According to the Documentation Guidance in the Reference Guide, if we use the “Actual Material Cost” as the denominator in MR Credit calculations, we should “maintain a list of actual material costs” for materials specified in the referenced Sections. Presumably, this is to substantiate the reported material cost total. What form may this take?
Total material costs can often be derived from Schedules of Value, Pay Applications, Change Orders, and other standard construction cost controls. Will this kind of documentation suffice, or must we require contractors to provide additional, more detailed breakdowns of costs? Must they individually itemize each product that they purchase? Is this level of detail necessary?
In any case, how do we submit this list?
The LEED-Online MRc3 through MRc6 templates require only that we upload the BD+C MR Calculator spreadsheet and cut sheets representing 20% of total material cost. Nothing in USGBC’s current BD+C MR Calculator appears to require itemizing anything beyond the products that contribute to MR sustainable criteria calculations. LEED-Online does not appear to require us to enter a detailed accounting of non-contributing material costs.
Do we include the list in the initial submittal, or is this list a common request during the Preliminary Review?
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
July 8, 2014 - 2:44 pm
Jon - Knocking on wood here, but I have never had to substantiate the costs to the Review Team that I have provided for the MR credits. Typically my backup is the construction estimate.
Nor have I ever used Actual Material costs instead of the default value due to the enormity of tracking all those actual material costs. Hence I can’t answer your questions as to what form this should take and whether this is a common request during the Preliminary Review.
If you are using the actual material costs instead of the 45% default value, you do need to keep track of the material costs for every item within the requisite divisions and sections for the MR credits. You input the total value into the BDC Materials and Resources Calculator on the Instructions tab under Step 3. Use the first cell - “Actual materials cost, excluding labor and equipment*” and not the “Total construction costs for the LEED project*” cell.
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
July 8, 2014 - 2:07 pm
We've done this on our large projects and it is at the contractors choice. If they want to track the individual costs and they can get them, I'll let them. I'll bullet point Jon's questions.
1. Yes, you maintain a list for everything that is submitted for the MR credits. The USGBC has a downloadable spreadsheet (really the LO v3 form) the contractor can fill out. They can also create their own. It has to be complete. There will be many products on the list that does not have any MR credit. I'd bet the reviewers check the spreadsheet for non-contributing products if the team is using actual costs. It is a long spreadsheet by the end of shop drawing review.
2. Our form (that was based on the USGBC form) lists total cost, labor cost, equipment cost and material costs. Not all suppliers can or will break out all those costs. We only care about total cost (contract) and material cost (LEED). All suppliers will have to do this even if their product isn't contributing to LEED. Yes, those suppliers moan a lot about that.
3. As for submitting, we just upload it. I'm not in LO at the moment and I can't remember the details.I think this gets done in MRc4 and MRc5 - 7 are also calculated off this. Again, it is the contractors problem and not mine.
4. This list should be uploaded at the first construction review. It is not relevant at the design review. There may be open spaces and the contractor should narrate what is missing and that they are committed to providing it.
5. Yes, upload 20% cut sheets. Those cut sheets are proving the MR claim and not proving the costs. We have a LEED documentation submittal sheet that lists costs. To my knowledge, we have never uploaded that information to the GBCI. We do use those submittal sheets to check the contractor's monthly LEED submittal. Our contracts require a monthly LEED update with every pay application.
If you're running a small project, this likely seems like overkill and a lot of work. It is for a small project. Our projects tend to be long, expensive and complicated. The extra documentation saves so much hassle at the end of a project.
Jon Clifford
LEED-AP BD+CGREENSQUARE
LEEDuser Expert
327 thumbs up
July 10, 2014 - 11:18 pm
Susan – My experience is similar to yours: megaprojects with multiple contractors & multiple vendors, wherein a list of EVERY product furnished by EVERY vendor would be THOUSANDS of line items long. We followed similar procedures to those you describe.
You hit the nail on the head in bullet point #2 when you said, “We only care about total cost (contract) and material cost (LEED).” Allowing vendors to summarize non-contributing product costs like this greatly shortens the list while still fully substantiating the reported totals.
Your requirement under bullet point #5 that contractors periodically update their LEED cost reports is also excellent.
We have found that material costs reported in early LEED submittals rarely match actual final invoices. Costs reported prior to purchase were usually just estimates that could not reflect change orders, price fluctuations, or unforeseen conditions.
I have tabulated costs like this to calculate an accurate “Total Actual Material Cost” on past projects, but those were under LEEDv2.1 & 2.2. Unlike LEEDv3, we were not required to upload cost breakdowns or cut sheets.
Now that I may have to do this under LEEDv3, my concern was what level of detail was necessary. You have allayed my fears. Contractors must carefully itemize materials that contribute to MR Credits (in the numerator). Non-contributing materials must be fully accounted for in the Total (denominator), but it should not be necessary to break down those costs into minute detail.
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1296 thumbs up
July 11, 2014 - 4:39 pm
One thing we find pretty consistently is that certain trades like to provide one LEED calculation after all their product is delivered. Usually these are cast in place concrete, steel and pre-cast items. This has been okay but you do have to keep on top of the contractor so they keep on top of the supplier. Retainage is a wonderful thing.
Otherwise, it sounds like you are on the right path. Good Luck!
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
July 12, 2014 - 9:38 am
Susan - Thanks for sharing your extensive experience on this issue!
Jon Clifford
LEED-AP BD+CGREENSQUARE
LEEDuser Expert
327 thumbs up
July 15, 2014 - 1:21 pm
Yes, Susan, thanks so much.
You are right, cast-in-place concrete, steel, & precast tend to be the laggards. Contractors usually cannot be sure of exact costs, quantities, & sources of these systems’ components until everything has been placed or fabricated & delivered.
These are also usually the heavy-hitters for MRc4 & MRc5, high in cost, recycled content, & regional materials. Therefore, one must track down actual final costs & sustainable criteria for these items regardless of whether one is using the “Actual Cost” or the “45% Default” calculation method.