1.!
:13 «u... ‘
.13.}?

 

 

 

.
w
:rH 2.
. . <
.91. .1.

r5... , ‘ :
«.475? IF.
23::
2.. ‘ _ .
tzsnufi? .i
.3. 1.!
.. A.
.23..

P

 

.
u.

3.1 :
I .57..
3.1

1.3.3.. .2. .
. lift} .3: ad 3
. 1:35.61. ‘
.. 5 .. V I}
1. an“ fiatn ‘ .trnihrt3:2
. fl . ‘1 t.
Lia . .
a.
. : . ..
db;

.Ffiyaifiufi.
.iusLL. e x: .4.

33.... ., an

. 363?”) w. V‘
.5. a sfwmnwiii,
a. .5L1. .

5:
hump»...
4 1.25

 

.IV |
. I! 3.; a.
.11 .....ulli.:tflahql
{hi flu :2..."qu

. u L. $.51-

aw.

um

 

 

 

:1

£534..

‘3

4o . . 11‘!!!
71%;” gr“? 4‘

 

.12
Esfié

. ‘ 32:21.6.»nu

33%?

 

 

 

LIBRARY
"7/ Michigan State
,1, - i l0 University
5 F :1 6706

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DEVELOPMENT OF A DATABASE METHODOLOGY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH REGIONALLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS
STANDARDS OF LEEDTM GREEN BUILDING RATING
SYSTEM

presented by

Sadiq Das

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Construction Management
Science Program

 

 

(w

L/

Major P ofessor’s Signature
8 A (2005’

Date

 

 

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE u

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

g A 4 1: 1L
JUK ‘0 J 4‘YUU/

 

A} E: 16 23:3
46 9 2

DI

 

- 1

th‘
It

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 (rm-WEE

DEVELOPMENT OF A DATABASE METHODOLOGY FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH REGIONALLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS STANDARDS OF LEEDTM
GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM
By

Sadiq Das

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Construction Management Program

2005

ABSTRACT
DEVELOPMENT OF A DATABASE METHODOLOGY FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH REGIONALLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS STANDARDS OF LEEDTM
GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM
By
Sadiq Das

Green building design is increasingly being considered by designers and builders
across the United States. One strategy of green or sustainable design can be to use local
or regionally manufactured and extracted materials for construction. The benefits of use
of local materials are minimizing environmental and economic costs of transportation and
supporting the local economy. This research developed a methodology for creating a
database of regionally available materials which is applicable to universities and other
large institutional owners and is targeted towards compliance with the "Leadership in
Energy & Environmental Design" Green Building Rating System (LEED®). LEED is a
sustainable design based system which entails certification processes for “green”
buildings. LEED addresses regionally manufactured and extracted materials as well as
numerous other sustainable practices. This methodology for development Of a database is
centered on compliance with the regionally available materials standards of LEED.

The researcher conducted interviews with LEED Accredited Professionals and
construction managers, developed a building case study, created a sample database and
created a framework outlining the process of developing a database. Additionally, the
researcher outlined the process of complying with the regionally available materials

standards of LEED and identified high-impact materials for typical institutional

buildings.

I dedicate this thesis to my mother who has been the source of inspiration for every

accomplishment in my life.

iii

Acknowledgements

Working on this thesis has been an exciting and interesting experience. It was
made possible by many individuals who affected my life and work in many different
ways.

I am deeply indebted to my advisor Professor Timothy Mrozowski, for his
knowledgeable input. Without his advice and help this work would not be possible. I
would like to express my Sincere thanks to the interviewees for their co-operation and
valuable insight. I would like to thank the administrative staff of the Physical Plant
Division of Michigan State University, for their time and co-operation and also my thesis
committee members, Dr. Tariq Abdelhamid and Dr. David Johnson for their
encouragement and expertise.

I would like to thank Nisha Nair for all her support during the highs and lows of
this thesis research. I appreciate everything that you have done for me. I would like to
acknowledge all my friends who listened to me during my times of frustration.

I would like to thank my parents for their continuous support in every aspect of
my life. Lastly, I would like to thank my brother Kazim and his wife Abreez, for their
love and encouragement. You always made me feel at home in spite of being thousands

of miles away from home.

iv

Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES V
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1. 1 Introduction 2
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Need Statement 4
1.4 Research Goals and Objectives 8
1.5 Research Scope 9
CHAPTER 2 — LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction 1 2
2.1 Levels of Energy Consumption 13
2. 1. 1 Global Issues 1 3
2.1.2 Energy Consumption Levels in US 13
2.1.3 Impact Of Buildings 14
2.2 Green Building 17
2.2.1 Green Building Benefits 18
2.2.2 Procuring Regionally Manufactured Materials 19
2.3 Green Building Rating and Certification Systems 20
2.3.1 Rating and Certification Processes 21
2.3.1.1 Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method 22
2.3.1.2 Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide 25
2.3.1.3 Green Building Challenge Assessment Framework 29
2.3.1.4 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) 32
2.3.2 Related Studies and Applicable Research 35
2.3.2.1 Influence of Location on LEED Cost 36
2.3.3 LEED 2.1 Rating System — Credit MR 5.1 39
2.3.4 LEED 2.1 Rating System — Credit MR 5.1 41
2.3.5 Draft Proposal for LEED Rating System, version 2.2 42
2.4 Summary and Conclusions 44
CHAPTER 3 — METHODOLOGY

3. 1 Methodology 46
3.1.1 Literature Review 49
3.1.2 Case Study 49
3. l .3 Interviews 50
3.1.3.1 Method 50
3.1.3.2 Participants 50
3.1.3.3 Instrumentation 51

 

3.1.4 LEED Accredited Professionals Second Round of Telephone Interviews .................. 53

3.1.5 Analysis of Interview Data

 

3.1.6 Development of Database

 

 

 

3.1.6.2 Source of Data for Database
3.1.6.3 Scope of Database

 

3.1.6.4 Keyword Selection Process

 

3.1.6.5 Validation of Database

 

3.1.7 Data Reporting

 

3.1.8 Conclusion

 

4.0 Interview Data and Analysis

 

 

4.1 Interview Data Report

 

4.1.2 Construction Manager Interviews

 

 

 

 

 

4.3 Summary

 

5.1 Sample Building Study

 

5.2 Cyclotron Addition Building

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.2 Keyword Search
6.3 Results of Keyword Search

 

 

 

 

6.7 Conclusion

 

7.0 Summary and Recommendations

 

53
54
3.1.6.1 Selection of Manufacturers and Vendors for the sample database 54
55
56
59
S9
60
60
CHAPTER 4 - INTERVIEW DATA AND ANALYSIS
62
62
4.1.1 LEED Accredited Professional Interviews 63
72
4.1.3 Physical Plant Design and Administrative Staff Interviews 75
4.1.4 Follow-up LEED Accredited Professionals Interviews 77
4.1.5 Framework and Database Validation Interviews 79
4.2 Process for Compliance with LEED Credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 81
85
CHAPTER 5 — SAMPLE BUILDING STUDY
87
87
5.3 LEED MR 5.1 and 5.2 calculations 88
5.4 Conclusions of Sample Building Study 90
CHAPTER 6 — DATABASE RESULTS
6.1 Development of a Sample Regional Manufacturers Database 93
6.1.1 Manufacturer/Vendor Keyword Search 94
96
96
6.4 Development of Database Framework 104
6.5 Database Research and Analysis Conclusions 106
6.6 Scenarios for Considering Other Materials 109
109
CHAPTER 7 — SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
111
111

 

7.1 Overview of LEED Rating System Certification
7.2 Possible Difficulties for Certification of Credits MR 5.1 and 5.2

vi

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.3 Benefits of Credits MR 5.1 and 5-2 113
7.5 Conclusions and Results of the Database Research 113
7.6 Recommendations for Universities 1 17
7.7 Findings and Contributions 118
7.8 Limitations of the study 1 18
7.9 Areas for Future Research 119
Appendices
Appendix A -— Consent Forms 122
Interview Questionnaires
Appendix B — Environmental Policies Implemented by University of Buffalo ....................... 1 38
Environmental Goals for Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Appendix C — Interview Transcripts 143
LEED Accredited Professionals Interviews
Construction Manager Interviews
MSU Physical Plant Administrative Staff Interviews
Appendix D — Sample Building Study Schedule Of Values 174
Appendix E — Example Database of Regional Manufacturers of Building Materials ....... 178

References

709

 

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: LEEDTM Certification Levels ......................................................... 33

Table 2.2: Increase in Initial Cost for each Certification Level in Different Locations....37

Table 3.1: Percentage of Project Cost for 16 MSU Projects .................................. 57
Table 5.1: List of High-Cost Items for Cyclotron Sample Building Study .................. 88
Table 5.2: Cost Calculations for Concrete for Sample Building .............................. 89

Table 5.3: Required Total Cost of Regionally Procured Materials for MR5.1

certification .......................................................................................... 89
Table 5.4: Cost Calculations for Materials Assumed to be Regionally Procured .......... 90
Table 6.1: List of Keywords ....................................................................... 94
Table 6.2: Keyword Search Example ............................................................ 95
Table 6.3: Results for Division 2 .................................................................. 97
Table 6.4: Results for Division 3 .................................................................. 98
Table 6.5: Results for Division 4 .................................................................. 99
Table 6.6: Results for Division 5 ................................................................ 100
Table 6.7: Results for Division 6 ................................................................ 101
Table 6.8: Results for Division 8 ................................................................ 102
Table 6.9: Results for Division 9 ................................................................. 103

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Increase in Volume of Education Construction from 1982 to 2002 ............... 5
Figure 1.2 Utilization of Database during Construction ......................................... 8

Figure 2.1: World Primary Energy Consumption and Population, by Country/Region...14

Figure 2.2: Total Building Share of US. Primary Energy Consumption ..................... 15
Figure 2.3: Building Share Of US. Primary Energy and Electricity Consumption... 15
Figure 2.4: Cost Premium Percentage for LEEDTM Certification Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
Figure 3.1: Thesis Methodology .................................................................. 48
Figure 3.2: Construction Specification Institute (CSI) Coding System ....................... 58
Figure 4.1 Stage 1: LEED Certification Process for Credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 ............... 82
Figure 4.2 Stage 2: LEED Certification Process for Credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 ............... 84
Figure 6.1 Research Materials and Development of Database Step ........................ 104

ix

CHAPTER 1

1.1 Introduction

Buildings have a significant impact on many of the environmental problems faced
by our society and play an important part in Shaping the lifestyle and health of its users.
Sustainable or “green” design provides healthy and environmentally sensitive methods of
building construction. “Green” or “sustainable” buildings use resources such as water,
materials, energy and land more efficiently than buildings which are simply built to
minimum code. “Green” buildings are sensitive to:
- “Environment
I Resource and energy consumption
I Impacts on people (quality and healthiness Of work environment)

. Financial impact (cost effectiveness from a full financial cost-return perspective)

The world at large” (www. usgbc. org, date visited .‘January, 2005)

One of the important methods of sustainable construction is using materials which are
produced or extracted in close proximity to a project site and are based on the natural
resources present within the region. The focus of this thesis is to develop a framework for
development of a database of regionally manufactured materials for design and
construction of institutional buildings.

Building construction undergoes frequent change with respect to building
technology and improved building performance. Most of these changes are directed
toward improving the quality of life of users through innovations in building design,
efficient use of resources and creation of healthier environments. The need to build in
order to accommodate the needs of populations has resulted in an increase in

consumption of natural resources and production of waste which is harmful to the

environment. The resultant depletion of natural resources, large scale deforestation,
pollution of air and rivers and destabilization of climate has made the construction
industry explore new technologies and methods in order to build for a sustainable future.
1.2 Problem Statement

The life span Of a building consists of its design, construction, operation and
demolition or salvage. The decisions made at the first phase of building design and
construction can significantly affect the costs and efficiencies of later phases. “Viewed
over a 30 year period, initial building costs account for approximately two percent,
operations and maintenance costs equal six percent while personnel costs equal 92
percent of the total costs incurred by the building” [Romm J ., 1994].

A building goes through the following phases during its lifetime:

Conceptualization phase

I Design phase

I Construction phase

I Occupancy phase

I Post occupancy phase

In order to construct energy-efficient “green” buildings, sustainability goals

should be incorporated from the initial phases of conceptualization and design. Such an
approach could result in innovations in construction techniques, material selection with
environmental sensitivity and better all round efficiency in the construction process.
“Careful selection of environmentally sustainable building materials is one way for
architects and designers to begin incorporating sustainable design principles in buildings”

[Jong-Jin Kim, et al., 1998].

1.3 Need Statement

“Green” design differs from conventional building design methods in terms of
initial costs and the savings that are achieved over the life span of the building. Although
building “green” could mean higher initial costs, the benefits of better building
performance during Operation of the building are considerable. “Minimal increases in
initial costs of about 2% to support green design would, on average, result in life-cycle
savings of 20% of total construction costs” [Kats G., et.al., Oct, 2003]. “Green buildings
consume 10% to 50% less energy than traditionally constructed buildings” [Alvey J .,
2003]. “The financial benefits of green buildings include reduced energy consumption
and their associated costs, increased occupant productivity and worker retention,
increased market values, and reduced health liability risks due to better indoor air
quality” [Paumgartten P., 2003].

Use of locally produced materials during construction, siting a building on a
location with existing infrastructure, efficient storm water drainage system, recycling
used materials, efficient use of natural sources such as wind and sun for ventilation and
heating respectively are examples of green building design.

Green building design is being considered as a part of the strategy for achieving
sustainability goals at universities. Universities such as Carnegie Mellon University,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the State University of New York at Buffalo
are making an effort to incorporate sustainability goals in their respective environmental
and building construction policies (Refer to Appendix B).

Universities function as mini-cities consisting Of Office buildings, restaurants,

retail Shops, Sports facilities, entertainment complexes, residential complexes and

schools. With the rise in enrollment along with an increase in energy costs and demands
for better amenities such as air-conditioning, heating and ventilation, high-speed intemet
connection and healthy indoor environments, universities are continuously constructing
new facilities to counter their growing needs. Figure 1.1 displays percent increase in

education construction as compared to total non-residential construction from 1982 to

 

l 1982 - Total Non — Residential Construction 2002 ~ Total Non — Residential Construction
" 1007 million square feet 1172 million square feet

 

 

Figure 1.] Increase in vomit; Education Construction from 1982 to 2002
(source: McGraw Hill Construction Dodge '3 Special Sector Study)

In 1982, total education construction accounted for 7% of the 1,007 million
square feet (Inst) of the total non-residential construction in the US. In 2002, out of the
1,429 msf of non-residential construction total education construction has risen to 18%
(McGraw Hill Construction, 2003). With these figures expected to grow with increasing
number of enrollments, incorporating sustainability goals into their construction methods
could prove to be beneficial for universities.

A number of sustainability guides and assessment and rating systems are
available, which provide detailed performance standards for construction of buildings. A

summary description of these performance standards and rating systems is provided in

section 2.3 of this document. These standards emphasize integration of environmental

concerns with cost and other design criteria, in order to provide an energy efficient
building. Carefirl selection of materials and their sources of origin is an important part of
sustainable building design. Sustainable building materials can have the following
characteristics,
I Durable
I Non-toxic
I Improve indoor environment quality
I Energy efficient or water efficient
I Reused or salvaged
I Recycled content
I Rapidly renewable
I Biodegradable or recyclable
I Locally manufactured

The selection of materials for any project depends upon the design criteria and
climatic conditions prevalent at the building Site. The selection of materials may depend
upon the proximity of the jobsite to their manufacturing source as well. “Apart from
reducing the significant environmental impacts of transporting materials over long
distances, selecting local sources or vendors for building materials aids in development of
a local economy” [Malin N., 1996]. Development and maintenance of information about
building material alternatives, manufacturing sources and vendors could help builders
employ sustainable materials in construction efficiently.

The United States Green Building Council (U SGBC) developed the Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating SystemTM. The LEED

Rating System provides a detailed outline of suggested building and management
techniques as standards which are required to be followed in order to obtain different
levels Of certification. Topics such as sustainable Sites, water efficiency, energy and
atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor air quality and innovative design have been
addressed as sections containing standards for compliance.

The Materials and Resource section of the LEEDTM Rating System includes
credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 which require procurement of locally manufactured or extracted
materials for building construction. In order to achieve certification for this credit, 20%
of the total materials used for the project should be manufactured within 500 miles of the
project site. 50% of those materials are required to be extracted within 500 miles to
achieve credit 5.2.

LEED also requires the project team to submit documentation supporting the
calculation of materials. “The documentation for LEED projects could cost up to $
30,000 for project teams without experience in LEED certification” [Cooper G., 2002].
Developing frameworks which provide the methodology for achieving LEED credits
could result in savings in management costs and time for the project team. This thesis
provides a framework for development of a database of regional manufacturers in
Michigan to aid in achieving the above mentioned credits for institutional buildings. Such
a database can be used when specifying materials for a construction project.
Manufacturers for materials are listed in the database according to C81 divisions. The
incorporation of the database into the project during the conceptual planning stage could
be helpful to the project team in making effective decisions early in the project. As shown

in the Figure 1.2, the database would however, require periodic updating to reflect

changes in manufacturers or sources of building materials and equipment within the

specified region.

 

 

Research regionally Check Distance from Project site

available materials
LUpdate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refer Database of regional Incorporate into
Project Team manufacturing sources of schematic/conceptual
CSI building materials design of building
Divisions
v
Construction

 

 

 

Figure 1.2 Utilization of Database during Construction

1.4 Research goals and objectives

1.4.1 Goals

The goal of this research is to facilitate the use of sustainable design processes by

encouraging and aiding in the use of local materials in construction projects.

1.4.2 Objectives

The specific objectives of the research which were designed to aid in meeting the goals

identified above were as follows:

I To create a framework for development of a database of locally manufactured
materials which could aid in achieving compliance with credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 of the
LEED Green Building Rating SystemTM

I To develop recommendations for universities and other institutions for achieving

compliance with MR 5.1 and 5.2 and creating their own database.

These Objectives were accomplished by using the following procedures:

Reviewed existing literature on LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) Green Building Rating Systemm, LEED-NC Reference Guide, research
papers and articles on LEED compliance

Conducted interviews with LEED Accredited Professionals and construction
managers who have been involved in LEED certification of buildings to obtain
information about LEED certification practices

Gained information about design and material procurement methods at universities
through open-ended interviews with staff members from a case study university who
are responsible for the administrative management of construction projects
Procured building material data for a case study building (located on Michigan State
University campus) in order to identify high impact materials when complying with
LEED credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 for a typical institutional building

Developed an example database of local manufacturers for building products and
materials, within Michigan, using East Lansing, Michigan as the focal point in order
to investigate appropriate methods Of development of a database

Developed a framework for development of a database for complying with LEED
credits MR 5.1 and 5.2

Developed recommendations for implementation of LEED certification criteria for

MR credit 5.1 and MR credit 5.2 into with an emphasis on university construction

1.5 Research Scope

The research study developed an example database of regionally manufactured

building materials classified according to the Construction Specification Institute (CSI)

format with East Lansing, Michigan as its focal point. The research used
www.thebluebook.com, as the primary source of manufacturer or vendor information for
calculation of distances from manufacturing locations for the database since MSU was
used as the case study for the research. The researcher does not claim that the database
contains every available manufacturer in Michigan. The information for location of
extraction of materials was not available for a number of products. The data for location

Of extraction was included in the database wherever it was available.

10

CHAPTER 2

11

2.0 Introduction
In order to understand the importance Of sustainability and energy conservation, it

is essential to know about the impacts of modern day life on the environment. The
literature review is divided into the following sections which provide an overview Of
sources of energy related problems, the measures that are being undertaken in response to
those problems, green building rating systems and current research. The literature review
addresses the following areas:
1) Levels of energy consumption

I Global energy issues

I United States of America energy consumption statistics

I Impact of buildings
2) Green Buildings

I Definition

I Benefits of green building design

I Procurement of regionally manufactured materials

I Related studies and applicable research
3) Green Building Rating and Certification Systems

I BREEAM - Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method

I Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide

I The Green Building Challenge (GBC) assessment framework (GBTool)

I LEEDTM — Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
4) LEED 2.1 Rating System

I Constituents

12

I Credits and points system

5) Related studies and applicable research

6) Description of Credit MR 5 .1 and MR 5.2 of the LEED 2.1 Rating System
I Intent
I Requirements (Compliance and Document submittals)

I Strategies for implementation of the credit

2.1 Levels of energy consumption
2.1.1 Global Issues

Energy consumption is a significant problem facing the world as it enters the 21”
century. With large scale depletion of natural resources, deforestation and considerable
destabilization Of the environment, the need to co-exist with nature in order to preserve
our surroundings has gained importance. Energy consumption throughout the world has

increased during the past century with further increases estimated for the future.

2.1.2 Energy Consumption levels in the US

The United States consumes approximately 25 percent of the world’s total energy
even though it holds only 4.6 percent of the world’s population as Shown in Figure 2.1
below. Energy consumption is expected to grow at a higher rate due to increasing

demands.

13

 

World Primary Energy Consumption and Population, Country/Region

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Growth Rate
Energy Consumption
(Quad) Population (million) 1990 - 2000 1990 - 2000

Region/Country 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Energy Pop. Energy Pop.
United States 84.6 99.3 113.3 255 276 300 1.6% 0.8% 1.3% 0.8%
Western Europe ( 1) 59.9 66.8 72.1 377 389 391 1.1% 0.3% 0.8% 0.1%
Former Soviet Union 60.7 40.8 52.7 290 291 283 -3.9% 0.0% 2.6% 0.3%
Other Asia 22.1 36.6 45.8 808 977 1 147 5.2% 1.9% 2.3% 1.6%
China 27.0 37 54.4 1 155 1275 1366 3.2% 1.0% 3.9% 0.7%
Japan 17.9 21.8 23.8 124 127 128 2.0% 0.2% 0.9% 0.1%
Central & S.

America 14.4 21 25.2 357 420 482 3.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.4%
Middle East 13.1 20.3 25.0 191 242 295 4.5% 2.4% 2.1% 2.0%
Canada 11.0 13.2 15.3 28 31 33 1.8% 1.0% 1.5% 0.6%
India 7.8 12.7 16.9 845 1009 1164 5.0% 1.8% 2.9% 1.4%
Africa 9.3 l 1.9 14.4 619 794 997 2.5% 2.5% 1.9% 2.3%
Eastern Europe 15.6 11.3 13.1 122 121 119 -3.2% 0.1% 1.5% 0.2%
Mexico 5.0 6.2 8.6 83 99 1 13 2.2% 1.8% 3.3% 1.3%
World Total 348.4 398.9 480.6 5255 6049 6817 1.4% 1.4% 1.9% 1.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes: 1) Germany consumed (quads) 14.2, France 10.4, United Kingdom 9.8 and Italy 8.0
Sources: BIA, Intemation Energy Outlook, May 2003, Table A1, p.181 and Table A15, p. 196

 

 

Figure 2.1: World Primary Energy Consumption and Population, by Country/ Region
(source: Oflice of Energy Efliciency and Renewable Energy Buildings Energy Databook, 2003)

2.1.3 Impact of Buildings

Due to the grth in population, the number of buildings being built every year is
increasing. Buildings are responsible for the largest Share of energy consumed in the US.
As shown in Figure 2.2, commercial and residential buildings together, utilize
approximately 40% of the total energy consumed in the US (DOE Energy Databook,

2003).

14

 

 

 

Buildings Share of US. Primary Consumption (percent) (1) Total
Total Consumption

Residential Commercial Buildings Industry Transportn. Total (quads)
1980 20% 14% 34% 25% 25% 100% 74.5
1990 20% 15% 35% 27% 27% 100% 84.1
2000 21% 17% 38% 27% 27% 100% 99.4
2001 21% 18% 39% 28% 28% 100% 97.4
2005 21% 18% 39% 28% 28% 100% 103.2
2010 20% 18% 38% 29% 29% 100% 1 13.3
2020 19% 18% 37% 31% 31% 100% 130.2
2025 18% 18% 37% 32% 32% 100% 139.2

 

 

 

 

Note(s): l)Buildings-re1ated energy consumption in the industrial sector in 1991 was 1.96 of 31.76
quads; for comparison, 2001 industrial sector energy use was 32.67. 2) Renewables are not included in
the 1980 data

Source(s): EIA, State Energy Data 2000, April 2003, Tables 8-12, p. 18-22 for 1980 and 1990; and EIA,
Jan 2003, Table A2, p. 120-122 for 2000-2025 data and Table A18, p. 143 for non-marketed renewable

energy.

 

 

Figure 2.2: Buildings Share of US. Primary Energy Consumption
(source: Ofiice of Energy Efliciency and Renewable Energy Buildings Energy Databook, 2003 )

Approximately 70% Of the total electrical energy is consumed in buildings as
shown in Figure 2.3. In the United States, construction and material production account
for roughly 9 percent of energy use, and buildings Operation accounts for approximately

30 percent Of US. energy consumption [Abraham L., Agnello S., Ashkin S. et. a1., 1996].

 

 

 

 

 

Buildings Share of US. Electricity
Consumption
Res Com Bldgs Indtry Trans
1980 34% 27% 61% 39% 0%
1990 34% 31% 65% 35% 0%
2000 35% 34% 68% 31% 1%
2001 35% 35% 70% 29% 1%
2010 35% 36% 71% 28% 1%
2020 34% 37% 71% 28% 1%
2025 33% 38% 71% 28% 1%

 

 

Figure 2.3: Building Share of US. Primary Electricity Consumption
(source: Oflice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Buildings Energy Databook, 2003)

15

 

In the United States, buildings also account for:

I 30% of greenhouse gas emissions

I 30% of raw materials use

I 30% of waste output/ 136 million tons annually
I 12% Of potable water consumption

(www. usgbc. org, date visited: January, 2005)

“The construction industry constitutes the nation’s largest manufacturing activity
which contributes more than a trillion dollars to the US. economy” (US Census Bureau,
2004). Because of the building industry’s significant impact on the national economy,
even modest changes that promote resource efficiency in building construction and
Operations can make major contributions to economic prosperity and environmental
performance.

The impact Of buildings on the economy has prompted the construction industry
to develop new technologies which enhance the performance of buildings. “Green” or
sustainable design is being promoted as one of the solutions to counter the present energy
problems. “With increased energy conservation and the adoption of diverse energy
efficient technologies in areas such as transportation, residential energy use and the food
system, the US economy could save approximately 33% of its current energy
consumption which would save US citizens, approximately $438 billion per year”
[Pimentel D., et.al., 2004]. An important step in achieving increased energy conservation
is to construct buildings which consume less amounts of energy and sustain healthier

environments for their occupants.

16

The Union Internationale des Architects/American Institute of Architects
(UIA/AIA) World Congress of Architects recognized in its 1993 Declaration of
Interdependence, that buildings and the built environment play a major role in the human
impact on the natural environment and the quality of life. If sustainable design principles
are incorporated into building projects, benefits can include resource and energy
efficiency, healthy buildings and materials, ecologically and socially sensitive land use,
transport efficiency, and strengthened local economies and communities [Abraham L.,

Agnello S., Ashkin S. et. al., 1996].

2.2 Green Building

“A “green” building is a design which performs more efficiently than traditionally
designed buildings in methods of building construction, materials utilized during
construction, building functionality and system performance, energy and water
efficiency, quality of the indoor environment (air quality, thermal comfort, lighting),
waste management and air emissions, Site disturbance and storm water management,
transportation options for occupants and longevity (durability, adaptability to changing
building user needs)” [Paumgartten P., 2003]. “It's an open-ended definition that could
include products made from recycled content, equipment that requires less energy to
manufacture, products that improve indoor environmental quality by reducing toxic off-
gassing or simply energy-efficient products or systems” [Posson D.G., 2003].

The life span of a building consists of various stages such as planning, design,
construction and operation and the final stage of reuse or demolition. The main direct

cost expenditures are realized during construction, renovation and operation while

17

indirect costs arise from building-related occupant health and productivities, as well as
external costs such as air pollution, waste generation and habitat destruction.

Construction of green buildings might increase initial costs but the savings that
are achieved over the life-span of the building can be considerable. “Many studies have
shown that green building construction could increase upfront costs by as much as 2
percent with the resultant savings of 20 percent over the life-span of the building” [Kats
G., et.al., 2003]. Designing buildings with green principles can result in savings in the
areas Of energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste reduction, construction, building
Operations and maintenance, insurance and liability and improves occupant health and
productivity, building value and local economic development opportunities.
2.2.1 Green Building Benefits

“AS much as 60 percent of the heating and cooling energy and 50 percent of the
lighting energy consumed by US. buildings can be saved by using climate-sensitive
design and available technologies” [Rodman D. and Lensen N., 1996]. Water-efficient
appliances and fixtures, behavioral changes and changes in irrigation methods can reduce
consumption by up to 30 percent or more [Abraham L., Agnello S., Ashkin S. et. al.,
1996]. Efficient use of recyclable materials such as gypsum, glass, carpet, aluminum,
steel, brick and recycling of debris can result in considerable waste reduction. Adaptive
reuse of older structures instead of razing and construction of a new building can result in
financial savings for users. Green buildings can result in lower operating expenses
through reduced utility and waste disposal costs as well as lower building maintenance

costs.

18

Selecting green building materials which have low to zero volatile organic
compounds (V CC) emission, integrated ventilation systems, effective building envelopes
and efficient management during construction or renovation are some of the measures
that’can help improve indoor air quality. “Recent studies have shown that buildings with
good overall environmental quality, including effective ventilation, natural or proper
levels of lighting, indoor air quality, and good acoustics, can increase worker productivity
by Six to 16 percent” [Romm J ., 1994]. Consequently, a high level of performance and
efficiency exhibited by green buildings can result in higher property values. Lower
Operating costs associated with more efficient systems can lead to higher building net
income. “The value of a building is greatly increased for owners with rental premises, if
the tenants view green properties as more desirable” [Abraham L., Agnello S., Ashkin S.
et. al., 1996].

2.2.2 Procuring regionally manufactured materials

Use of local materials is an important strategy for sustainable design. Sustainable
buildings are designed with the goal of developing a project which responds to conditions
of the location at which the building is situated. Different locations have varying
topography, soil type, mineral deposits, etc. which calls for building designs which are
sensitive to these variations. Local materials are often better suited to climatic conditions.
The economy of a region depends on the materials that are available within the region.
Local manufacturers extract materials within the region and using these materials for
construction supports local economies. Using local materials has the obvious benefit of
reducing the significant environmental impacts Of transporting materials long distances.

“It has some less tangible benefits as well, such as encouraging vernacular building

19

styles, supporting the local economy, and connecting users directly with the impacts of
their choices.” [Malin N., October 1996]

Using locally produced materials has various environmental impacts which need
to be considered while procuring materials. Section 2.3.1.4 includes literature on green
building systems that have formulated standards for procurement of regional materials.
The selection of a material for any project depends largely upon its performance
throughout the life-cycle of the building. For some cases, the use of a locally
manufactured material may not be the best possible option. Local manufacturers often
produce materials in smaller quantities as compared to large centralized plants. Larger
companies may employ better technologies during the manufacturing process which
results in less waste material and more efficient use of raw materials. Designers need to
consider these trade-offs before using local materials for projects. It is not always
possible to use locally available materials in every aspect Of a building project. “But if
materials must be imported they should be used selectively and in as small volumes as
possible” [Malin N., October 1996]. I

The key issues that need to be considered while using locally manufactured
materials are,

I The feasibility of using the material over its life-cycle
I Checking the distances that the product has traveled fiom extraction to final
installation

I Properties of material such as recycling, efficiency and performance standards, etc.

20

 

I Frequent trips between a project site and manufacturing location result in extra use of
fuel. The delivery process should be consolidated to ensure fewer trips consisting of
larger loads

I Ensure that vehicles operating for delivery are using optimum standards for fuel
efficiency [Malin N., October 1996]

2.3 Green Building Rating and Certification Systems

“Green building rating and certification systems are intended to foster more
sustainable building design, construction and operations by promoting and making
possible a better integration of environmental concerns with cost and other traditional
decision criteria” [Trusty W., Horst S., 2004]. This task is approached by various
building assessment systems based on different parameters for measurement of
performance and efficiency, with certain elements common among those systems. Green
building rating and certification systems address aspects of design, construction and
operation of buildings consisting of site selection and orientation, energy efficiency,
water efficiency, waste management during construction and operations, selection of
environmentally preferable materials, improved indoor environment and integrated
management plans for buildings.

2.3.1 Rating and Certification Processes
Green building rating systems analyze construction methods, performance and

efficiency of buildings for tasks carried out during the design and construction of the

building. Some rating systems grade buildings based on a system of credit points.

Individual buildings can achieve different levels of certification by gaining a certain

number of credit points. These credits can be achieved by complying with the green

21

standards specified in the rating system. Based on the standards, one or more points can
be allotted for every innovation or change that is made in the construction method Of the
building in order to gain compliance with green standards.

