Documenting this credit can take time, since cost and exact percentages of post- and pre-consumer materials must be collected for each recycled item used.
LEED requires the base materials budget to be consistent across all MR credits. The LEED Online credit forms help provide consistency across MR credits by applying the same data to multiple credits. Materials used to earn this credit cannot also be counted for MRc3: Materials Reuse, nor for MRc7: Certified WoodWood from a source that has been determined, through a certification process, to meet stated ecological and other criteria. There are numerous forest certification programs in general use based on several standards, but only the Forest Stewardship Council's standards, which include requirements that the wood be tracked through its chain-of-custody, can be used to qualify wood for a point in the LEED Rating System., but they can contribute to MRc5: Regional Materials and MRc6: Rapidly RenewableTerm describing a natural material that is grown and harvested on a relatively short-rotation cycle (defined by the LEED rating system to be ten years or less). Materials.
The 10% point threshold is easy to achieve for this credit, especially if your project has a lot of concrete or steel. There is also an increasing number of products on the market that have recycled content, making the 20% threshold achievable for some projects. Concentrate on buying “big ticket” items with high recycled content levels. Depending on the building construction, you will generally get more (due to a higher cost) out of tracking the recycled content of concrete and steel over lower cost items like tile.
Analyze your budget early in design to help inform which materials are more important to specify as having recycled content, this is dependent on your project construction type. Doing your homework early can prevent costly change orders during construction. Big-ticket products that often have recycled content include steel, drywall, insulation, ceiling tiles, concrete, VCT, commercial carpet, and composite substrates.
Recycled content can be pre-consumer (also known as post-industrialRefers to material diverted from the waste stream during a manufacturing process. Excluded from this category is reutilization of materials such as scrap that are generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed within the same process. Generally synonymous with "pre-consumer."), or post-consumerWaste generated by end users (households or commercial, industrial and institutional facilities) of a product no longer able to be used for its intended purpose that is recycled into raw material for a new product.. These are valued differently in LEED calculations. Pre-consumer content is worth 50% of its cost value, while post-consumer is worth 100%.
DPost-consumer plastic being collected for recycling.on’t assume that because an item has recycled content you can count the whole cost of that item towards the credit—the value contributing to the credit equals the percentage of recycled content times the value of the material. (See the Recycled Content Assembly Calculator in the Documentation Toolkit.)
People sometimes confuse recycled content material with material reuse and with construction waste management, but they are different:
Recycled Content material, covered in MRc4, has reused content as a result of the industrial process of making the product—for example, recycled-content carpet may be made of recycled plastic bottles.
Material Reuse, covered in MRc3, is the use or repurposing of material from a previous place or role—for example, buying antique wood doors salvaged from an old church.
At this Denver building under construction, the raised floor panels being installed have recycled steel. Photo – YRG SustainabilityConstruction Waste Management, covered in MRc2, is the act of diverting materials from the landfill during the construction process by sending to a place where the material can be repurposed, such as a salvage yard or recycling plant.
Try getting clarification from the manufacturer. If you can’t get any further information, you should take a conservative approach and assume that it is pre-consumer.
LEED is very clear that no MEP or specialty items can be counted in the MR credit calculations. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that MEP items are very expensive relative to their weight, and including these materials skews the calculations and performance thresholds achieved. Also, LEED considers the performance of mechanical equipment paramount, and so consideration of these materials really falls under performance based energy and water credits.
Unless the manufacturer can provide more specific information, teams must use the lower recycled content value in the given range.
No. Per LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. #10246, recycled content claims must be specific to installed product. Average regional and national claims do not meet the credit requirements.
This Interpretation has been misinterpreted, however, to mean that recycled content figures must come from specific plants. That is not what USGBC intended. It is allowable to use a company- and product-specific national average, as long as the company has performed the necessary tracking to assure that that average is accurate at the product SKU level.
Yes. LEED Interpretation #10246 does not apply to steel and teams may still use the default value of 25% post-consumer recycled content. Many steel products have higher levels of recycled content, however, so it may be advantageous to track down product-specific recycled content information.
Site materials (31.60.00 Foundations, 32.10.00 Paving, 32.30.00 Site Improvements, and 32.90.00 Planting) that are permanently installed can be included in the MR credits. Just be sure that your material budget assumptions and material costs are consistent across MRc3, MRc4, MRc5, MRc6, and MRc7.
Based on review comments that LEED users have reported, LEED reviewers are on the lookout for inaccurate recycled content claims in cases where a manufacturer is claiming pre-consumer recycled content for scrap material that comes off the end of a product line, and is put back in to the same line. According to common definitions, this should not be considered recycled content. This practice is common with certain kinds of glass, and metals like aluminum. Keep an eye on your documentation and do your best to make sure it is valid. If you are asked to justify a specific claim, you could get more documentation from the manufacturer, or plan on having a cushion in your credit threshold.
No. MRc7 counts only new wood, and MRc4 counts recycled content, so there is no overlap in the credits. You must choose one credit, and not double-dip.
Yes, subject to any questions that may come up during a normal LEED review process.
Look at opportunities to use recycled content materials for the project’s potential “big ticket” items.
Big-ticket products that often have recycled content include: steel, drywall, insulation, ceiling tiles, concrete, VCT, commercial carpet, and composite substrates. There are more and more products in nearly every category that use recycled content as a way to help LEED projects earn this credit.
The decision to use recycled content material can help guide design decisions, such as using recycled-content steel framing instead of wood framing. However, only letting recycled content drive basic design decisions may be shortsighted and lead to tradeoffs with other credits, not to mention other environmental impact areas. Look for materials that contribute to multiple LEED credits.
This credit can often be achieved at no added cost, as there are many products with recycled content that building projects already use.
Use LEED point calculators built into online product catalogs such as those powered by ecoScorecard to streamline data collection and generate submittal documents:
Begin by creating a baseline materials budget. This is the total amount of money that will be spent on building materials. Use the Materials Calculator from the Documentation Toolkit to compile the baseline material list in a way that facilitates adding information on environmental attributes.
Your material budget assumptions and material costs should be consistent across MRc3, MRc4, MRc5, MRc6, and MRc7. The LEED Online credit form helps ensure this automatically.
In your materials budget include the material cost (excluding labor) of all construction items and Division 12: Furnishings. Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and equipment costs are excluded.
You must use the actual budget of all materials purchased in the above CSI categories. The default 45% materials budget option that is available for other rating systems is not available for CI projects.
The LEED-CI Reference Guide does not explicitly mention what CSI division items to include in your baseline material budget. Based on the NC, CS, and Schools rating systems you should include items as defined in CSI MasterFormat Divisions 3-10. Foundations and sitework don’t apply to most LEED-CI projects.
Include in your materials baseline budget, the material cost (excluding labor) of all items that apply under CSI MasterFormat 2004:
How do you know what amount of recycled content material you need to incorporate in your project? Look at the baseline materials budget. Determine how much you need to spend on recycled content materials to reach the credit thresholds. To earn one point, allocate 10% of your material budget; for two points, allocate 20%. Go through your project’s preliminary budget and identify which items could be purchased with recycled content, and what percentages of recycled content they can contribute. Do these items add up to the amount needed to get one or two points?
For some CI projects, like high-end office buildings, furniture costs can be equal to or greater than building materials. Choose furniture that helps the project gain multiple MR points—for example, the materials could be locally harvested and contribute to MRc5 while also having recycled-content materials contributing to MRc4.
