Are you using Environmental Materials Reporting Forms for the contractors?

Hi Courtney,

I'll bet you get lots of answers to this one. It's been a significant impact for us with v4 projects. We don't give them the calculators. We fill them out based on submittals. While it might arguably help them with tracking, it's complicated and our GCs just aren't familiar enough with what they are looking for and whether the backup complies.

We certainly give out sourcing database info and samples of the materials and try to be excruciatingly clear about the impacts to submittal review with respect to volumes/SF/cost that may be needed if emissions are not provided for low emitting categories. And we try to distinguish the issues of low emitting review vs. EPD/HPDs that you might be able to simply get from other products. I have seen many submittal cover sheets being used that try to capture everything needed, but so far I have not seen much submittal backup that actually provides it. I'm sure that will improve.

Going through submittals takes a lot more time, so it's wise to narrow your focus as much as possible. The worst case scenario is a project that tries to require all low emitting categories to comply in hopes that some will work and wants to just look at everything for EPD/HPDs. Paints and adhesives as low emitting categories are also more time consuming because they span so many different submittals.

Michelle's right on likely numerous ways to approach, including a project we have together.

I can confirm that Michelle's approach alleviates the confusion for the subs to try and record/match everything that would be on a typical coversheet; that said, I can also confirm that they are much more hands on in the process than my other projects' construction sustainability leads. I think that the LEED coordinators on the construction side are often limited by contract negotiations and as a result, kind of have to put more background work/time on the subs. 

The most common cover sheet variety I've seen are all slight variations of the USGBC-provided calculators, recording the same info required, but combining the MR and EQ tracking into one form. There's room on a single sheet to list multiple products in one place (for when the submittals have numerous products within) and record the varying levels of compliance/documentation. There's also usually either a notes section below the table, or in some cases, a separate tab within the excel file where some basic resources (weblinks) are provided. A PDF is provided with the specs as a guide; usually the actual working file is either handed to the construction team from the design team during the construction kick off, or the contractor's LEED person already has their own variation for use.

That's my experience so far.

Hi Courtney, I'm a LEED Reviewer and I can tell you that the Environmental Reporting Forms are useless to us. We must have the specific documentation outlined for each BPDO & LE credit; EPDs, HPDs, etc. It's excruciating to go through the volumes of random documentation teams are uploading, I think in the hope that Reviewers will somehow find what we need in there. For the sanity and efficiency of both the project teams and the Reviewers, be sure that you know and upload only the precise documents required for each of these credits. Otherwise, you will have a long string of Technical Advice comments directing you to do this. Taking time upfront to become familiar with what is required is very much worth the effort to ensure that you have a reasonable chance to earn these credits.

Additional pointers; ensure that the line items in the calculators have the same name and descriptors as the supporting documentation names, and organize the documentation by credit, don't upload all documents into all BPDO credits. The documentation requirements are different for each credit. And especially, be familiar with the number of products that are needed for the points you are attempting. Uploading hundreds of documents for many more products than needed to document the required number of products greatly slows down the review process, and greatly increases the chance of  a lot of Technical Advice comments and revisions required. The V4.1 credits reduce the number of products required to be documented in many cases.

Hope this helps - we all need to find ways to approach and handle these credits more efficiently.

For me it really depends on the contractor's experience level with v4 / availability of dedicated sustainability specialists. If the GC has that, I'll give them the cover sheets and calculators, they do the work, and I'm in more of a QC role. If the GC's staff person handling LEED submittals is new to v4, I might get half the submittals with a cover sheet and most of them still have v2009 information in the backup.

I think of the cover sheet and calculator as some of the many resources I'll give the contractor to help them understand and communicate the credit requirements, but unlike in v2009 where the requirements were much simpler, I expect to do the majority of the product research, documentation compiling, and calculator filling in. If the GC is able and willing to do more of that work, that's a nice bonus, but i can't expect that from most of them. V4 just takes so much more specialized knowledge.

To Amanda's point above, the way submittals come in doesn't correlate at all to how LEED organizes the credits, so keeping everything in its orginal submittal package format won't work for your LEED submission. I recommend creating a folder on your drive for each calculator tab (BPDO/Low Emitting (adhesives/sealants), Low Emitting (flooring)/etc...), with subfolders for each material labeled with the corresponding line number in the calculator. Once I have those I can upload them as a single zip file, and make corrections within them after the first round of review. I'm sure others have other systems (or a Green Badger license!) but that's what's working best for me so far. 

