Contractors and Green Building: I feel the need … the need for LEED!

Originally posted 2010-12-03 09:00:24.

For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Musings welcomes Ryan Bowers (@ryanbbowers).  Ryan is a construction law attorney and business litigator. Ryan’s construction practice draws on his years of hands-on experience in the construction field, which predates his practice of law.   He also maintains Law under Construction, a blog built for Indiana construction professionals to monitor legal news and developments.  Ryan is an attorney at Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP in Indianapolis, Indiana, a full service law firm founded in 1937.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Chris for the opportunity to guest post on Construction Law Musings.  Earlier this year, I finally had the opportunity to pursue a blog that combined by two passions: construction and hockey the law.  After stumbling across Musings in the wee hours following one too many coke zeros and a half finished fireplace remodel, I was both impressed and inspired.  Law under Construction was born.   I am honored to take my blog on the road so soon in its rookie season.

I am a construction junkie.  Having a father who is a master plumber, licensed builder, and owner of a mechanical construction company will do that to you.  Learning to solder at 15 will do that to you.  Installing fire suppression systems at 19 will do that to you.  Remodeling a 1929 house will….   So, I have found inspiration for my blog posts (many yet unfinished, like my house…) in the practical experiences of my past.

A recent thanksgiving post-turkey, pre-nap, conversation with my brother, the president of the aforementioned contractor, sparked one such idea.  When the topic of LEED came up, he said, and I (sort of) quote “man, I am seeing LEED everywhere, should I get LEED accredited?”  Honestly, I was a little stumped.  Good thing the tryptophan set in.

I have since pondered the question: should contractors and subs seek LEED accreditation for someone on staff (or at least gain a working understating)?  Fortunately, in the interim, I also had the opportunity to attend a wonderful event put on by SMPS Indiana, where owners who led green projects gave their post-LEED certification perspectives, which provided some very useful information (referred to herein as the “panelists”).  Given the lack of litigation involving LEED issues, there is no clear answer.  However, I am hopeful that you (and my bro) will find my insights useful.

The pros…

Obtaining projects: I recently read that the “green movement” is no longer a movement, but rather here to stay.  Indeed, one of the panelists confirmed that her university has committed all future new construction or significant renovations to LEED silver certification (or higher).  And it’s not just buildings anymore – “green” will encompass other critical infrastructure projects (see here).  Thus, in order to obtain work on “green” projects, contractors may need to obtain accreditation or, at least, become knowledgeable.  Although this applies more in the context of integrated project delivery, design-build, etc., it will likely only increase as green building increases.  The economics of these project structures demand quality and skilled contractors.  One of the panelists noted that one of their first steps was to bring in a LEED accredited contractor familiar with the local skill set and local supplies.  Another noted getting novice subcontracts to understand the LEED process proved difficult.

Less potential for construction defects: Geothermal heating and cooling.  Vegetative roofs.  Mini-wind turbines.  Hal 9000.   Ok, I am kidding about the last one.  But these are new, sophisticated, and often unproven technologies (especially with Platinum certification).  It takes a careful reading of the spec manual.  There is a risk of noncompliance and the need to allocate risk.  LEED accreditation, as well as the required continued education that follows, may help a contractor’s understanding of these technologies and avoid future defect claims.

Fewer delays: Working on a LEED project with no prior experience may lead to project delays, such as the inability to follow the site-specific LEED action plan or unfamiliarity with submittals for LEED or the unique materials.  One panelist noted that, although the project was publically bid, they were lucky enough to land a LEED contractor, as it was extremely beneficial.  On the flipside, another had a demolition contractor with zero prior experience, who had to be constantly educated on LEED.  This inevitably led to delays.

Equal (and green) footing: Often, the architect on a LEED project is accredited and leads the overall effort.  Having equal knowledge of various LEED related processes, designs, technologies, etc. may be helpful.  For instance, when you submit a LEED related claim to the architect, LEED knowledge may help you decide how to proceed after a denial.  One of the panelists pointed out a situation where engineers on a project had designed to traditional specs, which the contractor caught thanks to LEED knowledge.

Likewise, the cost increases on LEED projects can range from 2-10% (based on various sources).  One panelist noted a 3% increase.  Knowing and recognizing these differences can help ensure accurate project bids and help maintain already thin profit margins.  Furthermore, if you know LEED, you may actually be able to bid lower if you don’t have to add “risk” costs to your bid.  Always a good result.

