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.
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. For products with FSC Mix and recycled content claims—including many MDF products and complex assemblies that include MDF—LEED Interpretation #10372 clarifies that project teams have to choose which "environmental attribute" they will use to classify the product, and it (and its dollar value) will either go into an FSC "bucket" or into a recycled-content "bucket."
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.
Adding Division 12 Furniture to your baseline materials budget for this credit is optional, but must be applied consistently across MRc3, MRc4, MRc5, MRc6, and MRc7. Analyze the baseline material budget to see if adding Division 12 furniture works to the project’s advantage. Generally, if the furniture helps contribute to the above MR credits it is in a project’s interest to take credit for it—however, it may help with some while making others more difficult.
Choose one of two options in creating a baseline budget—the default budget, or the actual budget (excluding labor). The default budget method gives you a baseline materials budget as 45% of your total budget, while the actual budget gives you a baseline based on what you actually spend.
How do you decide whether to use the actual material cost or the default budget as your baseline? Try estimating how your actual material costs compare to the 45% default. The lower you can get the baseline, the easier it is to purchase enough recycled material to reach the credit threshold. For example, a project that is renovating an existing building may have low material and high labor costs, so it might be better to use the actual budget instead of the default approach.
The default budget is less time-consuming because the contractor does not have to break out the material and labor costs of items that are not being tracked for LEED credits, allowing the project to focus on tracking only the materials that contribute to LEED credits. You can take the total cost (material plus labor) of all items in the applicable CSI divisions and assume that cost of materials is 45% and labor cost is 55%. However, this option may put the project at a disadvantage in terms of getting full credit for the actual value of materials.
Include in your materials baseline budget, the material cost (excluding labor) of all items that apply under CSI MasterFormat 2004:
Even if you are using the default budget method, you still have to break out the actual cost (cost excluding labor) of the specific items that you are tracking to contribute toward LEED MR credits.
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?
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.
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.
Instead of tracking recycled content in everything, focus first on “big ticket” items, materials like concrete, structural steel, masonry products and gypsum board to see if you get enough value from them 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 New Construction and Major Renovations
To increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content materials, thereby reducing impacts resulting from extraction and processing of virgin materials.
Use materials 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 assembly 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, and specialty items such as elevators and equipment cannot be included in all calculations. Include only materials permanently installed in the project. Furniture may be included if it is included consistently in MR Credit 3: Materials Reuse through MR Credit 7: 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..
2 Postconsumer material is defined as waste material generated by households or by commercial, industrial and institutional facilities in their role as end-users of the product, which can no longer be used for its intended purpose.
3 Preconsumer material is defined as material diverted from the waste stream during the manufacturing process. Reutilization of materials (i.e., rework, regrind or scrap generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed within the same process that generated it) is excluded.
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.
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.
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 this form to track your concrete mixes and their recycled content and distance to the manufacturing and extraction sites.
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each NC-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."
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.
I am working as part of a Q.A. team at an Integrated Steel Complex in the Middle East which operates 3 core manufacturing plants; 1. Direct Reduction Plant producing Direct Reduced Iron (DRI); 2. Melt Shop, with steel making process using EAF and CCM producing steel billets; 3. Heavy Section hot-rolling mill producing structural steel beams (H-beam, I-beam and Angles). We have been asked by some of our customers to issue a letter to confirm that our products (structural steel sections) contain recycled content and contributes to LEED NC v3 Credit MRc4; Recycled Content (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. and Pre-Consumer).
Can this letter be a self-declaration? or does this have to be certified by LEED? Appreciate if anyone can assist in this regard with how we may go about the process. Thanks in advance.
The letter should be provided by the structural steel manufacturer on their letterhead. Alternatively you can use the LEED V2009 default rate of 25% recycled content for steel products.
One additional thought Is that it's doubtful that all the steel came from the same location and/or same process. That means you need a letter from each mill that various products were sourced.
Keith - Thanks so much for monitoring and contributing to this forum!! Your response is spot on. I just wanted to note that the default recycled content value for steel is 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. waste. While this is definitely available for them to use, I'm sure the team is anticipating more recycled content benefit (verified, actual recycled content per material type as you indicate) from the steel if at all possible.