We have a healthy material tracking software with custom Sustainable Material Data Sheets (SMDS) forms for the sub-contractors to fill out for the MR and EQ low-emitting material credits. It puts it in a format they easily understand to get the correct ifnormation the first time. This information autopopulates our Green Canary cloud-based software that creates a LEED master-submittal log that emulates the calculator. I am happy to share our SMDS sheets, but do not see a way to post an attachment. Please email me to request we have a project prusing LEED platinum based on this integrated approach to product data tracking from pre-bid, and enahnced equity goals by making LEEDv4 submittals more startight forward for MWESB's: summer@ecorealsolutions.com

Ummm, yes please. *sends email*

This is an interesting thread for sure. We have so many concurrent projects sitting with our various main LEED (and other) Admins that we can't dedicate that much time to helping the contractor/subs decipher everything, even if we wanted to. We write a requirement into our specs that the contractor must have their own LEED Coordinator on their team who handles everything coming from the construction side, and that person must have experience under v4, specifically. It can be someone from their own team/firm or an outside sub, but they have to have one. The ones who try to fake it and avoid having to bring that person on usually flounder and give up pretty quickly once things get going and they see what all is involved. That's happened a few times.

I have created Cover Sheets for each BPDO Credit (Option 1's) and for each "Category" of the Low Emitting Credit in an effort to help the contractors provide the correct information.  I agree that there is just too much to know and in my experience - even though we also require the CM or GC to have a LEED coordinator with experience, many (or even most) times they do not - they struggle.  The other problem to overcome is that Submittals are coming from multiple Subcontractors who may or may not have any LEED experience at all, and most have no idea where to begin.  I have seen Cover Sheets that compile multiple Credits on a single page, but again, my experience is that if contractors don't know which Credits may apply- they just leave the info blank.   I have spent time creating a comprehensive Div 01 81 13 Sustainable Design Requirements spec and I have coached my design team, engineers and job captains to put the proper language into our Specs - but I still find that getting the info right in Submittals is a challenge.  Even with the Cover Sheets - I often find myself doing research to "coach" the Subs when I have to ask for a "resubmittal" of LEED info - for example, "this product has Greenguard Gold Certification - please resubmit with the proper documentation"....  I also agree this is an interesting thread - and I am so curious as to what works for everyone else.  We have had no luck actually enforcing that the contractor/CM be "up to speed" with LEED.     

We work on both the design and construction side and find that the material cover sheets help us keep everyone on the same page. From a design side, it helps to ensure that the contractor is consistent in what documentation they're providing. When we run construction, we use it to for our final due diligence before submitting construction credits. We then remove these forms for LEED reviewers as mentioned above. Definitely interested in Summer's integrated system.  We've worked with Greenbadger in the past on some projects and we're not finding that our design teams are utilizing the systems beyond our monthly updates.

Jumping in a bit late to the game in the discussion. In my experience, having the GC update the calculators directly is a mess – there’s no accountability, no ability to see who updated what, when, where or why. The calculators are a nightmare enough for experienced LEED professionals to manage, much less having it continuously passed back and forth.

Green Badger automates collection for all BPDO and Low-Emitting documentation in our cloud-portal and provides real-time dashboards so you know exactly where your project stands on each construction credit.

What's more, our extensive database provides all the back up documentation (EPD/HPD/CDPH) so there's much less worry about what comes from the subs. Finally, it exports into the LEED calculators so you never have to touch one of those macro-embedded nightmares. Hundreds of project teams are finding this to be the easiest way to track/verify/document these credits and you never have to worry about a calculator again.

I'd pose a broader question regarding process - if the design team has done a half decent job of identifying products with EPD/HPDs and CDPH (rather than a generic LEED spec) it should really just be a verification process as those products come in (with a bit more attention paid to alternates/substitutions) vs having to worry about every single submittal. Where I see challenges is when there is an expectation of a full LEED submittal for every product regardless of how minimal the impact is. Honestly, you can earn the EPD/HPD points and get enough low-emitting product types from 6 or so general submittal categories and not worry about the rest (we’ve got an entire guide on this available at getgreenbadger.com/resources/)

Unless you’re really trying to push the envelope, get your 20 products (with a buffer) and call it a day (which you can get with insulation, paints, flooring, drywall, ceiling tiles and doors/hardware).

