We got a comment back from USGBC that said this: 

It is unclear if the Product Replacement via EPDs optimization for aluminum extrusions, hollow structural steel, gypsum boards/sheathing, structural steel panel/deck meets the LEED requirements for this strategy. Combining EPD impacts with WBLCA results shall follow the Additional Guidance for Whole Building LCA Tool

Providers which stipulates that EPD results may only be combined provided:

i. The EPD has not expired;

ii. EPD scenarios should be representative of contemporary technologies and/or practice, and the project location;

iii. Reports all indicators and system boundary information modules required by the WBLCA tool;

iv. Characterizes the impact categories reported according to the same LCA methodology as the WBLCA tool;

v. Can be applied to the study period of the assessment;

vi. Clearly indicates which product (including manufacturer and product name) or geographical region it reflects in comparison to the industry-wide weighted average results of a material or fuel already available in the tool.

This was comment was submitted under our "Building life-cycle impact reduction" credit where we went with Option 2. WBLCA, path 3 (greater than 10% reduction) I am really at a loss of what they are needing clarification on. We used OneClick LCA to conduct the LCA and used the "LCA for LEED" calculator, and mapped all the quantities to material/EPDs that are in One Click's database. I am wondering if they are no satisfied with the software and the EPDs? But I am not sure why specifically call out the materials they did. Any thoughts on what they need clarification on as I don't see how we combined EPD impacts with WBLCA results when I did the whole analysis in OneCLick - the WBLCA Tool..