credit so it does not negatively affect your calculations.

i think the distinction is relative to reusing them for the same purpose in the same location. If that's the case, they would qualify as built-in case goods for interior non-structural components.

The reference guide says, on page 234, that refurbished materials such as a door that has been converted into a table, can count toward this credit or MRc3.1 but not both. So, based on that I would use it in my project. If it makes or breaks your ability to earn the credit test in out in MRc4 for recycled content and see how it contributes there. Where do you get the greatest benefit? Just remember you can only use it in one or the other, not both.

We're already got all reclaimed millwork for MRc3.1, so it'll definitely go toward the furniture goal. Could this fit into MRc4 as you mentioned? Reclaimed wood seems more like reused than recycled, although the parts are reshaped and finished to make the tables. Thanks again!

I believe you could. Of course that doesn't mean your review team will agree with me in the end. If you're not really able to claim it under MRc3.2, then it stands to reason that you deserve to be able to count it for MRc4 - and that follows the rule of not counting it in both.

If the table tops only are reclaimed but you have a 'new' base, enter it as one product, calculate the weight of the components and claim 100% post consumer on the portion of the table tops.

We included re-used exam room tables in a medical office building T.I. and the documentation was accepted. These are somewhat similar to hospital beds.

I guess you're right. The definition of reused material or reused furniture is different from the definition of recycled content, therefore you cannot use your reused furniture for credit 4, but you have to include them in your materials cost.

Since the furniture is actually reused it stands to reason that you wouldn't also be able to call it recycled. I think this is inherent to the definition of 'reused' and 'recycled content'.However, it can contribute to MRc5.

Since the cost of all furniture has to be used in the Div 12 number it stands to reason that the reused furniture replacement value would be included. The key is perhaps in identifying the replacement value.

I have completed this credit previously under the CIv2.0 system. You are correct in that reused furniture cannot contribute to MRc4 but it should not hurt your application for that credit. Previously I documented the credit by excluding the re-used furniture cost from the MRc4 template as directed by my projects review team. Now with the project cost reading from multiple credit templates it is more difficult to manually remove this value from only the MRc4 form. I would suggest following the aternate form of compliance and submitting supplementary calculations to illustrate credit compliance.

Thanks Anthony. You have described my exact issue here. Is there a way we can alert the GBCI to the problem so that they can fix their Credit Form?

Anyone tried sending them a feedback request through LEED Online? I have heard that they are responsive to this kind of request.

Like Lauren, I am also in the middle of this scenario for a current v2009 project. I posted a feedback query yesterday and will report back on the reply here. My plan though is to submit my calculations separately as opposed to trying to "back door" the form. I do not think that this is an issue they addressed in the beta forms yet as it is not a scenario often implemented. I think there is a lot of work to be done on the cost credit forms MRc3,4,5,6, & 7. The interface is very clunk and laborious.

After looking into this further I have also submitted a feedback request for this credit. This will be my first time documenting it under v3 so I looked back and found that, as Anthony stated above, this is an issue for everyone since the form updates have not addressed this. I will also post the response I get here. In the meantime, I will also submit separate calculations showing MRc3.2 costs subtracted from Div 12 costs.

Well, here it is:
"Yes, the value of reused materials is subtracted from the total materials cost for MRc4. The beta version of this form has two major problems; one is that it does not subtract the reused materials value from the total material cost for MRc4, and the other is that the tables are not linked as there were intended to be. There are new forms available for upgrade that have fixed both these issues. You have two choices to document points for MRc4. Either fill in the table in the current form and then submit correct credit calculations in special circumstances, or upgrade all the MR forms and re-enter the material data.

If you choose to keep the forms you have, you would select special circumstances and state that there is an error in the form and the value of reused furniture is not subtracting from the total materials cost for MRc4. This is a known issue the reviewers are familiar with.

If you choose to upgrade your MR forms, both of the tables will link across MR3.2, 4.1, and 5. Although you would lose the data entered in the table currently you would only have to re-enter it once."

Wow, thanks a lot Anthony!

Anyone know how long it takes between when you submit your request for new Credit Forms and you see your new Credit Forms for your project on LEED Online?

I just followed their protocol but am wondering how long I should tell my project team from entering anything on LEED Online?

https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co...

I received an email notice that my LOv3 forms were updated within a couple days.

It's worth noting that the original ID+C Reference Guide text did not indicate that the MRc3.2 costs were to be excluded from MRc4, but that the 4/14/2010 addenda made it clear that this is indeed the case (revisions to pages 241 and 249). This underscores the importance of reviewing the current Addenda for any project you are documenting. Current Addenda available at:

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6394

I think it would be reasonable to write a narrative explaining your strategy and upload that in place of the cutsheets. To minimize the chance of being second-guessed by the reviewer, it might help to provide some additional documentation that helps verify your story, whether photographs, part of the contract, drawings, specifications, work order, memo, or anything that indicates this is what's being done.

You can always use the check box and narrative at the end of most letter templates that indicates an alternative compliance path when your project doesn't exactly fit what the letter template is requiring.

If you hover your mouse of the 20% Cut *** column in that template it notes that the column isn't applicable to MRc3.2, only MRc4-7. If for 7, then an invoice must also be included.

Hope that helps.