Finally, with guarantees of LEED certification popping up in contracts, new provisions affecting rights and liabilities on green projects may also pop up (i.e. for failure to achieve LEED certification or later decertification).  There may also be special warranties for green products.  Understanding these concepts prior to executing contract documents (or associating with a qualified attorney) will help minimize unknown risks.

Obtaining project bonds: Although not a current concern, it may be in the future.  With the emergence of more green projects (and of greater value), the way sureties handle such projects may change.  Since the surety is guaranteeing completion in accordance with plans and specifications, and given the concerns raised above, having a LEED AP on staff may become a prerequisite to qualify for a bond on a green project.   Green insurance products are already emerging, this could be next.  Remains to be seen.  (thanks to my co-blogger, and resident surety expert, Jennifer Watt for the input here).

Safety: As a result of the way debris is handled on a LEED project (reuse, recycling, salvaging, etc.) one panelist noted a 0 accident site.  And a healthy employee is a productive employee.  On the flipside, I don’t often hear contactors complain about fewer workman’s comp claims.

Goodwill and peace on earth: Just as the panelists remarked that their green projects have resulted in an overall better public image (better recruiting of employees / students), a more eco-friendly image for a contractor can be a positive.

On to the cons…

Competing standards: Although the most widely recognized, LEED is not the only player in the game.  Other “green” standards include Green Globes and Energy Star.  Further, recently an individual filed a class action against the USGBC attacking LEED.  (see here)  Ignoring the merits (or lack thereof) to the case, why invest resources into something that may not stand the test of time.  For example, one panelist noted that, while they achieved LEED certification with one project, on a subsequent project they were pursuing the LEED elements generally, but not seeking the formal certification due to time and money concerns.  Another panelist was now pursing Energy Star on a project.  One should also consider the new International Green Construction Code (IGCC).  If the code achieves widespread adoption, simply building to the code may alleviate the concerns above, and separate LEED knowledge may become superfluous.

It is hard: As a lawyer studying for the LEED Green Assoc. exam right now, I can attest to this fact.  Several of the most skilled plumbers and sharpest mechanical minds I know have had difficulty with the testing aspect of their master’s exam.  Putting in the time (and money) may not result in accreditation.  Plus, you need to maintain continuing education hours, an additional burden.

Enough actual “green” projects?: I don’t have any real data on this one, but it is worth considering whether you even want to get involved in this area.

Sub it out: There appear to be myriad LEED consultants out there (and likely one is already involved in your LEED project).  Get the information from someone else when you need it.

Image: The “green movement” raises red flags in some people’s minds.  For anyone with this mindset, I leave you with these thoughts:  a hospital represented on the panel stated that it did not seek LEED certification to “save the world;” but rather to “save the sanity” of the staff with a better workspace (via incorporation of daylight).  Further, many of the elements of the LEED project (no formaldehyde / no voc) were things that everyone already wanted – so there was no hard sell.  Green building may simply be what people already want, but just don’t realize.

Thanks for reading. If interested in LEED accreditation, continue on to the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), which administers the LEED Professional Credentials.   Great info located on the USGBC website as well.

As always, Ryan and I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Guest Post Fridays at Construction Law Musings.

CALGreen. It’s finally here. Now what?

Originally posted 2017-03-22 13:35:13.

Naffa InternationalFor this week’s Guest Post Friday, Musings welcomes Imad Naffa.  Imad was the Founder and President of NAFFA International, a private Building Code Services firm in Fresno, CA. He is also the Developer and Administrator of the Building Code Discussions Group (BCDG), one of the largest building code online communities on the internet with 23,000+ members from 100+ countries.

You can also find him on the web where he posts on topics dealing with Building, Fire and Accessibility /ADA codes, housing and construction;  along with news relating to  design, construction, LEED/Green/CALGreen and Global Affairs.

You can follow Imad on Twitter (@imadnaffa). If you have technical questions related to Building, Fire,  Accessibility/ADA Codes or CALGreen, Imad would be happy to respond by email.

Background

Every three years, the building codes are updated. That in by itself is always a challenging time for all involved in the building permitting process (Owners/Developers, Design Team and the Code Enforcement Community).

In California a new family of building codes, known as the 2010 California Codes, became effective throughout the state on January 1st, 2011.

This time around, a brand new code known as the “2010 California Green Building Standards Code”,  aka “CALGreen”, was introduced.  This code is Part 11, of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24. It is the nation’s first statewide green building standards code and applies to newly constructed residential and nonresidential occupancies.

