Documentation Costs?

Ellen,

Every LEED consulting professional I've spoken with feels the same way.

I would be surprised if all of these changes didn't result in a significant increase of the cost of certification - and not for the actual "being more green" changes - just for the additional analysis/paperwork!

I am not sure why the USGBC/GBCI has decided to head in this direction. We are very concerned.

It is difficult - given the avenues available for communication with the USGBC - to communicate this concern. I am very happy to discuss with you any ideas you have.

Best,
Melissa
mwrolstad@e4inc.com

I was just about to add a similar comment when I saw yours.

I appreciate some of the direction that LEED 2012 is taking, as it is really the monumental shift since v1.0. However, given the time/cost required for documentation, LEED will absolutely lose significant market share for at least three years. Perhaps this is a desirable strategic move for USGBC, but I think that they may be underestimating the cascading impacts, e.g. government bodies no long requiring it, or even prohibiting it. Are we ready to lose much of the support that we have worked for all these years?

Also, not only will documentation take more time/money, but in some cases I'm not convinced that the resulting achievements will actually yield increased performance.

I 100% agree with Ellen, Melissa and Mara. A decent proportion of my job, and virtually all of my billable work, comes from LEED documentation. Greatly increased costs for LEED documentation could well mean that I'll be looking for a new day job!

I do support many of the increased stringencies in LEED 2012. They are necessary to continue to push the market. What is needed, in my opinion, is incrementally increased stringency WITHOUT greatly increased documentation. Already, the major critique I hear of LEED is that it requires significant time and cost to document for only minor environmental improvements. (Look at much of the discussion revolving around the DOD "ban" on Gold and Platinum projects.) LEED 2012 gives significantly more weight and justification to this critique.

There are many credits within 2012 that are contributing to the overall increase (a doubling?) of documentation time. Here's a list of a few that I feel fall into this category (caveat: I haven't been able to read all of the 3rd comment period credits): Sensitive Land Protection, Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses, Quality Transit, Bicycle Network, Site Assessment, Protect or Restore Habitat, Indoor Water Use Reduction (because of new process and appliance requirements), Cooling Tower Water Use, Water Metering, Virtually all of the new MR credits, Low Emitting Interiors (Yikes!).

I don't mean to imply that all of the increased documentation is without merit-- I'm sure some of it is absolutely necessary for the increased stringency. Still, much of it of isn't absolutely necessary. And worse, some of it doesn't create much/any environmental benefit.

I would implore credit writers to simplify requirements and documentation to the maximum extent possible. Credits/Prereqs should be easy to understand, and straightforward (if not easy) to document. Options should be related and limited. Calculations should be easy and understandable.

I think my clients will understand and accept increment increases in stringency. Most will not accept a doubling of my fees.

Well said Julie! The only thing I would question is whether or not our fees will *only* double. At least in the beginning -- until the processes are systematized and we have a good sense of what GBCI will require -- I expect this to be higher.

I definitely expect LEED to lose market share, at least for a period of time.

Overall, we believe that there are too many changes in the BD&C standard for one version change. This level of change will not only disrupt the design community, but also the project certification review process.

ETI believes that the BD&C standard principally should be a gateway for the EBOM standard as the core standard of LEED. As such, BD&C should not be overly onerous and prescriptive. For many of the credits and in particular many of the newly added requirements (contained in our credit-by-credit comments) most of the benefits can be achieved with far less complex and less expensive measures.

In addition to adding implementation cost with relatively marginal returns, the cost of documenting the new credits will be significant due to the steep learning curve required.

Back in the first draft of public comments was this item. Too bad general comments are so often politely dismissed by USGBC.

"This version of LEED has increased in length by another 70% over v2009. The complexity of these credits is silly. It's worst than dealing with the government. All you're doing is adding cost to building owners and making the design professionals look dumb for not being able to tell the owner which credits can be earned with any certainty. Keep all the points you want, but trim this document back down to around 100 pages and simplify each of the credits."

