LEED-NC and Interior Fitout

Sounds to me like a core and shell project. The owner of the building is not occupying any of the building which is the criteria determining if the is NC or CS (more than 50% owner occupied makes it an NC project).

From the CS Rating System document:

"If a project is designed and constructed to be partially occupied by the owner or developer, then the owner or developer has direct influence over that portion of the interior build-out work. For these projects to pursue
LEED for Core & Shell certification, the owner must occupy 50% or less of the building’s leasable square footage. Projects in which more than 50% of the building’s tenant space is occupied by a owner should pursue LEED for New Construction certification."

I believe you have the option here to determine which system you would like to utilize. Since the one tenant will occupy more than 50% of the building you could make this a LEED-NC project if you like. LEED gives the team the option to determine which LEED system is most appropriate for them and the project within certain limitations. It sounds as if it would be easiest for you to continue with LEED-NC since the core and shell and the large tenant space could then be certified together with one system.
Based on CIR 10102 if you pursue the LEED-NC path and since the percentage of space to be finished later is less than 40% of the total you would need to establish tenant criteria for the remaining space(s). The CIR spells out the requirements.

Since the work under both "projects" is being undertaken by an owner of the building I do not think you can exclude the fit out work. You should combine both scopes of work in the LEED submission.

Make sure to also look at LI 10102.

In order to pursue NC, you have to meet that definition of "complete": "no further work is needed and the project is ready for occupancy." Based on your description, it does not sound like the Initial Developer is delivering a "complete" space to the New Owner and so you would need to include both scopes of work to be eligible to pursue NC.

It sounds to me like you could perhaps have the case for a CS project (where the Initial Developer delivers the core+shell and common spaces to the New Owner who then does their final fit-out under a separate construction contract). In that case, you could do CS for the whole base building, and then the New Owner could do a CI project to certify their final fit-out. CI is open to "tenants" who own or rent their space, so the fact that New Owner bought their floors is not an issue..

If you stay in NC - make sure to also refer to the extra requirements that LI 10102 puts in place for the other portion of the building (25%) and to make sure you are appropriately documenting that incomplete space throughout your NC application (WEp1 and EAp2 specifically as well as the Owner Commitment Letter/Tenant Guidelines).

There are cases where more than one system could apply. Look over the CS requirements and the Interpretation Ralph mentioned and select the system which fits the best.

Make sure you read CIR 10102 carefully and read between the lines. It took me a while to figure out that the Owner Letter of Commitment only applies to spaces to be finished (later) by the Owner. The non-binding Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines only apply to incomplete or future tenant spaces. The Owner Lertter of Commitment does NOT apply to tenant spaces.

I have been rereading this thread. As I understand, a developer is building the building (core and shell). Another group has 'puchased' portions of the building interior. This sounds like an office condo situation and the second group would actually own that space and would be able to sell it in th efuture if they wanted to.

Would the interior space be built by others than the construction team that built the building? If so it may make sense to go ahead with certification as a core and shell project. Joining submittals by two different owners and contractors into one LEED project is very difficult and probably an undue burden on the Owner/Construction teams and not generally required by LEED. And you would still have the option of certifying the 75% interior finish space as LEED-CI.

But if the Construction teams are the same for both spaces you may choose to certify under LEED-NC (fllowing CIR 10102 for the future tenant fit out - the last 25%). That has the added advantage of having more of the building actually meet LEED than LEED-CI only and more cost effective than separate certifications under LEED-CS and (the optional) LEED-CI.

Yes, after all discussion, I believe it would be legitimate and most appropriate to use LEED-CS for the building and core spaces.

The large interior tenant/owner could then use LEED-CI for their fit out but would not be required to.

The difficulties of combining the design and construction documentation and coordinating the submittals for two separate projects; the core and shell building owned, designed and built by one entity and the 75% interior space owned, designed and built by separate design and construction teams, is huge. The complexity could pose a serious hurdle that could jeopardize certification of the building.

There may be something I have missed and the choice of the rating system to use is a big decision. It would make sense to contact the GBCI and discuss this with a reviewer.

It does look like you could go either way depending upon how you present the "ownership" issue.

I have not had as much difficulty combining two scopes of work by two separate teams on the same project as Ralph. It is almost twice the work to make sure both teams provided the necessary information. It is an added layer of difficulty for sure, but it certainly can be done and is not a huge obstacle in my experience. If you separate the projects into CS and CI it is twice the work as well.

Talking to GBCI is a good idea as you are in a grey area.

Hi,

looking at the LI 10102 https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/10102 I see an update made on 1/27/2017 about the possibility to avoiding the need of providing an Owner Letter of Committment in case the uncompleted spaces would be less than 10% of the total gross floor area, however it seems this addendum is related only to LEED 2009 version, is that correct or does someone have applied this successfully also for LEED v4 version?

Waiting for your kind feedback.