MPR 2 and LEED HC MRc6

I also have the same question and don't seem to see a resonse. Similarly, Does anyone know where a Letter of Commitment example may be? I wrote one from scratch but want to make sure I have everything covered.

This is what happened to a project LEED certified in May 2012 using LEED NC (BD+C)

The project was entirely new construction.

Over 90% was owner-occupied and entirely finished. LEED NC.

Less than 10% was Shell. LEED CS. The spaces would be retail lease.

The NC part was documented entirely using NC rules.

The CS part was fit into LEED NC for all NC credits claimed. This meant:

Worst Case occupancy calculated based on ASHRAE 62.1 defaults (EQp1 basis). Worst case meaning the highest level of occupancy for any type of retail use, including medical leasing. Use as conference rooms was not used as the worst case.

SS Credit Group 4: Used Worst Case occupancy.

WE Credit 3: Used Worst Case occupancy.

EA Prereq 2: Claimed HVAC and envelop efficiencies but used Zero efficiency for lighting. Because the lease space would need to meet newer, and more stringent, code lighting LPDs we assumed the newer LPDs as as the Zero efficiency set point.

EQ Prereq 1: Used Worst Case occupancy for CS spaces.

EQ Credit Group 3: Included the unfinished spaces in both credits.

The above shows compliance as a "whole building" by integrating CS into NC. Only what was within the scope-of-work was included, meaning the CS spaces were not let out.

BUT, the LEED reviewer insisted, incorrectly, that "whole building" meant LEED CI must be integrated into LEED NC + CS projects. IN other words, work outside the scope needed to be LEED compliant.

The GBCI clarifying what they wanted were toothless, non-binding, non-mandatory, Green Tenant Guidelines with the owner committing to giving the guidelines to future tenants.

What the above means is that the LEED CS optional credit for Green Tenant Guidelines were a HARD requirement for any LEED NC project that includes any amount of CS space, no matter how small the percentage. This also means that a LEED NC + CS project cannot provide Green Tenant Guidelines and earn a LEED NC Innovation point. Innovation points cannot be earned for HARD LEED requirements.

If you try to figure out where mixing LEED NC, CS and CI together is required by LEED you will never find it. The LEED 60/40 rules telling you to follow one rating system when you have a mixed rating system project. Nowhere in LEED is there any discussion of mixing two rating systems together, let alone three.

I can image case where four, even five rating systems should be mixed into one project: NC + CS + CI (lease office) + CI-Retail (lease retail) + Healthcare (lease medical). Unfortunately, unless the GBCI provides clear rules, that do no change on a daily basis, LEED projects will need to consider the worst case senario for certifying a project at the space level and not at the whole building level.

The reviewer wanted hard requirements for WE Plumbing Fixtures efficiency, and EQ Construction IAQ Testing, Prior to Occupancy.

Their claimed concern was that "if" the tenants installed non-efficient plumbing fixture that the claim made for WE Plumbing Fixtures efficiency would be incorrect. It didn't matter that the base building included water closet, urinals and lavatory faucets that provided the efficiency claims, and that kitchen sinks were not efficient in the base building. We still had to specify in the Tenant Guidelines that match the base building equipment efficiencies. Maybe a kitchen sink would be installed. If a dental office was a leasee most of their would be exempt as process water.

What was funny about the above is that because the WE efficiency was based on a version of LEED that could no longer be used, the TI guidelines would specify non-current code compliant fixtures.

For the EQ Construction IAQ credit, even though the lease spaces were included as a consideration using the testing option, the reviewers wanted a hard test done after the lease spaces were finished. At the time of certification the spaces were not leased. Still, why require testing twice?

The GBCI stood by the reviewers and required the Green Green Tenant Guidelines, but did allow the requirements to be optional for the tenant rather than must be done.

If you are following along, the green tenant guidelines required by the reviewers were not consistent with what good tenants should be: address "current" codes and LEED rating systems. Green Tenant guidelines that match a base building referring to out of date codes and discontinued LEED rating systems are worthless documents, in my opinion because there is nothing green about them.

