Will alterations to entry vestibule qualify for MRc3?

Hi Julie,
I had a similar situation on a project last year. I shared what I learned from GBCI after an appeal here on LEEDUser. To save you the trouble of hunting for it, here's what I shared:

"Well, GBCI has finally come up with the requirement. In response to an appeal that we filed, GBCI denied the credit stating that "Substantial alterations typically involve the relocation of walls or affect greater than 5% of the gross floor area." So, your alteration has to be at least 5% of the building. Of course, USGBC never stated this so it's technically not a credit requirement, but as we have all seen GBCI is making up their own requirements and since they control the reviews we have to abide by their rules, not those developed during the consensus-based USGBC rating system development."

That said, you may have a little better case since your renovation involves more trades than the one in our project. Although GBCI may still hold you to this 5% "rule". I put that in quotes because there is no such rule. Please let me know if you're successful despite the small size of your renovated area.

Good luck,
John

John and Julie: It looks like the 5% number comes from page xxiii of the EBOM Reference Guide Introduction. I’m curious to see how Julie’s question gets answered, because I find the reference guide language unclear. As Barry Giles mentioned in the April 2012 thread below, the scope of “substantial” has not been defined clearly, and is thus subject to different interpretations by different reviewers. Without knowing more about the size & scope of John’s project, it’s hard to have an opinion on whether the denial of their appeal was reasonable, and I hope that individual ruling doesn’t set a precedent.

Here’s the full text from the RG:

“…alterations and additions has a specific meaning. It refers to changes that affect usable space in the building. Mechanical, electrical, or plumbing system upgrades that involve no disruption to usable space are excluded.
Minimum: Alterations that include construction activity by more than 1 trade specialty, make substantial changes to at least 1 entire room in the building, and require isolation of the work site from regular building occupants for the duration are eligible. Additions that increase the total building floor area by at least 5% are eligible. Alterations or additions below these limits are considered repairs, routine replacement, or minor upgrades and are ineligible to earn points under LEED EB O&M. The minimum applies to MRc3 & 9, and IEQc1.5.”

(An addendum changed the text for the “Maximum” paragraph that follows, but I think “Minimum” is still the same.)

The first criterion for determining “substantial” work seems to be how much it disrupts the use of the space by occupants. The minimum area for additions and alterations are then defined separately: additions are considered significant if they increase the floor area by 5%, whereas alterations need to affect an entire room and disrupt the occupants with multiple trades. I don’t think the sentence “Alterations or additions below these limits…” says we should apply the 5% area criteria to both additions AND alterations, because “these limits” were defined for each type of work independently of the other.

I hope future project teams and reviewers don’t latch on to that 5% area number and apply it to all alterations. I’d encourage other teams to describe the extent of the alteration work and how it affects, disrupts, or displaces users of the building. Maybe if enough of us send specific recommendations to LEEDonline feedback we can prompt an addendum...

David. A very well written comment and highlights exactly how far from the intent this credit has drifted. The intent reads, “ To reduce the environmental and air quality impacts of the materials acquired for use in the upgrades of buildings”. What has happened over the previous 8 years is that the GBCI reviewers have concentrated on the word ‘upgrades’ rather than on the words ‘environmental and air quality impacts’. Everyone who’s seems to have attempted this credit have received comments from GBCI that fall mainly into to the ‘the volume of work done doesn’t meet the requirements of the credit’. We seem to have forgotten that the intent primarily is for environmental impacts with the result that now any work that doesn’t meet the volume requirement doesn’t get counted. This is a shame because in most buildings there is continuous ‘work’ being completed in the building, using paint, carpet, etc, etc. Setting some arbitrary percentage is tantamount to ‘throwing your empty recyclable can in the trash’. To change behavior we must make the process as simple as possible and one way is to be consistent. With consistency comes continuation. And with continuation comes change. So lets stop the percentage ‘game’ and re-sight this credit back where it was written…in the environmental and air quality impacts.