1) An office building that is being certified under LEED NC will have 20% of its gross floor area without a complete interior fit-out at time of construction work completion. Construction scope of work for this area includes flooring (without floor finishing), ceiling, lighting and HVAC systems. This area will be left as an open-space. In the future the occupant (owner or tenant, decision will depend factors not related with building construction – e.g., market) may add partition walls and floor finishing to customize the open-space layout.
2) According to LEED INTERPRETATION ID 10102, for incomplete spaces calculations associated with pre-requisites and credits with established baselines (e.g., EAp.2 and associated credits) must assume that the proposed case is equivalent to the baseline.
3) In the case described in 1), this 20% of gross floor area may be considered an “incomplete space”. However, all the relevant systems and components relevant for EAp2 calculations (i.e., external walls, windows, HVAC systems, lighting systems) will be present at time of construction work completion.
My question is: shall we strictly follow the LEED Ruling 10102 and ignore the installed systems and components or may we model this area considering the installed systems and components?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
July 27, 2015 - 9:12 am
You only model the proposed systems identical to the baseline if the systems have not been designed. If the systems are fully designed you can model them that way and claim the associated savings. However, It depends on the extent of the systems installed. You indicated that the systems are designed and will be installed but then indicate that a future tenant could add partitions, etc. Typically adding partitions will affect the lighting and HVAC layout. So in order to claim savings for these systems you will need to have a tenant lease agreement in place that limits future tenant fit outs with specific performance parameters.
Ricardo Sá
Director of SustainabilityEdifícios Saudáveis Consultores (503 910 767)
84 thumbs up
July 27, 2015 - 11:39 am
Dear Marcus,
thank you for your help.
I understand that if lighting and/or HVAC is altered by future tenants a tenant lease agreement is the only way to claim savings. However, in this particular case, lighting and HVAC design were developed to allow for maximum layout flexibility. Lighting fixtures and HVAC units were organized in 4m x 4m modules that can be used as single offices or meeting rooms (16 m2), aggregated to create premium offices or conference rooms (ex.: 32 m2, etc.) or integrated in the general open-space. Therefore:
1) all the relevant systems and components relevant for EAp2 calculations (i.e., external walls, windows, HVAC systems, lighting systems) will be present at time of construction work completion;
2) changes in the HVAC and lighting systems inside these zones are improbable.
In this case, is the tenant lease agreement still a LEED imposition in order to claim savings under EAp2 and EAc1?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
July 27, 2015 - 11:58 am
You can try. Write a narrative describing how future tenant fit outs will not change the lighting or HVAC to justify your claim of savings to the reviewer. Improbable means it is still possible so you will need to discuss why it will not happen. I would also put these tenant spaces on separate meters in the energy model so the reviewer can see the savings claimed in these areas separately from the rest of the building.
Ricardo Sá
Director of SustainabilityEdifícios Saudáveis Consultores (503 910 767)
84 thumbs up
July 27, 2015 - 1:55 pm
Dear Marcus,
thank you once again for your help.
I have another project where a similar situation occurs, however, with a different percentage of interior fit-out installed by the owner. I'm not sure if we shall apply NC or CS and maybe you can help.
According to the example on p. 10 of LEED Rating System Selection Guide (June 2011 version), LEED for New Construction is the best rating system for cases where the majority (but not the totality) of the interior fit-out is installed by the owner.
«Example: A new office is being constructed, and the interior fit‐out is being completed with the exception of furniture installation and interior paint application for the entire gross floor area. LEED for Core & Shell would be the result of a strict interpretation of this guidance because the fit‐out is not technically complete for at least 40% of gross floor area. However, LEED for New Construction is the best rating system for this project because the vast majority of the components that make up the interior fit out are complete.»
We are now working in a building that is very similar to the one described in the above example. It is an office building where 80% of gross floor area will be occupied by tenants. Leasable area consists of open spaces where technical flooring, ceiling, lighting and HVAC systems as well as main partition walls will be totally installed by the owner.
Future tenants will receive their offices ready to use (in exception of the floor finishing). However they can add partition walls to customize the open spaces layout to their specific needs (as well as, of course, furniture).
The question is: can we choose between New Construction and Core & Shell or is the use of any of these systems mandatory (and, of course, which one)?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
July 28, 2015 - 9:08 am
This forum is about EAp2. What you are asking about is the appropriate rating system. There is likely a more appropriate forum to post this question.
In my experience there are sometimes grey areas between rating systems and not hard lines. In some cases two systems may apply. Unless you can find an exclusion that prohibits one or the other, pick the one that works best for you. It is always a good idea to seek USGBC guidance if you are unsure.
Ricardo Sá
Director of SustainabilityEdifícios Saudáveis Consultores (503 910 767)
84 thumbs up
July 28, 2015 - 10:42 am
Thank you, Marcus.
I posted the exact same question where (I think) is the appropriate forum (and also in the USGBC help mail) but haven't got any answers yet.
I realize that there are grey areas but in this case I have a building where all systems and equipments will be part of the scope of work, which would qualify for a NC. However, once the tenants aren't identified yet, there'll still be changes on the floor layouts (e.g., partitions for meeting rooms and individual offices) which could imply a CS.
If I applied a NC how could I address some of the EAp1 mandatory requirements like the occupancy sensors in meeting rooms (ASHRAE 90.1, mandatory requirement in section 9.4.1.2) when there aren't yet meeting rooms laid down?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
July 28, 2015 - 1:35 pm
Through tenant guidelines/lease agreement.
Ricardo Sá
Director of SustainabilityEdifícios Saudáveis Consultores (503 910 767)
84 thumbs up
August 3, 2015 - 5:09 am
But in this particular case will a non-binding declaration suffice to fulfill credit requirements? And if instead of 80% unfinished spaces we were talking about 20% unfinished?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
August 3, 2015 - 9:18 am
No it has to be binding.
The 20% unfinished makes it an NC project, the 80% a CS project.