Use your estimated budget as a guide throughout the project. Don’t fail to earn this credit because you waited until all the materials were purchased before calculating whether you used enough materials with recycled content to gain the LEED credit.
Research products by looking at product cut sheets and manufacturing data to see if a product contains recycled content. Often a product will appear to meet the credit requirements, but you'll need to ask for more specific information from the manufacturer—see the Documentation Toolkit for examples of this.
Instead of tracking recycled content in everything, focus first on big ticket items, materials like steel, drywall, furniture, and flooring to see if you get enough value to earn the credit. This approach allows you to Iimit the overall number of items you need to track and document, reducing contractor headaches. If big-ticket items are not enough, target a medium-priced item next, and so on, until you reach your goal.
A single product or material can contribute to multiple LEED credits. For example, a chair made locally, with urea-formaldehyde-free, recycled, composite wood contributes to MRc4, MRc5, MRc6, and IEQc4.4. Not all credits allow this double-counting. Materials counted here cannot also count towards MRc3 nor MRc7—although separate components within a product can. If a product has both certified wood and recycled content steel, for example, each component can contribute to earning the appropriate credit. Focusing on products and materials with multiple environmental attributes also can limit the overall number of items that must be tracked.
Don’t assume that because an item has recycled content you can count the whole cost of that item towards the credit—the value contributing to the credit equals the percentage of recycled content times the value of the material. Recycled content can be pre-consumer (also known as post-industrial) or post-consumer recycled content. These are valued differently in LEED calculations. Pre-consumer content is worth 50% of its cost value, while post-consumer is worth 100%. See the Documentation Toolkit for a Recycled Content Assembly Calculator. For example, if a piece of plywood costs $100, it has 40% pre- and 15% post-consumer content. How much of the total cost can be counted towards this credit?
Steel is a special case—all steel is made from recycled materials, and it is the only material for which LEED allows you to claim a default recycled content value (25% post-consumer) without providing any documentation. Some steel has 90% or more recycled content, however, so you’re better off documenting the actual amount if you can try to get documentation from your suppliers showing their post-consumer and pre-consumer recycled content.
Drywall can be specified with synthetic gypsum, which is a byproduct or removing sulfur from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, and counts as pre-consumer recycled content. Before using it, however, check to see if it made in your region because the environmental impact of trucking it long distances is likely far greater than any benefit of using it instead of natural gypsum. Either way, the paper facing on drywall is almost always entirely post-consumer recycled.
When a product is made of multiple components that have different recycling rates, note the following special considerations.
The cost value for the LEED calculation is determined by separating each component as a percentage of the total by weight, while accounting for the value of pre- and post-consumer recycled content. See the assembly example below, and a calculator in the Documentation Toolkit.
Request that manufacturers provide assembly information broken down by weight.
Using the project’s estimated budget early on to integrate materials with recycled content in the design and specs can help prevent costly change orders during construction.
Revisit your baseline materials budget as the design evolves to make sure the numbers remain accurate and that you remain on track to achieve your goal for the credit.
Research specific products. Incorporate recycled content product requirements into individual construction specification sections.
MasterSpec and the federal Whole Building Design Guide (see Resources) offer guidance and sample specification language on how to incorporate LEED specifications in construction documents.
Incorporating the LEED requirements directly on the drawings as well as in the specs is a good way to remind the contractor and subcontractors of the requirements.
Analyze the initial cost budget to know what materials the project can target and incorporate LEED requirement language accordingly into construction specs for those specific materials. The contractor will appreciate not filling out forms for materials that are not recycled, or that have so little cost value that it is a waste of time.
Whenever possible, designate in the construction specifications that contractors use specific sources you have verified as suppliers of recycled content items. This will help save research time for the contractors and ensure credit compliance.
Include submittal requirements within each targeted construction spec section and add general requirements to the Division 1 bid package. Include copies of any submittal documents that the subcontractors and general contractor may need to fill out.
The general contractor (GC) should be oriented to all LEED construction-related issues, such as IAQ management, low-emitting materials, environmental materials tracking tools, and construction waste management.
LEED documentation and materials tracking are usually the GC’s responsibility even though specific materials selection may have been already determined by the architect or designer.
The GC should hold an orientation meeting with the subcontractors to review the LEED responsibilities related specifically to their trades. This exercise helps to build trust and is crucial for obtaining buy-in from all participants in the process.
Give the GC and subcontractors the following tools to help them track materials data for all MR and IEQ credits. (See the Documentation Toolkit for access.)
Enabling coordination and communication among the GC, subcontractors and design team early in the process can minimize scheduling delays and pushback from subcontractors.
Before construction begins, research additional recycled product material availability, not already researched during the design phase to ensure that the project earns this credit. If product decisions are made after construction begins, there may be less time to carefully review data sheets and much greater risk of using a noncompliant product.
The contractor starts gathering and environmental data and cut sheets from subcontractors for approval.
The GC functions as the overall quality assurance provider for this credit. Responsibilities include conducting weekly reviews of subcontractor product submittals and tracking forms.
Review subcontractor product suggestions ahead of time to avoid the purchase of inappropriate materials and eliminate the need for costly change orders.
A master spreadsheet facilitates information collection for subcontractors, giving them a road map of exactly what types of information to collect for each product.
Assign a responsible party to input the subcontractors’ tracking forms into the Materials Calculator (see Documentation Toolkit). A LEED consultant or an administrative assistant in the GC’s office may be the best choice for this role.
Streamline documentation and research by taking data gathered from subs via the Environmental Material Reporting Form and transfer it into a master spreadsheet for all the items being tracked for each product across MR and IEQ credits. For example, you may need to ask the millworker for regional information for MRc5, recycled content information for MRc4, and information about adhesives installed onsite for IEQc4.1. If one spreadsheet collects all the data, it can streamline your documentation, associated research, and help with quality control. See the Documentation Toolkit for spreadsheets you can work with.
Breaking out specific materials costs (excluding labor) for construction materials that contribute to LEED credits is a requirement for LEED MR credits. Some subcontractors prefer not to do this because there are always hidden markups in the materials that subcontractors purchase at wholesale. However, you can simply include the product markup when breaking out a product’s material cost from installation and labor costs.
Transfer all the data collected in the Materials Calculator spreadsheet (see Documentation Toolkit) to the LEED Online form and upload the product cut sheets.
Only a random 20% sampling of product cut sheets need to be uploaded to LEED Online to document this credit.
Keep a list of sustainable materials used on the project so that operations staff can use these products for future renovations.
Develop recycled content material procurement recommendations into a purchasing policy. If pursuing LEED-EBOM certification, that would fall under MRp1: Sustainable Purchasing Policy.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors
To increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content materials, thereby reducing impacts resulting from extraction and processing of virgin materials.
Use materials, including furniture and furnishings, with recycled content1 such that the sum of postconsumer2 recycled content plus 1/2 of the preconsumer3 content constitutes at least 10% or 20%, based on cost, of the total value of the materials in the project. The minimum percentage materials recycled for each point threshold is as follows:
The recycled content value of a material or furnishing is determined by weight. The recycled fraction of the assembly is then multiplied by the cost of assembly to determine the recycled content value.
Mechanical, electrical and plumbing components cannot be included in this calculation.