We will be using crushed concrete from an exiting building on site for subbase for access road. I understand this cannot be used for MRc3 Material Reuse, but rather for MRc4. The question is how do we price it and how much percent is it recycled and if it is post- or pre-consumer? Also can it be counted towards MRc2 Waste Management and MRc5 Regional Materials? Many thanks in advance
Hrvoje - The reason for counting it under MRc4 instead of MRc3 is as follows: because the material is being processed into a new material (from concrete to subbase) - instead of being used in its original form, which is what MRc3 covers. To get a price you need your general contractor via the appropriate subcontractor to price what new subbase would have cost for your access road. This product is 100% recycled and it is consider 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. (Waste 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.). Note: It is not from an industrial process, which would make it pre-consumer. You can make it also 100% regional for MRc5. Please read the LEED Reference Guide Section on Recycled Materials that was added by this Reference Guide Correction - ID #100000379 - http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=100000379. And you can count the material’s weight or volume as diverted under MRc2.
If you don’t have it already, be sure to check out LEEDuser’s LEED 2009: The Missing Manual published by BuildingGreen, Inc. - http://www.leeduser.com/missing-manual. It is free to members and check out page 63 - “We are demolishing an existing building, crushing the concrete and stone, and using it as fill onsite. Does this count under MRc3?”
Right on. It's a great strategy for contributing to sustainability and LEED points AND cost savings. This was done on a project I worked on and we estimated it saved $200,000! I advocate for this strategy on any project that involves concrete demolition.
Michelle, Tom - Thanks a lot for your help!
We received a review comment regarding credits MRc4 and MRc5 of a stadium we are working on in Brazil.
The review team claims that "The Actual Materials Cost of Divisions 3-10,31 and 32 is equivalente to the costs of the materials listed within the calculator. It is inconsistent with industry norms for the materials listed to be a complete list of all material used within the LEED Project. Therefore, it is unclear that the Actual Materials Cost include the costs of all materials associated with this LEED Project. Actual Materials Cost must include the cost of all materials that are part of any specifications within Divisions 3-10, 31, 32 and 12".
We declared U$53.529.626,54 as both Actual Materials Cost (tab A.Instructions) and Materials Cost (tab B.Inputs). This figure includes tax and transportation of all materials within elegible CSI divisions. We have always interpreted it like that and we have certified projects that achieved MRc4 and MRc5 where we put the same dollar amount for Actual Cost and Materials cost. The only field where we put a diferente dollar value is for the total construction cost in PIf2, which for this Project was U$206.700.000,00.
Can anybody please define these two concepts (Actual Material Cost vs. Material Cost) and clarify the difference?
Marcio – Your definition for “Material Cost” above is correct. However, the reviewers’ comment appears to question your method of calculating the total “Actual Material Costs” entered into Tab A of the MR Calculator (basing it on the total from Tab B).
Indeed, if Tab B individually itemizes the actual cost of EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT used on your project, the spreadsheet must include hundreds, if not thousands, of entries. Topping the list would be a number of high-cost, high-ticket items that contribute significantly to MR Credits. Below them, pages and pages of lesser entries for minor components would show negligible credit impact or none at all. Compiling such a detailed tabulation would have demanded an epic effort from your project’s contractors and administrators—detail far beyond what is required under normal construction accounting practices.
When teams that I have worked with have attempted this approach, the paperwork quickly overwhelms them, costs for minor items fall through the cracks, and the “Total” of Actual Material Cost comes up short. The resulting omissions tend to skew MRc4 & MRc5 percentages upwards, undermining the credibility of the calculations.
The reviewers appear to be asking you to check that your figures are complete and to justify the reported total or revise the total to include any omissions. Since every major project includes procedures to document and manage payments to contractors, you may need to compare notes with your contractors & construction managers to confirm your reported costs. If you coordinated cost reporting with contractors & construction managers during construction, your work may already be complete.
Marcio - Sorry for my tardy reply. I was away from all communications while on vacation but I think Jon covered the bases (thanks Jon!).
Are you clear on the situation?
Hi Michelle and Jon,
Yes, we did it one by one and our spreadsheet does have hundreds of entries (354 to more more accurate). We always work closely with the procurement department of the construction companies and instruct them, from the onset of the Project, about how information should be entered in the spreadsheet. Since we do that since the beggining and carry it throughout construction with monthly inspections, we ensure that our Project did use actual materials cost.