At Greenbuild in Toronto, the one overarching comment I kept hearing from Scott Horst on down at the Master Series Sessions was that the LEED certification process was too hard and burdensome, and this was in reference to V3. The promise was and the expectation given was that LEED 2012 would alleviate this. Working as a LEED Consultant every day, I keeping asking myself how I am going to explain to clients why the cost of certification has gone up so much. One of the solutions I heard put forth was "LEED automation". I agree that these tools will be great once they become built to handle real world projects. They are not available today (except to document one or two credits) and don not look like they will be available for several years. I echo the comments above in that I believe we will see a diminished role for LEED and the USGBC as owners, developers and government agencies look for other ways to build sustainably without incurring the added burden LEED is putting on them.

Robert, wow, that's amazing. I don't see how Scott could have said something like that; even the prior drafts of 2012 were considerably more documentation heavy than 2009, though I think this one is even moreso. Software is going to have a limited impact on most of this stuff, at least in the first 1-3 years.

Two thoughts on everything above - I agree whole heartedly that the new credit definitions and elements force the whole documentation picture into a deeper, more specialzed spheres using obscure federal databases and all and in short it is ridiculous to expect success.

But as a 100% LEED Manager all day every day I do not agree with the prevailing approach from many architects and consultants that my role is to prepare the documentation. The LEED process was established to force everyone up and down the design AND construction team ladder to be knowledgeable and to participate in the strategies. LEED Material submittals are a good case where they are separate from and in addition to standard product submittals, but the contractors MUST be required to obtain them - complete and accurately - from their subs and suppliers as they do absolutely everything else. They should not be passing them through until they are right.

Unfortunately I hear often that there is some huge cost to their efforts, but in reality it's only when either the specifications were not crystal clear - maybe a boilerplate spec package was used and not adequately customized, or they didn't try to understand what the submittal was supposed to be and the team accepts them in poor conidtion, Or both!

We all need to communicate the documentation requirements to prospective team members - including the owners and consstructors - and place the same deliverable requirements on them, using payment approvals in every possible case. And this means the entire design team needs to be versed in these requirements, not just the LEED specialist within a larger firm. Fire code, ADA, and ASHRAE reqs are part of every qualified design architect and engineer basic knowledge and LEED should be no different - that's the point of the exercize after all.

But in the end the fast tracked, constant changes to LEED requirements makes it nearly impossible to get there and I think USGBC needs to hear this from all of you designers out there! You'd like to get deep penetration of basic LEED knowledge throughout your disciplines, but until we get them to stop moving the target it can't be expected to happen, argh...

Speaking as both an owner rep and project administrator the added complexity in the construction phase credits such as the materials and IAQ will make me think twice about the cost/benefit of pursing them. This is a shame as the most tangible and easily understood green building elements for visitors and occupants are those you can see and touch.

Regardless of how integrated my specifications are, the contractor pushback and effective compliance with these new requirements will be a constant battle with endless resubmittals with a corresponding increase in documentation fees.

I am especially concerned about the construction trades and managers that have been slowly getting a handle on what they need to do without constant hand holding. To change materials documentation so dramatically and to increase the complexity of the tracking is very bad news for their willing and continued participation and for our ability to broaden the base.

LEED 2012 Ready or Not
I posted this originally in response to a Karen Joslin post and was asked to move it to this forum.

I hear your frustration in your posts and first and foremost let me say, that you are not alone out there. We also are LEED consultants. Helping project teams to implement sustainable measures in practical ways and document them to GBCI satisfaction is what we do every day. And it's getting harder every day to understand the requirements sufficiently to educate and advise our teams, while satisfying the ever increasing demands and costs of documentation.

We have also posted our concerns about rating systems and requirements that are moving targets, about IT modifications that run ahead of reference documents, about increasingly onerous and uncited documentation requirements, about inconsistencies in review comments, and an overall cultural shift in GBCI/USGBC. And we've also heard indications from others that they are not willing to speak too loudly or publically about some of these things, or that they feel there is no accountability for these issues anyway.

The blog posts I see suggest that LEED users are divided into two primary groups - occasional users and experienced consultants. The response to LEED 2012 is the first time that I've felt like I've heard a strong outcry from the consultant group. Those of us who have years of experience working with LEED/USGBC/GBCI and have been through the evolution of all the rating systems so far do have a valuable perspective on LEED in the marketplace.

We, too, are concerned about the balloting process for 2012. We, too, are concerned this system is too much too soon. We have many of the same concerns you voiced above about transparency and whether No votes will have any impact on this rollout should we cast them. How can this organization claim to be a consensus-based membership organization celebtrating transparency and accountability when few of us members know how decisions are really made or feel like we are part of them?