Some of the green building rating systems or green building assessment standards
which have been developed over the past few years are listed below.
1) BREEAM - Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
2) Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide
3) The Green Building Challenge (GBC) assessment framework (GBTool)

4) LEEDTM — Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

2.3.1.1 BREEAM - Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method

The BREEAM Assessment tool was developed by the Environmental Assessment
Consortium (EAC) based in the United Kingdom. EAC is a multidisciplinary group of
expert consultants that specialize in environmental design and energy efficiency. The
BREEAM tool was developed by the EAC after conducting construction and
environmental research carried out at the Building Research Establishment Ltd. (BRE),
together with the input and experience of the construction and property industries,
government and building regulators. “BREEAM is a tool that allows owners, users and
designers of buildings to review and improve environmental performance throughout the
life of a building” (http://www.breeam.com/, date visited: October, 2004). The first
version was developed in 1990 and was applicable for new office buildings. The

subsequent versions incorporated standards which were applicable for other areas such as

22

new departmental stores and supermarkets, new homes, existing offices, new industrial

units, etc. It is a scheme that sets a benchmark for environmental performance and

provides a wide range of benefits.

Benefits that can be achieved through the use of the BREEAM tool are as follows,

I “Financial benefits - reduced energy and other running costs, improved staff
productivity, making Office buildings more lettable and potentially higher rental
incomes

I Publicity benefits - making Offices more attractive to potential customers or tenants,
demonstrating environmental commitment or improving environmental performance

I Benefits to management - providing a thorough checklist for benchmarking building
performance and property portfolios, setting realistic targets for improvement,
providing support to wider corporate management strategies

I Benefits to staff and building users - creating a better place for people tO work more
productively, providing a healthier, more comfortable indoor environment”

(http://www.breeam.com/, date visited: October, 2004)

The method of assessment established by BREEAM begins before the design
brief for the building is prepared. A BREEAM assessor becomes involved in the project
during the early stages of the project in order to guide the design team through the design
and management processes. Assessments are carried out by independent assessor
organizations that are licensed and trained to complete assessments. Each assessment
achieves a BREEAM rating and certificate on the basis of their performance against the

standard.

23

C0

“BREEAM is flexible and can be applied to provide a benchmark of
environmental performance at any stage of the building's life cycle, through assessment
against the three principal components of Design and Procurement, Core and
Management and Operation” (http://www.breeam.com/, date visited: October, 2004).

During the Design and Procurement stage Of the project, assessment of project
commissioning, thermal comfort, predicted noise, building materials selection, re-use of
facades and Specification of thermal insulation materials is conducted. “It also includes
an assessment of sub-elements of land-use (contaminated land, remediation, etc) and
ecology (habitat diversity, habitat enhancement etc)” (http://www.breeam.com/, date
visited: October, 2004). Core issues are addressed during both Design & Procurement
and Management & Operation Assessments and cover essential elements of important
environmental topic areas including health & well-being, energy, transport, water,
materials and pollution.

The Management and Operation part of the assessment is carried out for buildings
that are currently occupied and in operation. It provides professionals with an
independent audit of the manner in which the existing building is being managed. “It
includes an assessment of those elements that are considered to be of relevance to the
management and Operation of a building, such as environmental policies, environmental
management systems (EMS), domestic hot water system design and maintenance, energy
consumption, monitoring, targeting, heating system design and maintenance and transport

policies” (http://www.breeam.com/. date visited: October, 2004).

24

2.3.1.1.1Use of Local materials

BREEAM uses the BRE Environmental Profiling methodology to measure
environmental performance of a material through its life-cycle. The system has been
developed by the BRE and it measures impacts of a material in 12 areas:

1) Climate change

2) Fossil fuel depletion

3) Ozone depletion

4) Human toxicity to air

5) Human toxicity to water
6) Waste disposal

7) Water extraction

8) Acid deposition

9) Ecotoxicity

10) Eutrophication

11) Summer smog

12) Minerals extraction [Lazarus N., 2002].

Material impact is evaluated by comparing with the average impact of a United
Kingdom (UK) citizen and giving a score known as an ‘Ecopoint’ score. 100 Ecopoints
represents the total environmental impact of an average UK citizen which is measured by
dividing the impacts of UK by its population. A low Ecopoints score represents low
environmental impact. The scores in each of the 12 areas are brought together using a
subjective weighting system based on a consultation exercise with a broad range of

interest groups.

25

The performance standards use a scale ranging from -2 to +5. A score of zero is
the minimum acceptable performance as defined by regulations or industry standards
within the region, while a score of 5 represents a performance target that is considerably
better than of current practice. National teams are responsible for defining what this
performance target represents but it should be one that is potentially achievable with
current technologies, based on reasonable extrapolation from current practices, but
without consideration Of cost effectiveness. A score Of -2 represents unsatisfactory
performance which is clearly below accept industry standards.
2.3.1.2 Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide

The Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide (MSDG) is a tool which is designed to
help people learn about sustainability, manage design decisions and integrate sustainable
design into the building design and operation processes for new and renovated facilities.
Like other green building rating and assessment tools, the MSDG specifies performance
standards to guide the design and decision-making process. MSDG builds on other rating
systems such as LEEDTM, Green Building Challenge ’98 and BREEAM. The MSDG
provides ecological resources and a step-by-step process to implement sustainable design
practices.

The Design Guide provides 42 strategies that are organized according to six

environmental design topics as follows,

I Site
I Water
I Energy

I Indoor environmental quality

26

I Materials
I Waste
(http://www.sustainabledesignguide.umn.edu, date visited: July, 2004)

Each topic contains a series of design strategies that address the related
sustainable design issues. In addition, each strategy has performance indicators, which set
the benchmarks that must be met in order to obtain credit for the strategy. The guide also
contains a scoring system that enables the design team and building operators to evaluate
building performance. Each strategy is awarded points based on specific performance
indicators. One hundred points are distributed among the strategies according to the
perceived environmental and human impacts as well as priorities of the Minnesota
region. Since some strategies apply only to certain projects (i.e. renovations versus new
construction, urban versus rural Sites, etc.), the scoring system can be tailored to reflect
the opportunities and constraints of the project. The system is designed to be used on web
sites accessible to agency staff and architectural consultants, or as software distributed to
project teams.

The goals of the Design Guide are to:

1) “Educate designers, building owners, operations staff, and occupants about the
concepts, goals, and significance of sustainable design

2) Develop an orderly decision-making process with measurable outcomes along with a
database of decisions and outcomes on each project

3) Provide flexibility in the way priorities are set and outcomes are measured within the

system so it can be adapted for different clients or agencies, regions, and building

types

27

4)

5)

Organize information in a hierarchy that permits users to easily understand the entire
process but then allows them to go into more detailed information as needed to
implement the system

Create a system that can easily grow and change as more experience and new
information becomes available.”

(http://www.sustainabledesignguide.umn.edu, date visited: July, 2004)

The major phases and sub—phases included in the MSDG during which sustainability

guidance is provided to designers and building managers are as follows,

1)
2)

3)

4)

“Planning (Project Initiation, Programming, and Site Selection)

Design (Schematic Design, Design Development, and Construction Documents and
Specifications)

Construction (Bidding and Award, Construction, and Commissioning)

Occupancy (Start-up, Operations and Maintenance, and Next Use). A checklist of
actions required during each phase of the process is also provided.”
(http://www.sustainabledesignguide.umn.edu, date visited: July, 2004)

The design team for an individual project will define a "target score" based on the

building type, site, and other characteristics. The target score represents a feasible, yet

ambitious, design goal. Since some strategies apply only to certain projects (i.e.

renovations versus new construction, urban versus rural Sites, etc.) it is important that the

"target score" can be tailored to reflect the opportunities and constraints of the project.

28

2.3.2.1.1 Local materials standards
Strategy 5.5 Of the Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide requires procuring
materials from regional sources. The requirement of this credit is to procure 25% of total
building materials from locations within 250-500 miles of the project site. The strategies
proposed for implementation of the credits are as follows,
I “Research materials manufactured within a 250 - 500 mile radius of the project Site.
Include criteria for location of raw resources
I Develop design strategies that utilize locally manufactured materials
I Research and evaluate the environmental impacts of shipping products and materials.
Various life-cycle phases of a material are Raw Material Extraction, Production,
Distribution, Installation, Use, and Maintenance, and Eventual Reuse or Recycling.
This strategy focuses on the Distribution Phase of the product's life
I Utilize lifecycle tools to study the environmental impacts of shipping
I Survey producers and manufacturers for data on transportation procedures.”
(http://www.sustainabledesignguide.umn.edu, date visited: July, 2004)
2.3.1.3 Green Building Challenge Assessment Framework
Development of the Green Building Challenge Assessment method began in 1996
with 14 countries participating in the research and development process. The GBC
process was initiated by Natural Resources Canada, but responsibility was handed over to
the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE) in 2002
(http://greenbuilding.ca/, date visited: September, 2004). GBTOOl was developed as a
software implementation of the Green Building Challenge (GBC). The system has been

developed with a core component reflecting global issues which can be modified by

29

national teams to reflect energy, environmental and other priorities in specific countries

and regions. During 1997 and 1998 it was tested by preparing detailed performance

assessments Of 34 green buildings from participating countries.

2.3.1.3.] Features of GBTooI (http://greenbuilding.ca/, date visited: September, 2004)

The following are the features of GBTool,

I Allows assessments to be carried out at all stages of the life-cycle and provides
benchmarks suited to each phase

I Enables architects to carry out self-assessments of their designs, and enables third
parties to provide certification of Operational performance

I Allows third parties to establish weights to reflect the varying importance Of issues by
occupancy type in each region

I Allows generic benchmarks to be replaced by local ones, in local languages

I Handles up to three building types, separately or in a mixed-use project

I Handles new and existing construction, or a mix of the two

I Allows comparisons to be made with LEED.

This system is a building performance assessment tool that is designed to allow
assessments to be carried out at various phases of the life cycle of a project. Parameters
included within the system cover sustainable building issues within the three major areas
of environment, social and economic sectors.
2.3.1.3.2 Performance by Phase

The GBT assessment can be carried out in the following four phases of the life-

cycle of the building: Pre-Design, Design, Construction and Operations.

30

The Pre-Design phase assessment is intended to demonstrate the sustainable
performance Of the project in the future, based on the information available at the end
of the Pre-Design phase.

The Design phase assessment is intended to indicate the future potential sustainable
performance of the project, based on the information available at the end of the
Design phase. The Pre-Design and Design phases are likely to undergo some changes
during the evolution of the project. These two assessment modules are therefore,
primarily intended for self-assessment purposes, and not for certification purposes.
The Construction phase assessment is intended to provide a relatively factual
assessment based on performance indicators available at the end of the construction
and commissioning phase before occupancy.

The Operations phase assessment is intended to provide an Obj ective and factual
indication of the actual performance of the project and the results may be useful for
certification purposes. It is recommended that the projects Should be occupied for a
period of at least one year before the “Operations assessment” is carried out.

(http://greenbuilding.ca/, date visited: September, 2004)

2.3.1.3.] Local materials standards

GBtool was developed as a system which can be implemented in any region based

on the requirements of the project and conditions of the region. “The method of
assessment for materials used for any project is based on measuring the Embodied

Energy Content (EEC) Of the material using Life-cycle Assessment (LCA) procedures”

[Lazarus N., 2002]. BREEAM, which is widely used in the United Kingdom, is based on

the LCA method as well.

31

“The embodied energy of a material is the energy required to extract, process,
manufacture and deliver it” [Lazarus N., 2002]. LCA examines the total environmental
impact of a material from Obtaining raw materials through manufacture, transport to a
store, using it in the building and disposal or recycling. The analysis of materials using
GBtool is carried out by calculating the embodied energy content of the material
expressed in Giga-joules (GJ) using an assumed life-span of 75 years for the building.
The energy content is measured for various stages of the life-cycle of the material from
production through Operation and disposal or recycling [Lazarus N., 2002].
2.3.1.4 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM)

The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building
Rating System® was developed by the US. Green Building Council (USGBC) as a
voluntary, consensus-based national standard for deveIOping high-performance,
sustainable buildings. LEED standards are currently available or under development for:
I New commercial construction and major renovation projects (LEED-NC)

I Existing building operations (LEED-EB)
I Commercial interiors projects (LEED-CI)
I Core and shell projects (LEED-CS)
I Homes (LEED-H)
I Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND)
(www.usgbc.org, date visited: January, 2005)
LEED provides a framework for assessing building performance and meeting
sustainability goals. LEEDTM has defined analytical methods for evaluation of

environmental performance of buildings. This evaluation is based on a table which allots

32

points for measures undertaken to achieve compliance with the set standards. LEEDTM

2.1 system addresses Six categories of evaluation:

Sustainable Site

Water Conservation

Energy & Atmosphere
Materials & Resources
Indoor Environmental Quality
Innovation & Design Process

Within these categories the system contains minimum prerequisites that all projects

must address and discretionary measures. LEEDTM 2.1 contains seven prerequisites and

sixty nine discretionary measures. A project is broken down based on these categories

and allotted points according to the measures addressed by the design. Based on the total

points accumulated by the design of the building which includes all the measures

undertaken as prescribed by the LEED Rating System, the building is rated in the

following levels of certification as shown in table 2.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEED
Level of Certification 2.1
Total available measures 69
Basic Certification 26
Minimum for Silver 33
Minimum for Gold 49
Minimum for Platinum 52

 

Table 2.1: LEEDTM Certification Levels

(source: www.usgbc.org, date visited: January,2005)

USGBC identifies the following as its goals for the creation of the LEED Rating System:

“To define "green building" by establishing a common standard of measurement

33

I To promote integrated, whole-building design practices

I To recognize environmental leadership in the building industry

I To stimulate green competition

I To raise consumer awareness of green building benefits

I To transform the building market” (www. usgbc. org, date visited: January, 2005)

Various aspects of building design are addressed within the six categories of the
LEED Rating System. The Sustainable Sites category includes erosion and sedimentation
control, urban and brownfield redevelopment, modes of alternative transportation, storm-
water management, heat island effect, etc. The Water Efficiency category addresses
issues such as water efficient landscaping, innovative wastewater technologies and
reduction in water use. The Energy and Atmosphere category includes building systems
commissioning, minimum energy performance, cfc reduction in HVAC equipment,
optimizing energy performance, use of renewable energy, ozone depletion and green
power (LEED 2.1 Rating System, November 2002).

The Indoor Environmental Quality (IAQ) category addresses issues such as
minimum IAQ performance, environmental tobacco smoke control, carbon dioxide
monitoring, constriction IAQ management plan, low-emitting materials, controllability of
perimeter and non-perimeter systems, thermal comfort compliant with ASHRAE 55-1992
and daylight access for spaces within the building. The Innovation and Design process
category awards credits points for innovations in design (LEED 2.1 Rating System,
November 2002).

The Materials and Resources category of the LEED Rating System deals with

procurement of building materials. The prerequisite for this category of credits is

34

provision of a recycling and storage area in the building for collection and separation of
waste such as paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics and metals. Other credits cover
building reuse, construction waste management, resource reuse, recycled content, local or
regional materials, rapidly renewable materials and certified wood (LEED 2.1 Rating
System, November 2002).

2.3.2 Related studies and applicable research

The LEED Rating System has been in use since June, 2001 when version 2.0 was
released for assessment of buildings. This section of the literature review addresses
previous research on the LEED Rating system.

California’s Sustainable Building Task Force published a report in October, 2003
titled, “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings” which analyzed the
financial implications of using the LEED Rating System in the US. The study addressed
by the report included an analysis of 33 LEED certified buildings consisting of 25 office
buildings and 8 school buildings [Syphers G., Baum M., et.al., October, 2003].

The analysis compared the costs of constructing the 33 buildings using
conventional design with the costs of constructing a LEED certified building. Several
building representatives and architects were contacted to secure the cost of 33 green
buildings which were compared to conventional designs for those buildings. “The
average premium for the green buildings was slightly less than 2%, substantially lower
than is commonly perceived. The majority of this cost is due to the increased
architectural and engineering (A&E) design time necessary to integrate sustainable

building practices into projects” [Syphers G., Baum M., et.al., October, 2003].

35

Figure 2.4 shows the cost premiums related to the level of certification of the
buildings under consideration. “The cost of implementing LEED standards ranges from
0.66% to 6.5 %. The cost/square foot for commercial construction in California is $150 to
$250 which would require a cost premium of $3 to $5 /square foot” [Syphers G., Baum
M., et.al., October, 2003]. These costs when compared with the savings that can be
achieved through the life-cycle of the building could prove to be minor increases.
Although, these figures reflect the cost factors of building in the state of California,
similar cost trends may be possible in other states. The cost of green design also tends to

decline with experience in design and development.

 

Average Green Premium vs Level of Green Certification

H
N

 

H
A 0‘ on O
1 r 1 g

Average Green premium (%)
N

  

 

 

 

Level 1 - Certified Level 2 - Silver Level 3 - Gold Level 4 - Platinum
Level of Green Certification

 

 

 

Figure 2.4: Cost Premium Percentage for LEEDTM certification levels
(source: Syphers G., Baum M., et.al., October, 2003)
2.3.2.1 Influence of location on LEED cost

In order to study the impact Of climate on cost and feasibility of LEED certified

buildings, a research study was conducted which took the design of the Bren School

36

(LEED 1.0 Platinum) on University of California, Santa Barbara campus and placed it
into five hypothetical settings around the country. For the purpose of the study, the base
building design was kept constant instead of Optimizing the design for different climates
in order to minimize the variables.
The climates selected were:
I Mild Coastal — Santa Barbara and San Fransisco
I California Central Valley — Merced
I Gulf Coast — Houston
I Northeast Coast — Boston
I Rocky Mountains - Denver
[Langdon D., July 2004]
Table 2.2 displays initial additional cost as a percentage of starting budget to

reach each specified level of LEED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Platinum Gold Silver

UCSB 7.8 % 2.7 % 1.0 %

San Fransisco 7.8 % 2.7 % 1.0 %
Merced 10.3 % 5.3 % 3.7 %

Denver 7.6 % 2.8 % 1.2 %

TE Boston 8.8 % 4.2 % 2.6 %
Houston 9.1 % 6.3 % 1.7 %

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.2: Increase in Initial Cost for each Certification Level in Different Locations
(Source: Langdon 0., July 2004)

The research found that not only are the premiums different by location, but there is also
a Wide variation in the steps between levels. For example, Silver has a lower premium in

Houston compared to Merced, but Gold has a higher premium. The study concluded that

37

when considering cost and feasibility for pursuing LEED certification of any building, it
is important to:
I “Understand the feasibility of each point for the project
I Understand the factors affecting cost and feasibility”
[Langdon D., July 2004]
The cost to achieve LEED certification depends upon a variety of factors such as,
I “Type and size of project
I Timing Of introduction of LEED as a design goal or requirement
I Level of LEED certification desired
I Composition and structure Of the design and construction teams
I Experience and knowledge of designers and contractors or willingness to learn
I Process used to select LEED credits

I Clarity of the project implementation documents

Base case budgeting assumptions.”
[Syphers G., Baum M., et.al, 2003]
The cost of achieving compliance varies for each of the sections included in the
LEED Rating System. The use of locally harvested and/or produced materials is usually
neither difficult nor costly for most projects to achieve. “The difficulty of achieving this
credit lies more with documentation than with the actual specification; once the
contractor develops a documentation procedure, meeting the points becomes relatively
Straightforward” [Langdon D., 2004].
Research titled, ‘Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM)

and Higher Education — Planning for Documentation and Communication’ [Cooper G.,

38

2002] was conducted in 2003. The research conducted 27 surveys for registered and
certified projects under the category of ‘Higher Education’. The project teams for each of
these projects were asked questions regarding their methods for achieving certification
and the problems faced during the certification process. “LEED documentation was
considered to be one of the most time consuming and confusing aspects of the
certification process” [Cooper G., 2002].

The LEED 2.1 Rating System was introduced to reduce the burden of
documentation on project teams using designed templates and software tools. Teams that
are working on their first LEED project, often report costs in the range of $30,000 to
$60,000. The new system was expected to reduce the documentation cost by half as a
result of the version 2.1 updates [Cooper 6., 2002]. An experienced design and
construction team can complete documentation at a cost of $ 8,000 to $ 14,000 in
additional fees [Gonchar, 2002].

A Significant amount of effort during documentation goes into obtaining
information that is required by LEED. LEED templates provide details about the
submittals that are required for certification of each credit. It is important however, to
include these requirements into the project outline at the beginning Of the project. It could
prove beneficial to develop system frameworks which address the problems that are faced
by project teams during the documentation process.

2.3.3 LEED 2.1 Rating System — Credit MR 5.1

This credit addresses use of local materials during construction of a building. The

credit is intended to promote development of the local economy and reduction in

environmean impacts of transportation (www. usgbc. org, date visited :January, 2005).

39

2.3.3.1 Intent

The intent of this credit outlined by the LEED Rating System is to — “Increase
demand for building materials and products that are extracted and manufactured within
the region, thereby supporting the regional economy and reducing the environmental
impacts resulting from transportation” (www. usgbc. org, date visited :January, 2005).
2.3.3.2 Requirements

The main requirement for compliance with this credit as outlined by the LEED
Rating System is to — “Use a minimum of 20% of building materials and products that are
manufactured regionally within a radius of 500 miles” (www. usgbc. org, date visited:
January, 2005).

“Manufacturing refers to the final assembly of components into the building
product that is furnished and installed by the trade-workers. For example, if the hardware
comes from Dallas, Texas, the lumber from Vancouver, British Columbia, and the joist is
assembled in Kent, Washington; then the location of the final assembly is Kent,
Washington” (www. usgbc. org, date visited: January, 2005).

Explanation: In order to achieve the credit, 20% of the total building materials and
products used for the project must be manufactured within a radius of 500 miles from the
project site. The calculation of the percentage of regionally procured materials is carried

out using cost of materials. The cost information should include the price of the material

only and exclude labor costs, cost of transportation and installation, taxes, etc. For
Products such as assemblies, the final place of assembly of the product constitutes the

location of manufacture for that assembly.

40

2.3.3.3 Submittals

The following are the submittals required for this credit - provide the LEED
Letter Template, signed by the architect or responsible party, declaring that the credit
requirements have been met. Include calculations demonstrating that the project
incorporates the required percentage of regional materials/products and showing their
cost, percentage of regional components, distance from project to manufacturer, and the

total cost of all materials for the project (LEED version 2.1 Reference Guide, 2003).

2.3.4 LEED 2.1 Rating System — Credit MR 5.2
2.3.4.1 Intent

The intent of this credit outlined by the LEED Rating System is to — “Increase
demand for building materials and products that are extracted and manufactured within
the region, thereby supporting the regional economy and reducing the environmental
impacts resulting from transportation” (www.usgbc.org, date visited: January, 2005).
2.3.4.2 Requirements

The main requirement for compliance with this credit as outlined by the LEED
Rating System is — “Of the regionally manufactured materials documented for MR Credit
5.1, use a minimum of 50% of building materials and products that are extracted,
harvested or recovered (as well as manufactured) within 500 miles of the project site”
(www. usgbc. org, date visited: January, 2005).
Explanation: In order to achieve credit MR 5.2, 50% of the regionally manufactured
materials and products used for credit MR 5.1 must be extracted, harvested or recovered

within 500 miles of the project site. Location of extraction, harvest or recovery refers to

41

the place where the material was derived naturally. For example, a stone tile is
manufactured and treated in Grand Rapids, Michigan before it is supplied to consumers.
The stone, however, is quarried from Sandusky, Ohio. The location of extraction for the
stone tile is Sandusky, Ohio (www. usgbc. org, date visited: January, 2005).
2.3.4.3 Submittals

The following are the submittals required for this credit - provide the LEED
Letter Template, signed by the architect or responsible party, declaring that the credit
requirements have been met. Include calculations demonstrating that the project
incorporates the required percentage of regional materials/ products and showing their
cost, percentage of regional components, distance from project to manufacturer, and the
total cost of all materials for the project. The calculation of regionally extracted materials
is cost based as well (LEED version 2.1 Reference Guide, 2003).
2.3.4.4 Strategies for implementation

This credit is based on procurement of materials for a building project within the
region. In order to successfully implement the requirements Of the credit, the
incorporation of regional materials should be considered early in the conceptual design
phase of the project. Regionally manufactured building materials should be checked for
durability, performance and other environmental considerations. A current listing of
regional manufacturers Should be maintained which could be used for future projects.
After the completion of the listing for regionally sourced manufactured building
materials, appropriate building materials could be specified in the contract documents. It

is also advisable to consider regionally manufactured materials with high recycled

42

content or materials which are rapidly renewable (LEED version 2.1 Reference Guide,
2003).
2.3.5 Draft proposal for LEED Rating System version 2.2
The revised version 2.2 of the LEED Rating System is currently under review and is
scheduled to be usable by the beginning of the year 2006. The following parts of credit
MR 5 .1 requirements were proposed to be changed in the draft that was developed in
October, 2004.
I Proximity limit for manufacturing and extraction locations changed to within 300
miles of project site
I Use a minimum of 10% of building materials or products for which at least 80% Of
the mass is extracted, processed and manufactured within 300 miles of the project Site
OR
I Specify a minimum of 10% of building materials or products for which at least 80%
of the mass is extracted, processed, and manufactured within 1,000 miles of the
project site, and Shipped by rail or water.
OR
I Specify a minimum of 10% of building materials or products that reflect a
combination of the above extraction, processing, manufacturing and Shipping criteria
(e.g., 5% within 300 miles and 5% shipped by rail within 1,000 miles)
(LEED for New Construction Rating System version 2. 2, 2005).
The following is changed drafl language for credit MR 5.2 for version 2.2 of the

LEED Rating System,

43

I Use a minimum Of 20% of building materials or products for which at least 80% of
the mass is extracted, processed and manufactured within 300 miles of the project
site.

OR

I Specify a minimum of 20% Of building materials or products for which at least 80%
of the mass is extracted, processed, and manufactured within 1,000 miles of the
project site, and shipped by rail or water.

OR

I Specify a minimum of 20% of building materials or products that reflect a
combination of the above extraction, processing, manufacturing and Shipping criteria
(e.g., 10% within 300 miles and 10% Shipped by rail within 1,000 miles)

I Calculation for credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 will be based on mass of the product or
material under consideration instead of cost as used by the earlier version

(LEED for New Construction Rating System version 2. 2, 2005).

2.4 Summary and conclusions

This chapter outlined literature which addressed green building benefits, green
building rating systems, local materials standards for each of the rating systems that were
listed, recent research and explanation of credit MR 5.1 and 5.2. The next chapter
explains the methodology employed by the researcher to achieve the goals and objectives

of this thesis.

44

CHAPTER 3

45

3.1 Methodology

The methodology used for this thesis is depicted in Figure 3.1 and consisted of the

following core activities:

1)
2)

3)

4)

5)

Literature review of various studies and current research, relevant to the thesis
Interviews were conducted with LEED Accredited Professionals, Construction
Managers and Design and Construction Administration staff from Michigan State
University’s (MSU) Physical Plant Division, to gain insight on practical aspects of
construction and compliance with LEED standards
Interviews were conducted with LEED Accredited Professionals to gain further
information on the process of structuring a database
Sample building study of a typical institutional building was conducted to determine
the materials which influence the certification of credit MR 5.1 and 5.2
An example database of regional manufacturers Of construction materials was
developed. Steps used to develop the sample database were as follows:
Determination of materials which cause high cost impact on the certification process
for credits MR 5.1 and 5.2
Selection of manufacturers or vendors using commercial listings and classifying them
based on Construction Specifications Institute format (CSI)
Acquired Information regarding manufacturing and extraction locations of regionally

available materials and products

46

6)

7)

Three LEED Accredited Professionals reviewed the final database and were
interviewed in order to gain their opinions about the comprehensiveness and
usability of the database

Development of a framework and recommendations for constructing a database of
regional manufacturers which can be used by institutional organizations as well as

for achieving certification of credits MR 5.1 and 5.2.

47

 

I
Wafflm
lIIBI‘flIIII'B IIBVIBW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Benefits

. Green buildings

0 Global environmental issues 0 Existing literature on LEEDTM
I LEED-NC Reference Guide
. Local materials credits

. Green Building Rating Systems
I Local materials standards

 

Past research and studies

I Intent. requirements, benefits

 

 

 

mama-nim- |

Select a case study university
Select a case study building
Acquire cost data and
vendor information for
building project

I Calculate cost of regionally
procured materials and
check if building complies
with credits MR 5.1 and 5.2

0 Develop checklist of high-
impact items procured within
500 miles

 

. LEED Accredited Professionals with
experience in LEED certification
0 Construction Managers with prior

study organization responsible for
management of construction
projects

0 Second round of interviews with
LEED Accredited Professionals

 

“WWEIIMM

 

 

 

experience in management of
LEED certified projects
0 Staff members from the case

 

 

 

l v I

 

 

 

Develop list of
regions located
within 500 miles of
East Lansing

 

 

 

Development of database of
regional manufacturers/vendors
within 500 miles distance from East
Lansing, Michigan

 

 

 

Gather
manufacturer
information from
commercial listings

 

 

 

IIIIVBIIIIIIIIBIII III MIIIIIHBIIII‘BI' “81811880

 

 

Develop sample database containing

manufacturer information based on
CSI division breakdown

 

 

I

Review of Database by
LEED Accredited Professionals

1 i

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis
Development of framework

 

 

 

Data reporting of conclusions
Recommendations

 

 

 

Figure 3.1: Thesis Methodology

48

3.1.1 Literature Review

Research was conducted on various green building standards that have been
developed and are currently available for implementation. Recent research which
addressed the LEED Green Building Rating System for its cost implications and
documentation process were reviewed. The researcher studied the LEED Green Building
Rating System with a focus on credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 which applies to procurement of
regional materials for construction of buildings.

3.1.2 Case Study

In order to study the requirements of an institution, the researcher selected
Michigan State University (MSU) as the case study organization. The researcher then
selected the Cyclotron building located on MSU campus as a sample institutional
building for the purpose of determining if a typical institutional building qualifies for
LEED credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 or not. Detailed cost data for materials used in the selected
building were not available hence, the researcher used the final schedule of values (Refer
to Appendix E) and construction documents obtained from the Physical Plant Division
for use in determining the percentage cost of materials as described below.

The data consisted of the final cost of various work items that were installed in
the building and the total cost of the completed project. The schedule of values did not
separate material cost from installation cost. Therefore, the researcher used a default
value of 45% (allowable by LEED) of total cost of a process to derive the cost of material
as prescribed by LEED for calculation of material percentages. The data did not display
the sources for material procurement or manufacture. Structural steel was however,

procured from a fabricator located within 10 miles of the project site. The researcher

49

conducted quantity takeoffs for concrete using building drawings and calculated the cost
of concrete using RS Means data. For the project, concrete and gypsum (drywall) were
assumed to have been procured from regional manufacturers. The researcher calculated
the cost of the above materials and compared them with the total material cost of the
project. The researcher also formulated a list of high-cost items which are presented in
chapter 5 of this thesis.
3.1.3 Interviews
3.1.3.1 Method

Open-ended interviews were conducted with LEED Accredited Professionals
(LAP), construction managers and staff personnel from Michigan State University’s
Physical Plant Division to obtain information on LEED documentation procedures and
typical university construction procedures respectively. A second round of interviews
was also conducted with the LAP to refine the process for developing the database and to
help identify possible areas of emphasis. Because some products have little financial
impact on the database, they could be eliminated from the database.
3.1.3.2 Participants

The target population and sample for the study were Michigan based LAP,
construction managers and staff personnel from Michigan State University’s Physical
Plant Division involved in the design and management of construction projects on MSU
campus.

The interviews with LEED Accredited Professionals were aimed at gathering
information about the current practices in the LEED certification process and to gain a

professional insight into the difficulties that a project team faces in deve10ping and

50

maintaining the documents that are required to be submitted in order to achieve LEED
certification. The goal of conducting interviews with Construction Managers was to gain
the constructor’s viewpoint of the LEED certification process. Open-ended interviews
conducted with staff personnel from Michigan State University’s Physical Plant Division,
were directed towards gaining additional information about current MSU construction
and design standards as well as material selection criteria.

3.1.3.3 Instrumentation

3.1.3.3.] Procedure

Open ended interviews were conducted with four practicing LEED Accredited
professionals, three construction managers and six MSU Physical Plant Division
administrative staff members.

Interviewees were contacted to schedule interviews. At the interviewee’s
preference the interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. Interviewees had the
option to submit written responses to the interview questions. Notes were taken during
the interview by the researchers. No tape recordings were made. The researcher assigned
a code number to each interviewee to document their responses for future identification
purposes. Responses were then paraphrased and consolidated after the interviews, placed
in tabular form and aggregated with responses from other interviewees. Paraphrased
responses from the interviewees are presented in chapter four. For confidentiality
purposes, interviewees were not identified in any reporting of the research. The process
of interviewing was completed within one month.