In that case, what would be a compelling evidence to prove that to the review team? Do you think a letter signed by the general contractor describing and confirming this process would do?
Marcio - Could the review team be saying that the total of the Sustainable Materials Costs on B. Inputs of the BDC Materials and Resources calculator is equal to the Actual Material Costs you entered on A. Instructions? If so, I can see where they are concerned as these costs should not be equal. You should have material costs that do not have sustainable attributes for MRc3-7. Hence Actual Material Costs for everything in Divisions 03-10 and the required sections in 31 and 32 should theoretically be much higher than the materials that you enter into B. Inputs worksheet that have sustainable materials attributes. There is no need to enter materials that do not have sustainable material attributes into B. Inputs worksheet. This adds more work for your team and more for the review team to wade through. Only materials with sustainable materials attributes should be entered into B. Inputs. Does this help?
Marcio—Michelle makes a good point that, because your total on Tab B matches the total on Tab A, the reviewers may have assumed that you have omitted non-contributing materials from your Total Material Cost.
Your idea is good. Look into the process used to compile the costs. Make sure to verify the following points:
1. That the cost tally includes all installed materials. (I have seen contractors omit materials that they could not find regional or recycled content data for.)
2. That the amounts reported for contributing materials correspond to the submitted regional or recycled content data. (I have seen contractors report a cost for a complex assembly, but provide data only for a single component.)
3. That the total includes all minor subcomponents and accessories of the installed assemblies. (I have seen contractors leave these out.)
4. That the values are the amounts actually invoiced (not early estimates or bids) and that they reflect complete, end-of –construction expenditures.
It actually surprises me that your list is ONLY 354 lines long. Many buildings have far more components. However, if your stadium is mostly open-air with few interior finishes, the number of materials seems more reasonable. The investigation described above should either confirm that your list of material costs is complete or help you to identify omissions and make the required corrections.
I got some clarification on this at Greenbuild this week. Michelle, I agree with you, but the confusion arises if you are using Actual material costs for the denominator (not the 45% estimate), how else do you prove that total value for the project, if not by using (and showing on the spreadsheet) the sum of all the materials on the project? However in that case the "Total sustainable materials cost" wont the sum of only the rows contributing the sustainable criteria, but rather the total material cost. The former is irrelevant for NC and CI projects and misleading, as it is neither the numerator nor denominator of any calculation for any credit. It's merely for the reviewers to gauge for completeness. They need to make a checkbox or something that indicates if a line item is contributing to the numerator, and have E19 sum up only those values.
I have to admit that I’ve never used the Actual Materials Cost method because I think it too time consuming. However, I’ve never been asked to prove the value shown for the Total Construction Cost (of which the 45% value is derived). I would think that the reviewer would be looking at the Total Estimate Project Budget you enter into PIf2 and seeing if the Total Construction Cost or Actual Materials Cost seems reasonable in relation to the entire budget. I would think you would keep a separate spreadsheet of the materials for your Actual Materials Costs for backup/proof. (I would only upload it if asked in a review comment.) I keep one to back up the Total Construction Cost but have never been asked to produce it. I don’t think that the BDC MR Calculator is not meant to be a repository for a breakdown of these overall costs. It is meant to document materials contributing to MRc3-7.
I don’t enter anything into the B. Inputs worksheet unless it contributes to MRc3-7. (I would suggest keeping this worksheet clean and straightforward.) That is what the Sustainable Materials Cost total represents. The Total Construction Cost is entered on A. Instructions and 45% is carried over to the B. Inputs worksheet for Total Materials Cost. (If you select Actual Materials Costs on A. Instructions, then the Actual Materials Cost is carried over to the B. Inputs worksheet for Total Materials Cost.)
FYI: I think Sustainable Criteria Value cell sums up the numerator for each credit as you suggest (Column L for recycled for example).
We never filled ou the spreadsheet like that, exactly because of the reason exposed by Geoffrey - how would we prove the total value input in the actual materials cost? But the way you explained makes sense now why they think the values in A. and B. should be different...
The entire Project is basically concrete and steel. Stadium, mostly open air. Very basic interior finishes (ceramics, vynil floor, etc). That's why 354 items is reasonable.
Thank you folks!
Marcio—It looks as though you may have it all sorted out.