CALGreen stems from former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s mandate to reduce greenhouse gases in California.  Estimates predict a reduction of 3 million metric tons of greenhouse gases by 2020 as a result of the requirements of CALGreen.

CALGreen creates uniform and consistent environmental regulations for new California buildings, but it is not meant to replace individual jurisdictions’ environmental programs and ordinances. The Code requires that all local environmental ordinances still be followed. Local jurisdictions also have the ability to amend portions of the Code based on a finding of need due to climate, topography, or geology. Complementary sustainability programs, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”), may still be used as long as they do not interfere with CALGreen requirements. Some jurisdictions in California had their own Green Codes before CALGreen came about.

Continue reading CALGreen. It’s finally here. Now what?

Certification Bodies: Who Are They And How Do I Do Business With Them?

Originally posted 2016-01-14 14:20:31.

For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Musings welcomes back Doug Reiser (@douglasreiser) for the fourth time.  Doug is a construction attorney, LEED AP and the principal at Reiser Legal PLLC in Seattle, WA. His office provides construction counsel for businesses in the construction industry. He also runs the Builders Counsel, a blog focused on progressive issues in green building and construction law. 

Certification, they all want it.  What makes your building look better than your neighbor’s? That plaque, that logo or that sign denoting that a prominent organization said your project is worthy enough to carry their torch.

LEED, Passive Haus, Living Building Challenge, Greenroads – you’ve all heard of them.   They are examples of a growing group of third party organizations that are willing to tell you whether your project is exceptional.  These organizations aren’t contractors, they’re document reviewers. But, that review can be very valuable to a builder or government agency.

People like to think that you simply line up to the trough and get your certification. But, the reality is that certification is never guaranteed. Are you ready to be told no?  Do you even know how the process works? Do you know your remedies against these organizations? Probably not.

Continue reading Certification Bodies: Who Are They And How Do I Do Business With Them?

Random Thoughts on LEED Challenges and De-certification

Originally posted 2010-05-10 09:00:01.

Here at Musings, we have discussed the issues to do with LEED de-certification because of energy reporting (or lack thereof) by the owner of the building.  Remember the italicized portion of this last sentence, because the de-certification discussion has taken a new turn.  Now, not only can the Owner of a building tank its LEED Certification through its own failure to comply with USGBC rules, the certification of a building can be challenged by third parties.  Hidden in the USGBC LEED Policy Manual, is language granting USGBC the right to retroactively review a project’s LEED certification level on either its own initiative or based upon the complaint of a third party.

My fellow construction attorneys and friends Doug Reiser of the now defunct Builder’s Counsel Blog (@douglasreiser on Twitter) and Chris Cheatham of the Green Building Law Update (@chrischeatham on Twitter) have discussed this policy and the failed challenge by a Wisconsin group to the LEED certification of a local high school.  Both of these guys have asked some great questions and I recommend that you read their analysis.

My focus here, as always, is on the “on the ground” risk management issues for contractors and subcontractors on projects seeking, and in this case obtaining LEED certification.  The real issue here, from my perspective as a construction lawyer, is the further implication of third-party action in the potential liability of the construction professional who constructs the building.

For the same reasons that contractors and subcontractors (and even architects and construction managers) need to structure their construction contracts to assure that failure of a building to meet certain energy benchmarks 3, 4, or even 10 years down the road does not come back to bite them, these same construction professionals must assure that their contracts shield them from the potential liability of LEED de-certification due to a challenge like that in Wisconsin.  This policy by the USGBC creates more questions than it answers, for example, how will insurance companies and bonding companies deal with the totally uncontrollable possibility of a certification challenge? How will the ghost of liabilities future (like that mangled Dickens reference?) dampen the enthusiasm for sustainable construction overall?

The Eeyore in me fears that our much-needed shift to sustainable, energy-efficient building stock will be hindered by the worries of contractors.  My hope (and, yes, I do have an optimistic side!) is that by asking these questions now, we can all work to deal with them and, with some luck and good planning, create a strong sustainable infrastructure that will be around for years to come.

This debate must continue.  If you comment on one post here at Musings, please make it this one because I truly do not have the answers to these questions.  Because of the uncertainty relating to the legal aspects of this brave new building world, your input on this topic is invaluable.

As always, I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

Image via stock.xchng

LEED Certification Challenges: What is “Close Enough”?

Originally posted 2014-10-13 09:15:02.