The participation of the interviewees was voluntary. The interviewees had the

option of refusing to participate in certain procedures or to answer certain questions, or

51

discontinue answering questions at any time without penalty. The interviewees were

presented a consent form which explained their rights. The contents of the consent form

and the questionnaire were reviewed by the University Committee on Research Involving

Human Subjects prior to conducting the interviews. The questionnaires are included in

Appendix A.

3.1.3.3.2 Selection and inclusion of subjects

Lists of LEED Accredited Professionals (LAP), construction managers and staff
members fi'om the Physical Plant Division at MSU were created. These lists served as
target lists consisting of,

1) LEED Accredited Professionals located in the Midwest Region who have been
involved in the LEED certification of building projects which are completed or are
currently under construction

2) Construction managers who have been involved in construction of LEED certified
projects and

3) Administrative staff fi'om MSU Physical Plant who are responsible for design,
construction and management of building construction projects on MSU campus.

The list of LAP from Michigan was obtained from the USGBC website. This list
contained email addresses and organizations that each individual is affiliated with. The
researcher contacted LAP from this list by email. The individuals were asked if they have
been involved in the LEED certification of any building. Only the individuals who had
practical experience in the LEED certification of buildings were asked for their
willingness to participate in the interview. Appointments were scheduled for the

interviews at their convenience.

52

A list of LEED certified construction projects in the Midwest region was obtained
from USGBC website. The researcher contacted the companies responsible for the
construction of those projects to obtain the contacts of construction managers involved in
the management of those projects. The individuals were asked for their willingness to
participate in the interview. Construction managers who were willing to participate were
asked for an appointment for the interview at their convenience.

MSU staff from the Physical Plant Division that are responsible for the design,
construction and administrative management of construction project on MSU campus

were selected for the interviews.

3.1.4 LEED Accredited Professionals second round of telephone interviews
Telephone interviews were conducted with three LEED Accredited Professionals
using an additional questionnaire. This questionnaire included questions about the details
of the database such as CSI level of classification of materials, which divisions were high
impact and those divisions with low impact that consequently make negligible
contributions towards achieving credit MR 5.1 and 5.2. The purpose of the questionnaire
was to reduce the size of the database in order to concentrate on only those materials
which make larger contributions during cost calculations for credit MR 5.1 and 5.2. The

questionnaire is included in Appendix A.

3.1.5 Analysis of Interview data

Data obtained from the interviews was recorded in a matrix and general themes

regarding means for compliance and difficulties that could be faced by a project team

53

while endeavoring to make a project compliant with credit MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 were
identified and reported (Refer to Appendix C). These themes were used in developing a
sample database and in preparing the final recommendations for compliance with LEED
credits 5.1 and 5.2.
3.1.6 Development of database

As part of development of a database framework, a sample database of regional
manufacturers was created to explore the information available and means which could
be used to develop this type of database. The purpose of having a database is to aid in the
process of selection of local building products for an institutional construction project.
The sample database was based on methods prescribed by LEED for calculating the
percentage of building materials procured within the range of 500 miles from a project
site. The city of East Lansing, Michigan was selected as the reference point for the
proximity limits criteria used by credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 of the LEED Rating System.
3.1.6.1 Selection of manufacturers for the sample database

The researcher developed a list of vendors and manufacturers of building
construction materials which are located within a radius of 500 miles of the city in East
Lansing. To measure the distance between the manufacturing unit of a vendor and East
Lansing, online road mapping services including Mapquest (http://www.mapquest.com)
and MSN Maps and Directions (www.mapblast.com) were used. The database is
classified according to CSI division and includes the following information:
I CSI Division code
I Product name

I Vendor name, contact information

54

I Distance of manufacturing unit from East Lansing

I Distance of extraction of different components of the material from East Lansing (if
available)

3.1.6.2 Source of data for database

Contact information of manufacturers was compiled from commercial listings
provided on the website www.thebluebook.com. The researcher reviewed other sources
such as the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Yellow Pages and Sweets Commercial
listings published by McGraw Hill but found them not to be as useful based on how they
were organized.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce hosts a website which allows access to a
database of companies based in Michigan. The listing does not provide information about
the products that are supplied by vendors or manufacturers which renders it difficult to
classify manufacturers within the database. This source was therefore not considered for
the database.

The ‘Yellow Pages’ is a common source for business listings. This source of
commercial listings is not focused specifically on construction materials, therefore the
search returns minimal results for regional vendors and manufacturers of construction
materials.

The listings presented by www.sweets. com provide results based on the CSI
format. The listings do not provide results based on regional vendors or manufacturers.
This aspect of Sweets makes it difficult for a researcher to locate vendors or

manufacturers within a particular region and was therefore not used for the database.

55

 

The ‘Bluebook’ hosts commercial listings on the website www.thebluebook.com,
which was used for the database developed by the researcher. The Blue Book provides
contact information of vendors or manufactures based on their location. Keywords of
construction materials can be used for a state-wide search. The results provide a
considerable amount of contact information of vendors and manufacturers including
information on the products that they supply. The researcher searched for manufacturers
within the state of Michigan for materials which have significant impact on construction
costs.
3.1.6.3 Scope of Database

The researcher selected CSI divisions consisting of high cost materials and
products to aid in achieving credit MR 5.1 of the LEED Rating System. The information
included in the database is classified according to the CSI format. Mechanical and
electrical equipment are not taken into consideration during calculation of materials for
compliance with Credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 (LAP interview, Appendix A). The researcher
therefore, did not consider CSI divisions 15 and 16 for the database.

Because some products and CSI divisions only contribute a small portion of the
overall cost of a project and in the certification process for credit MR 5, the researcher
concentrated on those divisions within the CSI format which account for larger shares of
project costs. A study of 16 MSU projects (Mrozowski, 2004), conducted an analysis of
the cost of 16 institutional building projects on Michigan State University campus and
showed that divisions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 each account for at least 2% of overall
project costs in the building set. Since credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 of the LEED Rating System

require calculation of material percentages based on cost, the researcher included the

56

above listed ten CSI divisions, in the initial database setup. This process eliminated
divisions which do not make a large impact on the total cost of materials procured for a
typical project. An aggregate schedule of values which depicts the percentage cost of

each division for the 16 projects is shown in Table 3.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CSI Divisions %
l General Conditions 6%
2 Site Work 9%
3 Concrete 7%
4 Masonry 8%
5 Metals 6%
6 Wood & Plastics 2%
7 Thermal 8. Moisture 3%
8 Windows 8. Doors 4%
9 Finishes 5%
10 Specialties 1%
l 1 Equipment 5%
l 2 Furnishings 0%
13 Special Construction 1%
l4 Conveying Systems l%
l5 Mechanical 29%
l 6 Electrical 1 1%

 

Table 3.1: Percentage of Project Cost for 16 MSU Projects (Mrozowski, 2004)
In order to reduce the size of the database the researcher conducted

additional telephone interviews with three LEED Accredited professionals and asked
them to list the CSI divisions which made negligible contributions in achieving credits
MR 5.1 and 5.2 in the projects on which they had worked (Refer to Appendix A for
questionnaire). The interviews suggested that CSI divisions 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14
could be eliminated as well. Therefore, the final database focused on CSI divisions 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. A list of materials from each of these divisions was formulated which

was used to search for manufacturers for the database.

57

The CSI format contains divisions which are divided into sections which are
further divided into sub-sections containing items. Figure 3.2 shows the the CSI coding
levels. The researcher asked the LEED Accredited professionals about the level of CSI
detail at which the database should be developed in order to make it useful for users.

Manufacturers, who cater to a given section generally provide products which
cover most sub-items included in the section. The LAP suggested that level 2 was the
appropriate level. Therefore, the researcher organized the database to this material level.
The database contains lists of manufacturers based on levels 1 and 2 of the CSI format as
displayed in Figure 3.2.

Example: Material Code: 04065 — Masonry Mortar and Masonry grout
IMI 606' I5!

Division (Level I) -—T Section (Level 2) LMaterial (Level 3)

Figure 3.2: Construction Specification Institute (CSI) Coding System
(source: http://techn4.pcc.gov.tw/, date visited: February, 2005)

The researcher also referred to databases developed by various trade
organizations. These organizations have websites which display information on
manufacturers of products. The researcher selected those manufacturers which were
located within the proximity limits of East Lansing, Michigan as prescribed by the LEED
Rating System. The following is a list of organizations that were used by the researcher to
obtain contact information of manufacturers:

I Great Lakes Fabricators and Erectors Association
I The Brick Industry Association

I Masonry Institute of America

58

I Gypsum Association

I The Carpet and Rug Institute

3.1.6.4 Keyword Selection process

In order to conduct searches for manufacturers of regional materials, the
researcher developed a list of keywords for products to be included within the database.
These keywords were selected from a list of materials that were expected to make high
cost impacts on the calculations for credits MR 5.1 and 5.2. The list of keywords and the
results that were returned after searches were conducted on the website

www.bluebook.com, are presented in chapter 6 of this thesis.

3.1.6.5 Validation of Database

The framework for developing a database and the sample database developed during
this thesis were presented to three LEED Accredited Professionals to ascertain its
usefulness and comprehensiveness. A summary description of the structure of the
database was presented to the LAP along with the contents of the database. The LAP
were asked to review the following aspects of the database,
I Framework for development of a database
I Structure of sample database
I Method of data accumulation
I Usefulness of the sample database
I Ease of data retrieval

I Contents of Database

59

3.1.7 Data Reporting

The results of the keyword searches conducted by the researcher were
documented and are presented in chapter 6 of this thesis. The searches were based on
materials which are included in the database. The data presented in chapter 6 shows the

examples of this process and the results that were generated after the keyword searches.

3.1.8 Conclusion
This chapter described the methodology that was used by the researcher to
accomplish the goals and objectives of this thesis. The next chapter consists of

interviewee responses presented in a paraphrased format.

60

CHAPTER 4

61

4.0 Interview Data and Analysis

This section of the thesis presents the interview data and its analysis. The analysis
consists of identifying common themes from interview responses. The section includes
the process for achieving compliance with credit MR 5.1 and 5.2, responsibilities of
various project participants, management of documentation, flow of information between
the architect, contractor and sub-contractors, difficulties that may be encountered during
various phases of the project and a summary of suggestions from the interviewees for
implementation of credit MR 5.1 and MR 5.2.

The researcher conducted open-ended interviews with LEED Accredited
Professionals, construction managers and administrative and design staff from Michigan
State University’s Physical Plant Division. The goal of these interviews was to gain an
insight into the building construction practices and LEED certification procedures during

the implementation of credit MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 of the LEED Rating System.

4.1 Interview Data Report

This section is divided into three sub-sections:

I Question and responses summary of LEED Accredited Professional interviews

I Question and responses summary of construction manager interviews

I Question and responses summary of MSU Physical Plant administrative and design
staff interviews.

Each sub-section presents the general theme expressed by the interviewees. The

questionnaires used for the interviews are presented in Appendix A.

62

4.1.1 LEED Accredited Professional interviews

The researcher conducted open-ended interviews with 4 LEED Accredited
Professionals. A LEED Accredited Professional (LAP) is an individual who has
successfully completed the LEED® Professional Accreditation exam conducted by the
US. Green Building Council. The purpose of this exam is to:

I “To ensure that a successful candidate has knowledge and skills necessary to
participate in the design process, to support and encourage integrated design, and to
streamline the application and certification process.

I To test understanding of green building practices and principles, and familiarity with
LEED requirements, resources, and processes.”

(www. usgbc. org, date visited: January, 2005)

A project can earn a point for a LAP being involved in the execution of the project. The

LAP could be a part of the design or management team or hired as a consultant to oversee

the LEED aspect of the project.

This thesis only included LAP who had previous or current experience with actual
execution of a LEED certified building. The interviews consisted of a variety of closed
and open-ended questions which are presented in this section.
4.1.1.1 LEED Accredited Professional Response Data
4.1.1.2 Demographic questions

The first two questions were intended to gain an understanding of the
qualifications and background of the interviewees. The interviewees were asked about
their educational and work experiences apart from being LEED Accredited Professionals

and their experience in handling LEED certified projects.

63

All the interviewees were registered architects and had worked in the architectural
and construction field from 8 to 40 years. Each of the interviewees indicated that they had
a personal interest in sustainable design and construction. All interviewees had previously
worked on LEED certified buildings and were currently involved in the design of
buildings which had goals for LEED. certification. The number of buildings handled by
each of the interviewees for LEED certification ranged from 6 to 10 buildings. The
buildings were either already certified or were under various stages of design or
construction or LEED review.
4.1.1.3 LEED Certification questions

Interviewees were asked a variety of questions which were aimed at obtaining
information about the cost of implementation of the LEED Rating System and procedures
for obtaining compliance with credit MR 5.1 and credit MR 5.2. The responses are
presented below in paraphrased form.

Interviewees were asked how buildings built to standard codes fare in terms of
gaining LEED certification points even if they were not built with a goal of achieving
LEED certification. The common response among the interviewees was that standard
building codes are minimum standards and take care of the pre-requisites for LEED
certification. Standard building codes differ from state to state. In some states such as
California achieving basic certification is much easier than other states due to well
developed building codes for sustainability.

Interviewees were asked to list the credits among the LEED credit rating system
which are easily obtained for buildings without considerable increase in cost. All the

interviewees said that credits which deal with simple design selection were achievable

64

without considerable increase in cost but the choices have to be made very early in the

design. The following were listed as some of the credits which do not increase the cost of

a project considerably,

I Site selection, urban redevelopment, alternative transportation with the exception of
alternative fuel refueling, reduced site disturbance, storm-water management

I Water efficient landscaping

I Ozone depletion, recycled content and local/regional materials with respect to
construction cost only (management costs for the credits may add to project cost),
rapidly renewable materials, construction waste management if it is planned from the
start

I Construction IAQ management plan during construction, use of low-emitting
materials (adhesives and sealants, paints, carpets), daylight and views.

Several questions dealt with compliance with credit MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 and
benefits of the above mentioned credits. The interviewees had used credit MR 5.1 in each
of their previously LEED certified projects. The percentage of materials procured locally
ranged from 60% to 90% for most projects. Projects located in the Mid-west region have
a large number of products available within the region which are manufactured within
500 miles of the project site. Use of recycled materials for a project may also aid
compliance with credit MR 5.2.

The benefits which were commonly cited by the interviewee responses were
building the economy of the region, shipping of products over short distances reducing
fuel consumption for transportation and reduction in lead time for delivery of materials

through procurement from regional manufacturers. Working with local companies can

65

help find new partners for future work or receive discounts for bulk buys from a smaller
producer.

When asked to outline the processes that they used for compliance with the
requirements of credit MR 5 for regional materials each of interviewees responded with
similar methods for compliance that can be summarized as follows. The process starts
with selection of materials in the design phase based on the requirements of the project.
Materials need to be researched and investigated before being incorporated into the
specifications to ensure quality and performance. The next step is to incorporate those
materials into the bid documents to make sure that the bidders have considered the
availability of regional materials before bidding the project. The contractor needs to
document materials which have been extracted or harvested within the 500 mile
proximity limits as well. After completion of construction, the LEED AP needs to
calculate whether the threshold for LEED credits has been achieved with information
provided by the contractor.

One question asked the interviewees to describe the roles of the client, architect or
designer, general contractor and sub-contractor in obtaining compliance with credits MR
5.1 and MR 5.2 and documentation procedures. The interviewees said that all individuals
or organizations listed above need to have a clear understanding of the goals of the
project.

The client is instrumental in selection of materials through the designer or
architect by encouraging local product use and accepting the possibility of lesser known
products for a project if they are manufactured locally and equal in quality to a more

known name brand.

66

The design team needs to investigate products and locate sources for products to
determine if materials of the required quality are available locally. The design team
should incorporate products into specifications which meet the criteria for quality,
performance standards and LEED credit MR5 proximity limits.

The general contractor is required to consider procurement of materials from local
sources before a bidding project and to encourage sub-contractors and vendors to include
regionally manufactured materials if they are feasible. The contractor is required to
maintain a spreadsheet on total cost of project materials, individual costs of applicable
local materials with names of companies and products and supporting documents from
vendors verifying that the manufacturing location is within 500 mile radius of the project
site. After bid and before construction the general contractor is required to provide
appropriate submittals with signed letters certifying sources of manufacture, extraction
and cost. LEED requires that all documents be stamped by the general contractor.

Sub-contractors should submit bids for projects using local materials if it is
feasible, obtain information from the manufacturer and provide this information to the
general contractor or construction manager. Additionally, sub-contractors must provide
price of materials exclusive of labor charges, taxes, fees, etc. to the contractor.

The project should be registered with US Green Building Council. USGBC
provides the template which should be used to document material or product information
and can be obtained after registration of the project. The General Contractor and the sub-
contractors should be informed about the documents that they need to maintain and the
submittals that are required from them. Successful bidders should submit signed letters

verifying sources of material prior to construction.

67

The general contractor should maintain a spreadsheet documenting materials that
are procured regionally. The sub-contractor needs to submit cost of materials procured
within 500 miles of the project site excluding labor or installation charges, taxes and
other fees. The percentage of materials procured within the 500 mile radius is calculated
by comparing cost of those materials with total cost of project materials. In order to
achieve the credit the project should procure 20% of total project materials within 500
miles of the project site. The calculations and letter templates supported by material
invoices and statements of manufacture location from manufacturers are required to be
submitted for audit during the submittal process.

The documentation and submittal procedures for credit MR 5.2 are similar to
credit MR 5.1. The percentage of raw materials within an assembly or product which are
extracted regionally need to be calculated by weight. In order to achieve the credit, 50%
of regionally manufactured materials should be extracted within the 500 mile radius. The
submittal process for credit MR 5.2 requires calculations for percentage of individual raw
materials by weight, letter templates from manufacturers and statements verifying
location of extraction supported by invoices.

The interviewees were asked how they researched their list of manufacturers or
vendors who are within the MR 5 proximity limits and if they had prepared a list of
manufacturers/vendors related to projects located in Michigan or its border states for
compliance with MR 5 limits. Constant research for products, Greenspec Directory
[Wilson A., Malin N, et. al., 2003], previous experience with materials and interaction
with vendors or manufacturers were listed as the common methods for selection of

materials. Architecture and design firms generally use materials that are often repeated in

68

projects. Therefore, they commonly identify suitable products and their availability on an
ongoing basis. Due to the nature of the construction industry credits MR 5 was usually
achievable without extensive research for local products because certain high value
products such as concrete and fabricated structural steel are readily available locally. The
new LEED Rating System 2.2 draft reduces the proximity limit for local materials from
500 miles to 300 miles. This change may make credit MR 5 difficult to achieve. None of
the interviewees had a comprehensive list of vendors or manufacturers which they used
consistently. Specification writers have a list of preferred manufacturers based on quality
and performance. Each of the interviewees had previous experience in preparing credit
MR 5 documents.

Several questions asked the interviewees about the difficulties that a project team
can face in achieving compliance with credits MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 for certification. The
interviewees responded that the difficulty of achieving the credits changes from project to
project. Credit MR 5.1 has been easily achievable until now due to the nature of the
construction industry. It largely depends on the location of the project and the type of
project. Some areas such as those on the coasts have some difficulty getting maximum
benefit from any situation involving a radius from project site due to their proximity to
oceans. Some regions do not have a broad range of materials manufactured within their
region. The type of project can influence the level of difficulty as well because certain
project types demand use of materials which have to be transported from distant
locations. Overall, if the region is abundant with a variety of manufacturers and the
project does not require special materials, MR5 credits are fairly easily achievable in

terms of finding materials within the specified limits.

69

Achieving compliance with credit MR 5.2 can also depend on the use of materials
with recycled content. It can be difficult to achieve credit MR 5.2 using virgin materials
as the various components of a product may have been extracted outside the 500 mile
radius of the project site.

The difficult activity in achieving credits MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 for any project is
developing the documentation necessary to determine and the record location of
manufacture, extraction and the distance, products are transported to the project site.
Breaking down costs into specific material costs excluding labor, installation charges,
taxes, etc. is difficult as well. There is some difficulty due to the lack of a database of
regional materials for Michigan. The interviewees agreed that a database which contained
information about location of manufacture of materials can be helpful in improving the
efficiency of the current process.

The interviewees were asked how LEED Accredited Professionals reviewed
certification documents for a building and the problems that they faced during the
process. Two copies of documents are compiled and checked by LAP and submitted to
the US Green Building Council. Consultant organizations which work with USGBC are
responsible for the final reviews. Letter templates displaying the distance between
manufacturing site and project site, certification documents from vendors or
manufacturers signed and stamped by the general contracting firm and cost calculations
are compiled by the LAP and submitted for review. The review is carried out by
consultant organizations in two stages called the Preliminary and Final Review. After the
Preliminary Review, a verdict on certified credits, credits held in abeyance and credits

denied is issued. The project team is required to submit documents which support the

70

credits which have been denied before the Final Review is carried out. After the F inal
Review a project team can submit their appeals for the denied credits.

Several questions addressed methods employed by LAP for tallying project costs,
costs of individual materials and calculation of percentages of components within an
assembly or product with respect to their sources of extraction. The data for each material
should be arranged in a spreadsheet with the mileage and source of manufacture and
extraction specified in different columns. The project team should obtain letters certifying
product information for source of manufacture and extraction to support the spreadsheet.

For calculation of source of extraction, the percentage of individual component of
a product or assembly is calculated by weight. The documentation procedures for
calculation for credit MR 5.2 are similar to credit MR 5.1. The most common problem
that occurs during the process is lack of information from contractors. The processes of
calculating mileage between a project site, manufacturing and extraction sources and
contacting manufacturers for product information are time consuming.

The final question of the interview asked the interviewees for suggestions on how
to develop a database framework for regional materials. All the interviewees suggested
that information which displayed mileage between sources was important for the
database. Other suggestions included providing links to online mapping websites such as
www.mapquest.com which will save time for users. Because the LEED Rating System
2.2, which is currently under review, has a suggestion for reduction of proximity limits
from 500 miles to 300 miles for credits MR 5, the interviewees suggested that the

database should take into consideration the new requirement.

71

4.1.2 Construction Manager Interviews

The researcher obtained a list of LEED certified building projects for Michigan
and contacted the construction companies that constructed the projects. The researcher
selected three construction managers as the interviewees. Open ended interviews were
conducted with the respondents all of whom had handled LEED certified building
projects.
4.1.2.1 Construction Manager Responses

The following section presents themes expressed by the interviewees in a
paraphrased format. The researcher has omitted references which would identify the
interviewees without making any significant distortion in the responses.
4.1.2.2 Demographic questions

The interviewees were employees of established construction companies located
in Michigan. The positions held by the interviewees at their respective companies ranged
from estimators to construction managers or managers of pre-construction services. The
interviewees had between 13-25 years of experience as construction professionals.
4.1.2.3 LEED certification questions

The interviewees expressed familiarity with the LEED Rating System for Green
Building certification. Each of the interviewees had worked on 4 to 8 LEED certified
projects which are either already constructed or are in various construction or planning
stages. The roles played by the interviewees in the LEED certification process ranged
from management of documentation for submittals to co-ordination with the design team

and sub-contractors.

72

The interviewees were asked about the percentage increase in initial costs for a
LEED certified building as compared to a similar sized building which was built without
LEED certification goals. The interviewees agreed that the increase in project cost
depends on the credits that are set as goals to be achieved by the project team. The
increase in management costs of the project was said to be 1% to 3% and the overall
construction cost increase ranged from 5% to 7% of the cost for a building built with
standard building codes. The increase in costs however, is reducing as the LEED process
is being streamlined for better efficiency.

The interviewees were asked to list the credits among the LEED Rating System
which were easily achievable without considerable increase in project and administrative
costs. The interviewees responded that costs of waste recycling are minimal if initial
planning and space allocation for extra on-site dumpsters is conducted. Other credits
which do not increase the cost of the project were indoor air quality compliance with
ASHRAE 90.1, procuring regional materials depending on the location of the project,
daylight and views credits, water-efficient landscaping and construction indoor air quality
management plan.

The administrative costs for carrying out the LEED certification process have
been dropping due to experience in handling similar projects. The documentation process
has been streamlined with the recent updates to the LEED Rating System. The
documentation process for certification requires maintaining templates which record
items such as material manufacturing and extraction locations, mileage from the project
site, measuring recycled waste quantities and types, low VOC emitting material

procurement, Etc.

73

The next two questions asked the interviewees about their familiarity with credit
MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 and the benefits that are achieved by compliance with those credits.
Each of the interviewees said that they had achieved compliance with credit MR 5.1 for
every LEED certified project that they had worked on. Credit MR 5.2 is difficult to
achieve for renovation project whereas it is easy to achieve for new building construction
projects. The benefits listed by the interviewees for compliance with credits MR 5.1 and
MR 5.2 were helping the growth of the regional economy and shorter lead times for
material deliveries.

The interviewees were asked about the difficulties faced by the project team in the
documentation process required for credit MR 5.1 and MR 5.2. The interviewees
responded that getting information from sub-contractors regarding a product’s
manufacturing and extraction location was difficult. LEED requires submission of shop
drawings with LEED templates for review which increases the burden on the project
team. The interviewees however remarked that conditions vary between projects and that
planning early can reduce the burden of documentation.

The final question asked the interviewees for suggestions on the development of a
database framework. The interviewees agreed that such a database would be very helpful
for credits MR 5.1 and MR 5.2. Research for new materials and sources of procurement
on the intemet and other product listing would be helpful in creating the database. The
interviewees anticipated stricter guidelines for certification in the LEED 2.2 Rating
System which will make it difficult to achieve the credit. The database will help improve

the verification process for product information.

74

4.1.3 Physical Plant Administrative Staff Interviews

The researcher conducted open-ended interviews with six employees of the
Physical Plant Division of Michigan State University (MSU). The goal of these
interviews was to gain an insight into the typical building construction procedures of an
institutional owner, use of sustainable practices in construction at MSU and their
opinions on the use of the database methodology for future construction and LEED
certification.
4.1.3.1 Physical Plant Administrative Staff Data

The responses obtained by the researcher during the interviews are presented
below in a paraphrased form. As required by the interview protocol, the identities of the
interviewees have been kept anonymous by omitting personal references within the
responses without significant distortion of the responses.
4.1.3.2 Demographic questions

The interviewees were asked general questions regarding their qualifications and
experience in order to gain an understanding of their backgrounds. The duties performed
by the interviewees for the Physical Plant Division of MSU ranged from working with
external design consultants, preparation of construction documents and project
administration. The interviewees were design professionals and business management
professionals with considerable experience in the construction industry.
4.1.3.3 MSU Construction and LEED certification questions

The first four questions of this section of the questionnaire asked the interviewees
about their familiarity with the LEED Rating System and Michigan State University’s

general attitude towards use of sustainable practices for building construction on campus.

75

All the interviewees claimed to have fair knowledge of the LEED Rating System due to
recent discussions with LEED consultants for implementation of the LEED Rating
System for construction.

The interviewees agreed that Michigan State University is favorable towards use
of sustainable practices on campus if the process is justified by Life-Cycle Cost (LCC)
models. MSU has used LCC for analysis of products and systems on campus.

The interviewees were asked how products were selected for construction. The
main criterion used for selection of a product or system for use at MSU was its life-cycle
cost. Previous experience with products, low maintenance, reliability of product and
servicing options provided by vendors or manufacturers also help in selecting a product.

During specification, manufacturers are suggested as a benchmark but contractors
can propose substitutions with products of equal or better quality which meet
performance standards, subject to review by the design staff.

The next question presented the MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 credit requirements to the
interviewees and asked them about difficulties that they anticipate in complying with the
credit. The interviewees indicated that MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 would lead to reduced
competition and variety in product selection. Some manufacturers do not provide
information about source of manufacture and extraction of the product which might make
it difficult for certification.

The interviewees expressed that it will be difficult to obtain a break-down of
product cost from the manufacturer which excludes labor, installation charges, taxes, etc.

In an open-bid project, manufacturers are not willing to divulge the original price of the

76

products. The interviewees consider this as a hindrance in the documentation of
information that is required for the credit.
4.1.4 Follow-up LEED Accredited Professional Interviews

The LEED Accredited Professionals were interviewed a second time to obtain
information on the structure and emphasis areas of the database. The main objective of
these interviews was to identify the CSI divisions which have the most influence on a
project meeting the MR 5.1 and 5.2 requirements. The researcher contacted four LAP.
One did not respond so the remaining three were interviewed.
4.1.4.1 Follow-up LEED Accredited Professional Interview response summary

The first question asked for suggestions on how the database should be organized.
Each of the LAP agreed that the database should be classified according to CSI format.
Throughout the industry construction professionals, including architects, engineers,
contractors, and vendors or manufacturers are familiar with this system and it would help
to make the database easily searchable and usable.

The next question explained the method employed by the researcher for
classification of materials in the database starting with elimination of divisions 15 and 16.
The LAP were asked to list the CSI divisions from 1 to 14 based on their experiences,
which made negligible contributions towards calculations for credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 and
could be eliminated without affecting the usability of the database. All the interviewees
responded that divisions 11 to 14 do not typically make considerable contributions
towards meeting MR 5.1 and 5.2 requirements. Division 1 is administrative and hence

can be eliminated. One of the LAP suggested that division 7 can be eliminated as well.

77

The next question was developed to obtain information from the interviewees
regarding the level at which the database should be classified (Refer figure 3.2). Two of
the interviewees suggested that the database should be classified at the root division level
assuming that more detail on products could be added with future research. One
interviewee suggested that the database should be classified to level 2 of the CSI
classification. The option of classifying materials to further levels depends on the extent
of detail required by the specifications writer.

The interviewees were asked to suggest methods for reducing the size of the
database and how to focus on materials which heavily influence certification of credits
MR 5.1 and 5.2. The response to this question was to focus on divisions 2 to 5 which
consist of basic building materials which are typically procured from locations within
close proximity to a project site. These divisions typically have high cost impacts and
consist of materials which are readily available throughout the state of Michigan.
Manufactured fumiture is available regionally within the state of Michigan. In order to be
considered for credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 requirements, it should also be incorporated into the
calculations for all credits from MR 3 to MR 7.

The final question asked for suggestions on how to improve the usefulness of the
database. The interviewees indicated that after classifying the manufacturers by CSI
divisions, they could be organized alphabetically or by state or region. Other suggestions
included linking the database to LEED credits for users who want to check credit MR 5
and search for manufacturers within 500 miles of the project site zip code. The database

could be linked to an online mapping website such as w. mapquest. com which could

78

calculate the distance between a project site and manufacturing location for a user by
entering zip codes.
4.1.5 Framework and Database Validation Interviews

The framework for developing a database and the example database were
presented to three LEED Accredited Professionals to obtain their views on the usability,
comprehensiveness, method of development, content and format of the database. The
LAP were presented a summary description of the process used by the researcher to
develop the database along with the example database, a questionnaire and the
framework diagram presented in figure 6.1 of this thesis. The interviewees were asked to
review the framework and the example database for the following:
I Framework for development of a database
I Structure of sample database
I Method of data accumulation
I Usefulness of the sample database
I Ease of data retrieval
I Contents of Database
4.1.5.1 Framework and Example Database Interview Response summary

The interviewees were asked how useful the database was in providing
information for regional manufacturers in its current form. The interviewees were asked
to rate the usability on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘very difficult’ and 5 being ‘very
easy’ to use. Two of the interviewees rated the database at 3 while I chose to rate it
between 2 and 3. The interviewees suggested that the database could be more useful by

including manufacturers outside the state of Michigan, located within 500 miles of the

79

focal point. The usefulness could also be improved by employing a user interface which
responds to queries of the user. The interviewees also responded that the database was
cumbersome to read due to arrangement of data in Microsoft Excel using rows and
columns.

The next question addressed the comprehensiveness of the database in covering
products or materials which aid in the certification of credits MR 5.1 and 5.2. The
interviewees were asked to rate the database for its comprehensiveness on a scale of l to
5 with 1 being ‘not comprehensive’ and 5 being ‘very comprehensive’. Each of the
interviewees rated the database at 3 which denotes ‘moderately comprehensive’. The
interviewees responded that the database was comprehensive with respect to
manufacturers based in Michigan but it would need more information considering the 500
mile radius requirement for credits MR 5.1 and 5.2.

The next question asked the interviewees if the database did not include any
manufacturers that they were aware of. The interviewees responded that there were no
manufacturers that they could name which were not included in the database.

The interviewees were asked to rate the overall content, format and method of
development of the database on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 denoting ‘very bad’ and 5
denoting ‘very good’. The interviewees rated the database at 3 overall which denotes
‘Ok’. The interviewees responded that the database had a good format and method of
development but the content could be improved by including manufacturers from states
other than Michigan.

