Material Quantity Input into EC3

Hi Kelli, 
in our case it was helpful for us to have already done the LCA on the project through Oneclik LCA. From there it was easy to export a report with the quantities already divided by categories and apply them for the Pilot credit. Definitely it was complex the process of entering the quantities on the software because, as you pointed out, not everything had been modeled on Revit so we had to add elements manually on Oneclcik. But once all the materials were entered, it was easy to both perform the LCA and pursue the Pilot credit. 
Best regards!  

For three projects we have seen the general contractor send out Carbon Reporting forms to their subcontractor teams. These forms typically track the manufacturer name, product name, mill location or manufacturer locations, a place to include the quantity information in the specified units, and an attachment of the relevant EPD. This is managed during the submission process.  The LCA approach is helpful for setting up EC3 and having in place all relevant EPD information from the design. However the submission approach allows the general contractor to make updates based on actual procurement. The happy medium here will be an LCA import, and contractor verification through submission. Allowing for the flexibility of editing quantities and allowing for the change of products. 

We approached this credit near project completion and worked closely with the general contractor to gather the as-built quantities. Using the IFC drawing set and product submittals we built a project-specific material tracker which includes all the required material categories and allowed for GC input for product data, supplier/manufacturer name, mill/plant data, and appropriate units of measurement for each. This provided sufficient guidance for the contractor to fill in the blanks with their knowledge of mateiral orders and with support of their subcontractors. For the structural steel, the team relied on the 100CD structural Revit model to run takeoffs and categorize quantities accordingly. 

We have been working with the GC to collect as-built quantities. We provided a template with a list of the relevant materials, information from submittals, and the required unit of measure for quantities. The contractor provided quantities, mill/facility information, and EPDs. One thing we found through working with GCs to get as-built quantities is that for some materials, the units of measure used by the GC to track quantities and the units of measure needed for EC3 aren't aligned. For example, EC3 needed mass, but the quantity provided by the contrctor was a number of pieces, so we had to gather additional information about the product so we could convert to the right unit of measure for EC3. Have others experienced this?

Although we also conducted an LCA for this project using 100% CD drawings, we worked with the GC to collect as-built quantities for this pilot credit. After receiving a basic list of quantities from the GC, we provided them with a template indicating the status of the quantities, EPDs, and advocacy letters for each material. This template indicated what action needed to be taken by the GC for each material. We iterated through this template a few times until we had enough information for all of the materials to document the credit in EC3. We also experienced the required unit of measure not aligning with the information provided by the GC. They were eventually able to provide the quantities in the required units. The GC was easily able to provide overall quantities for materials like concrete and steel, but it was more difficult for them to provide quantities corresponding to individual concrete mix designs or different steel manufacturers. It appeared to be easier for them to obtain the EPDs for individual mixes or different manufacturers.