Establish a project goal for recycled content materials, and identify material suppliers that can achieve this goal. During construction, ensure that the specified recycled content materials are installed. Consider a range of environmental, economic and performance attributes when selecting products and materials.
Lists of green, recycled content materials organized by LEED credit and CSI section.
The Steel Recycling Institute provides defaults for recycled content of steel based on furnace type.
MasterSpec offers guidance on incorporating LEED requirements into specifications.
Support on incorporating LEED requirements into specifications.
Teams can use this tool to track all materials across various MR and IEQ credits. It helps teams develop a roadmap of what information needs to be tracked for different products. It can also be used early on to create the baseline budget and ensure the products that are being used will apply to the various credit thresholds.
This is a materials tracking form that helps subcontractors record the environmental values of products they purchase. This can be distributed to each trade subcontractor and submitted to the GC for filing.
This is a VOC tracking sheet that helps subcontractors record the low-emitting qualities of the products they purchase and can be distributed to each trade subcontractor and submitted to the GC for filing. Use it specifically for earning low-emitting materials credits, but in conjunction with documentation for MR credits.
Use this spreadsheet to determine the value that a given material or assembly contributes to the recycled content calculations for this credit, based on the type of recycled content in the material or assembly, and the percentage by weight of the assembly that contains recycled content.
Look to product cut sheets like these for recycled-content information on products you're specifying or considering specifying. Note that while all three of these examples appear to contribute to MRc4, in all cases more information is needed from the manufacturer (see PDF annotations).
Use a letter like this sample to orient the contractor to their responsibilities for all MR and IEQ credits. This letter is an introduction that can be customized for the credits your project is pursuing.
Use this form to track your concrete mixes and their recycled content and distance to the manufacturing and extraction sites.
Documentation for this credit is part of the Construction Phase submittal.
How much recycled content should you look for in key building products? What other sustainability criteria apply? This sample sheet from a project shows how one team set guidelines for different product areas.
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each CI-2009 MR credit. You'll need to fill out the live versions of these forms on LEED Online for each credit you hope to earn.
Version 4 forms (newest):
Version 3 forms:
These links are posted by LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. USGBC has certain usage restrictions for these forms; for more information, visit LEED Online and click "Sample Forms Download."
I am working on my first LEED project so I apologize for this newbie question. on a 2009 CI project the subs have submitted invoices with a total bill with labor and materials as 1 line item.(no materials billing) They have filled out and signed the Environmental Materials Reporting form from LEEDuser, and provided cut sheets. My question: When submitting for LEED review should I submitt the invoice or should I just submit the Environmental Materials Reporting Form signed by the sub contractor?Thanks in advance for your advise.
Hi Shane - We were all there for our first LEED project so no worries about your question. My first question back to you is can you get the actual materials cost from your subs for the materials that have LEED MR attributes as indicated on the Environmental Materials Reporting Form? Since LEED-CI does not allow the use of the default 45% for material cost that is allowed in LEED-NC, you have to get these individual material prices in addition to the overall material costs. See Equations 1 and 2 and Default Materials Value in the MRc4 section of the LEED Reference Guide for Green ID&C.
Regarding your question, the backup you upload doesn’t have to back up the cost. It needs to support the environmental attribute claim (in this case, postconsumer or preconsumer recycled content). I would just upload the cut sheet they provide you and keep the other documentation (invoice and Environmental Materials Reporting Form for your records).
Thank you Michelle,--Yes, the subs have provided actual costs on the
Environmental Reporting Form (with a lot of encouragement of course).
I have one more question. How detailed should the breakdown be for similiar items that only vary in size or dimension..(other than wood products)? For example,our metal drywall studs and track have the same recycled content and manufacturing location, however some are 3-1/2" wide, 5-1/2" wide, some are radius pieces. Can all the metal stud and track be combined as one line item provided they have the same recycled and manufactring location?. Thank you again for your help and recommendations..
I am glad you have the actual cost - that is typically the hardest item to obtain...
You can easily group materials as you have described with the same recycled content and manufacturing location on a single line in the Materials and Resources calculator spreadsheet, which is used with v04 version and higher of the form and is uploaded to LOv3. You can also do this grouping on the v03 version of the form but I think the spreadsheet is a lot easier to update and edit than the form. Just give the line a descriptive name so you know what is included if there are any clarification requests. If you have the v03 version of the form and have not input a lot of information in already into it and other MR materials credits, consider having your project administrator upgrade the form(s) - https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co... and scroll down to How do I request a from upgrade?.
Several of the MR credits (3.1, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, and 7) rely on a "Material and Resource Calculator" spreadsheet to determine whether certain thresholds have been met, and this spreadsheet in turn relies on a user-input "Actual materials cost, excluding labor and equipment." My question is, how does one account for change orders in this "actual materials cost" figure? For example, if some doors are ordered and installed but then changed by the owner due to dissatisfaction with their appearance, should the total cost include only those doors finally installed or should it include both the cost of the initial doors and the cost of the final replacement doors?
Kevin - I advise the contractor to include the cost of change orders in the total cost used for the MR credits. In the situation you describe although the doors are included twice, I would still include the change order for the new doors because they are the ones that are included even though the original doors (and their non-use) are still part of the cost of the project.
Thanks, Michelle. If I'm to include the cost of the changed doors in this example, should I also include their environmental attributes (e.g., recycled content, certified woodWood from a source that has been determined, through a certification process, to meet stated ecological and other criteria. There are numerous forest certification programs in general use based on several standards, but only the Forest Stewardship Council's standards, which include requirements that the wood be tracked through its chain-of-custody, can be used to qualify wood for a point in the LEED Rating System. content)? This seems a slippery slope, where I would be including costs and attributes for materials not actually used in the final product. Or, alternatively, are you suggesting that the cost of the changed doors be included only in the final cost of the doors actually used (thus, effectively doubling the cost of the doors to account for the wasted materials)?
If the doors are not used in the project, then no - you shouldn’t count their environmental attribute(s). That is a slippery slope that you don’t want to traverse.
I was implying that you’d include the cost only of the changed doors in the total - in effect double counting the doors cost (original, unused and the new ones). Hopefully you can donate the original, unused doors and count the diversion as part of MRc2.
Where can I find the list of Divisions stating which materials are under which Divisions?
Please check out this post for information on CSI MasterFormat 2004 and materials in Divisions - http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc4?page=0#comment-38276.
I would like to know if water faucets, showers, and WCs are considered as toilet accessories under CSI division 10 or should they be considered MEP equipment and be excluded from MRc 4 and 5 calculations? Could the WC be considered to be furniture and be included consistently in MRc 3 through 7?
No and no. These items are plumbing fixtures. CSI and LEED are very consistent about that.
Thanks Susan for jumping in!
Johanna - The fixtures listed are specified in Division 22 and are not toilet accessories or furniture, and hence, they are excluded from the MR credit calculations.
I see that LeedUser has an assemblies calculator for MRc5, but there doesn't appear to be one for c4 - is that correct? I'm looking for something like the sample shown in the Reference Guide for this credit Table 2.
I don't think I'm going to get much out of the furniture for Regional (project's in Norway) but hoping I can for Recycled. The manufacturer has asked for a form to fill in, I can create one myself but was hoping there was one already made!
I do see the assembly calculator now but it doesn't exactly match the example in the reference guide. I suppose it'll be OK though.