The final question asked the interviewees to give suggestions regarding the

content and form of development of the database. The interviewees responded that

80

special attention should be given to the ease of use of the database for the user. An
interactive interface which responds to the queries of the user by retrieving data from the
database could prove beneficial. The user interface should be attractive and easy to use.
One interviewee responded that conducting telephone calls to ascertain manufacturing
and extraction location may not be a cost effective method of obtaining information from
manufacturers. But considering that such information is not available easily approaching
the manufacturers through telephone calls seemed to be an easy method for obtaining
information.
4.2 Process for compliance with LEED credits MR 5.1 and 5.2

Based on the LEED Accredited Professionals interviews, the process for
compliance with credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 was outlined and described. This compliance
process includes the following stages:
Stage 1: The project is required to be registered with the United States Green Building
Council. USGBC provides templates which are required for documentation for LEED
certification. Letter templates provided by USGBC for credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 should be
used for documentation of the regional materials procurement credits. The project team
should research materials and products within the region to ensure quality and
performance standards. The development of a database could take place during this step
of the process and is explained in section 6.4. Materials should be incorporated into the
specifications before bidding the project. The project team must ascertain that bidders
understand the requirements for achieving compliance with the above mentioned credits
before submitting their bids. Figure 4.1 shows stage 1 of the process of certification for

credits MR 5.1 and 5 .2.

81

At the time of bid acceptance, bidders should submit signed letters certifying their

sources of procurement of materials and products. For large builders and institutions such

as universities and government agencies, a database containing a list of materials or

products with manufacturing and extraction locations could prove helpful during this

stage of certification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Client , Understanding and Selecting feasible
setting goals ' credits to be pursued
Project Team
Obtain templates &
documentation
Research materials &
products
J Develop bid with
certification

 

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Register project
with USGBC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Develop specifications

 

 

 

 

 

BID ACCEPTANCE ‘L

.L requirements and

templates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 Stage 1: LEED Certification Process for credits MR 5 .1 and 5.2

(source : LAP interviews)

 

Bid submission with
signed letters for
certification of
material locations

ll

 

 

 

 

Contractors and Sub-
contractors

 

 

 

The project team can obtain better pricing options on products from

manufacturers that they have used in earlier projects. It would be easier to work with

manufacturers who have previously supplied products for LEED certified buildings since

they would be aware of the documentation that is needed for product certification.

82

 

 

Stage 2: The second stage of certification requires maintaining adequate documentation
by responsible parties which is compiled towards the end of the project and submitted to
the USGBC for review. The general contractor is required to maintain a spreadsheet
containing records of materials and products with information about their location of
manufacture and extraction. The distance between the location of manufacture and
project site should be recorded in one column. The distance between location of
extraction or harvest and project site must be recorded in a separate column on the
spreadsheet. The spreadsheet must contain the following information,

I Product name

I Manufacturing location

I Distance of manufacturing location from project site

I Extraction location

I Distance of extraction location from project site

(LAP interviews)

Sub-contractors must submit material or product invoices with statements of
manufacture and extraction obtained from the manufacturers. The general contractor is
required to submit a spreadsheet, with product invoices and statement of manufacture
bearing the general contracting company stamp, to the LEED Accredited Professional
working on the project. The general contractor and the sub-contractors should make an
attempt to use regional materials and products wherever feasible. The LEED Accredited
Professional is required to carry out the calculations for material percentages based on the
data provided by the general contractor. For product assemblies, percentage calculation

must be executed using proportional weight of different constituents of the assembly. A

83

project may achieve additional certification points for exceeding the requirement

prescribed by LEED for innovation.

 

Manufacturer

 

 

 

 

 

Manufacturer

 

 

 

 

Letters of Certification

 

V V

 

 

General Contractor

Maintain spreadsheet

I Product name

I Manufacturing location

I Extraction location

I Manufacturing location
distance from site

I Extraction location
distance from site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sub-Contractor l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sub-Contractor 2

Submit letters and
_ product invoices

 

 

 

 

Letters of
Certification

 

Manufacturer

 

 

 

Figure 4.2 Stage 2: LEED certification process for credits MR 5.1 and 5.2

(source: LAP interviews)

 

 

 

 

Stamp invoices
and
certification
letters +
Spreadsheet

 

 

 

 

Submit 2 copies of
documentation to
USGBC for review

 

 

 

 

 

LAP
Final tally of
material
percentage
calculation

 

Two separate copies of documentation consisting of certification letters, material

or product invoices, spreadsheets with material information and final calculations of

percentages should be submitted to USGBC for review.

Stage 3: This stage consists of reviews conducted by USGBC. These

reviews are conducted by consultant organizations working with USGBC. After a

Preliminary Review, the project team receives a verdict on certified credits, credits held

in abeyance and credits denied. The project team is allowed to submit additional

84

 

 

supporting documentation for credits that are held in abeyance and the credits that were
denied. After the Final Review, the project team has the option of submitting an appeal

for the denied credits supported by more documentation as required.

4.3 Summary

This chapter consisted of responses from interviewees presented in a paraphrased
format. Based on the responses from the interviewees the researcher outlined the LEED
certification process. The next chapter contains analysis of the case study building on

MSU campus.

85

CHAPTER 5

86

5.1 Sample Building Study

This thesis developed a general database framework which can be implemented
by universities and can aid in achieving compliance with credits MR 5.1 and 5.2. In order
to explore the types, quantities and cost of materials required for constructing a typical
university building, the researcher selected a sample building for study. This part of
research was conducted to determine the general feasibility of an institutional building
constructed on a university campus for receiving certification for credit MR 5.1 and 5.2.
Michigan State University was used as a case study for this purpose. The study also
helped the researcher to derive a list of materials which influenced the cost calculations
for the above mentioned credits. This list of materials was verified by comparing it with a
list of high-value items developed by a GSA LEEDTM cost study [Steve Winter
Associates, October 2004]. The Cyclotron Addition Project, completed in 2004, was
selected as the sample building for this phase of research.
5.2 Cyclotron Addition building

This project was constructed as an addition to the Cyclotron building which
houses the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (N SCL). NSCL is a rare
isotope research facility located on the campus of Michigan State University. The
Cyclotron Addition project consisted of a 12,000 square feet office addition to the
original Cyclotron laboratory building. The Cyclotron addition houses faculty offices,
graduate student offices, two conference rooms and a reception area.

The building consists of two floors built on a steel framework. The exterior walls

are concrete masonry block with brick veneer and cavity insulation on the outside. The

87

facade of the building consists of brick, punctured windows and a curved glass curtain
wall.
5.3 LEED MR 5.1 and 5.2 calculations

The Physical Plant Division (PPD) of MSU is responsible for administration and
supervision of construction on MSU campus. Cost data for the Cyclotron Addition
project was obtained from the PPD. Because contractors do not provide detailed cost
breakdown by material and labor the researcher used the F inal Schedule of Values which
listed work at the completion of the project (see Appendix D). The schedule of values
contained a list of items, their cost at completion and name of company that supplied the
item. The cost information obtained for the sample study building did not include detailed
cost break-down of the work items into labor costs, transportation costs, taxes, material
costs, etc. as is required by LEED. The researcher used the default, 45% of the total cost
of an item, prescribed by the LEED Rating System as the cost of material for calculation
of credit MR 5. Table 5.1 displays the list of high-cost items (including material, labor,

indirect costs, etc.) for the Cyclotron project which cost at least 2% of total project cost.

 

 

 

 

 

Item Cost
General Trades (includes Concrete) 366,519
Doors and Windows 120897
Doors, Frames, Hardware 65008
Drywall and Acoustical 234466
Hard Tile and Floor Fin. 82925
Masonry 274537
Roofing and sheet Metal 103571
Structural Steel 206597
All other items combined 1,958,049

 

Table 5.1: List of High—cost Items for Cyclotron Sample Building Study
(Source: Physical Plant Division, MS U)

The data procured from PPD did not contain breakout material cost or display

information about the source of materials. Structural Steel was procured from a local

88

fabricator located in Lansing, Michigan which is 5 miles from the project site. Hence, it
can be considered as a locally procured item. Several large gypsum board manufacturing
facilities exist within 500 miles of project site, so drywall was assumed to have been
procured from regional manufacturers. The researcher conducted quantity take-offs for
concrete used in footings, below grade columns and concrete walls and slabs. Since,
concrete is usually procured from local sources it can be assumed to be locally procured
for the case study building.

Using RS Means cost data, the researcher calculated the cost of concrete material
at the rate of $ 75/Cy for below grade concrete walls, piers, footings and slabs. Table 5.2

shows the calculations for concrete for the sample building and does not include steel

 

 

 

 

 

reinforcing.
Quantity Cost
Footing 25.15 CY 1886.25
Slab 10157 sq. ft. 9310.58
Piers 6.52 CY 500
Below grade Walls 28.91 CY 2175
13885

 

 

 

Table 5.2: Cost Calculations for Concrete for Sample Building
(Source: Physical Plant Division, MS U)

Table 5.3 shows the cost calculations required to achieve certification for credit
5.1. Table 5.4 shows estimated cost of materials assumed to be procured from regional

manufacturers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Project Cost $3,412,569
Total Materials Cost for the

project (45%) $1,535,656
Required 20% benchmark $307,131

 

Table 5.3: Required Total Cost of Regionally Procured Materials for MR 5.1
certification (Source: Physical Plant Division, MSU)

89

 

 

 

 

Concrete $13,885
Structural Steel $92,968
Drywall + Acoustical ceilinL $16,529

$122,982

 

 

 

 

Table 5.4: Cost Calculations for Materials Assumed to be Regionally Procured
(Source: Physical Plant Division, MS U)

5.4 Conclusions of Sample Building Study

The calculations for the sample building study showed that the estimated cost of
concrete, structural steel, drywall and acoustical ceiling tiles constituted approximately,
8% of the total material cost which is less than half of the percentage required to achieve
certification. There are other materials such as reinforcement bars, fill, roof insulation,
etc. which can be procured locally in Michigan but could not be included in the
calculations due to unavailable information. The sample building could however qualify
for certification of credit MR 5.1 if information about manufacturing sources of all
materials was available. This shows that that a typical university building located within
the state of Michigan likely could achieve MR5.1 certification if the project team
included procurement of regional materials as a goal, early in the project planning
process.

The conditions for institutional buildings located in regions other than Michigan may
change based on the availability of materials which make significant impacts on the
calculations for credit MR 5. The following items significantly impact total cost of
materials for a project and offer opportunities for achieving MR 5 credits if obtained from
local manufacturers and fabricators:

I Custom millwork

I Concrete

90

I Doors and windows
I Frames and Hardware
I Drywall and Acoustical tiles
I Hard tiles and Floor finishes
I Masonry
I Roofing and Sheet metal
I Structural Steel

The project was a relatively small project. Buildings built for universities are
typically larger than the sample building, but the materials used are similar. These
materials heavily influence material costs for any institutional building project.

This chapter presented the analysis of a case study building on the MSU campus.
A case study building was used for the purpose of evaluating typical materials which are
used, their costs and the likelihood that an institutional building would qualify for the
criteria of MR 5.1. The next chapter contains results of the database research and the

framework for development of the database.

91

CHAPTER 6

92

6.1 Development of a Sample Regional Manufacturers Database

In an effort to aid organizations in developing information on manufacturers who
operate within a project region, the researcher created a sample database of regional
manufacturers. The database was created based on the requirements for credit MR 5.1
and 5.2, responses from interviews of industry professionals and research conducted by
the researcher to locate sources for manufacturer information available for users. This
process enabled the researcher to:
a) Explore the information sources available and to consider their usefulness in

developing a database of manufacturers
b) Explore the structure of a database
c) Identify the classes of products which have the most influence on compliance
(1) Understand how to limit the scope of a database to make its development efficient
and cost effective -

The database consists of contact information of manufacturers of building
materials located within the state of Michigan. The researcher used.
http://www. thebluebook. com as the primary source of information for vendors and
manufacturers. Other sources such as Sweets Commercial listing published by McGraw
Hill, the Chamber of Commerce of Michigan, http://www. constructionmaterials. com and
http://www. 4specs. com were considered for use in developing this database but were
excluded because they did not provide options to search for regional products or the data
did not contain information on materials produced by the manufacturers. Websites hosted
by trade organizations which listed contact information of manufacturers of construction

materials were also used. The research used keyword searches of w. thebluebook. com

93

to identify contact information for manufacturers and vendors of building materials. This
keyword search process is presented below.

The researcher does not claim that the database contains every available
manufacturer in Michigan, but instead was designed to explore a process for creating
such a database.

6.1.1 Manufacturer/Vendor keyword search

The researcher conducted keyword searches for Michigan which focused on
divisions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. These keywords were selected based on interview
responses and database reduction methods explained in chapter 3. Table 6.1 shows the

keywords that were used and are arranged according to CSI division,

 

CSI Division Keyword - Building Material

 

Division 2 Aggregate
Asphalt
Cement
Pavement / Pavers
Division 3 Concrete
Concrete Reinforcement
Division 4 Masonry Unit
Stone

Brick
Division 5 Aluminum
Metal

Steel
Division 6 Wood
Woodwork
Division 8 Window
Door

Glass
Division 9 Gypsum

Tile

Ceiling
FloorirL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.1: List of Keywords

94

Divisions 2, 3, 4 and 5 contain materials such as aggregates, concrete, concrete
reinforcement, concrete masonry units, steel, metal, etc. which are usually procured
within close proximity of a project site. Brick is also a high-value product that may be
manufactured in Michigan. The researcher referred to the website hosted by the Brick
Industry Association (www.bia.org, date visited: April, 2005) and located brick
manufacturing plants located within 500 miles of the city of East Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan has a large number of manufacturers for products included within these
divisions (LAP interviews). The researcher conducted searches for various material
manufacturers within the state of Michigan by using the keywords in
w. thebluebook. com which provides a drop-down menu containing weblinks. These
weblinks, when clicked, displayed webpages which had contact information of
manufacturers and vendors. The researcher sorted and eliminated results which were not
applicable for this research. For example, the search keyword ‘woodwork’ returned the

following results for Michigan — Toledo, Ohio region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results Listings_
Architectural & Cabinet Woodwork 222
Cabinets - Kitchen 312
Millwork 219
Stairs - Wood 38

 

Table 6.2: Keyword search example
Since the current research is focused on commercial buildings and many of the

firms listed were focused on residential kitchens, the results for ‘cabinets-kitchen’ were
not considered. Many of the firms listed were “suppliers” or contractors rather than
manufacturers, therefore contact information for suppliers, retailers and contractors were

excluded from the database. The researcher verified company profiles on company

95

websites and by conducting telephone calls to determine if a firm was a supplier,
contractor or manufacturer.
6.2 Keyword search

In order to conduct a precise search for materials, the researcher analyzed each
division to select items which have high-cost impacts on projects. The results of the
interviews, the building case study discussed in chapter 5 and high-value items listed by
the GSA LEED Cost study [Steve Winter Associates, October 2004] were used to select
items which have high-impact on the cost of a project. Items which deal with equipment,
labor, installation costs, etc. were eliminated.

Typically, a CSI division consists of a variety of items which are associated with
a process. For example, CSI code 4200 is used for masonry units while code 4210
includes clay masonry units and code 4220 includes concrete masonry units. The website
search returned results for each of the three items since the search parameter that is used
by the website search system is ‘Masonry’, which was common to each of the three
items. In this case, the researcher selected ‘Masonry’ as the keyword to search for all
types of masonry unit manufacturers. The researcher formulated a list of such keywords
which were common among items included in each division. These keywords were used
to search for manufacturers on the website.
6.3 Results of Keyword search

The results of the keyword searches conducted for the database have been

organized by CSI division are presented below. The database is included in Appendix E.

96

6.3.1 Division 2 - Site Construction

Division 2 consists of site construction, earthwork, drainage, utility services, etc.
which require use of equipment. Equipment costs cannot be considered for credit MR 5.1
and 5.2 as they are not installed in the building. Aggregates are readily available in every
location in Michigan. Aggregates were therefore, not specifically included in the
database. Materials such as asphalt and pavement were selected as the high-value

building materials within division 2, as keywords. The keywords and results are shown

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

below in table 6.3.
Number
Region Keyword Results of listings
returned
Michigan Paver Pavers - Interlocking and unit 104
Asphalt Profiling/ Recycling/
Asphalt Scarifying 20
Paving Materials 45

 

Table 6.3: Results for Division 2

Results such as road construction and contractors were eliminated since they do
not apply to the requirements of the database. The total number of manufacturers listed in
the database for this division is 15.

6.3.2 Division 3 - Concrete

Division 3 consists of items such as concrete reinforcement, concrete forms and
accessories, cast-in place concrete, pre-cast concrete, etc. Concrete forms and accessories
cannot be considered for this credit since they are not installed in the building. ‘Concrete’
was selected as the keyword for this division as the search returned manufacturer
information for most types of concrete products included within this division. ‘Concrete

reinforcement’ was used as the other keyword for this division. Since producers of ready-

97

mix concrete are readily available in close proximity to any location in the state of
Michigan, the results for ready-mix concrete were not included in the database. Contact
information of manufacturers was organized under categories such as concrete
reinforcement, ready-mixed concrete, architectural concrete, mass concrete and pre-cast
concrete. The keywords selected for division 3 and the results that were returned by the

search are displayed in Table 6.4.

 

 

 

Number
Region Keyword Results of listings
returned

Anchors - Masonry and

Michigan Concrete Concrete 71
Conc. Additives & Curing
Compounds 84
Cone. Blocks - Lt. Wt &
glazed 68
Concrete Lightweight 13
Concrete - Post Tensioning 9
Concrete - Precast Arch &
Structural 86
Concrete - Precast
Sanitary, Drainage 34
Concrete - Repair &
Restoration Materials 87
Floors - Seamless 32
Floor - Underlayment 29

Concrete Reinforcing bars/ Wire 65
Reinforcement mesh and Accessories

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.4: Results for Division 3

The total number of manufacturers listed in the database within division 3 is 30.
6.3.3 Division 4 - Masonry

The material categories included within this division are masonry units, stone,
masonry wall reinforcement, etc. The most commonly used masonry units in construction
are concrete masonry units and clay masonry units. Michigan has a relatively small
number of manufacturers of brick and related materials. Hence, the researcher referred to

a list of manufacturers provided by the Brick Industry Association on its website

98

www.bia.org (date visited: April, 2005). The website hosts contact information and plant
locations of brick manufacturers in the country. The researcher selected brick
manufacturers who had manufacturing plants within a radius of 500 miles of East
Lansing. The keyword selected for www. thebluebook. com search division 4 was
‘Masonry’ which produced results for masonry wall reinforcement and concrete masonry
units. Table 6.5 shows the number of results that were retumed for the search conducted
for masonry in the state of Michigan. The total number of manufacturers listed in the

database for this division is 38.

 

 

Number of
Region Keyword Results listings
returned
Michigan Masonry Anchors - Masonry and Concrete 71
Concrete blocks- lt. wt and
glazed 69
Masonry Wall Reinforcement 14
Mason's Materials 43

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.5: Results for Division 4

6.3.4 Division 5 — Metals

For the purpose of this search steel, metal and aluminum were used as keywords
to locate regional manufacturers. USGBC issued a credit interpretation in February, 2004
which confirmed that the location at which steel assemblies are fabricated can be
considered as the manufacturing location for those assemblies [Modern Steel
Construction, May 2004]. Fabrication of structural steel entails cutting steel members to
appropriate length, welding connection plates, punching or drilling holes, etc.
Constructing steel trusses, frames or standard assemblies is carried out by fabricators as
well. Steel manufactured by fabricators within 500 miles of the project site can be used

for credit MR 5.1. Credit MR 5.2, however, requires tracing the location where the steel

99

was recycled as the place of extraction. It is difficult to trace the location of extraction of

raw materials for steel since steel is recycled. Table 6.6 shows the results for the selected

 

 

 

 

keywords.
Number
Region Keyword Results of listings
returned
Michigan Steel Joists-Steel 22

Pipe-Steel 39
Roof Trusses-Steel 29
Shelving Steel 102
Steel Plate Fabricators 45
Steel & Precast Concrete
Erectors 43
Structural Steel Detailers 29
Structural Steel Fabricators 182
Architectural Metals-Mfrs.

Aluminum & Distrs. 81
Panel Systems 174
Architectural Metals—Mfrs.

Metal & Distrs. 81
Corrugated Metal 10
Decking Metal 23
Pipe-Corrugated Metal 11
Stairs-Metal 43

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.6: Results for Division 5

The researcher also referred to member listings provided by Great Lakes
Fabricators and Erectors Association on the website www.glfea. org (date visited: April,
2005). The member listings provide contact information of fabricators, erectors and other
steel service providers. The researcher selected fabricators from the list and included
them in the database. A total of 49 manufacturers or fabricators have been listed in the
database within division 5.

6.3.5 Division 6 — Wood and Plastics
The items included in this division are wood framing, heavy timber construction,

wood decking, finished carpentry, millwork, architectural woodwork, custom cabinets,

100

etc. The high-value materials or products in division 6 are finished carpentry consisting
of millwork, casework, etc. and architectural woodwork such as cabinet woodwork, wood
frames, etc [Steve Winter Associates, October 2004]. The fabrication shop where
woodwork such as cabinets, shelving, etc. is built or assembled is considered the final
location of manufacture. In-site reshaping and framing however, cannot be considered as
manufacture (LAP interviews). The keywords used for this division to locate regional
manufacturers were ‘wood’ and ‘woodwork’. The results of the keyword searches are
displayed in table 6.7 below. A total of 44 manufacturers of finished carpentry have been

listed in the database for this division.

 

 

 

Number
Region Keyword Results of listings
returned
Michigan Wood Buildingfiterials 224
Wood Architectural & Cabinet
work Woodwork 222
Cabinets - Kitchen 312
Millwork 219

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.7: Results for Division 6

6.3.7 Division 8 - Doors and Windows

Division 8 includes items such as doors and frames, entrances and storefronts,
windows, hardware, glazing, curtain walls, etc. The high-value materials or products in
division 8 were windows, storefronts and curtain wall systems [Steve Winter Associates,
October 2004]. The keywords used for this division were ‘Window’, ‘Door’ and ‘Glass’.
These keywords returned results which displayed manufacturer listings for all of the
high-value items listed above. The final location where doors and windows are assembled
is considered the manufacturing location. Products which are assembled on-site cannot be

considered for calculations of regional materials credits unless all the components of the

101

assembly were manufactured at locations situated within the prescribed proximity limits
(LAP interviews). The following results were returned for the keyword searches for
division 8 which are displayed in table 6.8 below. A total of 54 manufacturers of doors

and windows have been listed in the database within division 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number
Region Keyword Results of listings
returned
Michigan Window Glass Block 38
Glass-Stained, Leaded &
Art 55
Millwork 219
Storm Windows & Doors 25
Windows - Metal 102
Windows - Vinyl 172
Windows - Wood 109
Door Doors - Access 34
Doors - Alum, Bronze &
Steel 59
Doors - glass, heat
tempered 14
Doors - Hollow Metal
Doors & Frames 102
Doors - Sliding 34
Doors - Wood, solid &
Veneered 189
Glass Curtain Walls 43

 

 

Table 6.8: Results for Division 8
6.3.8 Division 9 — Finishes

This division includes items such as plaster, gypsum board, tiles, terrazzo,
acoustical panels, carpet, paints and coatings, etc. The high-value items from this division
consist of gypsum wallboard, carpet, resilient floor tiles, acoustical ceiling tiles and floor
finishes [Steve Winter Associates, October 2004].

The manufacturers that produce gypsum board are typically large companies with

manufacturing plants in a variety of locations in the US. The researcher used the website

102

wwwgypsumorg (date visited: April, 2005) which is hosted by the Gypsum Association
to research gypsum manufacturers. The researcher contacted gypsum manufacturers by
telephone and obtained information about their manufacturing plants which are located in
Michigan or close to it. The researcher included manufacturers with manufacturing plants
located within 500 miles of East Lansing.

Carpets and resilient flooring were the other high impact materials from this
division. The results returned by the searches conducted by the researcher consisted
mainly of suppliers, distributors or retailers for carpet. The Carpet and Rug Institute
(CRI) is the national trade association representing the carpet industry. Its members
consist of manufacturers representing over 90% of all carpet produced in US
(www. carpet-rug. org, date visited: April, 2005). All the manufacturers listed by CR1
were located outside the 500 mile radius used by this thesis. Hence, no manufacturers for
carpet were included in the database. The researcher conducted searches for flooring in
the state of Michigan. Table 6.9 shows the search keywords and the results that were
returned while searching for manufacturers of items included in Division 9. The database

contains 9 national manufacturers of resilient tile flooring and 4 manufacturers of gypsum

 

 

products.
Number of
Region Keyword Results listings
returned
Michigan Flooring Floor Treatrnent/Coating/Preservatives 139
Floors - Resilient (Mfrs. & Distributors) 62
Floors- Wood Finish/Parquet/Hardwood 250

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.9: Results for Division 9

103

The researcher believes that other manufacturers are likely to exist within a region
and that the development and maintenance of a database such as the sample database
developed by this research should undergo continuous updating and focus on the classes
of products and manufacturers used by a specific owner or design organization.

6.4 Development of Database Framework

Development of the sample database allowed the researcher to create a general
fiamework which can be used by other institutional owners and designers in creating
their own regional and organization specific database. Figure 6.1 shows the flow

diagram for material and product research and development of the database.

 

 

 

Requirements of project > Prepare list of high-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ value materials i
i , , Prepare final list of
Prepare lrst of materials materials for research
with negligible value focus
Develop format for ¢
Database

I CSI classification

I Material name

I Vendor contact
information

I Manufacturing
location and its
distance from project
site

I Extraction location
and its distance from
project site

 

 

 

 

 

Research sources for
local manufacturers

I Commercial listings
I Previous experience

 

 

 

 

Locate regional
manufacturers for
products

 

 

 

 

DEVELOP
DATABASE

 

7

 

 

Check for quality and
performance standards

 

 

 

 

Develop
Specifications

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.1: Research materials and development of database step

104

 

V

 

 

 

 

Check for manufacturing

and extraction locations

I Document location
zip-code for
manufacture and
extraction

 

 

 

 

 

The development of a database can occur during the process of research for
materials and products. The database format should be developed based on the CSI
system. The process begins with listing the requirements of the owner’s or designer’s
general project types such as office buildings, classroom buildings, medical facilities, etc.
Requirements for material types, product finishes, assemblies, etc. should also be
identified. The classification format and software for developing the database must be
determined based on user requirements. The format should reflect the requirements of
credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 such as,

I Product type

I Manufacturer contact information

I Manufacturing location and its distance from project site
I Extraction location and its distance from project site

A list of high-value materials should be developed, which make significant cost
contributions to the total project cost. This list can be based on historical data for
buildings similar in type and size to the project under consideration. A final list of
materials should be used to research local manufacturers. This process helps in
concentrating on only those items which have high impact on the cost of the project.

There are various sources for information on regional manufacturers. Some of
these sources have been listed in section 7.3. These sources are in the form of online
databases, product listing books, etc. Manufacturers and vendors should be contacted to
gain information on the manufacturing and extraction locations of their products. This
process also helps in eliminating retailers and other companies which do no manufacture

the products. After locating regional manufacturers, checks for quality and performance

105

must be made in order to ascertain that products comply with the standards required for a
project. The manufacturing and extraction locations of the materials should also be
ascertained by obtaining relevant information from the vendors or manufacturers.
Materials and manufacturers included within the database can be used while developing
specifications for a project. Manufacturers can be included in the specifications as
products which can be used by contractors for a project. The database should be updated
regularly to include information of new manufacturers within the region. The following
section explains influential divisions, materials or items for development of the database
and scenarios for considering some of the items which have not been considered for the
database.
6.5 Database research and analysis conclusions

The example database of regionally available materials was developed based on
interviews conducted with LEED Accredited Professionals and the GSA LEEDTM [Steve
Winter Associates, October 2004] cost study. The broad conclusions derived from this
process are presented below.
6.5.1 Influential CSI divisions for LEED MR 5.1 and 5.2 certification

The database was organized by focusing on divisions which make significant
contributions to the total project cost. Based on the responses from the interviews
conducted with LEED Accredited Professionals, divisions 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are
expected to make negligible contributions to project cost. Basic building materials such
as concrete, steel, brick or block, earthwork, etc., belonging to CSI Divisions 2, 3, 4 and 5

are used in large quantities and add high value for most projects. Most of the items

106

included within these divisions are available within close proximity of any location in
Michigan.

The following is a list of high-impact items which typically influence the cost of a
project. The list was compiled from the GSA LEEDTM Cost study [Steve Winter
Associates, October 2004] which conducted cost calculations for two institutional
buildings. The items included in the list are:

I Cast-in—place concrete

I Structural steel or metal

I Exterior cladding materials such as stone, brick, pre-cast concrete, metals, roof tiles
etc.

I Masonry units

I Windows and curtain wall systems

I Gypsum wallboard

I Carpet

I Resilient flooring

I Ceiling tiles (Acoustical, specialty, etc.)

I Doors and frames

I Millwork and casework items

The state of Michigan has a large number of manufacturers for materials included
in divisions 2, 3, 4 and 5. These materials have a high impact on total material cost and
heavily influence compliance with credit MR 5.1 and 5.2. From the list of products
stated above, items such as cast-in-place concrete, concrete masonry units, fabricated

structural steel and gypsum wallboard tend to be manufactured within 500 miles of most

107

project sites. The proximity of manufacturers may vary for many of the other materials
depending on the part of the country the project is located in. The 20 percent credit
threshold can be attained by focusing on the above stated materials without extra cost
beyond documentation costs. For projects with designs involving special materials or
treatments which limit the number of manufacturers whose products can be specified in
the project bids, a cost premium may be incurred in complying with credits MR 5.1 and
5.2.
6.5.2 Database presentation

The information collected by the researcher from www.bluebook.com was
documented in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Each division was allotted separate work
sheets. Manufacturers were classified according to the CSI format under material codes
based on the products they manufacture. The database includes the following
information:

I CSI code

Name of product

I Description

I Manufacturer name

I Location of final assembly

I Distance between manufacturing location and East Lansing in miles
I Location of extraction

I Distance between extraction location and East Lansing in miles

I Mailing address of manufacturer

I Telephone and fax number

108

6.6 Scenarios for considering other materials

The following are scenarios for considering various materials for certification of

credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 which have not been addressed in the sample database:

Mechanical and Electrical equipment: Mechanical and Electrical equipment is not
considered during calculations for certification of credits MR 5.1 and 5.2. These
systems are assembled on the project site and in order to be considered for
certification, the project team would have to document location of manufacturing for
every component of the assembly. It is extremely difficult and arduous for the project
team to document such information (LAP interviews)

Elevators: Elevators are shipped to the project site as separate components which are
assembled and installed in the building. In order to achieve certification for elevators,
every component of the elevator assembly must be manufactured within the
proximity limits prescribed by the LEED Rating System (LAP interviews)
Manufactured fumiture: Furniture can be included for new construction calculations,
only if fumiture is also included in the scope of work of the project and is calculated
in every credit from MR 3 to 7. This condition entails incorporating furniture in
calculations for credits for Resource reuse, Recycled content, Local or regional

materials, Rapidly renewable materials and Certified wood (LAP interviews).

6.7 Conclusion

This chapter presented the framework for development of a database of regional

manufacturers and the results of the sample database search conducted by the researcher.

109

The following chapter contains conclusions of this thesis and recommendations for

implementation of the database methodology at universities.

CHAPTER 7

110

7.0 Summary and Recommendations

This chapter contains a summary of the research conducted by the researcher for
this thesis. Section 7.1 includes an overview of the LEED Rating System. The final
section of this chapter includes recommendations on a process for development of a
database suitable for universities or other institutional organizations as well as
suggestions for future areas of research.

7.1 Overview of LEED Rating System certification

The LEED Rating System offers a valuable assessment system for buildings
designed and constructed with the goal of achieving better efficiency. Standard building
codes address minimum standards and generally satisfy pre-requisites for LEED
certification. Standard building codes vary by state and influence the conditions for
achieving compliance with the LEED Rating System. It is easier to achieve basic
certification in some states as compared to others which do not emphasize higher
efficiency standards for buildings (LAP interviews).

One of the concerns of owners and builders in complying with green building
standards is the increase in upfront costs of a project. The increase in initial costs of the
project could range from 5% to 7% depending upon the level of certification that is
achieved. The increase in management costs for LEED certification could range from 1%
to 3% (CM interviews). In many states, basic LEED certification can be achieved with
minor increase in initial costs. These costs are expected to decrease as better technologies
are developed and the process for certification is streamlined [Cooper 6., 2002].

Builders and developers that plan to achieve LEED certification for their

buildings should understand the goals from the beginning of the project. In order to

111

achieve cost efficiency in management of documentation, project teams should clearly
define their goals for achieving certification at the conceptual stage of the project. The
process entails preparing a checklist of achievable credits. This allows ample time for the
project team to conduct feasibility studies and design innovative methods and
technologies to achieve the goals. All participants involved in the project must
understand their responsibilities and their roles in achieving the goals as well. Larger
institutions such as universities which are dedicated to achieving sustainability can work
with USGBC to form partnerships that will lead to better implementation of LEED
standards. Researchers and students from partner universities can also gain access to
documentation and research developed by USGBC.
7.2 Possible difficulties during certification of credits MR 5.1 and 5.2
The nature of the construction industry makes it relatively easy to achieve credit

MR 5.1. It is difficult, however, to achieve certification for credit MR 5.2 using virgin
materials. The use of materials or products with recycled content helps in achieving credit
MR 5.2 (LAP interviews). Overall, the difficulty in achieving these credits depends on
the type of project and the location of the project. A project team may face the following
difficulties in achieving the above mentioned credits:
I Certain types of projects require transporting special products over large distances
I Sub-contractors may not be able to provide manufacturing and extraction location for

products
I LEED requires submission of some shop drawings with templates which increases the

burden on the project team

112

I Sub-contractors may not prefer to disclose information about the price of material due

to profit margins or competitive factors.