Marcio/Geoffrey/Michelle—When I have used the “Actual Material Cost” method in the past, I have not required contractors to provide an item-by-item cost breakdown of every single material to substantiate the reported total. Instead, I required them to track invoices more generally at the CSI Division or Spec Section level, providing more detail only for major components relevant to MR Credits. This has avoided the nightmare of tracking costs for thousands of products individually.
Reviewers have not required me to prove the total value for the project by providing a complete list of all material costs on the Credit forms. They were satisfied only to see the contributing materials. However, time has passed. The forms have changed a bit and so may have GBCI review standards. (Marcio’s review comment suggests otherwise.)
I agree with Michelle's advice to keep Tab B clean and straightforward. On the other hand, in light of Geoffrey's comments, if I had to do it now using the current MR Calculator spreadsheet, I might include a few entries on Tab B with titles such as “Miscellaneous other Div. 04 materials” to cover the costs of the numerous non-contributing minor materials. This could show how we calculated the Total without the numbing detail of a 3-thousand-line spreadsheet. I would hope that the Review Team would find this acceptable.
Fair enough, but that begs the question, how to you get your "Total Installed Cost" to which you apply the 45%? I'd make an argument that it isn't the total contract value, because my interpretation of "Total Installed Cost" is only hard costs, i.e. delivery, labor and material. I'd argue that there are soft costs in subcontractor scope such as engineering, permitting, shop drawings, bonds, insurance, performance mock-ups/testing, etc that wouldn't be included in the "Total Installed Cost." For this I would use the Schedule of Values to extract only the delivery, labor and material values, and take my 45% from that. If the Schedule of Values is detailed enough to break down material costs (which it can be, if you direct them to in the beginning), then it's even easier. Any thoughts on that?
Geoff—You are right that you should base the “45% Default” only on hard costs (and only for the stipulated CSI Divisions), not on the Total Contract Sum. Ideally, the contractors’ Schedules of Value would itemize all those general & administrative cost as part of “Front End” (CSI Divs 00 & 01) costs, but somehow, many contractors insist on clumping soft costs into the later, technical Sections.
I agree too that, in a well integrated project team, the Owner, Architect, & Construction Manager should be able to craft the language in the “Measurement and Payment” provisions to require Schedules of Values, Pay Application, Change Orders, and other construction cost instruments to break out costs as required for LEED. This would eliminate many of the omissions, contradictions, and duplications of effort that result when LEED teams try to track costs on their own.
Unfortunately, many construction teams see LEED cost tracking as an extra burden outside their scopes, and many LEED APs are outside their “comfort zones” when discussing construction accounting, SoV’s, and the like.
I think one of the reasons the default value option is given is so that you don't have to pick apart the GC and subs' costs. My experience has been that the costs in the stipulated CSI Divisions and Sections for the MR credits (currently CSI MasterFormat™ Divisions 03–10, 31 (Section 31.60.00 Foundations) and 32 (Sections 32.10.00 Paving, 32.30.00 Site Improvements, and 32.90.00 Planting) are hard costs. Since I have been working on LEED projects for 14 years, I have always taken the entire cost of the rating system version stipulated CSI MasterFormat Divisions and Sections for the MR credits and then taken 45% of that cost to arrive at the default materials cost.
I have been unsuccessfully trying to get a discrepancy resolved in the Reference Guide since I first noticed it in November 2013. Please see my 11/14/13 post below- http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc4?all-comments=true#comment-45037 regarding subtle language difference that relates to this discussion.
Michelle—Is there really a discrepancy?
Your 2013 post notes that one page of the LEED-2009 Reference Guide calculates the 45% Default from “total construction cost (hard costs only)” and another page calculates the Default based on “total construction cost (including labor and equipment).” Both instances reference pulling cost only from CSI Divisions 03-10 and a few Spec Sections from Divisions 31 & 32.
As you just noted above, the referenced CSI Divisions 03-10 and those few Spec Sections from Divisions 31 & 32 ARE “Hard Costs.” “Hard Costs” are the costs (including labor and equipment) of the tangible, physical, permanent construction—the “architecture” of the project.
“Soft Costs” are for fees, insurance, mobilization, and various other intangibles such as Geoff lists in his post above. Most construction documents specify these “General & Administrative” requirements in CSI Divisions 00 & 01.
Therefore, the Reference Guide seems to be saying the same thing twice, just in different ways.