Eric - Glad you found the assemblies calculator (called the Recycled Content Calculator) under the Documentation Toolkit tab. Even though it appears slightly different than the spreadsheet in the Reference Guide, the results are the same.
hand drier installed in toilets : should it be included in materials ? if yes under which CSI division it is mentioned
Usually it is specified in division 10 in toilet accessories.
In LEED NC there is an option to use default 25% recycled content for steel. Is this not applicabel to CI?
This should be acceptable across all LEED rating systems.
Adrienn - May I suggest checking the Reference Guide before posting a question here? Twenty-five percent post-consumerWaste generated by end users (households or commercial, industrial and institutional facilities) of a product no longer able to be used for its intended purpose that is recycled into raw material for a new product. recycled content for steel is spelled out as an acceptable default value on page 246 of the first edition of the LEED Reference Guide for Green Interior Design and Construction.
I recA Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) is a certificate representing proof that a given unit of electricity was generated from a renewable energy source such as solar or wind. These certificates are able to be sold, traded, or bartered as environmental commodities, where an electricity consumer can buy the renewable energy attributes of electricty to support renewable energy, even if they are consuming generic grid-supplied electricity that may be supplied by nonrenewable sources.'d product data for recycled content on the alum. frame stating material composed of 25% post-consumerWaste generated by end users (households or commercial, industrial and institutional facilities) of a product no longer able to be used for its intended purpose that is recycled into raw material for a new product. primary, and 50% post-industrialRefers to material diverted from the waste stream during a manufacturing process. Excluded from this category is reutilization of materials such as scrap that are generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed within the same process. Generally synonymous with "pre-consumer." scrap.
The sub only enter the 25% post-consumer on his worksheet, but not the 50% post-industrial scrap, is this correct? thank you
Lee, post-industrialRefers to material diverted from the waste stream during a manufacturing process. Excluded from this category is reutilization of materials such as scrap that are generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed within the same process. Generally synonymous with "pre-consumer." recycled content, also known as pre-consumer, can be counted at half of its value, according to LEED.
I'm working on a LEED CS project and a LEED CI project wich will be located in the LEED CS project. The LEED CS building is beeing designed now and the design of LEED CI is taking place simultaneously. The project owner who gave me the LEED CS asignment says that tenants floor system, false ceiling, interior walls, wall finishing etc will be included in the tenant lease and therefore it will be included in LEED CS since it's the owner who decides on materials etc. If the tenant wants another kind of flooring, another kind of false ceiling etc they will have to extend the tenant lease and it will cost them more. This is the tenant outfit according to the owner. The tenant and the owner will agree on the layout of the different levels togehter.
If the tenant spaceTenant space is the area within the LEED project boundary. For more information on what can and must be in the LEED project boundary see the Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs) and LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance. Note: tenant space is the same as project space. material (not furniture) is what the owner have decide and is therefore included in the lease and therefore in the LEED CS what kind of materials will be left to do a calculation of recycled content, regional materials, certfy wood? Can we get these credits?
Mathilda, I think the owner is incorrect. Even though they are specifying certain materials in the lease, if buying and installing those materials is in the CI scope of work and budget, then they fall into the CI realm for LEED.
Just to clarify, in LEED CI (based on both the materail data spreadheet available on LEED online & in the LEED CI reference guide v2009) it states furniture cost is to be included in our total material cost for the calculations, is this correct? Unlike LEED NC (and other systems) which gives you the option to include this CI states it has to be included. Again just looking for clarification or if any addenda has come out stating otherwise.
Thanks in advance
That's correct, Chris.
The only wiggle room you might have on this is if the furniture is clearly not included in the project team's scope of work, and is purchased by the owner through an entirely separate process. Even then, it's a bit dodgy. Generally, the furniture must be included.
we just received a review comment in reference to this--stating that 'no matter who specifies and provides them, all furniture and furnishings installed at the time of occupancy must be included in the calculations for LEED-CI projects.'
This is a little frustrating, because we considered this purchase outside of the Scope of Work of our project (Tenant Fit Out was provided by leasor for the leasee with little interaction), but I don't think they are giving any wiggle room here...
Taylor - The LEED Reference Guide for Green Interior Design and Construction states on page 208 (2009 version): "Regardless of who specifies or provides them, all furniture and furnishings in the project should be included in the calculations for LEED for Commercial Interiors. Unlike in other LEED rating systems, project team do not have the option to exclude certain materials (exception: MR Credit 3.1)." There's really no wiggle room that I can see based on that.
We are having lots of issues using the IDC Form that LEED provides, i.e., form not saving, formulas not working. Has anyone ever mimicked the IDC spreadsheet and created their own to upload to MRc4?
Sean, I have heard of people doing this, but I've been asking around for confirmation that it is readily accepted by GBCI... anyone?
I have had my own form for MR credits accepted in previous projects. However, last month, a review for a LEED CI project came back with the following comment for each MR credit:
'The LEED Materials and Resource Calculator has not been provided as required. Note that this calculator may be downloaded from the Credit Resources tab of this credit'
So, I today I planned to translate my entire excel spreadsheet over - line by line to their format. But the IDC June 2012 is difficult to work with - you need to know the totals before you start, there are hidden columns for subtotals that is not standard excel formatting, and formulas are not secure, so it's very easy to overwrite a cell accidentally without knowing. I also don't get 'sustainable materials' and 'total materials' - if this is supposed to be a check - it's silly - the only way you know 'total materials' is because you've entered everything as 'sustainable materials'. Unless you've used the default 45% - which in LEED CI - you cannot do.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that reviewers have a difference of opinion as to whether the official IDC Materials & Resources Calculator is required and this is causing a lot of headache and busy work - twice. Can LEEDUser get an official ruling - and can reviewers stick to it ?
Michele - When I met with someone from the GBCI Certification Team a few weeks ago in DC, she noted in passing that they expect the Excel version of their spreadsheets to be uploaded so that they know no formulas have been modified.
Could you just use their spreadsheet instead of translating yours? That’s what I decided to do. I know that it has been frustrating for me over the years to create resources and then have them replaced with official versions but put yourself in the reviewer’s shoes for a minute… Since an uploaded spreadsheet is required for this credit, wouldn’t you want it to be the one most projects are using. And the v4.0 version of the form is pretty explicit: “Download, complete and upload the Materials and Resource Calculator (found under "Credit Resources") to document sustainable criteria values for MR Credits 3-7. Upload L-10. Provide the complete Materials and Resource Calculator.”
Granted I haven’t worked with the ID&C Materials Calculator like I have with the BD&C one and it might not have been adapted correctly, which could be another source of angst.
But hopefully Tristan will see this forum and ask an official answer from GBCI or maybe someone from GBCI will answer directly. And take note of the “silly check” you mention and tell us what that’s about.
A project I just received review comments on included 20.81% recycled content (as determined the correct formula to calculate recycled $ value).
The review comments I received took no exception to the percentage claimed - and thus I should earn two points - but the comments state that I need to provide "manufacturer documentation for at least 20% of the compliant materials by value." To me, this means 20% of the 20%, they being the “compliant” materials.
I had thought I’d included ample backup, as I’d provided cutsheets for about 40% of the 20.81% in compliant materials.
What, exactly, are they looking for?
If 20.81% of the materials on the project were recycled, do they need 100% of those materials cut sheets? 100% of the compliant 20.81%? In this case, it would mean following up with a lot of vendors to get them to verify small quantities of material, break down assemblies, etc. It’s a lot of documentation to sift through and follow up on to get the last few percent. At this point, I’m pondering whether I just take 1 of my deserved 2 points to avoid the many hours of work.