7.3 Benefits of credit MR 5.1 and 5.2

Achieving compliance with credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 can be beneficial in the following

ways:

I Procuring materials and products regionally can help build the economy of the region

I Products shipped over short distances reduce fiiel consumption for transportation

I There is a reduction in lead time for delivery of materials.

7.4 Conclusions and results of the database research

1) CSI format is used across the construction industry for specification of materials. A

database based on the CSI format offers a system of classification which is

applicable and familiar to users throughout the US

2) While constructing a database of regional materials for MR 5.1 and 5.2 certification,

focus should be placed on materials which have a large impact on total project

material costs. The following divisions were found to heavily influence total project

costs for most projects.

Division 2 — Site work
Division 3 — Concrete
Division 4 — Masonry

Division 5 — Metals.

In order to reduce the cost of database development it is also important to eliminate

materials which are expected to make negligible contributions to the cost of projects.

This elimination process can be based on historical cost data of materials for the types

113

3)

4)

5)

of buildings under consideration by the organization. The contributions made by
divisions may vary for different types of projects depending on their requirements.
The elimination process enables the researcher to develop a database which is
compact and comprehensive in covering only high-value items required for LEED
certification
Although, Division 15 (Mechanical) and Division 16 (Electrical) make a combined
contribution of 30% of a typical project, they are typically not considered for credit
MR 5.1. In order to consider mechanical and electrical equipment for credits MR 5.1
and 5.2, each component of the equipment must be manufactured within the
proximity limits prescribed for the credits (LAP interviews)
There are certain divisions within the CSI system which contain items that may be
readily available within many locations across the country. For example, in
Michigan, items such as aggregates, concrete, fabricated structural steel, etc. are
usually procured from sources which are close to project sites. The availability of
materials within close proximity of a project site however, depends on the region and
its natural resources which can vary from one location to another
A large number of resources are available for contact information of vendors and
manufacturers. These sources provide listings of regional businesses which cater to
various requirements of the construction industry. The research found some
limitations in each of the sources for business listings when developing a database of
regional manufacturers. Some of the sources that were used or considered by this

thesis were:

114

I Chamber of Commerce - (Michigan): The Michigan Chamber of Commerce hosts
a website which contains a database of business entities located in the state of
Michigan. The list however, contains contact information of only those businesses
which are registered with the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The listing does not
provide information about the products that are supplied by vendors or manufacturers.
It may also contain some defunct companies due to update schedules
I Yellow pages —This source of commercial listings is not focused specially on
construction materials. Hence, the search does not show a large number of results for
regional vendors and manufacturers of construction materials
I Sweets — The listings presented by www.sweets. com provide results based on CSI
format. The listings do not provide results based on regional vendors or
manufacturers. This aspect of Sweets makes it difficult for a researcher to locate
vendors or manufacturers within a particular region
I Bluebook — The listings provided by www. thebluebook. com was used for the
database presented by this thesis. The Blue Book provides contact information of
vendors or manufactures based on their location. Keywords of construction materials
can be used for a state-wide search. The results provide a sizeable amount of contact
information of vendors and manufacturers including information on the products that
they supply
6) The estimated time for completion of a database similar to the one compiled by this
thesis is 2-3 weeks. This includes searching for different sources of commercial
listings, short listing keywords applicable for the project, development of the

database spreadsheet containing contact information of manufacturers, conducting

115

7)

8)

9)

telephone calls to individual manufacturers to establish the location of manufacture
and extraction of products

The type of database compiled by the methodology used by this thesis is feasible for
institutions which can operate, design or construct buildings periodically within the
same region. Large institutions such as universities which are continuously building
new structures around the same campus area or government agencies involved in
construction within a county or state can utilize a database more effectively than
single building project developers. The cost for compiling a database could outweigh
the benefits achieved by using the database for small developers

A database developed by an organization should be updated regularly whenever
information for new manufacturers is obtained. Local manufacturers suggested by
contractors, manufacturers listed in other commercial listings, etc., should be
included in the database periodically

The utility of a database can be enhanced by developing data-management software
which will retrieve data from the database according to the requirements of users.
The design of the software could include an interactive computer interface which
will allow users to type in queries such as CSI code, material names, zip code of
project site, etc., and return results from the database which will help users in

identifying the manufacturers that are located within the region

10) Finally, the sample database presented by this thesis does not claim to contain every

vendor or manufacturer available within the region. The sample database contains
information about manufacturers which have been listed by the commercial listing

source used by the thesis.

116

7.6 Recommendations for Universities

The following recommendations are suggested by the researcher based on the

framework developed by this thesis for compliance with credit MR 5.1 and 5.2, and are

applicable to universities or institutional project owners, designers and constructors.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Incorporate procurement of regional materials criteria as a requirement in general
construction standards and bid documents

Develop a list of manufacturers of products available within 500 miles of the
organization. This framework for creating such a database of manufacturers of
products available within the region is presented by this thesis

The structure of a database should reflect the requirements of credit MR 5.1 and 5.2.
It should contain information such as distance between project site and location of
manufacture and extraction respectively

CSI format is used throughout the construction industry for specification of
materials. A database should be classified according to the CSI format.

A database should focus on high-value locally available materials. Divisions 2, 3, 4
and 5 from the CSI format consist of materials which are common to most
construction projects and are regionally available for most regions in the US

The availability of materials or products from other divisions varies by location.
Such materials may be included in the database according to the benchmark required
by the standard and to achieve environmental and economic benefits based on

regional considerations

117

7)

8)

A database could be made more effective by employing interactive software which
retrieves data based on user requirements. A user interface could be designed which
accepts user queries and returns data from the database

Data should be updated regularly to eliminate manufacturers which are no longer in

business and to include new manufacturers

7.7 Findings and Contribution

The following are the major contributions of this thesis:
Developed a framework for creating a database to aid in achieving LEED credits MR
5.1 and 5.2 which is applicable to universities or other institutional projects
Identified a list of materials or items which make significant impacts on the cost of a
project thereby aiding in the certification of LEED credits MR 5.1 and 5.2
Documented the processes of LEED certification for credits MR 5.1 and 5.2 (Refer
Figure 4.2). These processes were documented based on the responses obtained from
open-ended interviews with LEED Accredited Professionals.
This framework can help to make the process of identifying local materials more

efficient for designers and owners

7.8 Limitations of the study

The database structure is based on the CSI format which is commonly used for

construction material specifications. The database does not contain contact information

for every manufacturer available in the state of Michigan for the products included in the

database. The database contains only those manufacturers which were listed in

commercial listings used by the researcher. There may be other sources of manufacturer

information available which were not documented by the researcher. The database

118

methodology is feasible for organizations or large institutions such as universities which
are continuously building new structures within a region. The database does not contain
specifications for products. The database also does not have search options for users to
retrieve specific data.
7.9 Areas for future research

The sample database is presented as a listing of manufacturers located in the
region within 500 miles of the project site. Further research on individual product
specifications and performance standards can be conducted in order to enhance the details
of the database. Research can also be focused on VOC content of materials, recycled
content, rapidly renewable materials, etc., which will enable a database to be useful for
procuring materials which qualify for other credits included in the Materials and
Resource section of the LEED Rating System as well. A database could then be
combined with data retrieval software which employs a user fiiendly interface. Search
criteria for products can be introduced within the software to return results as required by

the user.

119

Appendix A

Consent Forms
0 LEED Accredited Professionals

I First Consent Form

I Revised Telephone Consent Form

0 MSU Physical Plant Administrative Staff

0 Construction Managers
Interview Questionnaire
o LEED Accredited Professionals

I First questionnaire

I Revised questionnaire

0 MSU Physical Plant Administrative Staff

0 Construction Managers

120

Consent Form

 

Development of a Database Methodology for Compliance with
Regionally Available Materials Standards of LEEDTM Green
Building Rating System

LEED Accredited Professional

I am a student of Michigan State University currently pursuing my master's degree in the
Building Construction Management Program. I am studying the material related aspects
of the LEED 2.1 Rating System specifications for certification of buildings and comparing
them with the Construction and Design Standards followed by Michigan State University.
The research will assess methods that could be undertaken for compliance with
procurement of regional materials credit (MR 5.1 and MR 5.2), through my master's thesis
research titled, "Development of a database methodology for compliance with
Regionally Available Materials standard of LEEDTM Green Building Rating System". The
research is being conducted under the direction of Professor Tim Mrozowski, of the
Construction Management Department at Michigan State University. This research is a
master's thesis study and is not funded by an outside source or the university. As a part of
the research, I am interviewing LEED Accredited Professionals. As an experienced
industry participant, your insight into the building construction practices and LEED
certification process will be very useful for my research. Your views and opinions are
important to me. Your responses will help me to better understand the requirements and
application methods of the LEED Rating System.

The interview consists of a variety of closed and open ended questions and is expected
to last 40 minutes. Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate
at all, may refuse to participate in certain procedures or to answer certain questions, or
may discontinue answering questions at any time without penalty. Your name will not be
used in any reporting of the research and your rights will be protected to the maximum
extent of the law. Your answers will be reported in paraphrased form and will be
aggregated with others. You can exclude any information that you do not want to be
reported in this form by initialing the interview question for the item you want to be
excluded.

If you have any questions regarding this If you have any questions or concerns
survey procedure or wish to make regarding your rights as a subject of this

suggestions, please contact: research please contact:

Professor Tim Mrozowski University Committee on Research
Construction Management Program Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
School of Planning, Construction Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Management and Design, Chair of UCRIHS

212 Farrall Hall 202 Olds Hall

Michigan State University Michigan State University

East Lansing. MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 353-0781 Phone: (517) 355-2180

Email: mrozowsk@egr.msu.edu Email: ucrihs@msu.edu

121

Telephone Interview Consent Form

 

Development of a Database Methodology for Compliance with
Regionally Available Materials Standards of LEEDTM Green
Building Rating System

LEED Accredited Professlonal

lwould like to thank you for the information that you provided me with during our earlier
interview about the material procurement credits of the LEED 2.1 Rating System. During
the interview, I had asked you various questions about the LEED Rating System and its
implementation. I am currently developing the database of regional manufacturers and
classifying them according to CSI format. The database contains divisions l to 14 and
their respective sections. In order to reduce the size of the database, I am focusing on
materials which make a larger impact on the calculations for achieving credit MR 5.1
and 5.2 and eliminating materials and sections which have little impact. Based on your
prior experiences with LEED certified buildings, I would like to ask you some additional
questions about selecting such high-impact divisions of the CSI system and eliminating
divisions and sections which make negligible contributions to achieving credits MR 5.1
and 5.2.

The brief telephone interview consists of a few open ended questions and is expected to
last 5-7 minutes. Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate at
all, may refuse to participate in certain procedures or to answer certain questions, or
may discontinue answering questions at any time without penalty. Your name will not be
used in any reporting of the research and your rights will be protected to the maximum
extent of the law. Your answers will be reported in paraphrased form and will be
aggregated with others. You can exclude any information that you do not want to be
reported in this form by initialing the interview question for the item you want to be
excluded.

If you have any questions regarding this If you have any questions or concerns
survey procedure or wish to make regarding your rights as a subject of this

suggestions, please contact: research please contact:

Professor Tim Mrozowski University Committee on Research
Construction Management Program Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
School of Planning, Construction Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Management and Design, Chair of UCRIHS

212 Farrall Hall 202 Olds Hall

Michigan State University Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 353-0781 Phone: (517) 355-2180

Email: mrozowsk@egr.msu.edu Email: ucrihs@msu.edu

122

Consent Form

 

Development of a Database Methodology for Compliance with
Regionally Available Materials Standards of LEEDTM Green
Building Rating System

MSU Physical Plant Admlnlstratlve Staff

lam a master’s student from the Building Construction Management Department at
MSU. I am studying the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards
for certification of green buildings and comparing them with the Construction and
Design Standards followed by Michigan State University. Buildings which comply with the
specified standards receive certification based on the level of green building strategies
employed during the project. The research will assess methods that could be undertaken
for compliance with procurement of regional materials credit (MR 5.1 and MR 5.2).
through my master's thesis research titled, “Development of a database methodology
for compliance with Regionally Available Materials standard of LEEDTM Green Building
Rating System". The research is being conducted under the direction of Professor 11m
Mrozowski, of the Construction Management Department at Michigan State University.
This research is a master’s thesis study and is not funded by an outside source or the
university. As a part of the research, I am interviewing Michigan State University Physical
Plant Administrative staff. As an experienced MSU employee, your insight into the
building construction practices followed by MSU, along with that of others will be very
useful for my research. Your views and opinions are important to me. Your responses will
help me to better understand the requirements of the university, in order to apply the
LEED Rating System to a building constructed on Michigan State University campus.

The interview consists of a variety of closed and open ended questions and is
expected to last 40 minutes. Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to
participate at all, may refuse to participate in certain procedures or to answer certain
questions, or may discontinue answering questions at any time without penalty. Your
name will not be used in any reporting of the research and your rights will be protected
to the maximum extent of the law. Your answers will be reported in paraphrased form
and will be aggregated with others. You can exclude any information that you do not
want to be reported in this form by initialing the interview question for the item you want
to be excluded.

If you have any questions regarding this If YOU have any ClUGSfiOHS or concerns
survey procedure or wish to make regarding your rights 05 0 subject 0f "115

suggestions, please contact: research please CODiOCiZ

Professor Tim Mrozowski University Committee on Research
Construction Management Program Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
School of Planning, Construction Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Management and Design. Chair of UCRIHS

212 Farrall Hall 202 Olds Hall

Michigan State University Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 353-0781 Phone: (517) 355—2180

Email: mrozowsk@egr.msu.edu Email: ucrihs@msu.edu

123

Consent Form

 

Development of a Database Methodology for Compliance with
Regionally Available Materials Standards of LEEDTM Green

Building Rating System

Construction Manager

I am a student of Michigan State University currently pursuing my master’s degree in the
Building Construction Management Program. I am studying the material related aspects
of the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards for certification
of green buildings and comparing them with the Construction and Design Standards
followed by Michigan State University. The research would assess methods that could be
undertaken for compliance with procurement of regional materials credit (MR 5.1 and
MR 5.2), through my master’s thesis research titled, “Development of a database
methodology for compliance with Regionally Available Materials standard of LEEDTM
Green Building Rating System". The research is being conducted under the direction of
Professor Tim Mrozowski, of the Construction Management Department at Michigan
State University. This research is a master's thesis study and is not funded by an outside
source or the university. As a part of the research, I am interviewing construction
managers who have been involved with building projects which have achieved LEED
certification or are currently being constructed. As an experienced industry participant,
your insight into the building construction practices and LEED certification process, along
with that of others will be very useful for my research. Your views and opinions are
important to me. Your responses will help me to better understand the process and
impacts of regional materials use from a constructor’s perspective.

The interview consists of a variety of closed and open ended questions and is expected
to last 40 minutes. Your participation is voluntary and you may choose not to participate
at all, may refuse to participate in certain procedures or to answer certain questions, or
may discontinue answering questions at any time without penalty. Your name will not be
used in any reporting of the research and your rights will be protected to the maximum
extent of the law. Your answers will be reported in paraphrased form and will be
aggregated with others. You can exclude any information that you do not want to be
reported in this form by initialing the interview question for the item you want to be

excluded.

If you have any questions regarding this
survey procedure or wish to make
suggestions, please contact:

Professor Tim Mrozowski

Construction Management Program

School of Planning, Construction
Management and Design.

212 Farrall Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 353-0781

Email: mrozowsk@egr.msu.edu

124

If you have any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a subject of this
research please contact:

University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)

Dr. Peter Vasilenko

Chair of UCRIHS

202 Olds Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 355—2180

Email: ucrihs@msu.edu

Interview Questionnaire for LEED Accredited Professional

 

I Demographics
We will start out with a few background questions In order to put your statements Into

context. Are you ready to begin?

1) Apart from being a LEED Accredited Professional, what other work or educational

experiences have you had for your current work?

2) How long have you been a LEED Accredited Professional and how many projects

have you handled for LEED certification?

a LEED certification

3) How do buildings built to standard codes fare in terms of gaining LEED certification

points even if they are not built with a goal of achieving LEED codification?

4) Which credits among the LEED credit rating system are easily obtained for buildings

without considerable increase in cost?

125

5) This research focuses on credit MR 5-Regional Building materials. How familiar are you
with credit MR 5.1 and MR 5.2? Have you used these credits in any LEED certification of
buildings that you have been involved with? Explain.

6) What are the benefits that can be attained by procuring of materials from regional

manufacturer's and obtaining the LEED credit?

7) Please outline the processes, from design through construction completion. that you

have used for compliance with the requirements of credit MR 5 for regional materials.

8) Please describe the roles of the following in obtaining compliance for credits MR 5.1
and MR 5.2

1 ) Client

2) Architect/ Designer
3) General Contractor
4) Sub contractors

126

9) What is the documentation process for compliance with the following credits?
MR5.1

MR5.2

10) How do you research/develop your list of manufacturers/vendors who are within the

MR 5 proximity limits?

11) Have you prepared a list of manufacturers/vendors related to projects located in

Michigan or Border States for compliance with MR 5 limits?

12) Have you prepared or reviewed MR 5 documents/submittals?

13) How difficult are credits MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 to achieve for certification?

14) What difficulties have you encountered or heard about in developing
documentation for MR 5.1 and MR 5.2?

15) How is the documentation reviewed by LEED certified professionals like yourself?

What problems have you encountered during the process?

127

16) Do you have a documentation and specification package for LEED that I can

review?

17) Can you explain your method for tallying total project costs and costs of individual

materials in compliance with the requirements for MR 5.1 and MR 5.2.

18) Credit MR 5.2 requires locating extraction sources of individual component materials
of an assembly. What is the process followed by LEED Accredited Professionals for
assessment of percentages of different materials in an assembly and calculating the

distance between the location of extraction and project site?

19) What are the difficulties faced by a project team in calculation of material

percentages within an assembly and their respective distances for credit MR 5.2?

20) Do you have any suggestions for me which will help me as I develop my framework

for developing a database of regional materials?

128

Revised Interview Questionnaire for LEED Accredited

Professional

1) Do you have any suggestions on how the database of manufacturers should be

organized?

2) The researcher initially selected divisions l to 14 for classification of manufacturers of
construction materials. Divisions 15 and 16 were eliminated since credit MR 5.1 and 5.2 do
not consider mechanical and electrical systems. From your experiences with LEED
certified buildings, which divisions from 1 to 14 could be eliminated from the database

because they make negligible contributions in achieving MR 5.1 and 5.2 credits?

3) Each CSI division consists of sections which are further divided into categories
containing levels (see example). To what level should the classification be maintained for
the database in order to provide a comprehensive list of manufacturers which will help

users in procurement of regional materials, efficiently?
Example: Material Code: 04065 - Masonry Mortar and Masonry grout

Division (Level I Section (Level 2) Material (Level 3)

129

4) Do you have any suggestions for reducing the size of the database and keeping
focused on materials and products which heavily influence gaining credit for MR 5.2 and
5.2?

5) Do you have any other suggestions for classification of manufacturer information in

the database which would improve the usefulness of the database?

130

Interview Questionnaire for Michigan State University Physical

Plant Construction Administrative Staff

 

E Demographics
We will start out with a few background questions In order to put your statements into

context. Are you ready to begin?

1) Describe your primary role in the building construction process carried out within MSU.

2) How long have you been in your current position? What other work or educational

experiences have you had that provide background for you current position?

MSU construction and LEED Rating system

3) Are you familiar with the LEED credit rating system?

4) What is Michigan State University's general attitude towards sustainable

construction?

5) Do MSU construction standards consider green building techniques as a priority for

construction of buildings?

131

6) To what extent are green design principles implemented in construction on MSU

campus?

7) This research deals with selection of regional materials/manufacturers for

construction-

a. How does MSU develop standards for selection of a particular product for

construction?

b. Does MSU specify/suggest vendors via specifications to contractors for

procurement of materials?

8) Credit MR 5.1 of the LEED rating system requires usage of 20% of building materials
procured from manufacturers/vendors within 500 miles of the project site. Credit 5.2
requires 50% of those materials to be extracted/harvested within a 500 miles radius of the
same project site.

a. What difficulties do you think one may encounter, while trying to gain

compliance with the standard stated above?

132

9) If this research suggested products which would enable MSU to use MR 5.1 and MR
5.2 - How should these products be evaluated? (eg. Cost, Durability, performance.

specifications, vendors, etc.)

10) Does MSU have a general list of preferred manufacturers/vendors for materials used

during construction?

133

Interview Questionnaire for Construction Managers

 

l Demographics
We will start out with a few background questions In order to put your statements into

context. Are you ready to begin?

I) What is your current position at your organization?

2) What work or educational experiences have you had for your current work?

Building Construction and LEED Certification

3) Are you familiar with the LEED Rating System for Green Building certification?

4) How many projects have you handled which had set goals for LEED certification?

5) What was your primary role in the LEED certification process during the construction

of those buildings?

6) In the construction projects that you were involved with for LEED certification. what
was the approximate percentage increase in upfront costs as compared to a building of

similar size, built without LEED certification goals? How was this determined?

134

7) Which credits among the LEED credit rating system were easily managed by the

building without considerable increase in cost

For the project-

Administrative cost to CM/AE -

8) This research focuses on credit MR 5-Regional Building materials. How familiar are you
with credit MR 5.l and MR 5.2? Have you used these credits in any of the LEED certified

construction projects that you have been involved with?

9) What were the benefits that were achieved by your building project by conforming

to the procurement of materials from regional manufacturer's credit?

10) What were the difficulties faced by your project team in the documentation process
required for credit MR 5.1 and MR 5.2?

11) Do you have any suggestions for me which will help me as I develop my framework

for developing a database of regional materials?

135

Appendix B

Environmental policies implemented by University of Buffalo

Environmental goals for Massachusetts Institute of Technology

136

UB Sustainable Energy Policy (source: http://wings.bufi’alo.edu/ubgreenA date visited
July 04, 2004)

The University at Buffalo's nationally recognized energy conservation program has a
history exceeding twenty years. The program has documented annual energy dollar
savings in excess of $9 million a year. In 1998, the $17 million demand side
management project which the UB conducted with CES/Way International from 1994-
1997 was awarded "Energy Project of the Year" from the Association of Energy
Engineers.

UB is proud of its role as a national leader in campus energy conservation but we must
not stand on our laurels. Our program must strive for continual improvement. Much
more can be done.

UB commits to an energy conservation program based on continual improvement. The
University will:

I Create and maintain appropriate organizational structures within facilities to enable
on-going progress in the energy efficient operation of our campuses.

I Purchase only energy efficient equipment, consistent with performance and
durability.

I Maintain or establish energy conservation and efficiency as priorities in facilities
maintenance and operation.

Consistently implement University heating and air conditioning policies.
Continue the practice of identifying and implementing in-house conservation projects
paid for out of University operations budgets.

I Evaluate prospective energy conservation and efficiency capital improvement
projects on the basis of life cycle cost/benefit analysis.

I Explore methods for redirecting some portion of energy conservation dollar savings
to fund additional conservation measures.

I Utilize creative funding mechanisms and energy service companies to accelerate
action on larger energy conservation and efficiency projects which can be structured
to pay for themselves.

Continue efforts to raise energy awareness on campus.
Reassess campus transportation needs and planning in light of the need to reduce
energy use and energy-related emissions.

I Operate campus buses and campus fleet vehicles on natural gas or other clean
alternative fuel beyond legally mandated levels.

I Strengthen its commitment to principles of environmentally sustainable green
building design for all new construction and major renovations.

I Minimize SOX, NOX and C02 emissions from campus fossil fuel burning
equipment. Eliminate campus reliance on coal in the MacKay Power Plant.

I Develop a carbon dioxide emission reduction plan and measure annual progress.
Seek reductions far in excess of Kyoto Global Warming Treaty requirements which
call on the United States to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 8% by 2010
(compared to 1990 levels).

137

Explore and act on opportunities to employ renewable energy technologies.

Seek effective implementation of UB's electricity purchasing policy to further
promote efficiency, avoid dirty power purchases, and explore options for buying
clean, renewable "green power."

Provide support for clean energy research on campus.

Provide support for community-based clean energy initiatives.

Our campus energy goal will be to reduce campus energy consumption by an additional
20% by the year 2010.

Endorsed by President William Greiner, May 2000

138

Environmental Goals for MIT
(source: http://web.mit.edu/environment/, date visited July 04, 2004)

MIT will become a leader in environmentally responsible operations,
development of new and renewed facilities, and education. The initial, lifecycle and
environmental costs and benefits of projects and programs will be considered in order to
reduce the impact of the campus on the environment within realistic parameters. The
Institute will achieve these goals, and seek continuously to improve upon them overtime,
through the broad participation of the faculty, students, and staff. To begin this process,
the following goals are articulated. We will work toward quantifying these goals and
measuring progress toward achieving them.

Included among MIT’s important long—range environmental goals are to:

I Conserve energy, seeking continuous reductions in our per capita energy
consumption

I Reduce campus air emissions, including those from transportation, of green house
gasses and regulated pollutants

I Reduce material and resource consumption including office and laboratory supplies

and water

Increase the recycling and conservation of materials

Increase the use of recycled-content products

Reduce the volume of toxicity of our hazardous waste streams

Improve our indoor environment, including both the indoor air quality and the

comfort and productivity of our work and living spaces, by considering sustainability

in our design, operations and maintenance policies

I Improve the urban environment, including landscape quality and the site and
pedestrian environment

I Educate our students in sustainable concepts so that they may apply them in their
professions

I Support community-wide and regional sustainability efforts

MIT is undertaking a significant capital projects program, presenting an immediate
opportunity to make progress toward these goals in MIT buildings. Although many other
projects and programs at MIT will work over time to achieve these goals, we will lose an
important opportunity to make progress in MIT buildings if we do not act immediately in
the capital projects program.

Consequently, as an interim measure to achieve a minimum standard and support
progress toward these general environmental goals, MIT has determined that new
projects (including, renovations and new construction) and programs will be designed to

meet or exceed the “LEED Silver Plus” standard. The LEED Silver Plus standard is the
LEED Silver standard enhanced to reflect additional requirements that are necessary to
support progress toward MIT’s environmental goals. New projects and programs are
projects or programs that are in early stages of design, are as yet to be designed, or are
capable of being feasibly revised to meet MIT’s environmental goals taking into account
all factors and

139

circumstances. MIT actively encourages the pursuit of environmentally innovative
projects and use of innovative technology. The LEED Silver Plus standard also will be
revisited in the short term to determine whether firrther customization is necessary to
meet MIT’s long-term goals. MIT seeks to develop as quickly as possible a more
performance-based standard that can be tailored to individual projects.

The total cost MIT incurs in any project involves funding from a variety of
sources, including funding for initial capital development, for operating, repair and
maintenance costs, and for replacements. MIT and the larger world of which we are a
part also incur environmental costs from projects at every stage of development, use and
replacement. In order to incur as little overall cost as possible both in the interim and
under MIT’s ultimate standard, MIT must make integrated decisions involving all
constituencies with concern about any of these costs. During the interim and under any
ultimate standard, initial investment and life cycle costs, as well as those environmental
costs which do not translate well into either category (such as greenhouse gas emissions,
indoor air quality and use of nonrenewable materials), will be taken into account
throughout all stages of projects and programs.

It is a high priority for MIT to expeditiously develop a more comprehensive model for
evaluating the total cost benefit of project/program components taking into account initial
investment (including capital cost), lifecycle cost, performance, and environmental
benefits and impacts.

MIT commits to undertaking consultation and review of projects among MIT experts, the
MIT client team and designers at the very earliest stages of design concept development,
and periodically throughout the design process, to incorporate objectives and mechanisms
for achieving MIT’s long-term environmental goals in projects and to evaluate total costs.

- Developed by the MIT Green Building Task Force, October 2001

140

Appendix C

Interview Transcripts

. LEED Accredited Professional interviews
. Construction Manager Interviews

. MSU Physical Plant Division Administrative Staff

Interviews

141

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, lSt round of interviews
LEED Accredited Professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q.No Demomphlcs A B
Apart from being a
LEED Accredited
Professional, what
other work or
educafional
experiences have you
had for your current Omitted to maintain
I) work? anonymity Omitted to maintain anonymity
How long have you
been a LEED
Accredited
Professional and how
many projects have
you handled for LEED Omitted to maintain
2) certification? anonymity Omitted to maintain anonymity
LEED certification
How do buildings built
to standard codes
fare. 'n terms Of Building codes are minimum
gaining _ LEED standards, the bar has been
cemficm'on pornts Building Codes take care of raised a bit. Its different here in
even if IheY are ”OI pre-requisites. Depends on Michigan than in California
built With 0 900' Of firms. Some firms can get it. where more buildings could gain
achieving LEED Other firms may not be able certification.( Look at LEED
3) certification? to get it. EB)
We charge a lot of money to our
customers for implementation of
LEED so it’s a difficult question
to answer. Using current sites
won't cost anything. Business
school at U of M is looking at
Varies from project to cost factors of LEED. Different
, , project. All the credits are professionals handle different
Wh'Ch cred'fs .qung easily obtainable without credits. Costs depend on that.
the LEED cred” r 01mg considerable increase in cost Can you take the building to go
SYfitem are eGSHY except aggressive water above ASHRAE without
Oblamed for buildings reduction, energy saving increase in cost? No. Reduced
without considerable credits, entire EA energy savings - 28%. (look at
4) increase in cost? categgries. the graph)

 

 

 

142

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1st round of interviews

 

This research focuses
on credit MR 5-
Regional Building
materials. How familiar
are you with credit MR
5.1 and MR 5.2? Have
you used these credits

Used all of them. At least

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 5.1; 5.2 not relied on
'n .. CinY LEED heavily. Lowest percentage Every project uses 5.1. Today
cemflcm'on 0f achieved on 5.] is 60% everything can be bought within
buildings that YOU (generally 60%-90%). You 500 miles. Recycled content gets
have been involved get innovation credit for the credit. Steel is recycled,
5) with? Explain. doing twice as good. glass- relatively easy to do.
What are the benefits
that can be attained
by procuring of
moier'O's from Reduce lead time, Support
reglonal the local economy, Reduced
anUfClCiUrers 00d transportation (pollution). Locally are good for regional
obtaining the LEED No real savings on economy, Less use of petroleum,
6) credit? transportation Cost effective
The point is easy to get. If
the design was unusual then We use the LEED charette.
we need to keep track of Decide initially. Set
Please outline the materials .(flag unusual specifications according to the
processes, from design items). Duringconstructron requirements. It rs easy but
. all successful bidders should everybody has to be aware of it.
thrOUgh, conSthtlon submit certified letters 5.2 is difficult to get.
complain” that YOU where the raw materials are Design team meeting ----->
have . used- for coming from to decide the LEED checklist ------ > Owner,
compliance W'ih ”)9 percentage of regional Contractor, Architects measure it
requirements of credit materials (getting according to checklist ......... >
MR 5 for regional paperwork for specs --------------- > Contractor
7) materials. manufacturing) and subs submittals

 

143

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

Please describe the roles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the following in
obtaining compliance
for credits MR 5.1 and
8) MR 5.2
Signs off on the selection of
Not a lot. Designer notifies materials, through the design
the client early about the architect according to 5.1, unless
availability of the credit client wants something from far
a. Client point off
If they are doing something
unusual they need to make
sure there aren't any Everybody on the design team
b. Architecf/ Designer implications has to be involved.
After bid and before
construction, they are
required to give appropriate
submittals. Signed letters
certifying sources and cost. Once materials are selected,
LEED requires all keeping a check on submittals.
documents to be stamped by Cost of materials is to be
c. General Contractor the general contractor. recorded, not labor.
of. Sub contractors Make appropriate submittals
What is the
documentation process
for compliance with the
9) followinfiredits?
Submittals. Letter template,
After successful bid and spreadsheet. To get template, get
prior to construction signed the project registered to get a
MR5.I letters from sub-contractors template account.
Signed letters from
manufacturers about source
MR5.2 of materials
Follows general submittal
procedures.
HOW do you Pure education, constant
[eseorCh/devebp your Don’t have a list. Due to the research, meeting and talking to
"Si 0f nature of construction and vendors. Firms have a design
manufacturers/vendors the market we get the point outlook, consistent design types.
who are within the MR 5 easily. With 300 mi it might Materials used are fairly
10) proximity limits? get difficult to get the point consistent.

