partial credit?

Dana, the credit is divided up into two options so you could get partial credit in that sense, but it would have to line up with how the options are defined in LEED.

That said, I don't understand how this credit is presented in LEED-CI. There is really no change in the credit requirements from LEED-NC, even though the scope of work is totally different. I've asked USGBC about this, but have not yet heard a response (after quite a while). I'll bug them again.

Just a note that I got a message back from "LEEDCoach" that indicated that a project (such as mine) in an existing space to be reused cannot get either point under this credit under CI:

"...Projects that are renovating an existing space are not eligible for achieving this credit unless additional spaces were also considered and analyzed.

The Site Selection portion of this credit indicates that the analysis "to identify and select the building site" must be completed "before site selection".

Additionally, the Water-Related Systems portion of the credit may only be achieved if the Site Selection and Energy-Related Systems portion of the credit is earned. Water-Related Systems is marked as Option 1, only because "project teams may also choose Option 1 for an additional point"."

Hi all,
So I'm confused. LEEDuser's preamble above indicates any project can get this credit, and you're not required to implement anything just analyze. My current CI project is a second phase TI in a build to suit core and shell building. So though the building and site were extensively analyzed for the CS project, they are basically predetermined for my specific current TI.

My project and its client meet the intent of integrated process more than any of the 80 LEED certifications I've helped to secure in the past. They are committed to LEED Gold as a standard for all their projects and put incredible amounts of project team time, effort and money into integrating sustainability into their projects.

But I'm starting to get the impression that because this project didn't select their site as part of the schematic design process, we may not achieve this credit? I'm ignoring the issue of demonstrating non-potable water source use (though that is also an issue for most projects that I'm confused by) because this project can actually do so by virtue of the CS building attributes.

My decade of experience with LEED projects is that LEED certification is contemplated after a site is selected. We have never been involved with a project that sought their site based in any part on sustainable issues.

So can this credit really be earned by the vast majority of projects if site selection itself is part of the criteria? Does this disconnect with the reality of development not disincentivize the whole integrated process that has been a focal point of desire for the LEED rating systems since their inception?

Yes, Michelle - that sounds crazy - and I agree this has the potential to exclude a large portion of CI projects that are devoting significant time and effort to practicing integrated design in every other respect.
The site selection parts of the Integrated Process Worksheet that are being required for CI are more appropriate for a client that is planning an office move and has the opportunity to evaluate different sites for their sustainability criteria. The very nature of many Commercial Interiors projects is helping companies to adjust their footprint as they inevitably expand and contract or shift over time. That's the basis of a multi-tenant office building.
Saying a project like Jonathan's is not eligible to pursue this credit would send the message that Integrative Design is only possible (or worth awarding) if you have control over the project scope that is beyond a range of many CI projects. There are 18 points in the LL section that can be awarded or *not* awarded if a project doesn't have control of the site selection, so I think we are covering that base.
Part of an exemplary Integrative Design process is one that defines the goals, scope, and boundary conditions that are appropriate for the project. This is still a relatively new credit, and prompts discussions from the project team that are not often asked. Out of all the credits, most don't involve as many different disciplines or address as many areas of performance as this credit does. Excluding CI projects in an existing space from pursuing this credit doesn't makes it more rigorous, or raise the bar for performance. I think we may inadvertently discourage such projects from pursuing a more integrative process if we say this credit is not relevant to them. We don't require LEED EBOM projects to consider and analyze the pros and cons of new construction, so let's not ask for an analysis that isn't called for in many circumstances.
I think it's worth requesting a closer look at this by reviewers, technical customer service or the TAG.

For the record - I could not agree more with both Michelle and David - I was just reporting back what I had been told. It is extremely frustrating to me as well. Hopefully we can get someone within USGBC to revisit this issue.

Speaking for LEEDuser, we would love to see more clear and inclusive guidance from USGBC and GBCI on this. Our guidance above is not yet "tuned" to CI projects. As we get the landscape, along with you guys, we are updating it.

I heard from GBCI that they are reviewing this issue. I hope they'll update us here, or if I hear directly I will post an update.

They told me the same thing. I pointed them to this stream as well so they could see the articulate thoughts that Michelle and David posted.

Tristan, and all, did anyone hear more from GBCI about this? This is coming up on our CI projects as well and the guidance still feels very unclear. Thanks!

I heard back from "LEEDCoach" that they were going to publish a LI that clarifies that there ARE in fact ways to achieve this credit for a renovation CI project scope. I have not seen it published yet, but will post when I do.

Thanks, Jonathan! I just checked the interpretations database and didn't see any for this credit either.

​​A LEED Interpretation has been approved by the LEED Technical Committee and published in the Addenda Database on this topic. Please find it here: https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10471