I've never had review comments on this credit before. Any comments from the forum?
You definitely had the correct understanding -> you only need to provide manufacturer documentation for 20% of the compliant materials value and not 20% of all listed materials. I'm thinking that you might’ve gotten that comment due to one of the following common issues (apologies if none of these apply):
1) Did you make sure that you were providing documentation for 20% of the compliant value and not 20% of the listed materials? For example, if you had $10,000.00 worth of materials listed in the form and your MRc4 "Sustainable Criteria Value" is $2,000.00, you would need to provide manufacturer documentation for enough products/materials to verify compliance for at least $200.00 worth of that sustainable value. This is a fairly common issue as the IEQc4 credit 20% documentation minimum is based on the number of items; the MR credits 20% documentation is based on the sustainable value of all claimed materials. It can also be somewhat tricky to calculate as you need to be looking at the sustainable portion of the material and not the overall cost when determining the amount of manufacturer documentation to provide. For example, if your doors cost $100 and are composed of 50% post-consumerWaste generated by end users (households or commercial, industrial and institutional facilities) of a product no longer able to be used for its intended purpose that is recycled into raw material for a new product. recycled content, providing manufacturer documentation for that product would be equivalent to providing manufacturer documentation for $50.00 of your compliant sustainable materials value - not $100 ($100 door x 50% post-consumer recycled content = $50.00 MRc4 compliant value). This could be the reason you got that comment if you happened to provide documentation for lower-cost and/or less compliant materials as these materials would have a lower sustainable value to contribute towards your overall value…
2) Alternatively - did you make sure that the manufacturer documentation you were including/counting for that credit actually spoke to the requirements of that specific credit? Each MR credit requires that minimum 20% documentation level separately. This means that if a manufacturer statement only includes information regarding one MR credit and not another, the documentation would only qualify towards the 20% documentation minimum for one of the MR credits. For example, if you are providing a manufacturer statement that only includes information about the recycled content, that document would help you meet the documentation minimum within MRc4 but it would not help you meet the documentation minimum within MRc5 (regional materials). In the older versions of the Credit Forms, the manufacturer documentation information was all linked and so it may have indicated to you that you provided sufficient manufacturer documentation. However, when the reviewers were going through your documentation and looking specifically at what was provided that spoke to just the requirements of MRc4, for example, it may have been that there weren’t sufficient cut sheets to verify the 20% minimum documentation threshold for that specific credit.
3) Less likely but just to be safe – Did you make sure that the documentation was actually from the product manufacturer? Statements from the contractor/subcontractor are not considered to be sufficient to verify the claims. If some of your documentation happened to be statements from a contractor/subcontractor, those would automatically be excluded from the 20% minimum documentation threshold.
I definitely wouldn’t just take the 1 point as this could be a relatively easy fix depending on if any of the above issues are true. I’d recommend determining what your minimum sustainable value is that you need to meet with documentation for each MR credit you’re pursuing. Then double-check that the manufacturer documentation you provided for each credit actually includes information specific to how the product complies with that specific credit and then simply add more products/documentation until you make sure that you hit that minimum sustainable value for that specific credit. If you start with your higher-cost items and most-compliant products, you might not have to go through too many products to get to your minimum documentation threshold...
In general for clarity within the MR credits, I’d recommend that you upload a separate file (either combined pdf or zipped file) for each attempted MR credit which only includes documents which have the information relative to that credit (for example – if your door documentation talks to only recycled content, I would include that in the MRc4 documentation file but not in the MRc5 documentation file). Personally, I’ve found that helps me ensure that I have provided enough documentation for each credit separately without having to dig through a mess of uploaded cut sheets trying to figure out what demonstrate compliance with MRc4 vs MRc5 etc. and what value I've provided for each.
I'm using the "IDC Material and Resource Calculator (June 2012).xls" that's downloadable from the MRc4 Credit Resources page. I'm using it on a Windows machine with Excel macros enabled.
Somewhere along the line, it stopped calculating correctly (if at all). I noticed this prior to my initial project review submittal, when checking the boxes for "Certified WoodWood from a source that has been determined, through a certification process, to meet stated ecological and other criteria. There are numerous forest certification programs in general use based on several standards, but only the Forest Stewardship Council's standards, which include requirements that the wood be tracked through its chain-of-custody, can be used to qualify wood for a point in the LEED Rating System. Vendor Invoices." I had checked the boxes for 100% of of the invoices, but the Calculator only showed 11%. I went ahead and submitted my project for review anyway, along with a text document noting the oddity. I was granted the credit. Life was good.
But... in the MRc4 review comments, the reviewer wanted additional product cutsheets to be uploaded (the calculator was showing 13%). Today, I went ahead and checked enough boxes to put me well in compliance, but the Calculator still shows the same 13%.
I'm no Excel whiz (seriously), but I did download a fresh copy of the Calculator, clicked on the Cutsheet's cell, looked at it's formula, and then at the comparable cell in the completed spreadsheet. Both were similar (same basic formula, just a greater total number of rows in the one I've been working with).
I could just write them another "note" explaining the issue, but I'd prefer to have the thing just work.
Hi, I don't have that calculator handy to play with, but based on your description a possible cause that occurs to me is that the calculation in your form may not be including the additional rows you've added. Have you checked the calc to see if automatically extended to include all the relevant rows?
I have just received the final application review for a LEED CI v2009 project, and under the MRc4 & c5 the LEED reviewers stated:
“the Actual Materials Cost for Divisions 3-10, 12, 31, and 32 are equivalent to the costs of the materials listed within the form. It is inconsistent with industry norms for the materials listed for credit compliance to be a complete list of all materials used within the LEED-CI for Retail project. Therefore, it is unclear that the Actual Materials Costs include the costs of allmaterials associated with this LEED-CI for retail project as required.”.
I truly do not understand this review…isn’t it supposed to fill up the respective column of Materials and Resource Calculator form with all the materials cost which fall in the Divisions 3-10, 12, 31, and 32, and by doing this does it not make the Actual Materials Cost and the costs listed in the form equal?
Has anyone had this same issue? additionally does anyone know the difference between the Total Materials Cost and the Total sustainable materials cost (as showen in the form).
Here is an update regarding this subject. I submitted this question to the responsible LEED review team but their answer has left me even more confused: "The list of materials provided for credit compliance (Table L-3) must be a comprehensive list of all materials used on the LEED-CI project. This often includes materials that do not contribute towards credit compliance; for example, products that do not contain any recycled content and/or products that do not qualify as regionally extracted/manufactured. It is typical that the "Total materials cost" value exceeds the "Total sustainable materials cost" value. When these two values match, there is concern that some materials may have been left off the list of total materials used on the project. These credits are always reviewed on a case-by-case basis, so any particular project circumstances will be considered and should be described in a narrative as part of the Final Review."
The problem is that this is exactly what I've done before, but when I fill Table L-3 with data regarding ALL materials applied, the "Total materials cost" value we'll be ALLWAYS the same as "Total sustainable materials cost" value. Do you think that this can be a bug on the excel file OR am I doing something wrong?
You are doing something wrong. What you submitted for review essentially said to the GBCI that every single item put into your project has some recycled content. While that is possible, what the GBCI is saying back to you is 'we doubt it'. You need to prove that case or modify your sustainable materials cost.
