See all forum discussions about CS-v4 MRc2
 Subscribe to new posts about CS-v4 MRc2 Post a new question aboutCS-v4 MRc2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on CS-v4 MRc2»
FAQs about MRc2 :

If a company provides an EPD but it does not mention on it that it meets the ISO standards required, can we still submit it for LEED or do we need to have that verification?

Where can I find a list of products with EPDs?

Do I have to submit the full EPD with my documentation for Option 1?

If I include a product in the BPDO EPDs credit, do I also have to include it in the BPDO Material Ingredients credit?

If I include a product with an EPD in Option 1, do I have to also include it in the scope of products that are part of the Option 2 calculation?

How do you recognize each type of EPD?

For the twenty products with EPDs, can I count multiple products from the same manufacturer?

View answers »

Forum discussion

CS-v4 MRc2:Building product disclosure and optimization - environmental product declarations

30% structure and enclosure maximum

Default Avatar
Rebecca Rice
Sustainability Consultant
NORESCO
LEEDuser Basic Member
3 thumbs up

I have a v4 core and shell project whose total materials cost will be roughly $36,000,000. The total cost of interiors will be about $1,000,000. If interiors are such a small % of the total job, then it seems the project cannot possibly meet the MR Building Product Disclosure and Optimization credit requirement that structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant products. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Seems like this requirement won't work for core and shell projects.

1
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user pmelton
Paula Melton
Editorial Director
BuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Expert
159 thumbs up

Mon, 12/28/2015 - 14:59

Rebecca, this seems like a pretty major issue with applying this credit to Core & Shell, though MEP systems should also count as non-structure/enclosure. Still, in your case, $12.6m of the compliant building products would have to be neither structure nor enclosure, which is absurd. I think that can't be how they intend to apply it, but this may require a CIR.
Profile picture for user pmelton
Paula Melton
Editorial Director
BuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Expert
159 thumbs up

Fri, 01/22/2016 - 16:27

Rebecca, I got a chance to speak to Sara Cederberg at USGBC yesterday. This is a known issue that they are trying to resolve, and she said they are looking for creative ideas. Sara would love to hear from you!
Default Avatar
Martin Stowell
Energy Engineer
EBI Consulting
LEEDuser Basic Member
2 thumbs up

Sun, 01/24/2016 - 18:52

Would it be possible to write certain stipulations into lease for future tenants? I also have a core and shell v4 project that does not have any tenants yet, and we are struggling to figure out if there will even be 20 permanently installed products. I am struggling to determine how much we can state in a tenant lease in order to gain points in the MR credits.
Profile picture for user pmelton
Paula Melton
Editorial Director
BuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Expert
159 thumbs up

Mon, 01/25/2016 - 13:27

Alanna, this sounds like the kind of creative thinking that USGBC is looking for! I would encourage you to get in touch with Sara Cederberg.

Mon, 09/12/2016 - 08:39

I have the same problem on a project. Do you know if the USGBC decided something on this issue or is still looking for ideas ?
Profile picture for user pmelton
Paula Melton
Editorial Director
BuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Expert
159 thumbs up

Mon, 09/12/2016 - 11:19

Julien, I think they are still gathering ideas. Haven't seen interpretations related to this yet.

Mon, 09/12/2016 - 13:07

It could be an exception like: « For Core&Shell projects where structure and enclosure materials (S&E) represent more than X% (60%, 70%, more ?) of the cost of all products, then Structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than : 50% - (100% – S&E%) x Y%. Where Y would be the minimum % of compliant products the USGBC is requiring for products outside of the scope of “structure&enclosure”. Exemple if S&E represent 80%, then if Y=50% : S&E may not constitute more than 40% of the value of compliant building products. That would give some flexibility and make this point possible even for C&S projects with very limited work outside of structure and enclosure scope
Profile picture for user pmelton
Paula Melton
Editorial Director
BuildingGreen, Inc.
LEEDuser Expert
159 thumbs up

Mon, 09/12/2016 - 14:14

Makes sense to me! I recommend sending to Sara Cederberg at USGBC.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.