The client has stated an FTE of 24 for the building as 24 reflects current staff and all that the departmental operational budget can accommodate. However the building is designed to accommodate an eventual FTE of 48. Most of this room for growth will be in the open office areas. The plans show the full number of workstations. We have no idea when 48 will be reached, probably several years down the road. What is the FTE that must be claimed on PIF3? 24 or 48? I scanned all the posts and a couple seemed to just glance on this issue but would appreciate a confirming response.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
May 1, 2015 - 10:54 am
I use full occupancy numbers even if the shell space will not be built out for several years.
Ivan Romero
Senior Project ManagerKMD Architects
4 thumbs up
May 1, 2015 - 1:46 pm
Thanks Susan for your response. At the same time, your response feels like it's a judgment call?
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
May 27, 2015 - 9:57 am
I think it is pretty consistent with the program to make assumptions about full occupancy and use those numbers to calculate items like water savings credit. Shell spaces are required to have a construction guideline issued which should lock in the building initiatives, for example, is the project used 1.28 gpf toilets and not 1.6 gpf toilets. Every project I've tried to not access full occupancy for has been required to reassess using full occupancy at review time. Now I just do it and haven't looked back.