Let's say that your project added a bathroom and the rest was office space. Do the ceramic tiles installed in the bathroom have recycled content? Does the paint you put on the walls have recycled content? Further, let's assume that the answer is no to both questions. Both products fall into Divisions 3-10 and both products would contribute to total materials cost. Because the tile and the paint do not have recycled content, they would not contribute to the sustainable materials cost. Therefore, total materials cost is a higher number than total sustainable materials cost. It sounds to me like you are saying that your sustainable materials costs is your project cost and doing all your calculations that way which is incorrect. You need to account for all materials in those CSI divisions.
first of all let me thank you for your answer.
I agree with every single line that you wrote and I can confirm that in the preliminary review for this process we filled in the table with all materials applied. This includes all materials that contribute towards credit compliance (i.e., structural steel) and all materials that don't (i.e., ceramic tiles). It seems to me that the problem is the way that the "material & resource calculator" (excel template provided in the resources section on "leedonline") is doing the calculation because by filling table L-3 with all materials applied will allways give as a result for "Total materials cost" (the template checks the value entered on "instructions sheet") the same value as "Total sustainable materials cost" (the template sums the value of all materials entered in table L-3). Can you please check the template? Thank you.
Are you relying on the total $ number that is at the bottom of the LO form (above the Sustainable Criteria percentage)? This does not calculate the total material cost - just the sustainable materials cost. The total cost figure is on page 1 of the form and isn't physically attached to the excel like table where you enter the materials. If you've entered all your materials into the excel like table, taken the total from that and put that number into page 1 where it asks for the 'actual materials cost' you have short circuited things.
I have the same exact review comment. I think I filled the form out in the same manner as Pedro, in that I listed all materials from divisions 2-10, 12, 31 & 32, whether they had any contributing value to recycled content or regional materials etc. or not. The "total actual materials and furniture cost" is in fact the same dollar value as the "total sustainable materials cost" because I listed ALL materials that were used for the required divisions. I am confused as to how this is incorrect. Should I remove the items with no contributing values from Table L-3 and just include their cost in the total actual material cost on page 1? Please advise.
I just found that there is an updated IDC Material and Resource Calculator (June 2012). I had used the July 2011 version when completing my documentation in May. I input my data into this calculator and it seems to be calculating properly. The only thing I did differently was not enter the materials that had no contributing values into Table L-3. The sustainable criteria value as percentage of total is now 97.91% as apposed to 100%.
I don't think anything has changed on the newer version of the IDC Material and Resource Calculator (June 2012). The calculator is doing the same calculations as the previous version. As long as I can tell, its what you've done differently this time (inputing only the data regarding materials that contribute towards sustainable criteria) that changed the end result. Have you already submitted your process to LEED and got feedback? I sent a question to my LEED review team a week ago but haven't got any answer yet. Regards.
I am extremely interested in the answer to this question, I am also including ALL materials in qualified divisions in my spreadsheet whether they have sustainable qualities or not as did Pedro and Marie. please advise.
I have not resubmitted yet as we are waiting on a response from GBCI on an unrelated issue. I am with Norma on this. In regards to Table L-3, I would still like someone to provide an official answer on whether we are to list ALL materials (for Div 03-10,12,31-32), or list only the materials that contribute to one of the MR credits. I am not sure that Susan Walter's response above really addresses this.
Thanks ~ Marie
Have there been any updates on this issue? We have had several projects come back with comments stating the same thing. Overall, it is very confusing. One of our pending projects is about to lose its Platinum status over what seems to be a simple spreadsheet error. The project modeled its submission on a previously accepted Platinum project.
Emily - I hope others in this comment string will chime back in if they have any answers and when you find out more you'll share the info.
However, in the meantime, I would advise you to contact GBCI directly - especially in your situation. GBCI has stated they want to be more available for questions and concerns and this sounds like it is affects many folks. I would go to http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que... and select Questions about Review Comments from the dropdown menu.
BTW - There is an August 2012 version of the BDC Materials and Resources Calculator but I see that they did not update the IDC one (latest is June 2012), which is the version I hope you are using.
Ok thanks. I believe the IDC version is the latest, and will verify, just in case. I have also suggested that we take each of the separate projects with the same problems to GBCI and get a direct response.
If no one else has an answer here by the time we get a response (if we get a response), I'll let everyone know what our outcome is.
Has anyone received a response from GBCI on this issue? I was about to e-mail GBCI, but thought I'd check here first...I'm beginning to add all of the interior finish materials to Table L-3 in the IDC Materials and Resource Calculator, but I am unsure whether to include all materials or just the materials that can contribute towards MR Credits 3-7 (as I have previously for LEED-NC projects). The GC will be tracking all of the actual material costs from the subcontractors regardless, but I'll also need to advise the GC LEED coordinator on whether he should include all materials (excluding MEP/equipment) ot just the MRc3-7 contributing materials as he is documenting Table L-3 during construction.
Christine - I apologize for my delayed response - I was at Greenbuild last week. I wish I had taken this request to the LEED Certification Work Zone because I do not have an answer for you. Emily, Pedro, Marie - Do you have any updates you can share?
If not, I would use the Contact Us form and ask GBCI directly - http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que.... If you could post your response back here, it would help others and be appreciated.
Thanks Michelle, no worries...I just sent the question to GBCI and will post their response here as soon as I hear back.
I have not heard back about the pending project we had, but I have checked with some of our contractors on other projects, and they have started tracking all materials as a precaution.
I'm anxious to hear what Christine's results will be!
We had our preliminary report review and we got the same comment on MRc4 and MRc5:
"The Actual Materials Cost for Divisions 3-10, 31, and 32 is equivalent to the costs of the materials listed within the form. It is inconsistent with industry norms for the materials listed for credit compliance to be a complete list of all materials used within the LEED-CI project. Therefore, it is unclear that the Actual Materials Costs include the costs of all materials associated with this LEED-CI project as required. Note that Actual Materials Cost must include the cost of all materials that are part of any specifications within Divisions 3-10, 31, 32 and 12 (for example, including any adhesives, sealantsA sealant has adhesive properties and is formulated primarily to fill, seal, or waterproof gaps or joints between 2 surfaces. Sealants include sealant primers and caulks. (SCAQMD Rule 1168. )Sealants are used on wood, fabric, paper, corrugated paperboard, plastic foam and other materials with tiny openings, often microscopic, that may absorb or discharge gas or fluid., coatings, etc. which are contained within those specification sections)."
Our project is an office fit out. All the adhesives, glues, primers, sealants and everything is listed in the sheet, but there are not many materials (glass partitions, gypsum walls, technical floor and technical ceiling).
I have send the request to GBCI two times, called them (no way to be answer this question by phone) and we dont know what else to do, since we will have to submit the final review within 10 days and there is no answer.
Did any of you get any other answer from GBCI explaining a little more?
We do not understand the input from Total sustainable materials cost, per the excel file is the addition of all the F column, but for example, the paint has no recycled content, neither local, but since is in the Division 09 of Masterformat has to be in the L-3 data. But, why is it added its value to the Total sustainable materials cost if its not really sustainable???
Please anyone getting an update from GBCI will be more than welcome to share with all of us! If I get any response I will post it here :)
I think the confusion stems from the fact that there are two different ways that people can fill out the Materials and Resources Calculator which impacts whether the “Total Materials Cost” and the “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” would be the same.