The vast majority of our clients pursue LEED primarily because there is someone like us out there who can help them understand and manage the process in a practical cost effective way. As our ability to do that is diminished, so is the likelihood that they will consider LEED pursuit feasible.

Unless or until USGBC/GBCI can establish a balance of concern between actual implementation and application of the measures they are busy conceiving in the real world and elevated rating systems and documentation standards, we will continue to struggle to keep up and fear the rapidly approaching point of diminishing return with our clients

Michelle. Perhaps you could clarify a little. You say "As our ability to do that is diminished,"...but I fail to see that difference. A great analogy would be "Whoever gets into the White House, we have to work with them". We can't checkout...none of us can, we're in this 'LEED thing' to the bitter end. Yes the current v4 (large sucking sound) but the majority of those in then market can only voice their concerns, suggest changes and cross fingers ...otherwise what? Vote NO!. Not ever building will get LEED, not every building deserves LEED, not every consultant has the 'chops' to make the system...however much we hate it...work for the client. Unfortunately the divisions within LEED itself are beginning to show. There are two camps…1. LEED is too difficult and needs to be simplified. (That’s easy..dumb it down and rename it…oh..that’s Green Globes)…2. Keep the bar up…stop trying to get every darn building into the process and admit that the LEED plaque should stand for something…the best buildings in the nation.

Hi Barry,
The big difference to me with your presidential analogy is that the USGBC is a consensus based organization. I'm actually supposed to be able to have a say in the system I'm voting on, not just vote for the lesser of two evils presented to me.

I agree that not every building should get LEED and that not every consultant is good at applying LEED. And frankly nothing is wrong with that. But that points to the very thing that leads to this debate. Differentiation, the idea that one building is better than other buildings by virtue of its sustainability, is a market based concept.

LEED is not just about sustainability and doing the right thing. If it was, we wouldn't need a rigorous verification process and a plaque. It would just be understood that's how we design and construct buildings. And it's not just about being rich enough to incorporate whatever you want regardless of practical realities and return on investment.

The entire context of LEED is within the construction industry marketplace, and the success of LEED is measured by its adoption in that marketplace. I see no compelling reason to disincentivize continued and future adoption because of a perception that the bar needs to be raised to some subjective level on some subjective timetable.

As a somewhat jaded consultant, I tend to think that adoption and penetration of sustainable measures is huge, that everyone diverts construction waste and uses low flow fixtures and pays attention to VOCs. That's what I see every day in my reality in the Pacific Northwest. But I am constantly reminded that we are early adopters, representing a drop in the bucket even now.

Why take one step forward and two steps back when all we need to do is slow down and take some time to consolidate the 2009 rating system advances we've already made?

Barry,
I see two separate debates going on in LEED right now and unfortunately they keep getting confused.

1. Should LEED focus on market transformation or on setting an ideal threshold that recognizes what a Green building should be?

2. Should LEED keep getting more complex or is it possible to simplify the language without compromising its integrity.

When you say "dumb it down" I think it is a confusion of these two items. I think 80% of the current frustration is with the second item. It's too complex and there is too much time and money involved in paperwork for little benefit. I would very much like it simplified but I reject the "dumb it down" phrase. I've been pushing LEED for years to follow the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) design strategy. I'd even count old Albert Einstein in this camp. “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”.

I'm not trying to lower the standards of LEED. I'm trying to make a tool that is simple to use and very strong. Then as the market catches up it's just a simple tweak of a number to raise the bar further rather than a complete overhaul of the credit and doubling the paperwork.

Here here.

