Anyone been through full review of this credit yet?

Just received approval on the credit
we did use 3 products from different manufacturers
the manufacturers are not publishing data on this credit but most ceiling tile, flooring manufacturers have information that can be used - have to do some digging and analysis to get the documentation for the credit
took a little time but was successful
good luck

We recently completed this credit and will be submitting for review shortly.  We selected products from 3 manufacturers; one insulation and two carpets.  I found the documents most helpful in pursuing this Pilot Credit were: MSDS Sheets, HPDs, and EPDs.  I also referenced specifications, manufacturer LEED letters and maintenance recommendations.  I found that Declare Labels and Cradle 2 Cradle certification and material health certificates gave an overall health rating, but didn't provide the level of detail required to complete this analysis.  

I recently completed this pilot credit for a core & shell office building. The project selected an insulation, flooring, and ceiling tile product for this credit. Each product was from a manufacturer that had at least a published EPD and MSDS which we were able to use to answer the majority of the credit requirements. Additional documentation from the manufacturer including an HPD, and installation and maintenance guidelines, were also helpful but sometimes redundant from the EPD. 

The guidance document for this credit was posted recently and should have helpful insights for teams looking to complete this credit.  

I participated in the recent webinar offered by the USGBC and was glad to receive the additional guidance. It is also very helpful to know the Sherwin Williams authored documentation meet the criteria of this Pilot Credit. My project is using two Sherwin Williams paints with the completed documentation. 

I recently watched the link to the webinar hosted by USGBC providing information on strategies learned, and resources available, to help a project achieve this credit. After viewing the webinar, I still find the excel table they provide to be unclear and almost too succinct to adequately outline the information being asked for. I am using a modified table, based on the excel document, for use in reporting the three products analyzed for this credit. I currently have one project pursuing this credit now, with two additional projects to be submitted shortly. 

We're pursuing this using some Armstrong and Sherwin Williams products. Agreed that Sherwin Williams documentation made this easy for those products. EPDs and MSDS sheets have been our primary resource, however there have been some challenges trying to figure out the impacts associated with end of life. 

We have found this credit to be very do-able and that it pairs very nicely with the BPDO: EPD & Material Ingredient credits if your project is pursuing them. Having three products with both an HPD and EPD as well as SDS typically provides you with all the information you need to complete the analysis for this credit. The products we are typically seeing have this have included, paints, ceiling products and carpets.  

I have recently completed documentation using a floor, gypsum panel, and acoustical ceiling tile. Due to the budget on the project, material selection included the most 'economical' of the manufacturer's offering. I felt this had an impact on the available types of documentation- no EPD in some cases; which has been the most helpful, next to the SDS, in my past experience of documenting this credit. It will be interesting to see if manufacturer's go back and complete an EPD for these products, or if their availability in the market will be impacted by their diminished contribution to LEED v4 credits.

We have successfully documented this credit on one of our CI projects using an Armstrong ceiling panel, Interface carpet tile and rubber sheet flooring by nora systems. Several of our NC projects are also pursuing this credit, mostly using insulation, ceiling systems and panels, paints, carpet and other flooring products.

We’ve been finding this credit relatively easy to implement if the project is already pursuing the BPDO EPD & Material Ingredients credits. Declare Labels, Cradle-to-Cradle and Material Health Certificates don’t provide enough detail, so we typically use EPDs and HPDs to document this credit, sometimes a MSDS is needed for additional information.

David, Just curious how many hours were used for the research? Thanks 

We have just completed this pilot credit for a Commercial Interiors project. The three products used were ceramic tile, batt insulation, and particleboard. All of these products had EPDs, HPDs, and MSDS's which made finding relevant information easy to do. I found the information was available for each product. However, I do think the pilot credit could explain the requirements instead of just list them. That way, the most accurate information is found and relayed for the credit. The analysis is fairly detailed, so the more documentation a product has available, the more information can be submitted. 

We achieved this pilot on a recent project using three Sherwin Williams products. Our team developed detailed analysis for each of the products. I see no reason why this analysis couldn't be duplicated on other projects using the same product.

Products that have EPD's, HPD's and SDS (ALL three) are the easiest to document this credit.  Singling out products by this criteria helped to reduce the documentation time.  Still some time reviewing and comparing, but most information was available from these resources.

We applied three different products to this innovation pilot credit for a CI v4 project.  Referencing the EPDs, HPDs, and SDSs for each product made this pilot credit pretty straightforward and helpful for our design team when determining the products to use. 

Maegan Sweeney has written: "I still find the excel table they provide to be unclear".

Which table do you mean? Is that available online free?

Francesco - I was referring to the worksheet available under the resources tab for the Pilot Credit, found here: https://www.usgbc.org/resources/integrative-analysis-building-materials-worksheet My office created a modified table for use in documenting this credit, which has been approved on our v4 projects that have pursued this pilot credit. 

I also found the documentation from Sherwin Williams for this credit but I found it to be rather vague in comparison to the information I pulled out from EPDs and HPDs for other products. 

We are attempting this credit on two different projects. We have found that if we have the EPDs, HPDs and SDS the credit is achievable and relatively quick, no more than a few hours worth of work. If you choose a manufacturer like Sherwin Williams who have completed the documentation its even quicker. Hopefully more manufacturers pick up on this technique and speed the process up. 

