In LEED NC, when given a price from a subcontractor, we're able to use a 45% default for the actual material cost in order to exclude labor from that price. I do not see anything in LEED EBOM Reference Guide, CIRs, or Addenda with any related language to the 45% default.
We have a schedule of values for all of the items in a small tenant improvement project. A couple of the items - the ones that we're claiming sustainable attributes for - we do have actual costs of the materials from those sub contractors. I am only needing to estimate material costs for a few other items in order to make a complete submission.
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED SpecialistSERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1976 thumbs up
June 24, 2011 - 4:58 pm
The lack of guidance on whether we're allowed to use the 45% default value for material cost could be an unintentional omission (to quote the movie Harold and Maude: "consistency is not really a human trait"). The CI Reference guide uses the 45% default, so it seems reasonable to use here. Still, you might get questioned by a reviewer, so it might be worth asking the sub or vendor to estimate the percent of material cost in case you need that as back-up. The only reason I could imagine not allowing the 45% default value might be the argument that facility alterations under EBOM can involve fewer trades and be less typical than the full scope of a CI or NC job, and thus wouldn't "average out" as consistently, but that seems like a stretch. Stranger things have happened, though!