Kelly: That's a good question. This is a sticky subject - we don't have specific guidance on this type of situation yet, but it should be included in the next version of the MPR Supplemental Guidance. I would recommend that you definitely exclude the footprint of the separate building. Something like a couple of feet ring around the perimeter of the separate building is probably fine too. But you'll need a good reason for additional excluded land that contributes to a donut hole in the middle of the LEED project site area. If an area is truly only supports the separate building's operations, as opposed to the LEED project building's operations, than excluding that area would be acceptable. In general, the rule of thumb is the (unfortunately) vague term ‘reasonable’ – if it looks like you drew a project boundary that makes sense and doesn’t leave specifically leave out land that would detract from compliance with a prereq or credit, it’s likely to get approved. If you’re really worried about something and want to get approval before your prelim review, send the question with a clearly labeled site plan to leedinfo@usgbc.org.
I wish I had firmer guidance for you, but it’s just not realistic for us to write policy for all eventualities – and we want to allow for some flexibility for project teams. I hope this at least points you in the right direction :).

So if I understand the MPR regarding 'Small buildings within the LEED project boundary,' since my separate building can achieve MPRs #,2, 4 and 5, then I cannot include it within the LEED project boundary.
What criteria need to be used to determine the LEED project boundary in this scenario?
If the building I intend to certify surrounds the separate building on 2 sides, would I extend out from those edges to determine my site boundary? Would I just exclude the separate building's footprint, or perhaps the footprint plus a certain distance outside of it (eg 5'-0" out from the perimeter of the footprint)?
Please clarify the criteria for determining the LEED project boundary. Thanks.

Brittany, I would want some additional context on this. What kind of a space is it? Is it integral to the project building, or separated in some way? What credits are you grappling with relative to this determination?
For example, if the issue is a difficult in providing daylighting per IEQc8.1 due to hurricane codes, then I bet you could provide a narrative to get around that. If the issue is more about ventilation and occupant comfort, then it seems like a storm shelter would definitely want to provide a high level of IEQ and should be considered regularly occupied.

Craig, I recommend you check out the WEp1 thread here, which has some conversation on topics related to this. I would recommend posting there with further questions. This additional guidance doc from USGBC may also be helpful, if you haven't seen it yet.

Good news, Simon. Since the finish you're using is to be "shop-applied," or oiled off-site, it is not subject to the LEED IEQc4.2 requirements.
If you were applying this finish on the project site, I would have to review it more carefully but in this case, you're fine.

On page 19 of the MPR Supplemental Guidance (located here: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6473) guidelines are given for when small buildings located within the LEED project boundary can be excluded from the application.
Registering separate buildings as one project is not allowed. You can register them separately, and then use the 'block' function in LEED Online - this helps create a smooth application process for buildings on the same campus and/or under the same ownership/management. You can read about blocks in the help section of LEED Online.
Fees are based on the gross square footage of the certifying building.

Tony, I checked around and don't have any tips on your questions. We're not sure exactly what GBCI has in mind here, either.
I would ask GBCI for help, and/or go with what feels to you like the best balance of detail. Sorry not to be of more assistance here, but sometimes LEED Online is just like that!

Lawrence, your contractor must be getting something mixed up. FSC chain-of-custody for MRc7: Certified Wood is the only LEED-NC credit with a COC documentation requirement.

Kevin,

The minimum building occupancy for LEED Minimum Program Requirements was lowered to 50% last fall, so you should be fine as far as the LEED requirements are concerned. The USGBC has provided some guidance documentation on their website for how projects with lower occupancy (but still over 50%) should go about attempting various credits where occupancy matters.

To directly answer your question, I think the biggest potential challenges with your project are related to EAp2 and your Energy Star score:

1. You need to determine how to appropriately time-average your building occupancy over the 12-month period for Energy Star purposes. I'd recommend that you contact the Energy Star Portfolio Manager customer service center to learn more about their protocol. When completing your documentation, make sure to include a comprehensive narrative explaining how you derived the occupancy inputs for Portfolio Manager.

2. As you may know, construction fit-outs can be really energy intensive. You should think about how having these activities fall within your performance period might affect your building's Energy Star score , especially if your building currently has a score that is close to the compliance threshold of 69. It may be worthwhile to shift your 12-month performance period to begin after these new tenants have occupied their spaces.

I haven't heard of this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you looked for it in the IDc1 catalog that was published by USGBC, showing successful (and unsuccessful) approaches? This is not exhaustive but is the first place I would look. We link to it from the Resources tab on our IDc1 guidance page.