First, let’s recognize that there is a difference between “Total Materials Cost” and “Total Sustainable Materials Cost”. “Total Materials Cost” is populated via Tab A via based on whether you select either the Actual Materials Cost option (Cell F11) or the Total Construction Cost option (Cell F13). “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” is the sum of the cost of all materials that the project enters within Tab B.
Now, that you understand the basic difference in where these two numbers come from, you can better understand when you might get that review comment. As you’ll see below, there are instances where these two numbers may be the same but there are also instances where these two numbers may be different. It really depends on how you choose to complete the calculator.
Route A: Project focuses on including only the larger-cost items in Tab B. Once the project hits the point threshold that they are hoping to, they stop listing materials/providing material documentation. As such, the list of materials within Tab B is clearly incomplete. In this case, the “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” would not match the “Total Materials Cost” (regardless of whether the Actual Cost or the Total Construction Cost option was selected in Tab A).
Route B: Project includes every material specified within the applicable divisions on Tab B. For each of these materials, Cells B-E must be completed even if the material is non-compliant/does not contribute to any of the attempted credits (i.e. none of the other cells are filled in). In this case, the “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” would match the “Total Materials Cost” –if– the Actual Cost option is selected in Tab A. If the Total Construction Cost option was selected in Tab A, then the “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” might be slightly lower than the “Total Materials Cost” (note that if it is higher, there is an issue).
My experience is that the review comment in question appears only in instances the “Total Materials Cost” and the “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” are identical and reviewers have one of the following two questions:
1. The listing of products in Tab B does not appear to be a comprehensive list of every single applicable product in the project.
2. If project documentation indicates additional materials which are not included in Tab B (such as, floor tile which was not listed – perhaps because it does not contribute to the credit).
In both cases, the reason for the review comment is because it is unclear whether the “Total Materials Cost” has been properly calculated (i.e. it includes both sustainable and non-sustainable materials). It is very important that this number include the cost of all materials, both those that contribute towards the credit and those that do not. In instances where the “Total Materials Cost” matches that of the “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” within Tab B, the issue generally is that not all materials are included.
This issue is fairly understandable when one looks at the amount of time and effort that is required to track the hard costs associated with every applicable material/division, including all of the adhesives, sealantsA sealant has adhesive properties and is formulated primarily to fill, seal, or waterproof gaps or joints between 2 surfaces. Sealants include sealant primers and caulks. (SCAQMD Rule 1168. )Sealants are used on wood, fabric, paper, corrugated paperboard, plastic foam and other materials with tiny openings, often microscopic, that may absorb or discharge gas or fluid., etc. associated with that product/division. That information can sometimes be difficult to obtain and it will make the product listing in Tab B quite long as each product must be listed individually. Finally, it can seem counter-intuitive to include materials that aren’t sustainable/do not contribute in the listing of materials in Tab B so sometimes those materials are omitted.
As such, it is generally more common that projects follow Route A (mainly tracking only the larger-cost items); it is generally atypical to get a listing of materials in Tab B which includes every single material in the project. If you haven’t tracked every material, you will need to make sure that your “Total Materials Cost” does not match the “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” to account for the fact that Tab B doesn’t include all of your materials.
That said projects can definitely use Route B for documentation provided you recognize where the red flags are. In using this option, you’ll need to make sure that your calculator is extra thorough to include every single material found within the applicable divisions (including any sealants, adhesives, etc. specified in those divisions). My general recommendation is to try to list materials in Tab B in division order (i.e. 033000 then 051200 then 096800 for example) as it will allow you an easy way to check that all materials were included. Remember to include all materials, both those which contribute to the credit requirements and those that do not, along with their associated cost (Cells B-E must be completed). Finally, I would recommend including a narrative with your submission affirming that you have included all materials, including the related adhesives, coatings, etc. from the relevant specifications, in the calculations.
Kristina - Thanks for your detailed response.
First, I need to clarify that for LEED-CI the IDC Calculator does not offer Actual Material Cost or Total Construction Cost (cells F11 and F13, respectively, as you indicate). LEED-CI must use actual material cost so teams must provide (on Tab A) - Actual Material Cost, excluding labor and equipment (cell G10) and Actual Material Cost for Furniture, excluding labor and equipment (cell G12). (Note my information is based on the June 2012 version of the IDC Material and Resource Calculator.)
Hence, while you advice is sound for an NC project, your Route A does not apply to CI. CI projects must list every material specified for Divisions 03-10 plus furniture in Division 12 in Tab B (your Route B - first two sentences only for CI).
Maria - First I would contact GBCI via Contact Us > Certification Questions and request an extension to your clarification responses (Project Review Extension Request). In that response, say that you have questions about review comments and have not been able to get a response to your inquiry about this earlier (include any relevant case numbers - see below).
Then from that same link, I would try again to submit a “Questions about Review Comments” inquiry and explain your situation. While LEEDuser is not a definitive source, you could reference this forum and note that this is not just affecting you but is part of a larger issue related to the IDC Material and Resource Calculator - http://www.leeduser.com/credit/CI-2009/MRc4?page=0#comment-46882.
USGBC/GBCI has been having trouble with their Contact Us and you should immediately receive a reply e-mail acknowledging receipt of your Contact Us inquiry with a Case Number. If you do not get that, then they do not have your request. This happened to me on 1/6/14 and when I inquired on it on last Friday (1/24), I was told there was no record of my request. I had to resubmit it and still did not get an automated response with a Case Number. So I had to call Customer Service a second time and they gave me the steps to get my response logged with a case number.
Do you have case numbers for your original requests? If so, GBCI should be able to look up the Case Number(s) and tell you the status of it (them). If you do not have a case number, then you need to follow my advice above and ensure you get a case number. (Maybe the updates they did over this weekend helped with this issue? I am not sure.)
As discussed previously in this forum there appears to be a formula error in the IDC Calculator where anything put into the Material Cost column (Column F) is automatically going down to the Total Sustainable Materials Cost (cell F22) when the cost should be going to the Total Materials Cost (cell F23) instead.
I hope this helps you!
In the mean time, I am going to reach out to some contacts at USGBC/GBCI and see if a resolution can be started that way.
Thanks a lot Kristina and Michelle for your useful help!
I will update this post with whatever GBCI answer since it seems to be a common issue.
My apologies - I missed the fact that we were in the LEED-CI forum. I wish that the rating system appeared more prominently as you scroll down. Michelle is definitely right that LEED-CI projects only have the option of using the Actual Materials Cost method.
That being said, I still don't believe this is an error in the calculator. I still think it might be confusion about how the calculator does the calculations. While you have to use the actual cost of all materials in the calculation for LEED-CI, the calculator doesn’t require you to list out every single material in Tab B. The most important part is making sure that you've included the cost of all division-applicable materials, both the sustainable and the non-sustainable materials, in the "Total Materials Cost" that you enter in Tab A so that the calculations work out properly. For example, the "MRc4 Sustainable Criteria Value" divided by the "Total Materials Cost" gives you your achievement within MRc4. Since the achievements are based on what percentage of your overall materials meets the requirements of that credit, you just want to be sure that the "Total Materials Cost" includes the actual cost of all your materials, both sustainable and non-sustainable. It would not be appropriate for that number to only include the cost of sustainable materials as then you wouldn't be looking at all of your materials in the project and would be artificially-inflating your achievements.