Incidentally, I have found an AIA resource with excellent graphics delineating construction cost terminology: http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab097618.pdf.
My frustration has been that, when contractors & estimators compile their Schedules of Values and preliminary construction estimates, they often clump soft costs in with hard instead of itemizing them separately under CSI Divisions 00 & 01. This inflates the “Total Construction Cost” for Divisions 03-10 (etc.) and skews the 45% default results unfavorably.
Geoffrey suggested in his October 27 post that a project could require contractors to break out costs as needed for LEED on their Schedules of Values and Pay Applications. If contractors did so, teams could extract the “Total Construction Cost” or “Actual Material Cost” (on Tab A of the MR Calculator) directly from Pay documents with minimal effort. By eliminating the need for contractors to submit separate (and possibly contradictory) cost breakdowns for LEED, the timesavings could be substantial. (Tracking of individual costs for contributing products would still be necessary for input into Tab B.)
In practice, many projects require contractors to break out and track material &/or labor costs as a matter of course to demonstrate compliance with tax laws or fair labor practices. If this is the case, the “Actual Cost” approach would require little extra work.
These integrated methods DO require some advanced planning and coordination between LEED administrators and the rest of the project team.
Hi! How is reinforcement steel calculated in an assembly of reinforced concrete. I the steel calculated by mass of the total assembly (also composed of sand and aggregates), or can steel be taken out and calculated by means of cost only.
Are you referring to precast concrete that has been fabricated off-site, where the rebar has been cast into the concrete before delivery?
Or are you asking about reinforcing steel for cast-in-place concrete? Such reinforcing is delivered to the site separately and set in place inside forms. Concrete is then poured on-site into the forms around the rebar.
Hi Jon, thanks for your reply. Most of the concrete elements are precast. Only a small part of it is cast on site.
I understand that the steel in precast concrete has to calculated as part of the assembly reinforced concrete, is that correct?
Then only the steel in on-site cast concrete can be calculated by means of cost only?
In precast concrete, all components are assembled off-site, so the cost includes all components. In this case, calculate the recycled content as described in the Reference Guide under the heading “Calculating Assembly Recycled ContentAssembly recycled content is the percentage of material in a product that is either postconsumer or preconsumer recycled content. It is determined by dividing the weight of the recycled content by the overall weight of the assembly..” For this calculation, you will need to know the total cost for the precast items (including fabrication) and the total weight (mass) and recycled content percentages of each component (steel, cement, SCMs, sand, aggregates, water, admixtures, and any other accessories cast into the work).
If the concrete supplier is willing to break out the total cost for cementitious material, you can use the Supplementary Cementitious Materials Calculation for that portion of the concrete.
For the steel in cast-in-place concrete, calculate recycled content separately from concrete based on steel costs.
On my project, the concrete contains Fly Ash (6%) and recycled aggregates (5%).
In the LEED Online Tab how can I enter this informations : can I add the two % (5% + 6%= 11%) ?
Or, I have to exctracte each material in concrete (water, aggregates, cement..) ?
The only problem is that it's impossible to get the cement price and aggregate price separately.
Thank you for your help
Caroline - First you need to get the cost of the aggregate separately so that you can calculate its recycled content value. Without the cost you can't count it as recycled.
Please review this post below - http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc4?page=0#comment-51689 - and let me know if you have any remaining questions about how to enter information into the BDC Materials and Resources calculator as well as how to calculate the value of the supplementary cementitious materials (fly ash).
Thank you Michelle.
I have some concerns about it because it's very difficult to obtain the cost of the aggregate separately.
For calculate the value of the supplementary cementitious materials (fly ash) It will be more straightforward if I have cementitious cost.
Anyway, do I need some attestation from my concrete supplier for justify the cost ?
I'm sorry if these questions had already been posted. Thank you for your help.
Caroline - I like to have solid backup for all material attributes even if it is not required to be provided as LEED documentation.
I don't think you can calculate the fly ash contribution accurately without having the cement cost separate from the aggregate. Hopefully your concrete supplier can work with you on this. Good luck!
Your post says that your concrete contains 6% fly ash and 5% recycled aggregates. How did you determine these percentages?
Here in the US, structural engineers usually require concrete suppliers to submit “mix design” reports for each type of concrete used on the project. These “recipes” show the proportions of each component in each mix, usually in pounds per cubic yard (or in kg/m3). I usually calculate material percentages using these reports.