S. W. wrote: "It seems consistent to me that LEED requires green 'tenant' guidelines when you have a shelled space.."

I wanted to clarify why the requirement is not consistent. The project questioned was Healthcare using LEED NC v2.2. The project was registered in 2005, and certified in 2012.

The demanded Tenant Guidelines need to reflect the requirements of NC v2.2 and not current code, or current versions of LEED CI.

The above results in tenant green guidelines that are worthless. Current code is not complied with. A tenant could not earn a LEED CI rating following the guidelines because a prerequisite would not be met.

Beware of this retroactive and contradictory requirement for guidelines for unfinished spaces in any LEED project.

The MPRs are contradictory. Worse, although a guideline requirement was added on 11/01/2011, the requirement is being enforced on all LEED projects regardless of date of registration, and regardless of the rating system version used.

The LEED reviewers required compliance for a NC v2.2 project registered in 2005 with an MPR created in late 2011 for LEED 2009 projects.

Per MPR 1, from supplemental guide v2 dated 09/10/2011.

"Special consideration for projects with unfinished spaces:
For projects with unfinished spaces (typically, LEED-CS projects), interior fit-out work conducted post-certification is NOT subject to this MPR unless strategies implemented in the fit-out space contribute to earned prerequisites or credits for that project via the tenant sales and lease agreement or owner letter of commitment path."

MPR 1 exempts unfinished spaces if the spaces are not used to make LEED claims for work not done by the owner.

To make matters more interesting, MPR 2, via a LEED Interpretation, not via a document amendment contradicts MRP 1. The full, and long, text is copied below.

LI #10102: MPR#2: Published 11/1/2011:

"Mandatory for all projects with incomplete spaces: All projects containing incomplete spaces must be accompanied by a Letter of Commitment, signed by the Owner, indicating that the remaining incomplete spaces will satisfy the requirements of each prerequisite and credit achieved by this project if and when completed by the Owner. This letter may cover the commitment in general terms and need not address each prerequisite or credit individually. It should be uploaded along with a brief narrative of the project's special circumstances in the Additional Details section of Project Information Form 1 in LEED Online v3. For credits and prerequisites with established baselines, such as WEp1 and EAp2 (performance path only), and the other credits dependent upon the calculations in these two prerequisites, the proposed (i.e. design) case must be held equivalent to the baseline for the incomplete spaces. For all other prerequisites and credits, project teams may either demonstrate that the present LEED project's scope of work is sufficient to satisfy the requirements for the incomplete space(s), or indicate that the Letter of Commitment ensures that future fit-outs by the LEED project Owner will comply with these requirements. Future fit-outs by Tenants (i.e., parties other than the Owner) are not bound by this Letter of Commitment.

"Additional requirement for projects with incomplete spaces that are intended for future fit-out by Tenants: In addition to the mandatory requirements described above, any project containing incomplete space(s) intended to be fit-out by Tenants (i.e. parties other than the Owner) must be accompanied by a set of non-binding Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines. Criteria for acceptable Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines can be found in the LEED 2009 Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction, in the section for LEED Core and Shell SS Credit 9: Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines. These guidelines must provide project-specific strategies and information concerning how the future fit-out of the space can fulfill the LEED for Commercial Interiors rating systems and how the future fit-out of the space can fulfill the requirements of prerequisites and credits achieved by the completed portions of the project. These guidelines should also be uploaded as documentation of Special Circumstances in the Additional Details section of Project Information Form 1 in LEED Online. No Innovation in Design points will be awarded for providing these guidelines.

"It is understood that in some cases the Owner will not be certain about whether the incomplete space(s) in the LEED project will be fit-out by the Owner or a Tenant. In the special circumstances narrative for Project Information Form 1, the project team must explain the basis for their assumptions about who will be fitting-out the incomplete space and then provide the appropriate supplemental documentation as per the requirements above."

Also of interest, is that the LEED v2.2 Healthcare project, required to comply with a v2009 MPR, was submitted for certification during February 2011. The tenant guidelines for MPR 2, via the LEED Interpretation, were invented after the project was submitted, and after the project was reviewed.