New Merged ID+C and BD+C MR Calculator v06

David—The spreadsheet’s MRc5 Regional Materials reporting for BC+C is also incomplete. We have been trying to get clarification from USGBC. GBCI has not confirmed, but I anticipate that they will issue a fix in the near future.

This issue has been the buzz on the NC forums as well. See these comments on the NC-2009 MRc4 & MRc5 pages: http://www.leeduser.com/comment/redirect/62780.

Just as an update: On April 8, 2016, USGBC issued a revised version of the Materials and Resources Calculator (v07). For now, at least, you can download this spreadsheet from http://www.usgbc.org/resources/materials-and-resources-calculator-v2009. There appear to have been some modifications to the instructions clarifying CI entries for MRc5. However, I suspect that v07 does not resolve all the issues that David raised above concerning v06.

LEEDuser has a new forum, “LEED Online Status Updates” (http://www.leeduser.com/strategy/leed-online-status-updates) to address issues with the latest LEED Online forms and calculators. There, Michelle Reott is working with USGBC to answer or resolve issues with the new tools. Check in to the new forum for the latest news.

David and Jon - I was asked to review the latest Materials and Resources Calculator v08. It should be released with (or before) the 1/1/2017 quarterly LEED Addenda Update. It will be cataloged as a Form Update (under Entry Type) in the Addenda Database - http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations.

Keep an eye on http://www.usgbc.org/resources/materials-and-resources-calculator-v2009 for the new version.

One of the fixes was to rename the dropdowns in Column S to differentiate between BD+C and the further clarify the two options in ID+C. Column S was also renamed to make things clearer. The embedded comment in cell T7 has been updated to reflect that for Option 2 in ID+C only the furthest of the compliant manufacturing/extraction distances is to be entered.

Hi all, 

I came here looking for the exact question David posted. I just downloaded the v8 (we have been using v7, since that's what was out when we first started documenting for this project) and checked it, and it has not resolved the issue. I see the 'ID+C example' tab at the end, and it seems like entering it the way that is shown--with a second duplicate line if you want to document both options--isn't the right way to do it, either, since that seems to double-count that particular product in the overall total at the bottom of the material cost column.

Is my interpretation above correct? Is there still no better way to do this?

We were chastised on an NC project recently for using our own version of a tracking calculator (which has never been an issue in the past, provided the homemade form tracked all of the required info), but what are teams supposed to do when the provided tools don't function properly?

Emily, using your own calculator should not be an issue, and if it was a pending/denied credit comment versus just an educational note I'd bring that up with GBCI. The USGBC calculator is not a required document and reviewers should not be pending the credit for alternative calculators if the uploaded documentation shows compliance.

The only admonishment I'd give about a homemade calculator is to be sure you upload the Excel file rather than  a PDF - that way the reviewer can recalculate if needed. But just using your own version that functions the same (or better, which seems to be the case!) as the USGBC one should not be a problem.

Sorry for the tangent - I hope that is helpful!

Tangent welcome. It was the first time I'd seen them fuss about using a different calculator, and I returned the fussing, since their comment indicated that any future projects should take heed. For me alone, that could be 40+ projects already well into the documentation process, and who knows how many others in our company. The calculator submitted came from our contractor's consultant, who has also done numerous projects and never had an issue. The comment was as follows, and was copied under each of our MR credits submitted:

"The LEED Materials and Resources Calculator has not been provided. For future projects, ensure that the Calculator has
been provided. In this case, the provided documentation includes all required information."

After I fussed and pointed out that every credit had a calculator uploaded with it (as an Excel file), they responded with the following:

"“Regarding the Materials and Resources Calculator, as the submitted Calculator includes all the required information (e.g., the name and total cost of materials, the pre- and post-consumer percentage for MRc4, the manufactured & extracted distance for MRc5, and the FSC percentage for MRc7), the review team was able to confirm compliance of these credits. However, to ensure that the information (including all fields and formulas) is accurate, correct, and complete, it is recommended that the v2009 LEED Materials and Resources Calculator, found on the Resources Tab in the online credit library (https://www.usgbc.org/node/1731024?view=resources&return=/credits/new-construction/v2009) be submitted on future projects.”

It all seemed odd to me, but I made a mental note and moved on. For current projects that haven't already gotten far into the construction phase, I'm advising the contractor of the comment. For projects that are already well into the process and happen to be using their own version (probably not many), we'll just have to submit it knowing that the same comment may come back. 

To me this isn't a very useful comment - they could tell you accounted for all required information, and it's not something a reviewer could justifiably deny a credit for - it's really just pointing out you did something not quite by the book, which you already knew. I'd leave a comment like this if an alternative spreadsheet was unclear or had missing information, but in this case there was no substantive problem. It's one of those comments that isn't technically wrong but isn't totally necessary either, so falls to a reviewer judgement call whether to include it.

I don't want to promise that homemade spreadsheets will always be fine and acceptable, but judging from my experience it's more of a note pointing out that they reviewed and accepted alternative documentation than a threat that only the official calc will be accepted in the future.

OK, I just downloaded the v8 spreadsheet and see what I think is still a problem with the logic.  Our project has approximately 16% of materials manufactured regionally, and another 17% manufactured and extracted regionally​.  I would think, then we would qualify for option 1 (33% manufactured regionally) as well as option 2, but this is not how the summary reads - implying that one needs a minimum of 20% manufactured (but not extracted) regionally to qualify.  

I have no problems manually adding these totals to the LEED template, but I'm surprised this hasn't been fixed, and I'm wondering if maybe I am misreading this credit?

Chris, I think you and I see the same issue with the errors. I'm on the verge of having to complete our calculator for submission, and am not sure what to do and how much manual manipulation the file will allow. I'll contact LEED Coach with this issue and see what they say.

I got this back as a response from LEED Coach: 

"Thank you for contacting us to get clarification on using the Material and Resources Calculator (https://www.usgbc.org/resources/materials-and-resources-calculator-v2009).

As noted in the comment of the Description of Material column (Column D) of the Calculator tab, "When applying for both Options 1 and 2 in ID+C, the material must be listed twice..." As shown in the ID+C Example tab, the first time the product is listed would calculate the item's contribution to Option 1, and the second line would calculate the item's contribution to Option 2. 

While you were correct in your first post on LEEDUser that listing items twice in the calculator does increase the overall total at the bottom of the material cost column (Column G), it should be noted that the calculations are based off of the Total Materials Cost provided on the Instructions tab of the calculator, rather than the sum total calculated in Column G of the Calculator tab."

Hope that helps clarify things some for now.