 

144

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

Have you prepared a list
of
manufacturers/vendors
related to projects
located in Michigan or
Border States for
compliance with MR 5

Its automatic. Spec writers have
a list of vendors or preferred list
of manufacturers based on

 

 

 

 

 

ll) limits? No. quality and performance.
Have you prepared or
reviewed MR 5
1a documents/submittals? Yes Yes
5.1 is very easy to get. 5.2
_ . . depends on the project. The
How difficult are credits higher you, recycled content
MR 5-l Cmd MR 5-2 l0 makes it easier to achieve
OChleve for 5.2. Difficult for virgin 5.1 is easy. 5.2 is somewhat
l3) certification? materials. harder (questionable)
What difficulties have
YOU encountered ('3' Have an invoice from all
heard ObOUl 'n contractors for everything.
develODlng 5.l never had any difficulty. Sometimes things are missing.
documentation for MR Achieved credit for each 30% of documents are required
14) 5.l and MR 5.2? project. with invoice.
Ill send them a letter
. showing miles (template), There are 7 contracted
How ',5 the manufacture produced ._JO_( consultant firms which review
documentation mile from site, source 29; the binders (2 binders, USGBC
reVIewed by .LEED miles from site. Template & consultants). Preliminary and
cemfied DIOlGSS'OnCIS with letter submittals. The Final review. Eg. 27 certified, 10
like YOU? Wh0l problems key to keeping costs down abeyance, 3 denied. ---------- >
have YOU encountered is to get the templates done back-up materials ----- > Final
15) during the process? early during the project. review ------------ >Appeals.
Do you have a
documentation and
specification package
for LEED that I can
l6) review? Iwill email it to you. [saw the templates

 

 

l7)

 

Can you explain your
method for tallying total
project costs and costs
of individual materials in
compliance with the
requirements for MR 5.l
and MR 5.2.

 

Get letters from subs and
general contractors. Arrange
the mileage data in
templates.

 

Working with AE responsible
for design budget with feedback
from contractor or contractor
responsible for cost. Review
with owner, wrt LEED credits
based on optimizing energy

 

145

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

Credit MR 5.2 requires
locating extraction
sources of individual
component materials of
an assembly. What is the

process followed by
LEED Accredited
Professionals for
assessment of

percentages of different
materials in an assembly
and calculating the
distance between the
location of extraction

For Assembly the
calculation is by cost of
materials. For some
products it goes by weight.
If it gets too complicated

from firm to firm.
Dependent on Material or
system/assembly provider.
Earlier getting information was
difficult, now easy because of

Varies

 

 

 

 

 

 

l8) and project site? then we don’t bother. awareness amonggvendors.
What are the difficulties
faced by a project team Contractors not giving
in calculation of material information, If it happens
percentages Wllhln 0'.“ afier construction is Ask contractor to get
assembly and lhelf completed and everybody is information from vendors.
respective diSlOl’iceS for paid off, you will never get People have more information
19) credit MR 5.2? it. available now.
DO Y9” have any Make sure the mileage
SUQQGSl'QnS for me information is present. Look
Wh'Ch W'" help me as l at version 2.2. Take care of
develOP mY framework 300 miles radius. It’s a Someone I know is putting
for develOP'ng 0 bigger issure in the west together a website for regional
database of regional where there aren‘t many materials. Archrecord.com and
201 materials? manufacturers. EBN are makingdatabases too.

 

146

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, lSt round of interviews
LEED Accredited Professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q.No. Demographics C D
Apart from being a LEED
Accredited Professional.
what other work or
educafional
experiences have you
had for your current Omitted to maintain Omitted to maintain
l ) work? anonymity anormnity
How long have you
been a LEED Accredited
Professional and how
many projects have you
handled for LEED Omitted to maintain Omitted to maintain
2) certification? ‘ anonymity anonymity
LEED certification
Depending on the state the
building in question is in, the
project could very easily
make the jump to achieving at
least a Certified level of They don’t even compare.
LEED, as is the case in most Building code is about
states. Some states do not achieving the minimum
. . . have well developed codes allowed by law to be
How do bU'ldmgS bum to and for buildings in those acceptable. LEED is about
Standard C0918} fare 'n states it may take more achieving the maximum
terms 0f gaining LEED planning and thought before performance from a
cer‘llficallon DOlnls even design gets too far along in building. Buildings just
if lheY are “Cl bUlll Wllh order to comply with LEED built to code are far behind
0 goal Of achieving standards and achieve at least buildings built to LEED
3) LEED certification? a minimum of points. standards

 

147

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

urban
alternative
(all except
refueling),
disturbance

Site selection,
redevelopment,
transportation

alternative fuel
reduced site
(protect or restore open
space), storm water
management (both), ozone
depletion, recycled content
and local/regional materials
(construction cost only -
management costs for credits

The credits that deal with
simple design selection are
always the easiest but these
choices have to be made
very early in the design.
For instance, SS 4 is simply
a matter of picking a site

close to bus lines and
transit. This is just a matter
of selection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

may add cost), rapidly WE l is a simple task, EA 4
renewable materials, is a simple selection, EA 6
construction IAQ is a simple selection, MR 2
, , management plan (during is one of the easiest if it is
Wh'Ch cred'ls . omoflg construction), low-emitting planned from the very start.
the LEED cred” rating materials (adhesives and Choosing to use recycled
5Y5lem are 905W sealants, paints, carpets), and regional materials is just
Oblalned for buildings daylight and views a matter of selection. IEQ 4
without considerable (possibility of both, can be easy if it is planned
4) increase in cost? dependent on type of projecQ and executed properly.
I am using these credits on the
This research focuses on "Pam mole“ I am working on
credit MR 5-Regional nght now. Every project I
Building materials. How have Worked on has attempted
.. . to achieve these pornts. On
fomlllor are you w'lh one project we did have
cred” MR 5'] and MR difficulty, but for the most Extremely familiar, I have
5'2? HOV? .YOU used part projects in the Midwest used this credit in every one
lhese credits "7 any LEED have an exceptional range of of my LEED projects. We
certification 0f bUlldanS products to pull from that are chose materials based on
that you have been within a 500 mile radius of their distance from our site
5) involved with? Explain. their site. for a number of reasons.
The benefit of buying
materials locally is on
several levels. One, it
reduces the embodied
energy in the product. If it
doesn’t have to be shipped
Benefits include reducing fi'om a long distance the fuel
. ollution (especially from consumption for
What are the {benefits frucks), working with local transportation is reduced.
that C9" be attainedby companies (possibly finding Thus making it a more
pr ocuring Of magnets new partners to work with or sustainable product. Also
from regional receive discounts for bulk on another scale, if you buy
manUICCIUfeTS and buys from a smaller regional materials you are
obtaining the LEED producer), building economy supporting your local
6) credit? flour area. economy.

 

148

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1st round of interviews

 

Please outline the
processes, from design
through construction
completion that you
have used for
compliance with the
requirements of credit
MR 5 for regional

In design the products need to
be researched (to find new
products) and investigated (to
ensure quality) and then
included in the specifications.
Once included in the
specifications, the contractor
needs to attempt to procure
products from regional
manufacturers whenever
possible. During construction
the designer or, more likely,
the contractor, needs to keep
records of which products are
manufactured from within the
500 mile radius and, of those,
which also have their raw
materials pulled from within
that same radius. At
completion of construction
the LEED AP needs to run the
calculations with that
information to determine
whether the threshold for
LEED credits has been

The process starts in the
design phase; you have to
decide what materials the
building is going to be built
from. For instance our last
LEED project we choose to
use Insulated Concrete
Forms instead of a steel
frame because concrete is a
regional material. I could
also specify the use of fly
ash in the concrete. Fly ash
is a waste product from the
coal burning electrical
generation industry. It is
considered recycled content.
The next part is specifying
the material’s use in the bid
documents and making sure
the bidders have taken this
into account in their bids.
The last phase is having
strong site supervision
during construction to make
sure the products you want

 

7) materials. achieved. are being installed.
Please describe the
roles of the following in
obtaining compliance
for credits MR 5.1 and
8) MR 5.2

 

a. Client

Encouraging local product use
and accepting the possibility
of lesser name products on the
job if they are local and equal
in quality to a more known
name brand.

The client must first
understand the goals of the
project and be passionate
about them. If this happens,
the project can go very
smoothly.

 

 

 

b. Architect/ Designer

 

Investigating products and
doing the research to
determine if local products
are available and of a certain
quality. Including local
products in the specifications
and other design documents.

 

The architect must have an
understanding of sustainable
practices and be able to
specify the proper materials
for the job. The architect
should have an
understanding of the
practical application of the
materials.

 

149

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

c. General Contractor

Ensure bidding with subs and
vendors includes
local/regional products.
Encourage subs and vendors
to include local products
whenever feasible. Note
which products are being used
that are within the 500 mile
radius; keep spreadsheet on
total cost of project materials,
individual costs of applicable

local materials (names of
companies, products); get
back up materials from

vendors verifying that the
manufacture location is within
500 mile radius

The general contractor must
understand the goals of the
architect and the client. The
general contractor must also
have an awareness of
sustainable practices and the
practical knowledge of how
to apply them. The GC
must also pay attention to
the application of these
processes to ensure they are

done right.

 

d. Sub-contractors

Bid projects with local
materials whenever possible;
ensure use of those materials
by work teams on project; get
information from
manufacturer to give to CC or
CM; break out price of
materials from labor and
taxes, fees, etc. in bid — give
to GC or CM.

The sub contractors must
also understand the goals of
the architect and client.
They must be able to take
direction from the GC
regarding proper procedure.
They need to have an
understanding of sustainable
practices as it applies to
their trade and have the
integrity to do the job
properly.

 

9)

What is the
documentation process
for compliance with the
followimredits?

 

 

 

MR5.l

 

Track materials that have
been used on project that are
manufactured within 500 mile
radius. Break out costs
between labor, materials, fees,
etc — use only material costs
in calculations. Calculate how
much money was spent on
local materials versus whole
project materials. If meet 20%
threshold, credit achieved.
Submit calculations, letter
template declaration — have
back up showing info used for
calculations and statements of
manufacture location from
manufacturers ready to go in
case of audit during submittal
process.

 

We use the LEED calculator
provided by the USGBC

 

150

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

Same as above, though once
have list of manufacturers
whose products come from
within 500 mile radius, query
them on where their materials
for those products are drawn
from. . .possibility the
materials could help qualify
for both 5.1 and 5.2 credits.
For those products whose
materials also come from
within 500 mile radius, get
letters of statement from
manufacturers as well as cost
of those raw materials versus
cost of overall product. Use
those raw materials cost
numbers for calculation to
verify half of all products

noted in 5.1 also have
materials qualifying for 5.2.
Submit letter template

declaration and calculations.
Have back up info used for
calculations and statement
letters from manufacturers
ready in case of audit during

 

MR5.2 submission process. Same

HOW do YOU I use my subcontractors and
research/develop your suppliers to help supply
llSl 0f GreenSpec, online, word of information on this. I also
monUfOClUrel’S/VGNdOl’S mouth/networking with other do a fair amount of research

 

 

 

 

 

that are within the MR 5 professionals, work with on a daily basis to find
10) proximity limits? contractors. products I need.
Have you prepared a list
Of Do not have a comprehensive
manufacturers/vendors list prepared now but could
related . l0 _ Proleds pull one together from
localed 'n M'Chlgan 0’ spreadsheets assembled by
BOTder Slales for contractors for LEED credit I have some information
compliance with MR 5 compliance and specifications regarding the products I’ve
l 1) limits? from those projects. used in the past.
I am in the midst of preparing
documentation on MR5 Yes, I have had to do both.
credits now. Have not We try to make sure our
Have YOU prepared or reviewed them from an subcontractors get the
reviewed MR 5 official reviewer’s information correct in the
12) documents/submittals? perspective. bidding process.

 

 

151

 

Interview Response Matrix —- LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

How difficult are credits
MR 5.1 and MR 5.2 to

Depends on the location of
the project in the country and
the type of project being
done. Some areas like those
on the coasts (or more
obviously — Hawaii) will have
more of a difficulty getting
the maximum benefit from
any situation involving a
radius from project site due to
proximity to oceans. Some
areas do not have varied types
of materials being
manufactured within their
region. Types of projects can
also influence the level of
difficulty because certain
project types are more
demanding in their building
requirements and may not
have room to find or use local
materials (i.e. clean rooms,
high technology areas,
surgical suites, etc.)

Overall, if your area is
abundant with a variety of
manufacturers and you have a
general project type (a
commercial office building in
Michigan or Ohio), you
should be able to achieve the
MRS credits fairly easily in
terms of finding and using
materials. The more difficulty
aspect, for any project
anywhere, is keeping up with
the paperwork of what was
made where and with what
material from where and how
much it all costs. That is the
more difficult part that could

There is some difficulty
here due to the lack of a
database of regional
materials for this area. If
there were a database that I
could plug in an address and
it could tell me how far
away a material is from me,

 

 

 

 

 

achieve for discourage a project from my life would be much
13) certification? ’ achieving these credits. easier.

What difficulties have

YOU encountered or The trouble is getting

heard . ObOUl 'n See above....documentation suppliers to get you the

developing . and keeping up with required correct information.

documentation for MR numbers, materials, products, Sometimes it takes a few
14) 5.1 and MR 5.2? back up statements, etc. phone calls.

 

152

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

15)

How is the
documentation
reviewed by LEED
certified professionals
like you? What problems
have you encountered
during the process?

I have not reviewed a project
for compliance with these
credits. To my knowledge
there are only five companies
who do the official LEED
reviews of projects.
Reviewing materials to
submit for a project (materials
received from contractors,
etc) have been difficult
because it is a daunting task
for everyone involved and
ofientimes the contractors do
not have someone dedicated
to LEED only. Information
can lag behind schedule and
final assembly and review of
info can be pushed to the last
minute of a project, which
makes it more difficult to add
more products to the project if
necessary or get the back up
information needed from the
manufacturers.

I feel that if you’ve been
diligent in the process up to
that point, documentation
shouldn’t be a problem.

 

 

16)

17)

 

Do you have a
documentation and
specification package
for LEED that I can
review?

Can you explain your
method for tallying total
project costs and costs
of individual materials in
compliance with the
requirements for MR 5.]
and MR 5.2.

 

I have a sample spreadsheet
the contractor has been
keeping throughout the
project that tracks materials
for recycled content, local
manufacture, etc. that you
could look at. I would not
want it shared without
permission from the
contractor. The specifications
I can access and get to you, if
needed. I do not have day to
day access to them at this
time.

Everything is tied into the
spreadsheet. Excel can help
track and and add the project
costs for materials very easily
for you.

 

I have some specifications
that I can forward along

We use the LEED calculator
that is provided by the
USGBC

 

153

 

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1st round of interviews

 

18)

Credit MR 5.2 requires
locating extraction
sources of individual
component materials of
an assembly. What is the
process followed by
LEED Accredited
Professionals for
assessment of
percentages of different
materials in an assembly
and calculating the
distance between the
location of extraction
and projgct site?

Location of extraction needs
to be found from the
manufacturer. Once that is
known, the LEED AP needs
to locate that city on a map
and compare it to a 500 mile
radius. Because the 500 mile
radius is ‘as the crow flies’
one would only shortchange
themselves to use something
like Yahoo or Mapquest to
calculate the distances as
these programs use driving
miles and rely on where
actual roads are. For
percentages of materials in an
assembly, the easiest way I
have found for the
calculations is to ask the
manufacturer to break down
the cost of the various
materials in the product. Then
one can use those material
costs and load those into the
calculation directly instead of
having to interpolate from
percentage based product
lists.

I haven’t had to go to this
much detail. We don’t use
many assemblies.

 

 

l9)

 

What are the difficulties
faced by a project
team in calculation of
material percentages
within an assembly and
their respective
distances for credit MR
5.2?

 

Not taking the manufacturer’s
word on distance calculations
as fact without checking the
radius themselves - many
manufacturers use the yahoo
and mapquest programs and
automatically count
themselves out of the running
for this credit when they
could, in fact, be eligible.
That takes time on the LEED
AP’s part to verify distances.
Making the calls or requests
to the manufacturers for their
product materials lists also
takes time and manufacturers
may not be willing to give up
that information or may not
have it immediately
accessible and ready to send
out. More and more are
becoming familiar with LEED
requirements though and are
starting to pull the
information together so it is
ready when their product is
used on another LEED

 

See question 18

 

154

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 1St round of interviews

 

 

20)

 

Do you have any
suggestions for me
which will help me as I
develop my framework
for developing a
database of regional
materials?

 

Work with the folks out at
GreenSpec and
Environmental Building
News. They have a database
already started and they could
help jump start your regional
database with the information
they already have on hand of
products that could help a
project meet other credit
reiniirements.

 

Try to develop a distance
calculation so I can easily
see how far the material is
away from my project. This
may be as simple as a link
to www.mapquest.com.

 

155

 

 

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 2“d round of interviews

 

Q.No

Second round of LAP
interviews

A

 

ll

Do you have any
suggestions on how the
database of
manufacturers should
be organized?

It should follow the CSI
format or format of
specifications. Its typical so
that’s why. Have some kind of
cross reference to LEED
credits.

 

2)

The researcher initially
selected divisions l to 14
for classification of
manufacturers of
construction materials.
Divisions l5 and 16 were
eliminated since credit
MR 5.1 and 5.2 do not
consider mechanical
and electrical systems.
From your experiences
with LEED certified
buildings, which divisions
from I to 14 could be
eliminated from the
database because they
make negligible
contributions in
achieving MR 5.] and
5.2 credits?

10, ll, 12, 13, 14. There are
elements within special
construction which can be
added into the recycled
content credit.

 

 

3)

 

Each CSI division consists
of sections which are
further divided into
categories containing
levels (see example). To
what level should the
classification be
maintained for the
database in order to
provide a
comprehensive list of
manufacturers which will
help users in
procurement of regional
materials, efficiently?

 

Keep it general. Don’t go to
the final level and as it builds
you can add more detail. It’s
not too different for 5.1 or 5.2.

 

156

 

 

 

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 21’" round of interviews

 

Since CSI is the basis,
(haven’t thought this out.
What happens if you create a
pre-amble of the CSI
divisions? Data regarding the
materials resides in the
sections. Looking at it from
LEED point of view.
Is there a way to link-up the
LEED credits to the database?
If someone wants to check
Do You have any credit MR 5, the system shows
. . that some company is in the
suggestions for reducmg area within 500 miles. Take
the Size of. the database zip code number which shows
and keeping focused on how far you are from the
materials and products plant. A key that allows
Wthh heClVllY influence people to see their location
gaining credit for MR 5.2 from the manufacturing zip
4L and 5.2? code.

 

 

Do you have any other
suggestions for
classification of
manufacturer
information in the
database which would
improve the usefulness Not any. CSI system is the
5) of the database? way to go for classification.

 

 

 

 

157

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 2"‘1 round of interviews

 

Second round of LAP

C

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q.No Interviews

The most helpful way to

organize a database of

manufacturers would be by

spec section or even CSI

division. Building

professionals, including

architects, engineers,

contractors, and

vendors/manufacturers are all The best way that I can think
DO YOU have any familiar with this system and it of is by CSI division. It is
5U99e5l'0n5 0” how me would be, in my opinion, a the most common
dOlObase 0f selling point to be part of a classification system in
manufacturers should database that was easily construction. I think you’re

1) be omnized? searchable and usable. on the right track.

Actually, division I is

administrative only and will

not have an effect on

manufacturer location.
The researcher initially Divisions 11-14 are hot
seleCled leiSlonS I to I4 expected to contribute to the
for classification of local/regional credit
manufacturers of calculations.
construction materials.
Divisions 15 and l6 were The most important divisions
eliminated since credit to achieving these credits are
MR 5.l and 5.2 do not those that have high 005!
consider mechanical materials in “1?“? like 213’
and electrical systems. and 4. Basrc building materials
From your experiences like steel, concrete, and brick
with LEED certified gebégtéflffigfmgg‘
bunldings, which diViSions and cost on a project and will
"9"! I to ‘4 COUId be have more influence on the Division 1 is general
el'm'nOled from the percentages required to conditions I can’t see how
database Peccuse iheY achieve any of the credits in this would relate. Division 7
make negligible the MR section of LEED that is questionable, as well as 10,
COlelbUllons in are dependent on ll, 13, & 14. Most of these
achieving MR 5.1 and benchmarking against ‘total items aren’t available on a

2) 5.2 credits? materials cost’ local or regional level.

 

158

 

Interview Response Matrix — LEED Accredited Professional, 2"d round of interviews

 

Each CSI division consists
of sections which are
further divided into
categories containing
levels (see example). To
what level should the
classification be
maintained for the
database in order to
provide a
comprehensive list of
manufacturers which will
help users in
procurement of regional

I think maintaining a database
to the second level of CSI
classification would be helpful
enough. Going to the third
level may be helpful, but
sometimes the materials can
be listed in several third level
sections depending on who is
writing the specs. Second level
classification would also be
quite enough work for anyone
organizing and updating the

You could almost get down
to just classifying them by
the root CSI division. At this
stage it may over complicate
your database to go much
further then that. How many
companies are actually going
into the database? I feel a
root division classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) materials, efficiently? database. would be sufficient.
Focus on the 2-5 divisions, not
only because they generally
have the higher costs on a
project but also because, for
4) Do you have any :18 Stags? M'caflifit’hem g}
suggestions for reducing manufacturers in our region
the size of the database that provide products in 2_5 _
and keeping focused on more so than the other
materials and products divisions of products
which heavily influence (excepting furniture, which
gaining credit for MR 5.2 doesn’t count in this credit’s See the answer above. I
4) and 5.2? calculations anyway). think it describes it.
Once the manufacturers are
classified by CSI division and
section, perhaps they could be
organized by state and then in
alphabetical order. Depending
on where your project is
within the state of Michigan,
manufacturers in Illinois or
Iowa may or may not help.
5) DO you hoYe any Perhaps the contractor would
other SUggeSllons for find it helpful to work with
CIOSSIficatlon Of manufacturers who are closer Like I’ve said before, it
manufacturer to the project site than others would be nice to be able to
information 'n the who may be a state judge distance from a
d0l0b05e Wthh WOUld away...perhaps it would help particular job site. This
improve the usefulness them negotiate costs due to could be as easy as link to
5) of the database? reduced shipping or haflg? mapquest.

 

159

 

Michigan State University Physical Plant Construction

Interview Response Matrix — Michigan State University Physical Plant Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Staff
Q.No Demographics A B
Describe your primary
role in the building
construction process Omitted to maintain Omitted to maintain
1) carried out within MSU. anonymity anonymity
How long have you
been in your current
position? What other
work or educational
experiences have you
had that provide
background for you Omitted to maintain Omitted to maintain
2) current position? anonymity anonymity
MSU construction and LEED Rating system
Not in detail, just conceptually.
Attended AIA presentation to
members many times over
Are you familiar with years, Have not used LEED
the LEED credit rating submittal process for
3) system? certification. Fairly familiar.
Favorable, if justified by life
cycle cost model. We use
materials and equipments that
have long useful lives. We View incorporation of
design buildings that protect sustainable construction as a
. . . mechanical and electrical positive development. We are
What '5_M'Ch'gan Stale equipment as well as in the process of getting
lJn'VerS'IY'S general occupants. We have familiar with it; It will lead to
OllllUde lOWOTdS maintenance programs that a design attitude to include
sustainable monitor & correct performance sustainable designs as a
4) construction? of systems. matter of course.
Do MSU construction
Standard? CPHS'der Not specifically. MSU
green bU'ldan construction standards have
leChnlqueS 05 O PrlOIllY Not currently, but as a priority always emphasized low
for CODSlTUCthD Of for development of the next energy & life-cycle costs.
5) buildings? edition. Expanding on it.

 

 

 

 

160

 

 

Interview Response Matrix — Michigan State University Physical Plant Staff

 

6)

To what extent are green
design principles
implemented in
construction on MSU
campus?

Currently not part of our
criteria for design. We look at it
from the maintenance point of
view.

Energy conservation has been
a long standing policy. Using
high quality materials,
University views this as an
issue which should be a
university priority without
substantial increase in cost.

 

7)

This research deals with
selection of regional
materials/manufacturers
for construction-

 

How does MSU develop
standards for selection of
a particular product for
construction?

1) Previous experience that is
positive for performance and
maintenance 2)
Performance criteria

Focuses on life-cycle cost;
Materials, devices or systems
are selected to see if the
function is completed.
Lowest life-cycle
cost/maintenance issues are
important. First cost is never
an issue.

 

Does MSU
specify/suggest vendors
via specifications to
contractors for
procurement of
materials?

Yes, but as an example of
suppliers of products that meet
the performance criteria of the
specifications. Depending on
the sophistication of the project
for larger projects, hire
consultants. Meet or exceed
standards; lifecycle policy is
followed.

Yes, standards in bid
documents generally have a
technical description that
gives key minimum
requirements for the
materials. Lists 3-4
manufacturers based on
experience. Contractor is
given an option of giving
new material which is subject
to review

 

8l

Credit MR 5.1 of the LEED
rating system requires
usage of 20% of building
materials procured from
manufacturers/vendors
within 500 miles of the
project site. Credit 5.2
requires 50% of those
materials to be
extracted/harvested
within a 500 miles radius
of the same prg’ect site.

 

 

 

a. What difficulties do you
think one may encounter,
while trying to gain
compliance with the
standard stated above?

 

We live in a national and global
economy. To procure our
traditional building materials
such as brick, limestone, glass
and aluminum, from "local"
producers could prove
impossible or non-competitive.
Vendor is possible,
manufacturer is quite difficult.

 

The main problem - there
aren't many suppliers who
have this information;
Construction material
components are built all over
the world.

 

161

 

Interview Response Matrix - Michign State University Physical Plant Staff

 

If this research suggested
products which would
enable MSU to use MR 5.]
and MR 5.2 - How should

Cost is important. University
is willing to pay premium for
compliance (how much - not
decided).

Durability/performance will
not be compromised - Equal

 

 

 

 

 

lhese prOdUCls be to university standards or

eVOlUOled? leg- COSII better. We review

DUTObllllYo performance, manufacturers, talk to users

SpeCifications, vendors, All of the above including whom the vendor has sold it
9) etc.) maintenance costs to.

Does MSU have a general

list of preferred

manufacturers/vendors Appears in the standards by

for materials used during MSU standards for construction products. It’s being refined
10) construction? include them by reference. and updated Legularly.

 

162

 

Interview Response Matrix — Michigan State University Physical Plant Staff

 

Q.No.

Demogaphlcs

These were combined interviews with interviewess

responses noted together.

 

ll

Describe your primary role
in the building construction
process carried out within
MSU.

Omitted to maintain

anonymity

Omitted to maintain anonymity

 

 

2)

 

How long have you been
in your current position?
What other work or
educational experiences
have you had that provide
background for you
current position?

 

Omitted to maintain

anonflnii

 

Omitted to maintain anonymity

 

 

MSU construction and lEED
Rating system

 

3)

Are you familiar with the
LEED credit rating sLstem?

Yes

Yes

 

4)

What is Michigan State
University's general
attitude towards

sustainable construction?

"Say" they support it -
no money yet. Not
considered as a goal; for
years been involved with
LCC, sustainable
practices have always
been there. Distinguish
between sustainable
practices and LEED

Receptive but not yet a goal

 

5)

Do MSU construction
standards consider green
building techniques as a
priority for construction of
builcmgs?

No. Some people think
we should consider it;
Cost factor is important;
As energy costs increase
we need to see how these
thinggonserve energy.

No

 

6)

To what extent are green
design principles
implemented in
construction on MSU
campus?

A lot in energy areas,
meeting ASHRAE 90.1,
Central building control,
not a lot of motion
detectors.

Somewhat in
Mechanical/Electrical areas.
Example: ASHRAE 90.1,
BuildingAutomated Systems.

 

7)

This research deals with
selection of regional
materials/manufacturers
for construction-

 

 

 

How does MSU develop
standards for selection of
a particular product for
construction?

 

Service has

doubled

space
while staff
numbers have gone
down, servicing
consideration. Life-cycle
costs, experience, first
cost. Staying with ones
which have been

 

experience,
reliability,

Life-cycle costs,
low maintenance,
serviceability.

 

163

 

 

 

Interview Response Matrix — Michigan State University Physical Plant Staff

 

effective. We do move
into new systems/ A lot
is historical experience/
company that supplies
products and installs is
important. A lot it also
has to do with code
issues. Support from
dealers in important.

 

Does MSU specify/suggest
vendors via specifications
to contractors for
procurement of materials?

We specify, 5 through 14
divisions, 4—5
manufacturers. We
specify the product; Lot
of cases where we do
performance
specifications. If you
wan to substitute some
product, you have to
specify before bids. Very
particular about certain
products like firme
hoods.

Yes, based on above criteria.
Manufacturers are specified -
not suppliers.

 

8)

Credit MR 5.1 of the LEED
rating system requires
usage of 20% of building
materials procured from
manufacturers/vendors
within 500 miles of the
project site. Credit 5.2
requires 50% of those
materials to be
extracted/harvested
within a 500 miles radius of
the same project site.

 

What difficulties do you
think one may encounter.
while trying to gain
compliance with the
standard stated above?

Reduced competition,
reduced variety. Cost to
track and certify it,
expense in validating.
Scope of specification
reduced. We could only
as manufacturer to
certify.

Reduced competition, reduced
variety, you can't find some
products locally, time to certify
and validate sources.

 

 

91

 

If this research suggested
products which would
enable MSU to use MR 5.]
and MR 5.2 - How should
these products be
evaluated? (eg. Cost.
Durability, performance.
specifications, vendors.
etc.)

 

sameas7a

 

 

164

 

 

Interview Response Matrix — Micman State University Physical Plant Staff

 

 

Products we're currently
using rate against 5.1
and 5.2. Need to see
current benchmark and
see how we fare.
Difficult in our bidding
system to get
manufactured price &
installed price; they
Does MSU have a general won't give us real price.
"5i 0f preferred Would be interesting to
manufacturers/vendors for see how soon can we ask
materials used during for breakdown of price-
1 0) construction? duringbid/later/earlier?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

165

Interview Response Matrix — Construction Manager

Construction Manager

A

 

Q.No.

Demographics

 

l)

cunent
your

What is your
position at
orginization?

Omitted to maintain

anoaymity

Omitted to maintain anonymity

 

2)

What work or
educational experiences
have you had for your
current work?

 

Omitted to maintain

anonymity

Omitted to maintain anonymi

 

Building Construction and LEED Certification

 

19

Are you familiar with the
LEED Rating System for
Green Building
certification?

Yes

Yes

 

4)

How many projects have
you handled which had
set goals for LEED
certification?

Working on the 8th LEED
project.

3 completed, working on 2, 3 in
the pipeline

 

5)

What was your primary
role in the LEED
certification process
during the construction
of those buildings?

Varied by project; Most
recently, the documentation
process.

project coordinator,

documentation

 

6)

In the construction
projects that you were
involved with for LEED
certification, what was
the approximate
percentage increase in
upfront costs as
compared to a building
of similar size, built
without LEED
certification goals? How
was this determined?

Probably, 2% increase in
management costs (hrs).
Construction project -
Depends on what points
you're going after: 5-7 %;
Its cominggiwn.

It really depends on the type of
project you're working on.
Some projects demand more,
others don't. depends on credits
too. I would say, roughly, 1-3
% in man hours and around 6-8
% in construction costs.

 

 

7)

 

Which credits among
the LEED credit rating
system were easily
managed by the
building without
considerable increase in
cost

 

 

 

166

 

 

Interview Response Matrix — Construction Manager

 

Waste Recycling very
minimal IAQ
compliant with ASHRAE
LEED Accredited
Professional Some site credits, regional
Depending on project- materials, recycled content,
regional materials IAQ management, We already
Remodeling jobs have follow ASHRAE. So those are
For the project- difficulty easy.

 

Administrative cost to
CM/AE-

Costs minimal in recycled
content

Design related credits. If there
is paperwork to be processed
then we have to put people on
the job which costs money.

 

This research focuses on
credit MR 5-Regianal
Building materials. How
familiar are you with
credit MR 5.] and MR
5.2? Have you used
these credits in any of
the LEED certified
construction projects
that you have been

5.] - all the projects
5.2 - If its new, its not
difficult; for renovation its

5.1- is easy to get. We achieved
that credit for all our projects.
For 5.2 its difficult to get
information because even
manufacturers don't have that

 

 

8) involved with? difficult information.
What were the benefits
that were achieved by
your bU'ld'ng preject by Sometimes you get good deals
conforming l0 me because you work with those
DTOCUremenl 0f Helps regional economy, people often, local economy
materials from regional Typically most of the flourishes. I guess we save firel
fl manufacturer's credit? deliveries are down. too. Not sure about that.
Getting the information
What . were the from the subs, Requires The information is not
d'ff'_CUll'es faced by your LEED does to be submitted available. These days some
prOject team "1 me with shop drawings, Much suppliers have the information
dOCUmenlClllon Process easier if started early, LEED but it takes time. But its
required for credit MR certification varies by changing as people are getting
10) 5.] and MR 5.2? project. used to the requirements.