For Low-emitting, punt on the categories that require multiple submittals (specifically adhesives).  Paints, Flooring, Ceilings, Walls and Insulation tends to be individual submittals (of course depending on the complexity of your project), but you’re not going through 30 different submittals to track down every single sealant used on a project. At a minimum, you can narrow it down pretty specifically (in my humble opinon).

Regardless of the platform you use, we see much happier project teams when they focus their efforts to earn the credits in the least amount of submittals possible, which reduces the back and forth and headaches for everyone.

I agree with Tommy.

If you include either basis of design materials, or callout specific materials, as the Architect you should have already vetted the products you want to use on your project.

I've been using GreenBadger for a couple months now and am so glad that I found this solution! Such a time saver on the designer's end during construction administration. I always have a LEED kickoff meeting with the general contractor and show them exactly what I am needing in the submittal. So that when the sub sends them the product submittal they know what to look for. Biggest things always missing in the submittals is the materials cost and/or the volume used.

I am really intrigued by the ideas here, but based upon my experience I have a few reservations.  With respect to basis-of-design or proprietary products, we have done this in some cases (especially the harder "Optimization" parts of BPDO credits, Flush-Flow fixtures, etc.), but regardless of how hard I try to educate the Team it is nearly impossible to cover everything in all of the Spec Sections with fully pre-screened products.  For example, I do not want an engineer to spec a joint sealant for its HPD, or an acoustician to pick a ceiling product and both forget to check the Low Emitting criteria.  So many products have cross-over to multiple credits.  We are a reasonably sized A/E firm and you can imagine how difficult it is to get every engineer, architect, interior designer, job captain, PM and consultant (all responsible for product selections) to be aware of the differing criteria for all of the credits not to mention additional differences in Rating systems (Schools, Healthcare).    And, as Tommy mentioned the complexity of the project can also make this daunting. 

I also have a different experience with respect to reviewing Submittals – sometimes it can be verification of a specified product, but I don’t presume that the data is correct until I see it.  As you know, not every HPD (for example) is a LEED compliant and getting proper recycled content or FSC documentation can still be a challenge (even this deep into the LEED years).  I have contacted more than one manufacturer to let them know that the documentation they have linked on their website has expired, or that I need more info for it to be v4 compliant.  I also watch for, say - adhesives or paints lurking in odd submittals like piping, or structural steel or curtainwall.  Super Kudos to your construction team if they are really vetting everything, but in my world a CM or GC that is fully checking submittals, let alone across multiple credits is a unicorn.  And in all honesty, I don’t really blame them – much of that is our work.

The next thing that gives me pause is that I seem to be approaching this with a slightly different perspective and you are probably going to think I am a little nuts, but I actually want to drive change in the industry with our product research and specs and I want to meet Low Emitting criteria for all of the categories we pursue (if that is humanly possible) because I really believe in the intent.  Besides, I never want to have to collect quantity (even I am that realistic) – so we make sure everything used meets the VOC limits. By the way, I find walls to be a tricky category because so many acoustical, tack & wall covering products lack testing.   I might stop documenting EPD’s and Material Ingredients once I get to Exemplary Performance, but (in my humble opinion) there is no harm in collecting a few extra (or giving the A/E and Construction team the exposure along the way).

I love Tommy’s sense of humor about it and I apologize for the novel…  I am truly intrigued by the conversation and the possibilities for doing it better - nonetheless I am beginning to feel like a submittal control freak. 

For people interested in this thread, a few of us are having a panel discussion tomorrow (Wed May 26) about this general process, moderated by Tommy. The audience will be able to submit questions. The info/registration link is here: https://getgreenbadger.com/resources/#webinars 

As a GC- we have found success is having the design team create a LEED matrix summary by division/credit. We'll add a column in the matrix with the sub responsible, then filter for that sub and then answer any questions they have on documentation or submittals during preconstruction. 

We've also required subs to bookmark their submittals/packages so our PE's can more efficiency confirm they provided the required material labels/information. 

We've used cover sheets, "welcome to this LEED project" emails  and LEED training for our subs, but all of these has had varied success. 

We're Green Badger users. It's helped our teams know where they are in hitting targets and helps them keep organized.