Our region primarily uses design build which means that there are two very separate Schematic Design processes for our projects. Architectural plans often proceed past the permit stage before a mechanical or electrical consultant is even on the team. Since we don't have the mechanical onboard during architectural SD, it isn't possible to do shoebox models with their input at that time.
It has long been understood with Enhanced Commissioning that plan input and submittal reviews by the CxA are based on the development schedule of the MEP drawings not the architectural plans for the project.
Can we use a similar approach for achievement of this credit? That we would assess site and water opportunities during architectural SD but that the energy shoebox model assessments of envelope and systems would be done during MEP schematic design?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5921 thumbs up
May 1, 2017 - 5:32 pm
It sounds like a somewhat dis-integrative process. You can do the modeling required for this credit without the engineers but that is certainly not ideal. The whole point is to examine the interrelationships between the various building systems, especially the architectural design. The process you describe sounds like you do the architectural design and then the mechanical/electrical design as if they are almost unrelated. In an integrative process they should go hand-in-hand, not follow one another. If you are not really engaging in an integrative process why even look at this credit? (my intention here is to challenge your thinking in case that is not clear and I am coming across ans harsh)
I don't think the Cx comparison is valid as there is a big difference between design and doing Cx primarily on MEP systems. So i don't think that really applies.
You are supposed to be doing the analysis required for this credit before or very early in schematic design. There are two rounds of energy modeling required for earning points under Optimize Energy Performance which should be done during design as well. The energy analysis for this credit needs to be done before those modeling cycles. So if you wait until the architectural design is mostly complete then the point of the early stage energy model is lost. The modeling effort for this particular credit is intended to be used to inform the development of the architectural design.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
523 thumbs up
May 1, 2017 - 7:27 pm
Hi Marcus,
The challenge I think is bigger than just this credit. Our market has embraced design build as the delivery system.
In past programs, it was easy to dismiss credits that weren't a good fit for a project. Now that there are so few feasible, cost effective options available, it's not. And it makes more sense than ever to get everyone on the same page as early as possible. However, it's dis-incentivizing when we can't get any overt credit for the cost we're expending to do so.
I have a suburban YMCA client that has been doing LEED Silver projects for years. Their mission is 100% compatible with LEED, and they enrich the communities that they build in. Their next project will struggle now to even get Certified, and it will send them many thousands over budget for sustainable strategies that don't confer any more direct measurable benefit to their project than before.
Talk about a tough sell. How are you explaining this new reality to your clients?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5921 thumbs up
May 2, 2017 - 10:00 am
Agreed it is beyond this credit. I just picked this to get up on my soapbox.
I think design-build is the ideal way to do integrative design. Having the whole team on board, including the contractors, allows for integration to happen. It is one of the conditions that allows for it.
It is interesting that most of what you are saying now, people were saying about LEED for the first few years after it originally came out. The way to deal with it then, is the same way to deal with it now. If you follow good green building principles and truly practice integrative design you will score well enough in LEED. You can also use this process to figure how how to deliver it within budget. Don't treat LEED as checklist with a line item mentality. Where are the synergies, the interactions? How can I integrate systems to reduce cost?
So if you are spending money to get a credit and are still not able to earn it, you are obviously not spending the money wisely. From a good green building practice perspective the credit is trying to incentivize you to engage an integrative process. LEED v4 is clearly trying to make this practice a more overt part of the system. If the way that design-build is practiced is not in alignment with an integrative process, then that is the problem.
Again if you are having to spend many thousands of dollars over budget to do this then I would suggest you need to change your process. Some of this is clearly learning curve (same thing happened in the early days of LEED).
Good green building practice and process has not changed. Start early, involve all key stakeholders, use analysis to examine system performance and interactions, etc. The owner must be actively involved in co-creating the design or this does not work well. What has changed is the system that evaluates it. The whole point of LEED is to continually push the market in this direction and this credit is just one little baby step.
I agree if what you describe is what you are selling then it will be a tough one. So I would suggest this points to the need to think about how you can do it differently.
Michelle Rosenberger
PartnerArchEcology
523 thumbs up
May 3, 2017 - 12:58 pm
Marcus,
I appreciate your perspective. I remember the early days of LEED rating systems, but I don't entirely agree. You're missing the point, or I didn't make it very well. We are the integration. In a design build process, there is no mechanical or electrical "designer". There's an Owner with requirements and a GC who will hire subcontractors to deliver systems that can answer them. Without our sustainable guidance and input, they will direct systems that answer only code, time and budget issues.
We are the sustainable continuity. We advise the Owner and GC about options that can answer all their needs including sustainable goals. And we remain throughout the process to guide and inform the mechanical and electrical subs hired to facilitate this. We bridge the design integration gap and facilitate that interface to achieve sustainable outcomes.
GBCI/USGBC used to acknowledge that intent and interpretation were as important, and sometimes more so, than specific "letter of the law" requirements that could never be written to answer every project's reality in every region. We had the latitude to facilitate a win/win for all.
There is a very fine line between incentivizing behavior and disincentivizing it, between trying to stretch to reach a goal and simply having to cut your losses when faced with impossible expectations. Do you put showers in when there's no bike network in your vicinity? Do you understand why you should bear additional cost to source separate on a tight urban site because the USGBC has decided that your commingled waste stream is somehow not actually a commingling of several waste streams? Do you bother with an integrated process and the costs of meetings and shoebox modeling when your project uses design build for delivery and won't get any acknowledgement for that effort?
What happens when enough of these disincentives, lack of market options, and prohibitively expensive approaches combine to undercut sufficient return on your investment? Construction is still a business. What happens when sustainability by virtue of LEED certification no longer pencils? We work every day to try and make sure that doesn't happen. And we need the partnership of USGBC/GBCI to help us.