Marc - My experience is that there's some wiggle room, as long as its not excessive and is explained to the GBCI. There's always a risk when you violate the express requirements, but I wouldn't panic over a few days beyond the 60, particularly if you can justify it to a curious reviewer.

I think you'll find people working in a variety of forms right now Elliot. The marketplace is still new enough that customary protocols haven't really developed. My personal preference is to work on an hourly basis because there are just so many unknowns going into an EBOM project that can affect the cost for the client (either positively or negatively), particularly before you undertake the feasibility study phase. But plenty of folks use a flat fee and find it more effective.

I would recommend you check with GBCI via LEED Online.
My assumption would be that as two separate buildings with different timelines, you have to register them separately in LEED Online, and pay separate fees. I think you should probably register than as a "block," though, to get a common reviewer.

On your first question, I think there is a little confusion. The exams are for to to become a LEED accredited professional.
To get a building LEED-certified, you have to document all the credits and prerequisites you want to earn via LEED Online.
To get the other 15 hours, you can look for online courses through the USGBC site. We are offering a webinar on LEED-CI later this month that qualifies!

USGBC is now officially making moves in the direction of LEED Interpretations as discussed above. I've started a new thread on the expected LEED Interpretations policy.

Demetra, I doubt you will receive a response to this question on this forum. People are more likely to share this kind of information as part of a quote process. Also, it will really depend a lot on project specifics.

It probably depends on the timing and the nature of the additional work.

For changes made *inside* the LEED Boundary after the Design Phase review, but before the Construction Phase review, you would normally have to revise your submissions to include the changes to the work. The design phase review gives preliminary approval of credits based on the assumption that the work will be constructed according to the plans submitted.

If the Construction phase submittals are already in, it's water under the bridge.

Whether the additional work outside the LEED boundary should be added to the LEED Boundary: I don't think 2.2 offers precise guidance on this, but you could reference pg 19 of the 2009 Supplemental Guidance for Minimum Program Requirements and see if that applies to your situation. If those conditions apply, it would seem reasonable to exclude the additional work.

If the additional work directly supports the building and impacts credit requirements, it could be difficult to exclude, even if done under a separate contract. For example, if the work was an additional parking lot used by the LEED building, that could change your parking counts, open space %, and pervious areas and thus affect SSc4.4, 5, 6, and 7.1.

Hope that helps.

Generally we have found it difficult to introduce LEED as its new but specifically the Low VOC materials, paints, sealants and adhesives are not easily availble in China (we couldn't find them) as the locally produced products do not test VOC content. They may in fact be low VOC but VOC content is just not tested as its not a China local requirement.

We have had to drop the low VOC paints, sealants and adhesives during construction for our projects in China as they have not been locally available unless imported from places like Hong Kong even by the same well known brands that do the testing outside China. If anyone has found low VOC products that have appropriate testing availble in China please post them here. I've started to doubt if the certified LEED projects in China have really used low VOC paints for example...

I don't think this method has a good chance of being accepted. I'm guessing the reviewers would say it relies too much on the users to correctly bag and label the different items, and is too complex. They will want to see a way for residents on each floor to access separate bins for each kind of material or some way for the recycling to be collected and sorted. I can imagine two options that might work:

1. Modify the container system in the trash closet on each floor so that you can fit an individual container for each kind of recycling material in the space where you now have room for only two containers. These could possibly be bins that are stacked on top of each other but are still accessible. If the bins are smaller, they will need to be collected more frequently.

2. Use two bins per floor, one for all recyclable items mixed together, and one for garbage (your organics). The bin of mixed recycling would have to be collected and then manually sorted down at the ground level into the separate large bins. The maintenance crews would have to do this, which may or may not be acceptable.