I have a v4 core and shell project whose total materials cost will be roughly $36,000,000. The total cost of interiors will be about $1,000,000. If interiors are such a small % of the total job, then it seems the project cannot possibly meet the MR Building Product Disclosure and Optimization credit requirement that structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant products. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Seems like this requirement won't work for core and shell projects.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
December 28, 2015 - 9:59 am
Rebecca, this seems like a pretty major issue with applying this credit to Core & Shell, though MEP systems should also count as non-structure/enclosure. Still, in your case, $12.6m of the compliant building products would have to be neither structure nor enclosure, which is absurd. I think that can't be how they intend to apply it, but this may require a CIR.
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
January 22, 2016 - 11:27 am
Rebecca, I got a chance to speak to Sara Cederberg at USGBC yesterday. This is a known issue that they are trying to resolve, and she said they are looking for creative ideas. Sara would love to hear from you!
Martin Stowell
Energy EngineerEBI Consulting
4 thumbs up
January 24, 2016 - 1:52 pm
Would it be possible to write certain stipulations into lease for future tenants? I also have a core and shell v4 project that does not have any tenants yet, and we are struggling to figure out if there will even be 20 permanently installed products.
I am struggling to determine how much we can state in a tenant lease in order to gain points in the MR credits.
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
January 25, 2016 - 8:27 am
Alanna, this sounds like the kind of creative thinking that USGBC is looking for! I would encourage you to get in touch with Sara Cederberg.
Julien Richard
Artelia8 thumbs up
September 12, 2016 - 4:39 am
I have the same problem on a project. Do you know if the USGBC decided something on this issue or is still looking for ideas ?
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
September 12, 2016 - 7:19 am
Julien, I think they are still gathering ideas. Haven't seen interpretations related to this yet.
Julien Richard
Artelia8 thumbs up
September 12, 2016 - 9:07 am
It could be an exception like:
« For Core&Shell projects where structure and enclosure materials (S&E) represent more than X% (60%, 70%, more ?) of the cost of all products, then Structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than : 50% - (100% – S&E%) x Y%. Where Y would be the minimum % of compliant products the USGBC is requiring for products outside of the scope of “structure&enclosure”.
Exemple if S&E represent 80%, then if Y=50% : S&E may not constitute more than 40% of the value of compliant building products.
That would give some flexibility and make this point possible even for C&S projects with very limited work outside of structure and enclosure scope
Paula Melton
Editorial DirectorBuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Moderator
180 thumbs up
September 12, 2016 - 10:14 am
Makes sense to me! I recommend sending to Sara Cederberg at USGBC.