Common purchase orders

I would question the general contractor further about the "identical" building costs per Division. I can envision how most of the finishes, facade, and floor plans are identical, but I would question the foundation and landscaping costs. Here in the Pacific NW there could be a major variance in topography and soils that would create unique foundation structure for the two buildings. In addition I imagine that the landscaping/parking layout is not 100% identical. It would be worth clarifying this with the GC and getting them to provide some letter attesting to the fact that both building costs will be 100% identical. Or have that GC give you a material cost estimate for each building so that you can adjust your Total costs calculation and give you specific direction on how to divide each common PO to reflect each building accurately.

Recently I had two buildings, with separate LEED registrations, being constructed at the same time with the same GC (my firm). The foreman on site would sometimes coordinate an order from the lumberyard together. I had to make each team, make notes on the lumber invoice about which line items and quantities went to which project so I could accurately report for my MRc7 credit.
Good luck!

I have a single structure that houses two separate projects that had to be contracted/bid separately by law. It was therefore required for us to treat them as two separate LEED projects, since there was no guarantee that both projects would be awarded to the same contractor...technically.

Of course, they were in reality. That, however, complicated all the purchasing, since it was entirely illogical to order the exact same supplies for the two sides separately, they were one order. The contractor's consultant determined exact percentages of the total costs that should apply to each side based on the SF of the two sides and the cost estimate breakdowns. We asked GBCI for confirmation that this approach was logical and would be accepted...and they said it would not! They wanted an actual separate breakdown for each project. For things like the FSC invoices, they could be on the same invoice, but had to be itemized individually for the two projects, showing what doors were for what side.

Some of this could have been alleviated by using the Campus approach; however, for many other various reasons, it wasn't a viable option for the project. Long story there.

Emily,

It is mystifying that GBCI denied your approach, as that is the [implied] acceptable method to use for Groups and Campus projects. I wonder if you could use the pre-construction estimates to justify the final allocation of costs. We had a campus project that had identical buildings and we resubmitted the same materials cost information for each building.

Good luck!

Weird, right?

This was the question we posed:

"We have two separately registered LEED projects that physically share one building: Proj 1, and Proj 2. They serve different functions, have separate entries and mechanical systems, and are separated internally by a solid, fire-rated wall. These projects are Federal, and as such, were required to be treated as two separate projects. One contractor was awarded both projects.

The contractor is trying to determine a logical and efficient way to separate the products/materials for the construction-related credits in the MR category. Since the two projects use the same buildings materials in order to construct one building, their costs are difficult to separate.
Based on the total construction costs, Proj 1 has 65.47% and Proj 2 has 34.53% of the Total Construction Cost.
We would like confirmation whether material cost for specific items in the M&R Calculator can be split between each project using these percentages. The contractor feels this would be a more accurate representation of the cost difference between the two projects, rather than using a percentage based on gross square footage totals of each project.

Please advise if the above proposed approach would be an appropriate way to calculate the MR credits for each of the two projects described above. Please see attached Excel file for an example of how the calculations would be tracked."

This was their exact response. You'll see they suggested the Group approach, but that just wasn't an option b/c of the requirements of the project. Plus, we were already into construction, and it would have been too late in the process to make the switch. We usually barely get enough budget to complete documentation, let alone do it twice.

"There is no published guidance that permits project teams to prorate materials costs across separate LEED projects, by cost or floor area or any other metric.  Construction materials information is expected to be tracked separately for each project.  If the project team would like to propose an alternative approach, then you could submit a CIR. If submitting a CIR, it is recommended that the project team provides additional information about how they determined the costs for each project.

It should also be noted that if the buildings are being constructed at the same time and within the same construction contract, they may eligible to use the group approach.  When using the group approach, the project team draws one LEED Project Boundary around all of the buildings in the group, and the entire group receives a single LEED certification under one rating system.  For group projects, documentation for MRc4-7 is aggregated for all buildings/spaces within the group.  For more information, please see the Campus Guidance: http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%20Campus%20Guidance_4.1.2014(6).pdf."

Hi all,

I realize that this response is not particularly helpful at this point. But please note that GBCI does not and never has required justification for the overall materials cost that is being used for a building. Nor do they require purchase orders or proof of what was purchased for a building (with the exception of FSC), only that you provide the material dollar value for that product and previously the backup that substantiates the claimed attributes. And of course separate projects are submitted separately. I have used the percentage division methodology on several previous LEED projects that were separate but built in conjunction with each other using common purchasing.

As we all know, there is an underlying reality to the way things get built that is not always as ideal as reviewers would wish. Common sense coupled with good intent and consistent application used to go a long way. Good luck.

I get the underlying logic of denying this approach - the reviewer doesn't know whether, for example, one building has substantially more wood or a structural difference that might make enough difference to sway the calculation. They don't want to award the point to a building that's being "carried" by its neighbor. But I wonder if that was a standard customer service answer and you might be able to escalate the question, include some floor plans showing the buildings are close enough to the same in everything but size, before having to resort to a CIR. 

That said, Michelle makes a great point that you are submitting each project separately, and without the explanation for how you broke down the costs they're going to look like totally separate projects to the reviewer (if they even go to the same reviewer).