There have been many discussions lately regarding the Northland Pines challenge to the LEED certification of its high school facility recently rejected by the USGBC, notably at the Builder’s Counsel Blog and at the Green Building Law Update.  You can check out the Green Building Law Update link for the entire group of documents that the challengers used in their appeal.  The rejection was not the end of the road, however.  The challengers have appealed the ruling and issued the following statement on June 5, 2010:

What is all the ruckus about Northland Pines?

In 2004, the voters of Vilas County Wisconsin voted to approve the sale of
$28,535,000 worth of bonds to finance a new High School for the Northland Pines
district.

The appellants in this case all served on the Building Committee for the new school
and each brought specific talents and experience in design and construction of large
buildings. Each was dedicated to the proposition of creating the most efficient
structure possible.

The design team and school board discouraged any outside input and set forth to
design and construct the school as they saw fit.

As the design developed, the appellants questioned whether the facility would
indeed meet the prerequisites for LEED® Certification and were told that it would
despite what appeared to be glaring shortfalls with respect to these requirements.
The appellants retained the service of two highly regarded consulting engineers to
review the plans. Both of them determined that the facility as designed would not
qualify for LEED® Certification.

In December 2008, the appellants filed an appeal with the USGBC challenging the
award of the Gold Certification given to Northland Pines. Some 16 months later the
appellants were notified that the USGBC had looked into the matter and found
everything to be fine. They based this on reports from two more consulting
engineers who said that the building did not meet the prerequisites but concluded
that “pretty close” is close enough. When the appellants’ engineers asked for the
back up data to the USGBC reports, they were told that they were pretty busy and
would address that request when they have time. Time has passed and the
requested materials have not been forthcoming. Why?

On behalf of the taxpayers of Vilas County who would like to know with certainty
whether they got what they paid for or not, we ask the engineering community to
look at this file and tell us, did we miss something here? How can it be alright to
certify a building that doesn’t fully comply with the rules set forth by the body that
is doing the certifications?

We would love to hear what you think. We are only in search of the truth which
ultimately will be what is best for Northland Pines.

The challengers also cite to a report from a consulting engineer that the USGBC hired to help respond to the challenge that stated that certain prerequisites were not met.  The report concludes that the building should remain certified because it achieved enough points regardless of missing some of the prerequisite requirements.   Essentially, the report concludes that the building was close enough to meeting every requirement and therefore the challenge should be denied.

What do you think?  Is “close enough” a good standard on these appeals?  What about the potential issues for contractors who build to plans that do not meet the prerequisites but a building is certified only to have a justifiable challenge be upheld?  Let’s discuss.

UPDATE:  The USGBC Response can be found at the Green Building Law Update.  Please check it out here.

As always, I welcome your comments below.  Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.

Appellants’ Statement
June 5, 2010
What is all the ruckus about Northland Pines?
In 2004, the voters of Vilas County Wisconsin voted to approve the sale of
$28,535,000 worth of bonds to finance a new High School for the Northland Pines
district.
The appellants in this case all served on the Building Committee for the new school
and each brought specific talents and experience in design and construction of large
buildings. Each was dedicated to the proposition of creating the most efficient
structure possible.
The design team and school board discouraged any outside input and set forth to
design and construct the school as they saw fit.
As the design developed, the appellants questioned whether the facility would
indeed meet the prerequisites for LEED® Certification and were told that it would
despite what appeared to be glaring shortfalls with respect to these requirements.
The appellants retained the service of two highly regarded consulting engineers to
review the plans. Both of them determined that the facility as designed would not
qualify for LEED® Certification.
In December 2008, the appellants filed an appeal with the USGBC challenging the
award of the Gold Certification given to Northland Pines. Some 16 months later the
appellants were notified that the USGBC had looked into the matter and found
everything to be fine. They based this on reports from two more consulting
engineers who said that the building did not meet the prerequisites but concluded
that “pretty close” is close enough. When the appellants’ engineers asked for the
back up data to the USGBC reports, they were told that they were pretty busy and
would address that request when they have time. Time has passed and the
requested materials have not been forthcoming. Why?
On behalf of the taxpayers of Vilas County who would like to know with certainty
whether they got what they paid for or not, we ask the engineering community to
look at this file and tell us, did we miss something here? How can it be alright to
certify a building that doesn’t fully comply with the rules set forth by the body that
is doing the certifications?
We would love to hear what you think. We are only in search of the truth which
ultimately will be what is best for Northland Pines.
Exit mobile version