See all forum discussions about NC-v4.1 EQc2
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-v4.1 EQc2 Post a new question aboutNC-v4.1 EQc2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-v4.1 EQc2»
FAQs about EQc2 :

For the insulation product category, should we demonstrate compliance based on cost or surface area?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-v4.1 EQc2:Low-Emitting Materials

terrazzo in a performance spec situation

Profile picture for user djones_1
Don Jones
Principal, Director of Sustainable Design
EwingCole
LEEDuser Basic Member
0 thumbs up

For a project like ours, for the US Army Corps of Engineers, our specs are non-proprietary. we can specify a manufacturer, in this case for terrazzo, but can't necessarily control who gets the project. Can we simplify specify that the terrazzo components have to meet the most stringent adopted requirements for VOC?

0
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 davidp
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED Specialist
SERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1361 thumbs up

Wed, 05/29/2019 - 23:48

Don - I'd say that's a pretty common approach, as long as you are spelling out what the VOC requirements are. Some spec writers like to put all the VOC limits and related performance/ testing requirements in Division 1 and then refer back to that from all the individual sections. The benefit is saying it once in one location, but the risk is that subs may not always read or receive the critical Division 1 sections. It's worth emphasizing that to the GC and even saying in Administrative Requirements or Submittal Requirements that all subs need to review/ receive Division 1. 
Profile picture for user davidp
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED Specialist
SERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1361 thumbs up

Wed, 05/29/2019 - 23:49

Don - I'd say that's a pretty common approach, as long as you are spelling out what the VOC requirements are. Some spec writers like to put all the VOC limits and related performance/ testing requirements in Division 1 and then refer back to that from all the individual sections. The benefit is saying it once in one location, but the risk is that subs may not always read or receive the critical Division 1 sections. It's worth emphasizing that to the GC and even saying in Administrative Requirements or Submittal Requirements that all subs need to review/ receive Division 1. 

Add new comment

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