Your original post also says, “it’s impossible to get the cement price and aggregate price separately.” Have you been able to obtain combined cost figures that include all concrete components (cement, SCMs, aggregates, and water)?
If your suppliers will not report cementitious material costs separately, you cannot use the SCM calculation. However, if they will attest to the composite cost for each concrete “recipe,” you may still be able to calculate recycled content using the standard calculation.
Finally, does your project have only one type of concrete?
A single project typically uses many different types of concrete, each one with a different “recipe” comprising different proportions of ingredients. I would expect suppliers to submit a different “mix design” and cost for each type used.
I hope that this helps. Bon courage!
Thank you Jon, your explanation is very hepfull.
In my project I have 10 "recipes" of concrete.
On this 10 recipes, 5 have concrete with fly ash and fly ash are in the cement.
42% of the cement is made with fly ash.
Concrete supplier gave the weight of each ingredient
I obtained combined cost figures that include all concrete components (for (cement, SCMs, aggregates, and water). Thus in 1 concrete recipe, 6% is recycled content thanks to fly ash in the cement.
5% match to recycled aggregates. In France we can use 5% of recycled aggregate in each recipie.
So, I can use standard calculation for fly ash but what can I do for recycled aggregates ?
Thank you very much for the detailed advice .First of all I think I will enter one line for each king of concrete recipe.
Exactly! If I understand correctly, you have 10 “recipes” corresponding to 10 values for composite cost, but you do not know the costs of cementitious materials. All of the recipes use some recycled aggregate and five of them include fly ash (pre-consumer). You plan to enter information for each “recipe” on 10 separate lines of the MR spreadsheet.
Was your recycled aggregate recovered from 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. sources, or did it come from pre-consumer sources, just like the fly ash?
If it is pre-consumer, calculate the percentage by summing the kg/m3 of recycled aggregate to the kg/m3 of fly ash, and divide the sum by the total kg/m3 for the recipe.
If it is post-consumer, calculate the percentages of aggregate and ash separately, and enter the percentages into the appropriate spreadsheet columns.
If you knew the costs of cementitious materials, you could use the SCM Method. The SCM Method would require two lines for each recipe—one line for cementitious materials, and one line for aggregates and water.
Are the concrete wood forming and accessories (CSI division 03 11 00) can contribute to recycled content?
These are temporary wood materials using only during job-site but are included in CSI Division.
Thank you for your help !
In calculations for MR Credits 3-6, include only materials permanently installed in the project.
Exclude temporary materials specified in Division 03 such as formwork, shoring, reshoring, and curing membranes. Also exclude other temporary materials, such as bracing, scaffolding, protective covers, and guardrails.
I agree with Jon, formwork doesn't count towards MRc3-6, but my understanding is that any formwork that will be reused on another project counts toward MRc2, construction waste management, since it is being diverted from the landfill.
Yes. If temporary materials are purchased for a project and retained or sold for reuse, they can count toward MRc2; however, rented materials cannot.
Also, MRc7 DOES allow wood products purchased for temporary use on a project to be included in 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. calculations for that credit. If any such materials are included, all temporary wood must be included. (I have tried this option before, but documentation was a nightmare. It did not help credit achievement, so I gave up.)
That should just about cover temporary materials for all MR credits.
Thanks for clarifying.
A lasted question : do we include temporary material into the total cost calculation (45% default value) or can we exclude it even if it's in CSI Division 3?
Thank you for you for your help
Caroline - The total cost calculation (45% default) includes ALL costs in Divisions 03-10 and the Sections in 31 and 32. You cannot exclude the cost of temporary items.
The purpose of the “45% Default” calculation is to estimate total material cost when the contractor’s cost breakdown fails to itemize permanent material costs separately from labor and other cost. The Default assumes 45% for permanent materials, with the remaining 55% for temporary construction and installation labor & equipment. Therefore, you must multiply 45% times the “total hard costs” for the required CSI Divisions.
If using the “Actual Cost” method, you must exclude formwork and other temporary construction.
I know the thrust of this conversation is surrounding form work which is specified in Division 3. Other costs for temporary materials may be more complicated. Specifically, I'm thinking about mock ups which I would specify in Division 1 but the materials themselves are specified in Divisions 3 - 10. I would not include mock up costs in the 45% Default costs. Do others do the same?
