The project is a high rise commercial building, going for EBOM certification. The number we have for FTEs is outdated, as of about a year ago. Management has changed since this number was confirmed and the building has increased in occupancy by about 10%. Does anyone have any ways of going about finding an accurate head count? Thank you!
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Louise Schlatter
ArchitectSSOE Group
86 thumbs up
July 30, 2013 - 11:48 am
Does the building have some form of security?
After practically standing on my head to convince various heads of security that names were not needed, I have been successful in getting people-hours from various security records for one month, three months, and one year. This works simply if your building is primarily an 8 to 5 operation. It is a little more complicated if your building is a 24/7 or something in between. Ask security if they can refine their data by time periods. This works, but you need a calculatation strategy and you need to explain to the reviewers how you are calculating FTE.
It was just by luck, the three month data came to me broken down by hour. We defined the largest shift and the effective total number of users. The rest is history. :)
Elizabeth Felder
2 thumbs up
July 30, 2013 - 8:57 pm
Hi Lousie -
Yes, the building is a typical office with 8-5 operations. The building does have a security desk and staff, however, building occupants seem to rarely scan their access cards in order to enter the building (past the elevator lobby). Unfortunately, I don't believe security has data or records of all foot traffic and if so, it would be a much smaller number than what is accurate because of this.
The most recent FTE value we have for the building is from a year ago. I'm wondering if there is any way to estimate, based on the amount of additional leased space (say, 60% leased at 1200 occupants, but now 80% leased) or another calculation - since we have stacking plans from both of these eras.
I'm glad to hear the security strategy worked for your team! I wish that were the case for us as well!
Thank you.
Louise Schlatter
ArchitectSSOE Group
86 thumbs up
July 31, 2013 - 11:33 am
Elizabeth,
Sorry the security data strategy isn’t going to work for you.
So. On to Plan B.
When faced with a dilemma where the explicit instructions for LEED does not match one’s actual condition, find a logical approach that addresses the intent and explain your approach to the reviewers. If it is critical to your approach to LEED documentation, you may want to make a USGBC/GBCI formal inquiry process.
If the situation really is a straight percentage increase, then a simple calculation using the ratio of the new to the old percentage times the old number of occupants might suit. That would be (80%/60%) x 1200 = 1600 occupants.
If you need a more granular response, a BOMA approach (you can reference ANSI/BOMA Z65.3) may fit best. This approach is also similar to that used in architectural programming.
1. Take the total gross leasable area (GLA), say 400,000 sf, and multiply it by the known leased percentage. This should match and be your gross leased square feet: 400,000 sf GLA x 60% = 240,000 sf gross leased square feet.
2. Divide the number of gross leased square feet by the number of occupants to get average number of GLA per occupant for this building. In this example, 240,000 sf gross leased square feet / 1200 occupants = 200 GLA/occupant.
3. Divide the updated number of gross leased square feet by the average GLA/occupant to get a calculated number of occupants. In this example, use 320,000 sf as the new gross leased square feet: 320,000 sf / 200 GLA/occupant = 1600 occupants.
Our friends at the USGBC/GBCI are generally pretty reasonable. Make sure you are focusing on the intent, clearly explain your approach and why it meets the intent. Vet your strategy using the formal inquiry process, when it seems prudent. And you should be fine.
My question is how are you going to handle transients?