A very, very simplified example:
-You have a project that has $10,000 in Total Materials Cost. You input that in Tab A. In Tab B, you list out just two of your materials: Tile at $3,000 and Carpet at $500. For ease of calculations, let's assume that both products are comprised of 50% post-consumerWaste generated by end users (households or commercial, industrial and institutional facilities) of a product no longer able to be used for its intended purpose that is recycled into raw material for a new product. + 0% pre-consumer recycled content. Your Total Sustainable Materials Cost in Tab B is $3,500 ($3,000 Tile + $500 Carpet). Your MRc4 Sustainable Criteria Value would be $1,750 ($3,000 Tile x 50% + $500 Carpet x 50%).
-Now your actual MRc4 achievement would be 17.5% ($1,750 MRc4 Sustainable Criteria Value / $10,000 Total Materials Cost). If you had incorrectly used the Total Sustainable Materials Cost ($3,500) rather than the Total Materials Cost ($10,000) in the calculations, you would’ve ended up with calculations showing that you achieved 50% in MRc4. However, this is not accurate as it is looking at only a portion of the materials rather than all materials as required. The denominator has to be the Total Materials Cost which includes both sustainable and non-sustainable materials (in this case, $10,000 Total).
I actually don't know why "Total Sustainable Materials Cost" is even in the calculator as it is not used for any credit calculations; all of the calculations go back to the “Total Materials Cost” fields from Tab A. My only guess is that it is included in the calculator just so that project teams that are listing every material in Tab B can cross-check that total with then their "Total Materials Cost" to make sure that they have actually entered everything... If you aren't going to list all of your materials in Tab B, it actually doesn't matter so long as it is not identical to the “Total Materials Cost" entered in Tab A; you would only need to make sure that the “Total Materials Cost” in Tab A includes the actual cost of all materials as required.
LEED-CI projects still have the options of either listing some or all of the materials in Tab B; again, the denominator of the calculation always pulls from the values you enter in Tab A. If you didn't want to list out all of the materials in the form but want the “Total Sustainable Materials” and the “Total Materials Cost” to match, I have seen projects include a line in Tab B of "Non-LEED Materials" with a value so that the "Total Sustainable Materials Cost" is then identical to the actual "Total Materials Cost" and include a narrative saying that they've included the actual cost of all non-sustainable materials there hence the reason that the "Total Materials Cost" and the "Total Sustainable Materials Cost" are identical.
In any case, a narrative confirming that your “Total Materials Cost” includes the actual costs of all materials within Divisions 3-10, 12, 31.60.00, 32.10.00, 32.30.00, 32.90.00, including both the sustainable materials and the non-sustainable materials, should be sufficient to verify that your numbers are correct. They really just need to make sure that the number used in the denominator of the calculations includes everything and not just the sustainable materials in those divisions.
Michelle is definitely right about the best ways to contact GBCI and the fact that, if you don't get an auto-email with a case number, your inquiry probably didn't go through. Don't worry too much about the "deadline" to resubmit for your Final Review. That is generally more of a suggestion than a firm deadline. The only time a response deadline is very firm is when a Mid-Review Clarification Request is sent when they give you 10-days to respond. If you're not in the middle of an actual review and are just working on your general clarifications in response to the results of the Preliminary Review, that 25-day deadline is really more a guideline than a firm deadline. Since you've already sent in requests for feedback and are awaiting a response, you don't have to also ask for an extension. But you definitely can if that makes you more comfortable (you'd do that through the same link Michelle provided above).
I'm the Materials and Resources specialist at USGBC and I wanted to chime in here. The information Kristina and Michelle have provided is spot on so I won't re-state the facts. I wanted to add that the reason the field “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” exists is to check against the “Total Material Cost” to ensure that the cost of materials being entered into the table does not exceed the "Total Materials Costs". In the 2009 form and earlier versions of the calculator when the “Total Sustainable Materials Cost” was higher than the “Total Material Cost” the form would produce an error. However during the streamlining effort for submittals USGBC decided to remove errors from the MR calculators because they were confusing, frustrating, and slowed down the system.
In regards to your review comment, Kristina is correct that when the two values are the same it raises a red flag for the reviewer. In this case GBCI is asking for an explanation of why ALL the materials used for the project are listed AND confirmation that the Actual Materials Cost includes all required materials cost. I suggest providing a brief explanation similar to that in your post in the Special Circumstances of the form when you re-submit.
Kristina and Sarah - Thank your prompt and detailed assistance on this issue!
Maria - Good luck and we look forward to you posting a great outcome to your situation!
It looks like this issue has already been cleared up, but I thought I'd share the response that I just received back from GBCI:
"The total materials costs must be identified in the calculations, however, only the actual materials that contribute towards MR Credits 3-7 need to be individually tracked and included in the ID+C Materials and Resource Calculator."
Christine - Thanks for the follow up and accountability!!
Should the cost of Division 12 furnishings be included in MR4 and MR5 credits if these items were purchased outside of the construction budget?
In my opinion, If you're including furniture in these credits, yes. If not, then they're outside of your contract, so I'd say no.
This LEED CI project would like to maintain privacy in regards to their materials budget. This conflicts with our need to compare construction cost and new material costs for such credits as “Recycled Content.” Is there another method to use for comparison acceptable to LEED, in order to keep the costs confidential?
Simply, no. However when you registered the project it asked you if the project needed to remain confidential. So as long as you checked yes on that box at the very begining you should be able to convince your owner that their information won't travel further than the USGBC and GBCI. However it is a give and take when seeking certification.
Did … did you just double-dip that chip?.....
I'm working on a project that emphasizes the use of reclaimed materials and materials with recycled content and have come across a few items for which I'm unsure how to proceed with my LEED documentation. We are using many materials that qualify under both MR3 and MR4 credits and I'm wondering if I can apply the materials towards both credits. One example would be the use of steel angle from reclaimed electrical transmission towers. The steel angle obviously qualifies for 100% materials reuse, but it seems as if it should also be able to apply a standard 25% post-consumerWaste generated by end users (households or commercial, industrial and institutional facilities) of a product no longer able to be used for its intended purpose that is recycled into raw material for a new product. recycled content value for the steel. Is this allowable?
Sorry 804--the Reference is really clear on this. If you look at Section 6: Calculations, of the ID&C Reference Guide, at the end of that section is a heading called "Exclusions". And it says that you have to exclude the salvaged and refurbished material value of reused materials per MRc3.1.
That's also stated clearly in the "Hot Tip" above, under Checklists, in the Design Development section (the tip about when you can and cannot double dip).
What does USGBC/GBCI accept when you have a range of recycled content. For example, Sika/Sarnafil has a 5-10% Post consumer recycled content on one of their projects in their documentation. Do you go with 5% to be safe, 7 or 8% to be middle of the road, or can you claim the whole 10%?
LEED AP BD+C, ID+C, O+M, Managing Principal
Earthly Ideas LLC
This credit uses the same baseline material budget.
This credit uses the same baseline material budget. Material that is recycled can also be regional.
This credit uses the same baseline material budget. Material that is rapidly renewable can also contain recycled content, for example cotton insulation made from recycled denim.
Certified wood calculations only consider ‘new’ wood only. Recycled content in composite wood products should be included in MRc4 calculations, but not in MRc7, even if it is FSC-certified.
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2014 – BuildingGreen, Inc.