Typically, mockups constitute only a tiny percentage of overall material costs. Therefore, it may make little difference whether you include them or not—well within the margin of error assumed by the default calculation. However, if you project has extensive (and expensive) mockups, it might be wise to require the contractor to account for mockup costs separately. Even then, many Specs allow mockup materials to be incorporated into finished construction, allowing mockup costs to be recouped. It sounds like hairsplitting.
If we require this level of detail in the contractors’ schedules of value, pay applications, and cost reports, we might as well require them to itemize “Actual Material Costs” separately from labor and other costs.
As noted above, the “45% Default” is an estimate made as a stopgap when itemized material costs are not available. It is also intended as a conservative (high) approximation, so tweaking numbers downward could be seen as “gaming,” even if done so only to make the estimate more accurate.
Forgive us, Caroline, for wandering so far off-topic. Your questions have struck a chord, and it is easy to get carried away.
Oh no problem, anyway it's very interesting.
Jon, you said the 45% gets multiplied by the “total hard costs”, which makes sense and is straight from the credit language. However, there's been discussion on this forum about contractor overhead being applied to the relevant divisions, such that the 45% is multiplied by the 'cost to the owner'. Do you consider contractor overhead and profit as part of the "total construction cost" that gets multiplied by 0.45?
Lyle—Hard costs typically include contractor overhead and profit. See Nadav’s response to Travis’s January 2010 questions at the bottom of the last page of this MRc4 forum:
Thank you, Jon. That makes it very clear.
Here's the problem I have with this: "Cost to the owner" AKA "Contract Value" can be way more than just hard hosts. Many of our subcontractors have a design-assist role (i.e. curtain wall subcontractor/installer), and I don't think it's fair to include all that money for hours and hours of engineering and drafting to take your 45% from. Temporary materials? Yes. Shop Drawings? No. Imagine a Venn diagram with material cost within installed cost, and installed cost within contract value. I think it's perfectly fair to take 45% from whatever you can prove (via a SOV or requisition) is an accurate "installed cost", even if that "installed cost" is only 70% of the contract value. I can't say there is consensus on this, this is my interpretation based on the intent of the credit. I can't say all other agree with me on this but you should...
I have a letter that states company x is confirming its steel used is from making plants utilizes the electric resistance welding to recycle ferrous (iron based) scrap metal.
total post consumer content of recycled ferrous scrap is 96%
total pre consumer content of recycled ferrous scrap is 3%
total content of pig iron is 1%
The leed reference guide states the following:
"Resuing materials reclaimed from the same process in which they are generated - though good practice - does not contribute toward the recycled content of the material. In other words putting waste back into the same manufacturing process from which it came is not considered recycling because it was not diverted from the waste stream. Reuse of materials includes rework, regrind, or scrap product" - Page 371 of the reference guide
1) Does my steel meet the requirements of MR 4 ? Can my steel contribute toward/s Mr 4?
2) Can someone please give me an example of "resuse of materials includes rework, regrind, or scrap product"
3) The above states "putting waste back into the same manufacturing process from which it came is not considered recycling?" ... Putting waste back into the same manufacturing process is the definition of pre-consumer recycled content? Do you agree? Can someone plz elaborate.
"Electric resisitance welding" would be a method to connect two pieces of steel. I suspect the document either says "electric arc furnace" or it's a bad translation.
What you have documents recycled content not "reuse". An example of reuse would be collecting steel beams from one job and repurposing them for another (or same) job WITHOUT melting the scrap. They could have been the structure of the old building and the same in the new building or the old structural beams can be a new ramp over some gap. They don't need to be used for the same purpose.
Either way the steel you have would qualify under MR4 as recycled content.
I have input all of the information into the form table for these Materials and Resources credits, but the table indicator at the bottom of the table still reads "Incomplete". Do all cells need to have information in them for the table to be "Complete"? I think that everything has been input correctly and the form doesn't show the points documented.
Nicholas - Are you referring to the information you input into a form in LEED Online v3 (LOv3)? If so, can you please tell me the version of the form you are using (lower right hand corner)?
Michelle - Yes, that is exactly what I am referring to. I am using LEED Online Version 3.
Nicholas - Please look at the form from LEED Online and look at its lower right hand corner. Does it say "Version 3.0" or does it say "Beta" or something else?
