I work with a lot of industrial facilities which are designed for ratios that vary from the 50/50 M/F standard. Typically, these facilities are designed with toilet facilities to accommodate 70/30 or 80/20 M/F ratios. This is a result of historical trending and other data provided by the clients (not to mention common sense). We have submitted projects using these ratios and have "earned" the points. More recently, when submitting the same documentation for similar facilities, we are seeing the following comments from the GBCI reviewers: "The calculations require a balanced, one-to-one sex ratio unless project conditions exist (such as a male dormitory) which would affect the gender ratio for the life span of the building and warrant an alternative ratio." And, "...current staffing level is not an acceptable rationale for deviating from the standard usage ratio of 50/50 M/F."
Can someone please offer an explanation for why the change? I have reviewed both the v2.2 and v3.0 (2009) reference guides as well as the Templates in LEED online and I can find nothing in any of these documents that substantiates the reviewer's comments in the above paragraph that "...current staffing level is not an acceptable rationale for deviating from the standard usage ratio of 50/50 M/F."
Thanks.
Bill Swanson
Sr. Electrical EngineerIntegrated Design Solutions
LEEDuser Expert
731 thumbs up
November 9, 2010 - 12:34 pm
My guess is someone wrote a manual for the reviewers to follow and they're following the wording of this manual that we don't have access to.
Louise Schlatter
ArchitectSSOE Group
86 thumbs up
November 9, 2010 - 2:18 pm
I'm figuring as much, but it doesn't seem right that they can change the rules mid-stream. Plus, it's not even accounted for in LEED 2009. Very frustrating. Each time I think I have the credits figured out and "this time we will get it through on the first try", they seem to change the rules.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
November 12, 2010 - 1:01 pm
I've suggested to USGBC that they look at this issue and consider putting out an addenda so that everyone is on the same page.
Amy Rider
Sustainability ManagerKEMA Services
161 thumbs up
November 12, 2010 - 7:34 pm
The gender ratio being defensible for the life of the building is actually from a CIR Ruling dated 9/14/2006, "Also, you should be sure to use a 50/50 male/female ratio unless there is strong evidence of an alternate ratio for the projected life of the building."
The "strong evidence" aspect is apparently at the reviewer's discretion, and I have seen them rule both ways. To futher complicate things there are quite a few new reviewers undergoing training right now, so more fluctations between past and more recent reviews should be expected for awhile.
Louise Schlatter
ArchitectSSOE Group
86 thumbs up
November 14, 2010 - 2:14 pm
Tristan - I have two questions:
1) If our building is designed TO CODE with an 80/20 ratio, it would not seem to make sense to use a 50/50 ratio. The evidence for the particular facility I am trying to get certified right now is in the fixtures themselves: 2 women's toilet total, 4 men's toilets plus 4 men's urinals - for a total of 8 fixtures. These facilities have long histories (30 years plus) of operating at these ratios. Should we simply explain this in better detail to the reviewers? Again, it doesn't seem to make sense for the calculations to use a 50/50 ratio when that is not what the building is designed for or how it will be used "for the life of the building".
2) I can understand, perhaps, changing the rules with an Addenda for v3.0 (2009), but should not all v2.2 projects be held to the same standards? We have three projects that have used ratios other than 50/50 and these earned the points with no problem - exact same type of facilities. I plan to cite those certified projects in my reply to the reviewers. This has worked for other clarifications.
Thank you,
Kris
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
November 14, 2010 - 8:47 pm
How well did you explain the permanance of the fixtures in the given ratio in your submittal? If it were up to me I'd say you have enough evidence, provided it's properly explained. I'm not GBCI, though, so I can't speak for how they see it.
Kris Phillips
Arcadis10 thumbs up
February 18, 2014 - 4:48 pm
Has anyone come across this usage ratio issue since the last posting? We have a government facility designed with an 80/20 ratio, again with historical data to back up the need for a men's room with 2 toilets, 2 urinals, 2 lavatories, and 5 showers; and a women's room with 1 toilet, 1 lavatory, and 1 shower. While not a dormitory, the facility is designed per need and the likelihood of changing is essentially nill - as evidenced by other adjoining facilities that actually do have a ratio closer to 50/50.
I would appreciate any insight. Thank you as always, Kris
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
February 18, 2014 - 5:50 pm
Kris, I personally have not heard any updates on this topic that suggest that GBCI has become any more flexible on this, as reflected in our FAQs up near the top of this page. But if anyone has an update, I'd love to hear it. I would also recommend contacting GBCI through their website and running your situation by them. If you get any concrete feedback, post back here.