I have a question about the reporting of the cost of concrete between these two credits. Background: MRc4 - Recycled Content. Concrete manufacturers provide their mix design, $/m³, volume used, etc. on the Supplementary Cementitious Materials calculator. The resulting value is entered into the cost column of the MRc4 template, and designated "SCM Cement," with a post-consumer recycled content of 100%. Therefore, the cost of the CONCRETE is not counted towards this credit, rather just the cost of the SCM cement. If the cost of the concrete was $100, and $35 was determined to be "SCM Cement," we would count $35 at 100% on our MRc4 template. Fine. MRc5 - Regional Materials. If a product meets the extraction and manufacturing distance requirements, 100% of its material cost is included toward the total regional materials cost of the project. The $100 worth of concrete that is locally-extracted is recorded as $100 on the MRc5 template. The issue: If we say the cost of the concrete on a project, not an insignificant amount in most commercial buildings, is only the "SCM cement," $35 in the example per direction from MRc4, we are losing the benefit of an expensive, local material in MRc5: $35 vs. $100. Additionally, how do we reconcile this difference when reporting our Actual Materials Cost? Has anyone worked their way through this?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
It is fine to have two different values for concrete. The SCM value ($35 in your example) is the concrete's contribution to MRc4. The full concrete value ($100 from your example) contributes to MRc5.
It is odd that the SCM calculator requires us to report $35 at 100% recycled content instead of $100 at 35%, but that is how CaGBC set it up.
If you are tabulating the actual LEED material cost for the whole project (instead of the 45% default value) I would use the full concrete value, not the SCM value.
Thank you for the advice, Keith. Have you submitted a project using the latter method?
I think we will be submitting a narrative explaining the $100 at 35% (rather than the $35 at 100%) for MRc4.
I think that a narrative explaining that submission would be fine. We have submitted the other way with no questions asked. We called it "Cast-in-place concrete" in MRc5 and "SCM Cement" in MRc4
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.