It is amazing how quickly you can document this credit using three different finishes of Sherwin Williams paints. I wonder if the credit requirements will ultimately change to require 3 products from 3 different manufacturers, as the market progresses and more manufacturers have such documentation provided. However, I think the existing requirements are appropriate in the current market.

We pursued this credit using Armstrong and Shaw carpet products. It was fairly simple to complete. We referenced EPDs, HPDs, and MSDS.

Given that the pilot credit does not require more than one manufacturer, our team was able to comply with the requirements using three different Sherwin Williams coatings. Sufficient reports that analyzed health, safety, and environmental impacts were prepared by the manufacturer, which made it fairly easy to document this credit. 

Based on forum comments (and my own previously approved project experience) I see that several projects have achieved this Pilot using three different paint products. Heads up, I recently received a GBCI review comment stating "material worksheet includes only one type of product (paints), whereas this strategy requires projects to include three different product types." A call with the review team confirms, they are looking for three different material types (ex. paint, ceiling tile, carpet)

Great catch, Summer. Thanks for sharing!

We have recently completed this pilot credit for a Core and Shell project. Our approach was to select different products that were compliant with all the Building Product Disclosure and Optimization Credits as they would have all manufacturer related literature that would provide the information needed for this credit; paint (Sherwin Williams), fiberglass insulation and a SBS roof base sheet membrane. For the insulation and SBS base sheet membrane, we reached out directly to the manufacturers explaining the credit requirements and providing the excel worksheet, which streamlined the process for this credit. The Integrative Analysis Guidance document under resources for this credit was a helpful resource to send to the manufacturers to give a step-by-step on how to fill out the worksheet. EPDs and SDS were a primary resource in documenting this credit.

Has anyone recieved a review based on materials from manufacturers other than Shewrin Williams and Armstrong that can be named?

Using three Sherwin Williams paint products or same product types is no longer accepted. Got following guidance - 

"Using the same paint documentation over and over in projects does not move the knowledge to meet the above to inform decision-making - nor the Background information listed in the credit: "Transparency and life cycle thinking have always been central to the market transformation LEED is seeking related to materials and is foundational to the future development of LEED. This pilot credit is designed to give LEED users the ability to provide feedback on the kind of information currently available related to building products and materials across their life cycles, and also inform USGBC of what further information is needed to be able to make complex trade-off decisions."

The Requirements state to Use at least three different permanently installed products .... And, we expect to see variety that will help to create market transformation. And, the Credit Intent for the Innovation Category is "To encourage projects to achieve exceptional or innovative performance."

We received the integrative analysis pilot credit for a core and shell building.  We submitted documentation from American Fiber Cement (AFC), American Gypsum and Clark Dietrich.  We found these three companies and their products supplied exemplary documentation to complete the Integrative Analysis documentation.

To me, it seems like a good exercise to examine similar types of products but by different manufacturers. So, for instance, using two different insulation products (fiberglass batt vs mineral wool board) by different manufacturers, you can fill out the spreadsheet and then compare those two products for health and life-cycle impacts.  Specifically, since both products use the same 'functional unit' within their respective EPDs (an inch of R-value), you can also compare which of those products is really better environmentally - both for health and environment.  I found the exercise more meaningful and more useful this way.

We are working on this pilot credit using 3 products: 1) Dune ceiling panel (Armstrong), 2) LOXON Concrete & Masonry Primer (Sherwin Williams) and 3) ProMar 200 HP Zero VOC Eg-Shel (Sherwin Williams).

Does the integrative analysis worksheet must be completely filled?

'Potential safety impacts' might only be described during the 'product use' stage.

Is it allowed to have some empty cells or some cells completed with a 'not applicable given product function'?

Be advised that LEED Reviewers have recently rejected a submission using three paint products from Sherwin Williams for MRpc103 Integrative Analysis of Building Materials.  Review Comments were as follows:  " Note that documenting three paint products does not demonstrate exceptional or innovative performance."  

Be advised that LEED Reviewers have recently rejected a submission using three paint products from Sherwin Williams for MRpc103 Integrative Analysis of Building Materials. Review Comments were as follows: " Note that documenting three paint products does not demonstrate exceptional or innovative performance."

Our team found that selecting products with comprehensive EPDs, HPDs, and manufacturer recycling/take back programs helped. For our project, we analyzed Sherwin Williams Promar, Armstrong  Calla, and Owens Corning EcoTouch products, as each of these manufacturers have detailed sustainability information and each of the products had EPDs, HPDs, MSDS, and Declare labels that helped us fill out the analysis worksheet. 

In our Healthcare project in v2009 we have analyzed 3 different products from 3 different manufactures: insulation material, gypsum product and base filler. All sufficient information were available on products site: EPDs, safety data sheets as well as other sustainable information. After analazing all available information integrative analysis worksheet was filled.

But when it was time to submit a credit- it seems like some EPDs validation date expiried and there is no new EPD available.

Can we still use this Integrative Analysis worksheet?

Hi Mariia were you able to submit it?

Hi, Azra!

Yes, we have submitted it and it was awarded.