The reason I am asking is because the Version 4.0 and higher MRc3-7 forms don't have you input information into the form itself. Instead you input the information into the BDC Materials and Resources calculator, which is an Excel spreadsheet and I want to make sure we're on the same page. :)
It says Version 3.0 in the lower right corner. Thanks for clarifying.
Ok - Here are a couple things to consider.
1. The Project Team Administrator should consider making sure that all forms are updated to the current version. Read more at https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co....
2. If you are going to stick with using the Version 3.0 version of the form, have you filled in all the General items including number of items purchased (1 or more) as well as the MRc4 %s? Have you deleted any blank rows? Do you have the right credits checked off on the first page? Do you have the actual vs. default materials option selected on the first page and the value inserted? Without seeing the form that's about all the help I can provide...
Yes, I have gone through your list and made sure all things were correct. Is there a way I could send you the form to look over and give me some more advice. How long does the upgrading process take for updating the form?
Nicholas you DO have to fill in all the blanks, or the form won't register as complete. A pain, I know. If you have the form filled out, you don't want to update it at this point - you will lose all the info you already entered in to the form.
I have double checked to make sure all cells are filled in, at least with a zero if there is no information. The table still registers as incomplete. Any more suggestions?
Hmmmm... My projects are under review, so I can't go in and check everything I did to make the form work. 1) Check to make sure you have enough documents uploaded to meet the minimum requirement, and added an "X" in the cutsheet column as applicable. 2) Do you have an lines that had a material listed, but then you deleted the information and (since you can't delete an individual line on that version of the form) filled in everything with "0"s? If so, make sure you put a "1" in the cell for the "Number of Items Purchased". It will calculate it as 1 item x $0 = $0, so it won't effect your material costs. 3) In lines where I deleted information I put in text "N/A" for the Name/Description column, thinking that the form may require text, not a number in that cell field. 4) The only other thing I can think of is that the form doesn't like to have "0" in the milage columns. Any material that had 0% regional value I put a "0" in the "% Reg" column, and then put a consistant number higher than 500 in the milage columns. In my case I put "501", but it could be "999", "1000", etc. I then added a note in the Special Circumstances portion of the template form to explain to the reviewer what I did. I hope something I listed helps!
Nicholas - Did you have any luck? I wanted to note that upgrading forms can be fairly quick - like 72 hours but you will have to re-enter all your data as Renee notes. I think one of the reasons that the v4.0+ forms went away from direct entry and to using an Excel spreadsheet was because the forms were so glitchy. If you can't get it to show complete, use Special Circumstances on the form to explain that you tried a lot of things and couldn’t get table to move to complete.
I was unlucky and the form still seems to be glitchy. I will have to defer to using the special circumstances to explain why the table is still incomplete. However, the form will still read that I have not earned these credits. Will the reviewers still be able to award me the credits if everything checks out?
They will. In a recent Proven Provider pre-submittal call, the GBCI energy reviewer said that she doesn't look so much at whether the form is showing complete and in compliance as much as the data in the form and its accuracy.
How can we use the reinforcement steel towards this credit? Generally, suppliers do not have any information. Can we count 50% straightaway?
KC - If your suppliers are unable or unwilling to provide information on the recycled content of any steel product, you can use the default recycled content value. As noted in the LEED Reference Guide, "For steel products where no recycled content information is available, assume the recycled content to be 25% postconsumer." See also the FAQ above "Is the default average recycled content value of 25% for steel still allowed?." You would take 100% of the cost of the reinforcement steel times the 25% to get its recycled content value.
Note that many steel products have a higher percentage of recycled content than the default but if you can't get that value, at least you have a fallback.
Thanks Michelle, That was really helpful.
Can landscape and irrigation materials be included?
Paving, Site Improvements, & Planting—Yes.
Irrigation & Constructed Wetlands—No.
LEED-2009 limits MR Credit materials to those specified in CSI MasterFormat 2004 Divisions 03-10, Foundations Sections 316000-316999, Paving Sections 321000-321999, Site Improvement Sections 323000-323999, and Planting Sections 329000-329999.
This is a change since LEEDv2.2, which used an older version of MasterFormat and included irrigation and site utilities.
We receive letters from suppliers and manufacturers documenting the recycled content of the materials, but not declaring the cost per item. So, is this sufficient or the letters must document the cost?
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.