 

 

ll)

 

Do you have any
suggestions for me which
will help me as l develop
my framework for
developing a database
of regional materials?

 

Database would be very
helpful, research on the
intemet. There is no current
database which provides
such information. It should
speed verification process.

With version 2.2,
certification will be
difficult.

 

It’s a good approach and I think
it would be helpful. It might
save some time. I don't know of
any method of doing this except
if I would be able to search for
items within the region; That
would make our work much
easier.

 

167

 

Interview Response Matrix — Construction Manager

 

Q.No.

Demographics

C

 

ll

cunent
your

What is your
position at
or anizatian?

Omitted to maintain

anonymity

 

 

2)

 

What work or
educational experiences
have you had for your
current work?

 

Omitted to maintain

anonymity

 

 

Building Construction
and lEED Certification

 

3)

Are you familiar with the
LEED Rating System for
Green Building
certification?

Yes

 

41

How many projects have
you handled which had
set goals for LEED
certification?

3 completed, working on 4
currently.

 

5)

What was your primary
role in the LEED
certification process
during the construction
of those buildings?

Some part in documentation
co-ordination, I deal with
subs for information.

 

6)

In the construction
projects that you were
involved with for LEED
certification, what was
the approximate
percentage increase in
upfront costs as
compared to a building
of similar size, built
without LEED certification
goals? How was this
determined?

I cannot give you an exact
figure for the increase in
costs. I would say roughly
7-10% but it depends on the
credits. If we're very
ambitious then that cost can
go up further. Difficult to
estimate increase in
management costs.
around 2-3%.

Say,

 

 

71

 

Which credits among
the LEED credit rating
system were easily
managed by the
building without
considerable increase in
cost

 

 

168

 

 

 

 

Interview Response Matrix - Construction Manager

 

Some don't cost any money
at all. The one that you're
dealing with - regional
materials, That is an easy
credit to get. Construction
waste, site credits,
ASHRAE compliance
For the project- which we already do.

 

Can't say credit wise
Administrative cost to because we've never
CM/AE - conducted such an analysis.

 

This research focuses on
credit MR 5—Regional
Building materials. How
familiar are you with
credit MR 5.l and MR
5.2? Have you used
these credits in any of
the LEED certified

construction projects
that you have been Very familiar. Used it in
8) involved with? every moject until now.

 

What were the benefits
that were achieved by

yoLJr bUIldlng prOject by It helps regional economy
conforming to the for one. It’s supposed to
DIOCUremenl 0f reduce lead time too but that
materials from regional really depends on the
9) manufacturer's credit? suppliers.

 

What were the difficulties Infomahm from subs -

faced by Your prOieCl very difficult to get. Most of

team in the them don't really care. We
documentation process have to put a person on the

required for credit MR 5.l job at times just to get that
IQ and MR 5.2? information.

 

 

This database could be
helpful if it gives the
information which we need.

Do ye” have any You are going on the right
suggestions for me which hack and I can’t imagine

will help me as I develop how you could do this
mY fromeWOfk for otherwise. Follow CSI
developing a database format. I think that’s about
ll) of regional materials? it.

 

 

 

 

169

 

Framework and Database Validation

 

A

B

 

1)

As a user, how useful is the
database in providing you
information for regional
manufacturers, in its
current form? You may
choose to rate its usability
on a scale or i to 5 (l -
very difficult, 2 — less
difficult, 3 - moderately
easy, 4 — easy, 5 - very
easy). What are your
suggestions?

The information that has
been gathered is very good.
It looks like for the most part
you concentrated on
Michigan companies. By
LEED standards our 500
mile radius goes quite a bit
farther then Michigan but I
assume you didn’t have the
time to look into companies
that far away. I think the
usability of the database
needs to be worked on a bit.
It is a little cumbersome to
work with. Maybe a better
user interface may help a lot.
Usability I’d rate between a
I and 2.

Using the given scale I would
rate it 3. Although the database
seems to be quite useful as a
user it might be difficult to
retrieve data in this form.
Looking through rows and
columns manually is hard for
someone like me.

 

Looking at the contents of
the database. does the
database

comprehensively cover
the products/materials
that aid certification for
credits MR 5.l and 5.2?
You may choose to rate

As I said above, it looks like
the main focus was on
Michigan companies. What
you have put together as a
list of Michigan companies
is great but our boundary
goes a lot further then that.
So if I were rating it based
on Michigan companies I’d

I think the database has covered
most divisions and materials
which are important for the
credit. However, it is Michigan
based. Michigan has a large
manufacturing base which
makes it workable but the credit
requirements say otherwise. I
give a 3 as its rating for this

 

 

 

2) its comprehensweness on give it a 5, If we.” talking aspect
a scale or Lie 5 ll - net about over the 500 mile
comprehenSive, 2 — less radius I’d give M3.
comprehensive, 3 -
moderately
comprehensive, 4 - quite
comprehensive, 5 - very
comprehensive). What
are your summons?
Are there any There are no major None that I can think of right
manufacturers that you omissions that stand out to now
3) know of that have not me-
been included in the
database?
How would you overall Overall I’d give it a 3. The The database is useful with its
rate the database for its biggest thing wouldbeto get format and your method. I
content, format and the usability handled. would like to rate it between 3
method of development? and 4 .because. it PFOVideS
You may choose to give helpful information but more
4) an overall rating on 0 information 1S needed. The task

 

scale or i to 5 (l - very
bad, 2 - bad, 3 - Ok, 4 -
good, 5 - very good).
What are your
suggestions?

 

 

of collecting information such
as this is phenomenal.

 

170

 

 

 

 

Framework and Database Validation

 

 

5)

 

Do you have any
suggestions regarding the
content and form of
development of the
database?

 

When you’re doing a project
like this you have to give
special thought to how the
end user is going to react to
what you’re doing. It may
seem totally logical when
you’re working on it but
someone else can look at it
and say, I don’t get it. Make
the user interface attractive
and simple to use. Couple
that with the great
information you have
collected and you’ve got a
stellar database.

 

I remember suggesting links
within the database to
mapquest. You have managed
to document travel distances
which are useful. The method
that you have used has its pros
and cons. On one hand,
collecting information by
conducting telephone calls does
not seem feasible. However,
such information is not
available from any source. I
guess this is one of the better
ways of collecting information.

 

171

 

Framework and Database Validation

 

C

 

ll

As a user, how useful is the
database in providing
you information for
regional manufacturers, in
its current form? You may
choose to rate its usability
on a scale or i to 5(1-
very difficult, 2 — less
difficult, 3 — moderately
easy, 4 - easy, 5 — very
easy). What are your
suggestions?

I was very impressed by the work
that you have done. Within the
given context, the database looks
useful. It can be improved,
however, by including more
manufacturers. I still think the
information can be used for a

project satisfactorily but
sometimes we prefer going further
than Michigan based

manufacturers to get better deals.
It’s difficult to use the database in
the current form. So I'll rate it at 3.

 

Looking at the contents of
the database, does the
database

comprehensively cover
the products/materials
that aid certification for
credits MR 5.] and 5.2?
You may choose to rate

Most products that you have
included in the database are, kind
of, the ones which are useful for
this credit. You have not included
some concrete products and
aggregates but the reasoning
behind it is logical. They are
locally available everywhere at
least in Michigan. A rating of 3 is

 

 

 

 

2) its comprehensiveness on good for the database.
a scale or i to 5 (i - not
comprehensive, 2 — less
comprehensive, 3 -
moderately
comprehensive, 4 - quite
comprehensive, 5 - very
comprehensive). What
are your suggestions?
Are there any There might be a few but I will
manufacturers that you have to look up our sources.
3) know of that have not Seems comprehensive enough
been included in the though.
database?
How would you overall For format and method of
rate the database for its development - I will give it a 4.
content, format and For content - maybe 3. Like I said
method of development? before, Some information could be
You may choose to give added. Consideringaradius of 590
4) on overall rating on o or 300 rmles for the database wrll
scale or i to 5 (l - very mcorpo’ate many m°r°
manufacturers.

 

bad, 2 — bad, 3 - Ok, 4 —
good, 5 — very good).
What are your
suggestions?

 

 

 

172

 

 

Framework and Database Validation

 

 

5)

 

Do you have any
suggestions regarding the
content and form of
development of the
database?

 

User interface needs to be
developed. We have had
suggestions for other green
material databases for quick search
methods. If that is combined with
this database it will be a very
valuable tool. Other than that, the
methods that you have used seem
to be reasonable and effective. I
don't quite see any other way of
collecting information for the
database. The framework depicts a
reasonable approach to the
problem. I can't think of any other
method right now that would work
for this case.

 

173

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D

Sample building Study Schedule of Values

174

Sample building Study Schedule of Values - Cyclotron Addition Project

APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMEN

Project: 2024l8— MSU CyclotmnAddm

To Owner:
Michigan State University

Physical Plant
East Lansing. MI 48824

From Contractor:
The Christman Company
408 Kalamazoo Plaza

Lansing MI 4893 3- l 990

Via (Architect): Harl

Contract For:

Contract Date:

APPRC
PHYSII
ENGINEERIN

   
 

 

 

 

 

CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT

Application is made for payment. as shown below. in connection with the Contacc

Continuation Sheet is attached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

l. Original Contract Sum .......................... $3_205.|og
2. Net Change By Change Order ................... $207.46)
3. Contract Sum To Date .......................... $3.4 I 2,569
4. Total Completed and Stored To Date .............. $3.4 I 2.569
S. Retainage :
a. 0.00% 0! Completed Work $0
0.00% of Stored Material 50
Tatal Retainage ............................. $0
6. Total Earned Less Retainage ..................... ”'4'2'569
7. Less Previous Certificates For Payments ............ 53.401050
8. Current Payment Due ........................... $9,509
9. Balance To Finish. Plus Retainage ................. $0
CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY Additions Deductions
Total changes approved
in previous months by Owner 5225-940 50
Tatal Approved this Month $0 $l9.479
TOTALS 5216-940 $19,479
Net Changes By Change Order $207.4“

 

 

 

 

175

Sample building Study Schedule of Values - Cyclotron Addition Project

CONTINUATION SHEET

 

Application and Certflcation for Payment, containing

Contractor's signed certification is attached.

In tabulations below, amounts are stated to the nearest dollar.
Use Column I on Contracts where variable retainage for line items may apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invoice #: HNAL Contract: 2024 I 8- MSU Cyclotron Additio
.__A— B C I)
Item Description of Work Scheduled
No. Value From Previous
Application
(0‘5)
02 Earthwork and Utilities 94.906 94.906
W.P.M. Inc.
06 Bituminous Paving 0 0
07 Fencing 9,952 9.952
DeWitt Fencing Co.
l0 General Trades 366.5I9 366.5l9
Christman Constructors
l IA Window Infill 9.750 9.750
Schiffer Mason Contractors
IIB Masonry 274.537 274.537
) 8: D Masonry
l2 Structural Steel 206.597 206.597
Douglas Steel
l4 Roofing and Sheetmetal l03.57l l03.57l
Mid-Michigan Roofing
l5 Architecrural Metals 8.530 8,530
l 8 Doors and Windows l20.897 I20.897
Aaron Glass
l9 Caulking l5.l23 l5.l23
American Seal 8: Restoration
20A Doors. Frames. Hardware 65.008 65.008
Architectural Openings 8: Access
208 Custom Millwork 28.l44 28.l44
Welch Wood Products

 

 

176

Sample building Study Schedule of Values — Cyclotron Addition Project

CONTINUATION SHEET

Application and Certfication for Payment. containing
Contractor's signed certification is attached.

In tabulations below, amounts are stated to the nearest dollar.
Use Column I on Contracts where variable retainage for line Items may apply.

 

 

 

Invoice #: FlNAL Contract : 2024I8- MSU Cyclotron Addition
L B C D
Item Description of Work Scheduled ____flm:k_§mnp
No. Value From Previous
Application
(n+6)
2i Drywall and Acoustical 234.466 234.466
Wm. Reichenbach
23 Hard Tile and Floor Finishes , 82.925 82.925
Lansing Tile and Mosaic
24 Painting 39.386 39.386
B &] Painting
25A Misc Soecialties 8.705 8.705
Payne-Rosso
258 Educational Specialties 5.826 5.826
Advanced Specialties
26 Fire Protection 37.390 37.390
Bay Fire Protection
27 Mechanical Systems 967.593 967.593
Shaw-Winkler
28 Electrical Systems 287.4l0 285.343
Lutz Electric Company
3i \Mndow Treatments 2.630 2.630
Creative Window
39 Construction Labor 180.458 l77.938
40 Temporary Provisions 599 S99
40A General Conditions 55.935 55.935
4| Bonds l l.460 8.55!
50 Preconstruction 25.440 25.440
60 CM Fee I56.000 IS4.440

 

 

 

 

 

 

177

Appendix E

Example database of Regional Manufacturers of Regional Materials

178

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmoéomémn wofiwv ..on._< cozaEcoCcH mm =2 60962 52.20..
"exmu. momm 5.4. JO *5 oz
-mvoémn "3o... 98.. Home
83¢ cassettes me E 622,: a...
mama :z 2:02.. oz gone: 2.22
-mmmémnnfixmn. ..uU Eoccui
3mm NvaH
-mmmémn ”Eek
meow grantees om Hz imsmmm 0025;:
-omhmmm" #xmm Voowv 02
Bow E 326mm
-omnmwm "3o... :3. >3 comm
wmmm gametes oocto> uoz noooon
-mvvtmvm ” #xmu mmm oz
-mm-m¢v-wv~ me Hz 8923
omem rum
-metoom NEE. =m>> mmmmN
mmNN ameme cater—:85 m3 Hz £3ch3 .0... ..ufl
-memémfiexmu. Hz c3963 oz E0332
3%?me .moo xom .Od 222.00
-HMN memo .5 9.2260
-mmméow "Eek .m SN
Name momm¢ £23,585 m :2 .mclficfl .003. E2: comm
-mmmdfifixmu HZ 9:ch oz cocoa—5:2 moon—Sam
omnm .803 322.00
-mmmKHm rim... xom .Od
.onEB. Boco> .o JESS cozuotxm 9:30.. Jansen? in: 089. .2505 0.30
x2 oco 2.0.30.3 3222 95.02 :3 .o c2500.. tum . .o 5:003 3.228352 .o 2:02 30
- c2500. 3:000. u: \boco>
5.825 tauoScos.
2.5 £5
3:25 3:25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3 39:2 5 35.332 deroguaeu he 9.233.352 we 0255a: «En—enm—

 

 

flanrt .
...t b. a

 

179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm 3.36.62. mm .2 8......
VNN 0.3338“. 02 6:39.50 .090 29.0
onfiméNN mmvmv Hz confluence.
-03 ommm com_con :5
-emeéom :28 88:5 83
Eva 53258:. Nom ...0 .EoEfin. .ue.
-nmndfimuexon. mmmmv .2 oz 6.3323...
$3 taboo .ommmm
-Nmmfifim ”Eek xom .o.n.
ommh ewmmv HZ coszcoE. mm H: .mEmmm £0.60...
-mmeofiouexfi mean”. .256 oz 256 322.8
mmem ..>>.z :3. >o__o> 965
$3703 ”#5... 2.2 m 003
meow... 5.38.8... mm .2 .o___>omom egos...
.Rmm o__.>omom oz 29.800
Annamm . axon. . $3... 2338 So.
ommm xuoomooco
-Rnowm “fob oonN
nmmm coszcan. pac_._m> uoz u: .eouno“.
-mvm-w¢~ . .38“. 33.» oz
3.3-3ng .2 2.35.52
31:. .265
-Rnéom :28 :83: m3
mmme mwomv coszcoE. mm .2 .5th 220.23 322.8 8.1m
-mmnémmuexouz 69:25 625 oz “mauve...
one... .6553. 93%
-mmnémm uuse...
mmm¢ cozoEcoCcH mm .2 5026... cc. zone»
$3. the m . *xm". oz 05.2.3
Smmdmm mvmwv a .02»
68 come .2 :36... :5 3.523...
-mem-:m ”.sz boos com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Vmwm 5.38.9.5 mm :3. £9.qu $.20
-nmn-mam.#xmm mmmwv :2 oz 033:3...
mama :9.qu .mmmNM o...—

-nmn-mam "Em... xom dd
8: $wa 8.353.... m3 .2 .o.ocmm._m a... £88...
$9153.38“. :2 Emcmm=m oz 222.00
omo¢ .MNN $3... Scum...

-mmwfifi “Em... .m.: .m Hmmn
omow¢ 5.5552. mm Hz 5:339». 0:. €32...
.z o___>$3. oz .2262

99% rm>< xumz

-¢m~-owm “Em... may: mooom
ommfi 055v :3. 3.3.58... mm :3. £~=oE>E 3.0qu0
-mmwémhfixfl £853.“. 5m 02 532..
Sign ...z .m mmm 222.00
-mmvémn n...zw... .ocozoz
MNmm mmvwv HZ xuwa COSMELOLE mHH HZ 0.qu $002..
. . . . oz =83.

$5.».-on .iw... om xom O n.
38¢ coszBuE. cm :2 222.00
.2 5.39.33. oz 5:38.33. .33...
mam»... :3. 55.5.2

-omo-mwm “3:9... :95... .m mHNN
$3 8.383.... mm .2 6:383 .98
mfi ...mt ” 38“. 3:3. .2 oz .30 2.»:

3.8 95:32, rum.

o? .35 3.2.“. x... .z 9.3
mmvwv 2). 5.38.85 NS :3. donuts: 2262..
mhmm 33th rum 0: £22.00
-mmm-mmm Knob ..mEmz, Nnmm 2.0.5.2
-ommévmuuxmn. Hz 9.3 3.55 5.35.62. mm :3. N9.29.2.5 5975.5.
oovn rum 9.3 oz .0 do... :00!

-o~o-m¢~ 3.29... 3.5.5 mmmw

 

 

 

 

181

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oneTDQm noawv 0:35.02 c0.umE..0.c. 00 Hz .00.
-mfifixfl :3. 2.2 oz 6:35:02 .0586:
vmmm-n¢m cm>mm oomm¢
-mvm "30h
mmmm-~m¢ mwmmv .2 moan”. 00:250.... mm .2 £0.03 .00. .__0.s.~m
-mnmufixmu. 000.5 ..>>.m 02 9.0.5
¢onm-m¢m rum ucmm omv
-oow "Em;
mwmm-mmm Hmfiwv c0..mE._0.c_ mm .2 £09.30 .00
-.anufixmm .2 000000 oz .95. 30.50
o¢m~-m~m .méa xom .O.n.
-vmn :30...
mnnméVm mung. 20:08.80. on HE .302 .00.
-03 ”in“. .2 3oz .30 xom oz ..8 2&3
o~mn-mvm dd .m>< $2... 050...;
-me "3...; 290 3.5 £58
hnmmémo NNva 20305.85 mm .2 £0me .00
-vmnufixm“. .2 “.0500 ..0>< oz 0.0.3 3.0200
oommfimo 20:50.6 00mm. “008080.53.
-vmn :20... E003...
mmhméom moaww Hz 00:083.... no .2 .00 .-
-annfixmm .092 SE :3. oz £00.... SE 0.003 to» corp—09.0.0.3.
Numm-mmo 009.02 mmmm 0920.35. an
.3. :23 teams: 00
30:5: .0000> “0.2.0.. 00:00.06 3.2.0.. 20833 080: 3000.0 .0 0E0: 00
.6. 0:0 .0 3203‘ 05:05. :3 .0 00:000.. .uuu .00.. 8.2003005. 00
2.0—.023 - 00:000. . 00:000. .0 00:000.. E0000> .mu
00:00.08 9...:
..E. .0035:
852.3 :5.
00:03.0

 

00300.2 :— aatoua—z 00.000.52.00 ..0 200500.000: ..0 03330: 0.9005—

 

 

182

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.308“. 003. 000 E 0.}. <0 .5...
0000-03 ...1 50.”. omm £33005 0.2.305 .0000... - .0...
.3325 0.0... 05.00..
mmmmémm mm. xom .0... mum z. 02.. z. 0.03 0.05
A5338“. £00m 00 >3: .0___>m0..ooz 0:38.00: .2050
300.30
.532...
003-30 00m xom .0d 3m <0 Em <0 0.0.; 0.2.0.
-0038“. 50000 0.3... £305.00 5805.00 .2200
003-30 .0 BE... ~00
-¢~n.0:0.._n.
33.03 mm. x00 .o.n_ 00m ...0 00.0. ...O .00 0.0..»
6003.0". c.0300... c0300... 00.00300
Hmmmémm
0.00.0005“.
33-03 mm. xom .0d 3m IO 05 IO .00 0.0..»
6003.0“. 580.0260 50.0.0300 00.8038
33-03
600.000....
.52 mom ...O mom IO .00... . 000.00
000m .030 mum £003.35 .0.00..0..0m:m
>>z Nwm ...0 mg :0 .00... - 000.00
003. 0000. 0000 5.3.00.5 .mSnm0bm 0.0.5 00.00“.
Rmmémm 0.300 0R :0 68:0”. 0R ...o 63:00 .00 «0.0».
00900.0“. .2 .0000. .620 0.0.5 50.00
oo¢mém~ 0.0000... was? «.0: 0.—
000 .300 >280: >20 00
m0mm-m¢m .800 80088.... 8 .2 $020.:
-03 ".20... .2 0000823. 02 6000523. 003503. .0
rum 000.05 03 .0022 =02.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

183

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.00 .2 m0 .2 m0 .2 .00
~0mm-m00 .00.< 00< :00 ..00.< 00< ..00..< 00< 0.00.0 000
-.an ".20... 0000.00. 300
00¢m-Hm0 0.0.00.2 x205 03 .2 $0.05 03 .2 $0.05 2003.
-mwmnnx00 :00 0:2 00.0... 0.020....
comm-E. 300;» com. 8.2.5
.03 :20... .25 0.0.0000
Hmmn-mmn 3000 00 .2 ow .2 .00 200...» a
-000 n... .0» .z 300.000 ...m £05000 £05000 v.8... 00.2 000 E0802 00
3000.002 oomH 000.0000 N0
00mm-m00 3000 mm .2 0000.00 mm .2 0000.00 0.0.5 0800:
.80 4.3.00 -.2 .000200
0.0%-m... .003. :00
.000 3.20.0 .omwm xom 00
030-000 Hmmww .2 0...... 00m :0 00w :0 0.00
03.00.00 08055.00 :5 0.00.0200 0.08000 00000.0
030.000 000.0 0...... omRm
-w¢~ .30...
Nomm-mmw 0:00>< RN ...o 0000:? RN ...0 .0000.__< .005
ommux00 00.00002 0.00.0.2.
oHoH-mmw .m 00.:
ommuc0
momm-mmm 000.0m on <0 .0 on <0 .0 0.00.000
8.0.00.6. 0.0... 5.50 3308.02. 3808.02. .00..
$3.03 00 x00 .00 03200202.
8.0.2.0
mmmo-mwv 0000 x00 .0.0 gm 10.03000 00m 10.08000 .00.
Aommvuxm... 00.80.00
H H N H -ww¢ 000....
80.0.2.0
$50-emo 0:c0>< m9. -.. .0 00.0 -_. .0 2000.000
88.0.00 000:3 0m~ __.>m.0.02.0m __.>00.0.<.0m 0.0.3 00.000...
030.03

8.0.2.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000-30 00000 00. .2 0000.2 00. .2 000.02 .0... .0...
000.000. .2 000.02
0009.00 .000 .60 .00
-000 “0.0.. .00 .020 000
030-00.. 0000.. 00 .2 m0 .2 0... 2.003
000.0380 .2 00.00.E.0--. 60.00.0000 00.00.0000 0.02.00 .0000
22-00.. ..00 ...0 000-
0.0 ".200
020-000 0.00... 00 .2 00 .2 8.00.;
0.0.0.0.. .2 002.000 002.000 002.000 .0832 .3.
0000-000 .000 .60 .0.0
-03.. ”0.00
0o..~-~0... 00.0.. .0 .2 .0000 .0 .2 .0000 .0...
-000 "0.0... .2 0000 0.000... 0.000... 0.000... ..00 0.003.
:02... .00 0000 a ..00... 0...
300-000 0000.. 00.000. m .2 00.000. m .2 00.0.00. .00 2003.
0.0.0.60 ...m .005... 000. £00.30
0000-000 00.000
-03 "0.00
0000000 000.00 00 .2 .302 00 .24062 .0...
-000 "0.8. .2 ..62 .000 .80 ..00 0.003
0000.000 .0... .0>< .020 050......
-000 "0.00 000.0 0000.. 0.080
0000.000 00.0.. ..0 .2 .03000 ..0 .2 .03000 .0... .0003
0.0.00.0”. .2 00.000 :00 a 0.00.0 000.0
8.0-00 0:30:00 000..
-03 ".200
0000-000 0.000 00 .2 m0 .2 .00 2003.
000.03... .2 00030.0 :00 00030.0 00.0-30.0 0.02.3
000N000 0.00.000 .2 000 .0030; .s
-000. ”.20..
0000-000 0.00.. .2 .0 .2 0.00.0 .0 .2 0.00.0 .00. ..00
nmmmnfixmm x0000 0.30m ..00 0.30m 230m 30:0 50.000
8.0000 0.0000000 0.

-moN 3.20..-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23-9% Some 2: E . X: E . a... .233...
-ommfixmu. E EmEmummzu EmESmmsu EmEBmwcu 52:

82-3w :22
-mmm ”33 .6sz m3?

33-03 Sm? E mu< mm E 62 mm E 62 a... ..353
-3939. 583“. .m 8mm «2.53.

moRbS 28:2...
-08 ”33

mm¢~-~mv 38¢ 08 E 6882 03 E 688: 5&8
-wmhuxmu. E 8E2). :3. 3.8...

35-3». 52.5 .m mmom 8.82 5:8.
émn :23

mm$émm 983 on E .288”. on E .288”. 8 2&3
-mflmixm“. E 283m :3. 2.2.3

omwmémm £885 39% 22.93
-mHm #6.?

flog? £ch E gobmo mm E £958 an E 3.58 5.8.830
-Mamufixmm .v .mEm its... .3232

33.3». 5528 3% 555.0

-oow £28.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

186

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38 m2? gem... 803.85 mm Eggs»: 8.3%...
. H MN.on " #xmm 0200 02 3000...;
2: 303.05 82: .26
42.3903 Sm xom .00 .80. .82
$308.on 38¢ 8:3..th «S E a... .9...”
”#xmm thm :95... tom 02 £0.51 tom 0039.0"—
mmm Sm ”imp $83
xom .00
omoqmmmim mom? 503.85 m E 0%ch 5625.:
"0x0”. omom Hz 9:ch oz .00.”
-m Sm :23 RNR xom .00 3.98
omonémo 88¢ E confines S E 0.3;
mvm 38". 8m xom .3. oz .33 8.52, :2. .38
8803
mg ".3
830mm 3va 8:90:85 mm E 06me 2.10.2. 228038
.80 #8 E 0805 ..um oz .80. =08 .022
-mwm mfim ".3 :89: $33
33.233 8wa 80.05.85 mm E 5008 3.3;
“0x0“. E. 00300 oz 00.. a mEEEm
mmmndede .m>< 2.; 2:2 .302
:33 2228 .m Rmm .8385 83
000.030 .6; 3000> dT 00:00.06 #300.— 0500 .0 0300.0 0000
000 0000020.. .0 30.0.: 00502 0.30.. .0 00:000.. :3 02003002 .0 0.002 50
30M . c0=002 \000:0>
- 00 00.5
$000— 303:0:
00. 2.5
305 00:03.0
:2.
00 20.033 .00:
.503 .o 8:83
gun—3.2 0— 200802 0030000300 00 9.0030035: M0 0258.5 min—amm— _7,...0.

 

187

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-oomfixon. mmoov E 20o: oozoeooos S E .85: .oo. .0
noomumko do xom dd 02 00009000
-03 mm: .83
.0368 :23 3:83
82-9383 «memo cozoeoes mo E 6503 .8.
"3o“. vmmfl E 9503 oz .oEoEo
-9363 £200. :5 >28 mmom 0230.00...
unmodmofim $0? 502085 No E .838 0:
"0x0“. HZ mfloum 02 .0530...
33.3me .5 £9: omnm 33:0
”.3
33 2o mam SN? oozoctoos mm E £280 .2. coo;
:08“. mmmm E 0200 oz 5.. 5%:
mmm 2%33 Eozcom ommo
oomo 88v oozoeooos 2: E .3233 .2.
-oooémhnxou. E 96:33 oz 0332380 .oozooooE
ommv cgoumcgntm .00.-0.2
.3303 :33 :3 328.3
.m 3am
o-~ 38¢ connotes mm E .8363. .oo. .8
-NoNAHmixo“. E 8.203. :2 oz 2.22s
om- Eom co> 232 58::
-Nomém :33
2mm Hmm mom $va 0880 802085 on E £280 .8
”3o“. omoo 2.882 802 oz 029. x...
Sm m8 :23
33 330 E. 00:00:85 om :2 60.0.. 3
-mo~-vm\.£xon_ 8.3 89523 oz 89523 .3253
88 :3. 3030.3 .26..
-moNiK :23 5.62 .m 3: .230
00.03..
comm :2 003080005 K E. 3.0300.
-mmm-m¢~ "30.? 0.00535 :00 02 6.00533 3.0.2

 

0:2 w .>> ONNmH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

188

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o-o moomw 000.2; 002 0.20.2
-mhmummNnfixmn— HZ OONmEmfi! a 30.0
$3 .0m .00 .m go 526.:
-mnm-$~ 208.
82-02-32 38¢ 80.08.85 2 E 53.005 .8 as:
#xon. ooov -E 5809.... oz >508
62.22. .03 .00 032.28.
.ooon
mono 082. 80208... om E .o... .28...
$223.02“. E 82828. oz 682.22 .822
SE :82 oooo: voo 5825
$3.22 :33 88223.
flow vow? 2203 >z 2:
22-3802“. .¢~ .3m :5 .2302.
83 88.5 So: .225
$2-30 ”0.3 568.52
503..
m~mm 882 E 80208:. 2 E 0608 .o...
-~mm-m.m.0xon. 0.803 rum ..on. oz .3322.
002 8on .m. 03 .222
.3023 "0.3 32.2.
3: NE moo 802 >2 .2.
.008“. 23 E 3262 .3.» 2.8
Nmn So .00.» 02085 SE .oBm
~o~o-~mm-2m 8%.. 502.8... mm E £808 £6305:
"axon. £8 E 0.908 Sm oz .2 :8 .8323
-Nom-mflm "0.3 20...; $2 02808
RS 23.. 802.8... 2 E 9808 .o...
$3-2m 22o» E 0.808 Jm oz .326 >
.6560 vam ..mSfiBEuE
NmmN vomw.‘ >z 0.20.2 .0
23-2836“. E 0.903 Sm 28:52
33 ...tozam :3 a .35
-mmwéam "Em... 050.803 .2300.“ omfim

 

 

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$5.0. o-wv 00005.0..5 mm E. 0.0050... .00.
-meévmufixfl. E. 0.00.00. oz £0000...
00m...“ .03.... HNmH .20....
0.0.2.0. "0.00 30...:
HQ ~32. E. 00:06.02. HHH E. .00. 00.0....
3.3.0”. NmNN 00000.00... ram 02 60000.00: .00..”
-RnHmN .30.. 0.0000. 003 00.08»
0000 £va 00.....0> .02 00.....0> .02 .00.
02.02.33. E 2:00 ...o .382 o
0000 00.0 .000 000m 0.00.0005
00.1.0. "0...... .H 0. 0.000022
onmm one...» .2 000000.80. ow E. .00 0.03.
-me-mv~.#x0.... v..0n. .0N0... :0”. 02 .0000 .000... .20....
ommm .0. 000m oomHN .0.Bu0..m
..DVmég .30... 000096
SH 0 ~03.“ H... 08.0.0.0..0. H H H E. 00.02.00.
02.3038. 808.2... .00 oz 0508.32 .03
HmoH--n 00.003. ommH
HQ. 3: >
.0358 N020... __0.0uu00_.._0.<
0000 0mm? 00000.32. H0 E. .00.
-mmm-m¢~.%x0u. E. 0...... 0.0n0< oz .02.... 0.0n0< 5.33.0.2...
oooo :00 0:00 HS .8 0&3
-mmmévm ”.20... 0.00.052 0.00.0.0...
a .00.» _.< 0.0.00.5 ova
owmm mvomw E. 00000.32. 03 E. ~00080.0 .00.
03-009008". 0000.06 0000.... 02 0000.... 00000.50.
ommm ...m 000... .2 mm .20.... E.
.0303 30.0.0
Non 00000 000020.... cm E. 3.0300.
-Nwm-$~.#x0n. E. 00~0E0_0v. 02 63080.3. .56
oHNH ..0><

-Nwm-mom ”0:0...