Bill, Unfortunately you and I are 180 degrees apart as I believe that LEED should continue to be as stringent as possible so that when a plaque finally is fitted to be building is represents the best that there is and not some wishy washy compromise. So now that I’ve raised your blood pressure…lets step back and look at the ‘market catching up’ bit and go back to 2002.
In 2002 USGBC created LEED EB and in late 2003 the first buildings running through that pilot started getting the plaques on ..the first four were all single tenant commercial space (National Geographic, Abobe, etc) because at that time we could only get our heads around that EB fitted single tenant/office. However the 5th building was Moss Landing Marine Lab, an educational university building, multi use (I worked with Kevin Hydes and KEEN Engineering…now Integral…to push the marketplace and thank goodness they were on board) so already at that time we were looking at expanding the parameters of LEED EB. Fast forward 10 years…the diversity of buildings in EB is almost at the stage that ANY BUILDING can complete EB, multi tenant office (simple), banks, prisons, courthouses, multiple buildings on a campus, blocks of buildings, data centers (we’ve just completed the worlds first LEED EB data centre). EB has expanded into LEED volume, multiple, mixed use…we can almost get any building into the system…all the EB consultants out there are creating the market transformation every day (I believe that USGBC now states that EB is by far the biggest LEED component there is).
LEED EB is the most important rating system that USGBC has…it’s rapidly changing the way the buildings report their high performance status the marketplace. Are EB Buildings efficient?.yes..here’s the energy data. Are they water efficient?.yes..here’s the water data. Are they reducing the impacts of transportation and waste disposal…yes..here’s the data.
I firmly reject the siren call that we dumb down credits to make it easier to ‘get buildings into LEED’…EB doesn’t need the credits dumbed down…all EB consultants are working flat out to keep up with the backlog of work. What we need is a period of status quo so that the market CAN catch up. The last thing we need are radical changes to LEED that require a reset in the educational piece that has to be put in front of the marketplace…we can’t sell a product with any degree of clarity if the colour, shape, and interior workings of that product keep altering.
If USGBC are hell bent on making these radical changes…then we need a LOOOng period of transition…a year perhaps, so that we can test drive v4 in parallel with v3 and be party to an open discussion of the plus and minus and comparison between the two versions.

You appear to work mostly in LEED EB and therefore may not be as aware of the dramatic changes, increased complexity and brain damage that are being proposed in LEED 2012 BD&C and ID&C. Most of the concerned comments people are making are not recommending dumbing anything down, just making the new standard reasonable, accessible, cost effective and simple to document (a publicly stated goal of the USGBC.)

It would also be important that a new standard is not released again without fully vetting any new approaches, testing the forms and ensuring that all references are checked and ready for primetime.

The USGBC should slow things down and allow the time to do this correctly, which is what many of us fervently hope is being discussed internally at the USGBC right now.

Interesting that this should surface:

LEED 2012: The USGBC Adds Teeth, Real-Time Reporting To Its Green Building Ratings

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678469/leed-2012-the-usgbc-adds-teeth-real-t...

........there has been way too little transparency about how new buildings with high LEED scores actually perform. So, while the marketing excitement of a platinum rating may score some points, it can hit a dead end under scrutiny. Some engineers, for instance, complained that LEED points were too easy to rack up in an incoherent building: Many cited the fact that a bike rack earned points in a building that might have a faulty boiler. And landlords faced no penalty if they declined make improvements or even use the technology they installed once given a rating by LEED. At its weakest, a LEED certification amounted to a one-time endorsement of a building’s design, with no follow-up.

I agree with Barry WRT BD&C should be the gateway to the core EB standard. In 2003, or thereabouts, Paul von Paumgartten and I said as much. The reason LEED did and continues to succeed is that it was less concerned with impressing the building science geeks-and I say that as one who fervently believes in the field-and more concerned with staying close enough to the market to be implementable and relevant. Although EBOM remains close enough within the basic realm of market feasibility, the 2012 version of BD&C has gone way off the reservation in my opinion. All of a sudden, LEED is no longer attractive to large real estate portfolio holders who are facing wildly disparate standards, when the goal of 2012 should be to further simplify and converge, not raise the 'entry standard' so high that only the Green Building Challenge types want to play. In new construction, LEED is over 20% of the new market and many of the problems of verification of earlier projects are being rectified by closer examination of the modeling and commissioning. This indicates that we're getting closer to where we want, but as Pam indicates we are still working out the kinks of 2009 & now 2012 is considering implementing significantly greater kinks in unproven fields of LCA (whatever the heck that means) and a whole host of more complex evaluation and calculations but with dubious environmental benefit. 100 percent of nothing is nothing and that understanding is what led to LEED's dominance of the market. However, even in EBOM, regardless of it's larger position in the LEED pantheon has barely scratched the EB market, indicating that it is about as much as the market can currently handle. To increase the stringency significantly would be a serious mistake in my opinion.