 

00.980 N00.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

190

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ammo-mum moo? 00.....0> .02 0.0.0....
-0038. 00H0 E 802.23. a :20
0.0-000 ”0.00 .00 .00 .0 30 50.50.. Eon .030 2%
000.008. E 0.00.3020 802080. 2: E .80 3....
oomH ...n. .0.0..u0.um oz .0_0_...00000U
000-000 :00» 080..
omHm 02.92 003053.... mm E. £2050”. .00. :00
-va-wmhuxo. E 0200.3. ..3. oz 088008
88 2....0oz mmm0m 2......
Hem-0m. .300
mmmm EH00 802.80. mm E 2.2.3. .o... ..oo
-NmN-mHmnuxm. E 00.0.03. ..3. oz 00.0.8...
mm- 0.3. 00> 0002 0.80...
-m~-mHm ”0.0.-
200 008.. 02.208... 08 E .o...
-.00-0mh0xo. E 800.0083 oz 02820.3 ..8 026..
~20 ...o 003. omH .32....
$00.02 "0.00
~30 0.500 02.0.0.8... HE E 0.00038 02.8.58
000.000.0000.. E 0.00038 oz 080.0... on.” .3.
-~0 080.0: ..3.
000.000 00.00 0.2... 0000..
080 H0000 E 8.2.. >2 2.1.2.80
-Rm-onuuxo. to. .338 0.2.80
200 xom .0...
-000-on 00.0»
GONG-mmm wmmmv 00.00.0305 mm E. £0me 00. .50..
-80 ~22 E .6000 ...0 oz .80. :08
0.0.2.. "0.00 08.0.... 2.30.
00.2 .80... oomm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

191

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000 00.00 02.00080. 00 E 00.00090 .00. ..8
000.000.0000. E 00.00.90 :3. oz 862.02
88 00.2.32 00000 2......
000-000 .300
0000 00.00 02.00080. 03 E .u...
-000-0mhfixmu. .0. 800.0900... 02 0000500000 :00 «.26:
0mg ...5 .003. 80 ... 30.0 0.000 .30.).
000-000 "00.0..- 3.000.800
0000 0.000 02.00080. 00 E 0.8.00. .8
000.000.0000 E 0.8.00 :0>< oz 0800.8
0000 0.00090 0000. -08...
$00.20- 0.20» 0.80 .0000 0.00
000. .0000 02.05.80. 00. E .80 800
000.000.0000. E 0.00.3800 oz 6.00.3800
80. :5 0.30000
0.0000 ".200 8000
00.0 0200 02.00080. 00 E 0.0.0.03. .00. ..oo
000.000.0300. E 00.0003. :3. oz 023.59.
83 00.2.82 00000 .200.
000.000 00.00
0000 00.00 02.00080. 00. E .00.
000.000.0300. E 800800.00 oz 800.000.8- ..8 20.6..
0000 ...o 08... om. .0 80...
000-000 "0.00
.000 0.000 E 02.00080. 000:8 .oz .00.
000-20.00.00. 0.02.000 :05: oz 8.8.5...
0000 900.00. ..s 000 .20.... B
000.20 .0000 58.0.02 0.80 .000: 800
0000-000 0200 02.05.80. 00 E 100.0003. .02.. ..8
-2000“. 0000 E 00.0.03. :00. oz 0.0.0....
000-000 0.00 0.90 00> 00000 0.800 mefiwmwm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

192

 

 

 

 

0000 00000 E 0200080. 00 E 0...: .oo
000-000.00.00. 0...: 0800.00.00. oz 0300.000“. 00.0.0;

00.00 :00 0.030000 2....
-000-000 0.0.0 00000

000. 00000 020000.80. 03 E .80 800
000.000.0000. E 0.00.3005 oz 6.00.3800

800 :5 0.0.0000

-mvm-mwm .30...

 

ooowt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

193

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£8 E ...33: :3. 0.... oz mm E «was.»
-80-on :23 £98 38. ...ozoz 003.0
mnmm m8? co mm E .u... .80..
-vwv-m¢~#x£ E 200538 038.... 0.8.8
33 .8. .05 oz
-.VNchm "imp :3. 200538 05.0ch
mmmvm 0.00m
mnmo oNva 00 mm .2 .00 #05000
-vwm-mHm.#xmu. E. 0.00.000 300.800. 6.00.000 -..ozxuoa
ES :03. 5:25 oz 9......ch
.3358 :23 ..s 32: 02.0.0090
mmmm 03? co me E .8 .353
-mvo-mmm#x£ E 0.8.80: .3008... 08.62.. 38 52. 9.3.90
momm :3. v.00....0... oz 000>> 3...»...
-mvm-mmm ”0:0... .2 omom 000 .0000
mmmm 38.. E .82 co 3 E 2..
-Nmmémn 02$ 52 :3. 9.3 0.058.... 082:5 033:8: .
03.5.55 3% oz .. a a 0.33:0.
2.3 swam.» 000...? 000.0
-vm~-¢mhux£ E :3ch .oz 002.:
one. 7. .3m :3. 0:03.000; _
-.meémn :20... 0.0”. wmmvv 0.303.002
mmmo 3.8.. .5 .K E . 36598...
-Nmm-w¢~#xm... E 0.00538 03.0.... 200538 £603.”
8% ...m 03 RBN 0: v.52.... 0.598
.333 :23 5.28002 5...... 8%
.0005: 06.. .0000> .0 90000.. 00:00.06 40.30.. 20.032 0.000 .0000... 0000
000 000000.00 30.32 00502 :3 .0 00:000. 30m - .00... 3.2003002 .0 00.02 7.0
. 00:000. 00:000. 00 .0 00:000.. \.0000>
£03005 ..BUOSCOE
20.. ..E.
00:20.0 Coco—ma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

smug: 0— 0.0.0802 00.000.50.000 no 2003050002 .3 30080: mafiana

. no .... .1...

 

1‘ ....

 

194

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000 00000 E ..o 00 E .o... 233...:
-mmo-mfiwnfixmn. 00.03. 000.6 300.3%: 5.0.004. 0000003
0000 :32 ...0 oz 000.0
000-000 ”0.00 80...... 0000
.000 00000 no 00 E 0.92.3 0 a 0
000-20 08.. E 000.00 :3. 005.8... 000.00
0000000000 0:020... R00 oz
0000-000 00000 E 0o 00 E so; 0500.50
00008.. 0000 .6: 080.00... 008.8...
000-000 "0.3 000. oz
00.0 0000 ..o 00. E 00. a... 233...:
000.000.0000“. E 0.00.2005 008.8... 00.3020 65.2.3.0
.000 ...0 oz
000-000 "0.00 .3000008
.0000
0000 0.000 E ..o 00 E Soéi
000.20 "0.00 0:30:00 ...0 008.2... 6:328 2.32.8
comm... 00: oz
00: 0.000 .8 .0 E 9.3308;
000.000.0000 E 00.0.0: 005.8... 00.0.0... .28
002 05.8.0 ..3. oz 0.....30
-000-000 "0.0.- 056: 00000
0000 00000 E so 00. E .u... 0......
000000.008. 000:2. .02... 008.2... 000.6... 280 £230
0000 .30 00.0 00.0 oz
000-000 ".00
000-000 00000 000.000 0o 00 E .98 22.2...
-0338“. 0000 60.00.0002. 300.300. €00.00N .0 0.03.5...
000-000 ”.00.? .0 000 oz 3.22.88
0000 00000 E co 00. E .u... 082......
nova-owmufixmn. m.oE.u.mm .st ENE-.85 .m-BEEMm 0200.90-00
coma ..0>< 000.0...00 oz .502

-mvm-omm "Em-r

 

ommh.‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

800-000-000 00000 00 .0 .2 033......
.2 .0000> :00 30.0.0.0. ..0000> 9.2.0.005.
.000; .z .00 02
0000 00.00 .8 00 E .36 .05 383......
-000-000:...xo. E 3.0 000.00 008.8... 000.00 522.0
0000 ...3. 080.00.... oz 0830.05...
000-000 ”0.0... 0000
0000-000 00.00 .6 00. E . 05...:
0003.0“. 0000 .2 00000030 30.0.0.0. 00000030 .0230
000-000 "30.0 ...m 0.00 .m 000 02 0.0.6....
coo. 0000.. :0 om .2500... .0... 333......
.000-000 ”......_0... .2 .000... ...n. 30.0.0.0. .0300...
00.0.00 00000 02
Zoo-0.0-000 00000 00 00 .2 SPF .0... 3003......
.2 .6... ...n. 30.0.0.0. 000.00..
0.80052 000 oz
800 0000.. ..o 00 .2 .0 .38 E230
000-000....x0u. .2 3.003002. .00.-0.0.... ..003003 a .900 .502
.00.. .00 xom .00. 02 00003000...
000-000 :20...
0000 00000 00 oo. .2 v..0....._.....
0.00-0.0 H0.0“. .2 000:0... 30.0.0.0. 600:0... .200...
00.00-000-000 .0000 xom .0... oz
0000-000- 0000.. 0000.. ..o 00 .2 .0000... .00..
0003.38.00.00 :3. .0000> 30.0.0.0. 00.0.0263;
0.00-000 ”0.0.0 0.2 0000 02 0.0.30
2000.0
.00.-000- 0.000 0.00.0: ..o .0 E .o...
000.003.0000 05.3.0 :00 00.08.... 00.0.0: .0338...
-000-000 H.0... 00:02 00000 02 00.0.0.0 382.0...
mmn. omHmv 00 mm .2 0.0000...
000.000.00.00. .2 0.002.. :3. 30.0.0.0. .0303 0.00.000
0000 00.0.8000 oz 02.05..
000-000 3.20..- 00000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

196

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mv¢~ was? 5.). co SH 5.). .moo>< 3.33....2
.3?on .38. ooo>< :3. Eu .3585 88.83.
>25. omen oz
030 mo~wv :0 mm 5.). .00
-Hmwumumnfixmm :2 #9500 395.85 Home 5053.. a20>
mm”: :3. 2.... oz 25 23....
-Hmm-mHm 3.2m» cm>mm .m. 33
$8 38¢ co me E .o... «9...:
-NVNuVMN.#xmm HZ 09:02 305.555 .0050: c0000;
83.. :3. 583$ oz {.58
-m¢~-¢mn ...sz .z ommm
¢va m¢mm¢ :0 on :2 .0...
-mmm-w¢~#xmn. :z :Bmotflu 59585 589.56 {22.5 a
£3 :3. 8.3 oz SE 22.60
-mmm-m¢~ :28. 8.55 on? 532
on? $68. so .K Hz .8
émmévmnfixmm Hz Emcfiaom 32585 Ewcfizom ...2.cou.oz
oon :3. 588.3 oz
-vmm-wv~ u...zm... ommmN
omo~-mmv-mo~ to? comzsu co mm .2 .o... 233...:
.m .3m :3. 39585 £82.20 .3282
9.86 .2 SH oz
mwoo mmm oonwv 52 :0 mm Hz .0...
$9.38”. oumv 36 >3 ...m .658... 5.9.8 .éozooo;
mom moo "top Eco: .m :3 oz $2....2
83 ommmv co K ..z . .8 52......
-mnoégufixm... 5.). “:0th3 3.2585 88.653 watts...
mowo .mmaoom oz
-muoéfl. :28. xom .0...
Nnmo 30 «no? .2 co om .z SPF 53...:
wwmnfixm... onmo >8... :5 2.3. 32585 9.3
mmm mom :33 .2539: 3% oz 5.2932,.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

197

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-mmnéSixmn. mmvmv 5.). :o 005 5.). 6:.
8:-va 9.2.2. doom 32:85 65.6... 0.658....
-30 mmom xom .0... .50 oz
-omnéS "Em... $55.58 $3
$05.53 moomo 52 co ow 5.). No 2: ..u...
-mmN mmvm oo~mEo_mv. rum 3o585 39:23. .22....» uooz.
-mmmooN :23 £59m. .m 8: oz
5~5~ mmwmv co 5m 5.). SE.
-mmméwm. ...36... 5.). 5.26“. 33.5825 £226". E830 ....
SR .3... Homo. oz .5 55......)
mmm mmm rim...
2%.) mmnwo co 8 5.). .2. 6.32....
-wowéwmufixon. 5.). Emmo> 3.2585 commo> a .38....
mm... :3. 8.3mm oz .32...
$25.23 Him... .3 ommm
moov 5~m mow 03m... 5.). ...o 005 5... .22. d5:332:32...
:58“. mvov oinmEEooE 3mE..85 mEEooE E830
5mm moN Knob tum oz oucs...o.>o»
sumo ~33
co: mmmm¢ 5.). m___.._ go no 5.). .m___... c d... 802...).
-nwoévm 33o... 539.55“. 39585 305.50”. 4.9.50
:5 3.6558 oz 95.2...
ommmm
mnemooméfi mom? co mm 5.). .2. d1
5.). 3.835 rum 3oE..85 5.838 52835....
.3385... 33 oz .233

 

 

 

 

 

 

£0...on

 

 

 

 

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bow 3:... 8 on 5.). 5.0 4:
-NNm-vmn.#xm... 5.). 3.0 580$ 30......85 :0800 2:003:05.
oomm :5 {no 5o¢~m oz foo...
-mmmémn :33 .00.» 2..
05mm mmfimv :0 mm 5.). ..EU .05
-Smémhfimu. 5.). 3.0 5890 305.85 5800 £023.. a
ommm :3. Bo“. mmwom oz 38.2.6.
-53-va :33
Nmmm mew: :o R 5.). .80
-mmnémnfixo“. 5: 2.2.82. :5 308.85 .3382. «zoos;
omom-mmm .NN:.n< Hammm oz 00.2. 0.8m
-oom mono
-mmnémn :33
Son 88.. .5 n3 <5 6:0: .oo 88
-¢~o-mo~#xou_ 5.). £23.65 :38... a zoos:
owow ..0>< Bogoooz. oz 2.0..
-vmoovm x23 mmmmm
on: How: :o mm 5.). 5.3.0: .00
-momoofioxou. 52 3.3.0: noose... Soon: «5.65: a
82 cogooz :3. oz 38 ..oooo
-mmmévm :33 0...). N5 .m. 555
oomo m5oov 5.). :o 3 5.). £005 6:. ..ou 080.“. oo
-momoofioxmn. 0.00.0 0.08 ...o £8.85 0.38 30.3 5:8 can 50
SS ...ocosam 2 oz moon.
-wom-mo~ ".23 .30:
.0053: 30:0> 97:0. 5:00.66 3.20. #5533 050: . .0200... 00
.6. 0:0 05:00.05 50 30.035 0:502 00m .0 :0=000.. 00m . .05.. 0.208.202 50 0802 00
. 8.58. 3:30. 9. .o 5:33 539.3 .8
5.50056 2:005:05.
5...... ...5
00:03.0 00:02a—
.. . W.,...)‘oo.
533.5052 :5 305.3502 088.5250 5o Eoufioausnoz 5o 03.58:: 05.58355 N» 0:0

moon:

m-
'h.\‘ '

av
'3

f" .
F;

199

 

535p? .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

onoo o8? co mm E £23”. .8 zoom 3
-mnm-mm~ "38. Hz :32? £5.85 “EEG c30t383 @025 3
..fi 35. omn oz 59.:
mfiwm mmfiww :0 mm E. .30 d...
-NNmémnfixo“. E 36 5E8 32:85 528 38352
82 :5 {no Somm oz ...moo
-NNméK :23 .8.» a o
comm 922. so ox. E .36 .oo.
-Smémnfixoo E EU 528 32:85 528 522.3 a
oowu :2 Bo”. omoom oz 58 5:8
-SNiK :23
DUB moo? oo m: 2H 5:3 .353 a
-Nonommuuxo“. E zosoom 52:85 .ooo £80
«www-mmm :3. >3. oomN oz
-oom mflom
-Nouomm :23
$3 now? so mom 2 fink 323w...
-oonomm" 38 E zosoom :2 £5.85 .o €8.58
wmmN mmmmmgmnmfirr 02 3am
-ooTomm 23 $3 3235
wan-nm¢-wv~ mofiwv co mm H: downs: .900
£on Eon E :83: 3oz .ooeooos 262 ..o. a .oooo:
-nmvévN :23 .mom xom .o.o oz
hmmm mammv co m 2). .mc_mcm.._ .uc.
-mmYmHmnfixE Hz ..3ch :23 33585 59:03 .6“.
oomm .ozoo $5 83 oz
-mmYoS :23
Nmmw 33v :2 :2ch co on Hz 53ch .us .808 3:9... 3
-omoémhfixon. :5 ooooz Sow 3333 .2522. ooo E
:Nm oz 5.0.5:? 9.000
.833 :23 .85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vhmm nmnmv E. :33. :o mm E. #83: 6:. ..q
-wow-mwm#xmn_ :3. ..ommm> 33585 5.32633
N08 3.: ommm oz £230
-mmnéwm rim... 2.820
83 Nvmmo E. to... :o 5 E. .22.. .3: a
-vmm-§m”#xmu. :3. go... momm 3oE:85 53 632.
83 oz .255
-3033 3.2m...
SD. ¢m~m¢ :o 8333 yo: .0...
-wmmAHmufixou. E. :obon. rum 33585 .5098
«mt. ooozcozm comma oz 5...: .23.
-mmm-mfim “33....
RS omomv oo m2 E .2. .31
-momem "3o... E. 95:26... 39585 QEmEsoh tacosgs.
:ou:__u ..o>_m oz :o3:__U 3%: oz“.
_oo_oou 83%
thH mofiwv. :o vw :2 .00 59:3
-mmmémnfixm“. E. 35¢. ::< 39585 ...oo..< ::< 2.3::
833: Km: xom .0: oz
.33 ammo
-mooémn "to...
SK.» :2? :o mm 52 52%... .oo
-mmm-wv~#xmn. E. 3:98. 32585 5&3: 22.65... a
83 .528: :3. oz 58 ..ogoo
-wmm-mv~ ”3o... 2.: NH .m. H:
mom: omfimv :o :o3oE._85 .ooo
AmmAHmufixmu. E. 58380 33585 oz c.0825
omov ro>< 55oz, oz
$3-2m ”3o... .3 wfimofi
mmvoémm mmvmw :o mm E. 6:26: 6:.
-3938”. mmmo E 226: :25... 3258:. .EE a .38
-oomoS :23 Loom 35 33 oz 52.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

201

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

onmméom 23.. oo o... E .36 .o...
-ofifixo. 83 E 36 5.6.8 32.3.... 523 53...... o
-333 .23 :3. Bo“. mmoom oz 38 .36.
333R Romv E ..o no E .38
-ommixo. ooom oosoo omom ..o>< 38.8.5 .358 .mom 4 Sons:
-mkomm :23 .256 83% oz 2.22.2.3
ommm-~vm-m$ Dvm.‘ :o oo3_.m> 3oz .u...
”#xmu. ommm E. :o>m... 3:80 39585 333.52.
-mvmoHo :23 .8. xom 6... oz
onoo nomoo ..o no E .833. .98 ....
-mo~-o$#xo. E $33. .256 33.8... 956 a .._ .55..
«mom ..m.m ...m .26.... oz
-mo~-o$ :23 oootoo mmm
RE 88.. ..o o: z. 5:3 .323 o
-Nmnémmixmn. E. .5363 33585 .8: >525
8.8.3:. :3. >3 3% oz
-oom mfioo
-Nouomo .23
ommN vmomv :0 mm E. .0933: .u:. .
uMNmumomnfixmn. HZ wanton. ..w>< Darrick: «50:09:00
3% .622; .3 won oz 2.2.3
-m~m-oo~ :23 ooooo.
8:. 83.. E E... co no E .2... 8 .353
-34..-on :23 ...m 2956 $2 32.3.... 525.2
oz
33 mom? E oo com 28:: .o... ...ooo
Ammoomfixo. 9:... 3.55 :3. amaze... 8.3:
8R 22:9: 33 oz
Amoéom .23
mmmm mmmmv E. 33mm. :0 mm E. .333. .0... 6:28.
-onoom :23 9.20 633.. 32.3.5 22o
xom .0... oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo~m-m~.. ~23. ..o 83.3.. 32 .o... ..8
4.2.38“. oooo E .23.... :3. 32.3.... 3.23....
39-..? 3...... 333.6... .8... oz
88 88.. E .3 mo E .o... .8...
33-33.33. 3.3.33. :3. 32.3.... 3.22....
38.3.. 5.62. .2, m8. oz
-mvN .omo
-Nmm-mvN #3.-
Bom NE... .3 33 E 33.3: 2. ..ooo
-mom-m.mu..xo. E .338 ...m 32.3.... a 38...;
ooom 99:30 ...3 oz 32.3..
-mom-m.m #3.
Sam «.33.. .3 mm E .3333 .8 .32....
-2..-on #33 E .33.... :3. 32.3.... ...ooo
33.. .m. 2.3 oz 3... .332.
£35832
3.3.5.
2.7.3... 8...... E 26 ..o 8 EJo._u 2. 3...; 233...... 8
-8933”. 3.2 :3. 2.2.on 3......3.... “3.-.... .33.). mm
-.mo-o... 3...... .z memo. oz
:8 -..o.. ..o 33.3.. .oz .2.
33.3.3.2... E 3.3.3.. .38 3353.... 3.3.238...
8.5.... xom .0... .6 oz
-3... 83¢ 83......8 ..8
33.3.3 3......
8.3.3?va 3...... ..o o. E 2.
3.x... omN. E 3.3.3.... :o>< 32.3.... 3.3.3.... .5... a 38
4.3.1.? ”.2...- cmo...o.z .m. mom-N oz 322.3;
3.3 3.3.. .3 on E .36 «.1
-NNm-annuxm. E Eu .338 32.3.... .333 .5853...
oomN 2.. .3. 8%.. oz fooo
.8... .2.

-NNm-¢mn ”Em-r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

203

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmvm omfiww :0 mm a: .._o_>m._. do. .6 m z
-mmmémfixfl Hz 3:3 :3. 32:85
ooHv mfloum ommNN oz
-mm~-mHm "Em...
nmmnémw Nfimmw co mm :2 £8qu .ooo
-mfimfixmm comm Hz gobmo rum £5.85 426053
-mmm-mHm ”3o... uo___m .uz HmmNH oz coop—Sax
mmmH mmvmv co mm :2 683.5 do 300...!
-wmwénwufixmu Hz com_>oo rum 32:85 a 55:22
ovmo-~¢n tooU .m mmom oz 3 a o
.08 Rum
.3?on #3...
Howoéfivéwm E 92226... co we :2 60 Bones: 25853 oo
can. come :356 630 59585 .952on u a 0 mm
$3-8m ”Sm... mbcou can: oz c355
Nmmm omomv co on Hz .30
-mn~-nfim¥xmn_ z). 53328 39585 :SMBEoU a 30053
SN 5m >2 ovm oz 5?;
$5-5m :33
33 mwawo co R Hz .03
-mmnémnnfixmn. Hz ocmzmmg ...5 39585 653%? 4300...;
omom-mmm _-Eo< Hmmmm oz 023 22»
68 $3
-mmnémn "E8.
003-2% 53$» :0 mm :2 .300
.93.. mmmn H: 0:35.52 52:85 .m___>ctoz zoos—3
A363 :28. tom E: mum? oz .328!
Ben moomo co mam S 6.3a 60 .ooo
-v~m-m¢~#xmm :2 69.9.5.5 39585 asooss
owom rm>< EmZooo; oz 2.0..

-¢N0-m¢~ 32w...

 

wmmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88-3926 mmomv oz co Bet? ooz «zoos;
#xon. mmom BEES“. .m .3m 3958.: 2.2:;
-moo-omo :33 :3 coooczmoz, oz
.m 8:
NNmn aNomv :2 :0 mm 2). coon
-mnnéwmufixmfi 353 “mom ..m>< 39585 .musoo ummm 4 «Boos;
ooom ooseo 83% oz 822 3:2
-mR-omm :23
mmR-nvo-¢mn 38¢ oz co 8H :3 £62.:
"#xmu. wnnm oucmoooEE. :5 Emotes 2.8388. 3.33.
-nomému :23 8:935 SN oz
Nooo-omo-ov~ 3 So oo oo E .8 9.1
”to“. 2% E 8295 :3. rogues .8295 3855.2
-nmwévw. 32o» 52358 omon oz 38...:
agnoom
33 38v co R Hz 38
-mmnémhoxfi Hz ocozmoz, :5 32585 65:82, a zoos;
omom-mmo _-2o< Hommm oz 8.; 22...
-oom mono
-mfiémo #6»
mm: 039. so omctg uoz coon
63-3938“. 5 Boat :3 32:85 a $62.;
ow? EoEoo moomm oz 33.
-om~-omm :23
$3” mommo co mm H: $39. .3222
-om¢-o8£xon_ E 833. 220 :2:er 256
$3 :23 ..o>< oz
-om?o8 ”imp toooou m3
nwonémo moowv co mam 5 6:3 .00 Ban
-momuoxon. omom E 52355 32:85 «zoos;
-vmoévm "imp ..o>< Bosoooz, oz 2.2

 

wmmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

205

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nmmm $52» so on E 38
$8-2m " #5 E 3326.8 33.9.5 53228 4 sons;
gm :5 >3 ovm oz 5.2:

$3-2m ”33
NNmN mmmwv co on :2 6.955 .2...
-mooéfiixfi E onzs :3. 32:85 $8385:

23 E985 Soon oz

-oooévw :23
m2: ommmv E co 8 E 28o
-mmv-wv~"%xmm coumEEomn. :5 3958.: 60558.8“. 4 «Boos;
8R >285 mRoN oz 9.:
-mnvovm ”33 553:
mmmw-¢mm-mv~ vawv HZ N=OI :0 cm HZ ~5.0: 6:. 62.033.
$3”. 83 JR xom .o.o 33.85 38...;
4‘8-va :28. oz 53.25

 

206

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

who $3. $on 3.5%... u...
-oomfinmzxo”. 5:332
:3. .33. .868...
-mmNQRzE Eom oom
8R moon. 2..
-mmm-oow-. E .5033 ..ooooozéoooo
.o><
5355“. m...
.23 xom oo
mowm 5.6.0900
uwhNuoowuH 550—0930
82 omomm 2:50
-oon-om~ can. .2 .858:
83-3. .3.
.3089: E: 3E 82
fig .08 on... 28..
-mnm-nnw-fl 5.205800
9.0582
£9 E @2258 28.. 2.2
35.3... :3 9.:
5232 €-
Sm. mmmom 8:22 .8. 63.852... 05.62. omom
SN Exxon. ooom 8:5 22:80.
82 __o;mom omvo
SN 32o...
E53: XDm 50C0> .0 83:0.— .uOm cozuos 52.0.— 20E0un< 09:0: .0300.“ 0000
0:0 2.2.00.0. 30.0.3 9....02 - 5:000. .0 c2500.. :3 .2... 5.200352 .0 0802 7.0
£03003 .. £03000— .0 £03000.— \.0Uc0>
..E. 3:25 no.5
«003:0:
..E.
00:02.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gnu—0.2 5 £3.3an note—53:00 no Eouaoauauo—Z no 0233.5 «3833

 

 

207

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

comm ..o.umE.o.E NmN z. .0...
4.32.3 oz ~o:..,.u...o..,.,o.u .28.... one...
mom... mm... mz mom 2. 6.05853 058.0683
meccwé $530.30...
.50..
3.1. 330.03.... cm E. £8.00 E396 a... m
30 com... 02 .0300...
838.0
comm n: ..z .35 n: .2 £396 .0..0..02 .5596 chm
-moméon .05sz .35 .2232
0030.00 <0 09.... cmom
0... .3 00m: 0200. 0...: com 0... 2.2.0.. 0.. <0 oco <0 0... mm 0080.8 0... c. 33.0... .oz .0 <0 c. 00.000. 0....
0.03 «.0900 .0... 00
.0 nasafivuscoe
003.. ..<
002-me Ncomm 5.6.0900 ...>
88:30. .2. 53.80%
come So xom .0...
.03 8cm. .00..m
voooémv ...m £30m mNHm
Sarto.
"x0”. m NB H H 3.3.052... ...0.

050m 600.com

>z .xumEEoU
02.5 :0... mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

208

References:

Abraham L., Agnello S., Ashkin S. et. al., 1996, “Sustainable Building Technical
Manual”, US Dept. of Energy, USGBC, US EPA.

Alvey J ., 2003, “Green Building”, Public Utilities Fortnightly.

Bade M., Office of the President, Design & Construction services, 2003, “Feasibility
Study for a Green Building Policy for the University of California”.

Cooper G., 2002, “LEEDTM and Higher Education: Planning for Documentation and
Communication at the University of South Carolina Living and Learning Center.”

Department Of Energy, Title 10 Part 436 (10 CFR 436), Federal Energy Management
and Planning Programs.

Environmental Office of University Facilities at the University at Buffalo (SUNY
Buffalo) - http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/, date visited July 04, 2004.

Gonchar J ., July, 2002, “Green Building Ratings Get Easier”, Engineering News Record,
1 O.

J ong-J in Kim, et.al., 1998, "Sustainable Architecture Module:
Introduction to Sustainable Design", National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher
Education.

Kats G., et.al., October, 2003, “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings” —
A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force.

Langdon D., et.al., July 2004, “ Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and
Budgeting Methodology.”

Lazarus N., BioRegional Development Group, 2002, “Beddington Zero Energy
Development - Construction Materials Report.”

LEEDTMZJ Rating System, US. Green Building Council, http://www.usgbc.org, date
visited May 04, 2005.

LEED for New Construction Rating System, draft version 2.2, 2005, www.usgbc.org.
date visited April, 2005.

Malin N., Environmental Building News, September/October 1996, “On Using Local
Materials.”

209

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Environment, Health and Safety Office,
http://web.mit.edu/environment/, date visited July 04, 2004.

McGraw-Hill Construction, Dodge Special Sector Study, 2003, "The New Heights in
Education Construction".

Modern Steel Construction, February 2004, “Structural Steel Contributions toward
obtaining a LEEDTM rating.”

Mrozowski T., et. Al., November, 2004, “Development of a Change Order Management
Process for Use on Construction Projects at Michigan State University.”

NIST Handbook 135, 1995, “Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy
Management Program (F EMP)”.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy,
2003,"Buildings Energy Databook", D&R International, Ltd.

Paumgartten P., 2003, “The business case for high-performance green buildings:
Sustainability and its financial impact”, Journal of Facilities Management.

Pimental D., et.al, 2004, "US. Energy Conservation and Efficiency: Benefits and Costs",
Environment, Development and Sustainability (V 01. #6, Issue 3-4).

Platts, Research and Consulting, “Managing Energy Costs in Colleges and Universities”-
Natural Resources Canada and US. Energy Information Administration -

http://www.esource.com/members/frs_lc/pdf/lcp12_composite.pdf, date visited July 23,
2004.

Posson D.G., 2003,"The Price of Green", Environmental Design and Construction, Issue-
June/July.

Rebuild Michigan Energy Efficiency in Residence Halls at MSU Project, 2003.

Rodman D. and Lenssen N., “A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns
Are Transforming Construction,” Worldwatch Paper 124 (Washington, DC, March
1996)

Romm J ., 1994 “Lean and Clean Management”, Kodansha International.

Syphers G., Baum M., et.al., October, 2003, “Managing the Cost of Green Buildings” -
State of California’s Sustainable Building Task Force, the California State and Consumer
Services Agency and the Alameda County Waste Management Authority.

Steve Winter Associates, October 2004, “GSA LEEDTM cost study”, submitted to US.
General Services Administration.

210

 

Trusty W., Horst S., 2004,"The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal
Facilities", EBN, Vol 12, No.11.

US Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Annual data
statistics, 2004, http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html, date visited June 28,
2005.

US Dept. of Energy, FEMP, April 2004, “Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis” — Annual supplement to NIST Handbook 135 and NBS
Special Publication 709.

Wilson A., Malin N, et. al., 2003, “Greenspec Directory — Product Directory with
Guideline Specifications” — Building Green, Inc and Siegel & Strain Architects.

www.worldwatch.org as quoted in Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide,
http://www.sustainabledesignguide.umn.edu/overview.html, visited October 17, 2004.

http://greenbuilding.ca/, date visited: September, 2004
http://wings.bufi‘alo.edu/ubgreen/, date visited July 04, 2004.
http://web.mit.edu/environment/, date visited July 04, 2004.
www.bia.org, date visited: April, 2005.

www.breeam.com/, date visited: October, 2004.
www.carpet-rug.org, date visited: April, 2005.
www.constructionmaterialscom, date visited: November, 2004.
www.glfea.org, date visited: April, 2005.

www.gypsum.org, date visited: April, 2005.
www.michamber.com, date visited: November, 2004.
www.mapquest.com, date visited: May, 2005.
www.sustainabledesignguidemnn.edu, date visited: July, 2004.
www.sweets.com, date visited: April, 2005.
www.thebluebook.com, date visited: April, 2005.

www.usgbc.org, date visited: January, 2005.

211

www.4specs.com, date visited: November, 2004.

212

A

  
 

   

       
 

    

      

RRIS

11111th

242

MIC

11111111111191le

3