Specifying for green building: Part 1

How do you structure specifications to properly specify building performance that is compliant with a green building code such as LEED v4?

01/23/2014


Designing a project to a green building code, such as U.S. Green Building Council LEED v4, Green Globes, ASHRAE Standard 189.1, or the International Green Construction Code (IgCC), requires a the engineer think outside the normal approach to specifying.

There are four common ways to specify a system or assembly, and it is key to remember that each method has an associated level of risk or liability for the engineer. The rule of thumb is that the more detailed a specification, the more liable the engineer is for the final performance. In the order of least to most potential liability and difficulty to write, these four types of specifications are descriptive, performance, reference standard, and proprietary.

A descriptive specification, the most traditional and comprehensive type of specification, provides a detailed description of the final product or system qualities and workmanship. It has no manufacturer or products restrictions as long as they meet the described level of quality. A performance specification specifies levels of performance that the finished product must meet. A reference standard specification relies on a third-party standard that the engineer should be very familiar with, which may be incorporated by reference.

And on the other end, a proprietary specification provides not much more than the model number and installation standards. (In actuality, there is quite a bit more to a proprietary specification, but it is too much to include in a blog post. See the CSI Construction Specifications Practice Guide for more detailed information.)

You can see the quandary. The more specific the requirements, the more responsible the engineer is for final performance of the system. In a descriptive specification, the specifying information is broad enough that the contractor has a wide range of products to review, choose from, coordinate, and integrate into the finished product. Meanwhile, in a proprietary specification, the contractor is limited to a certain product, which also limits pricing flexibility, and the engineer assumes liability for the choices made while writing the specification.

Ideally, the answer is a holistic approach to the drawings and specifications that clearly communicates minimum levels of performance and available product choices. This requires an understanding of the different types of specifying, and how to use multiple types within one specification document.

Part 2 will be a discussion on performance specifying.

What have your experiences been when specifying for LEED, IGCC, or Green Globes? Does this correlate with your approach and experience? Share your experience via the “comments” section below.


Michael Heinsdorf, PE, LEED AP, CDT is an Engineering Specification Writer at ARCOMMasterSpec. He has more than 10 years' experience in consulting engineering, and is the lead author of MasterSpec Electrical, Communications, and Electronic Safety and Security guide specifications. He holds a BSEE from Drexel University and is currently pursuing a Masters in Engineering Management, also at Drexel University.



Oguzhan , Turkey, 01/29/14 02:15 AM:

APPROXIMATELY 99% OF THE APPLICATIONS, WE SEE THE MAJORITY OF THE ENERGY RELATED CREDITS ARE NOT FOLLOWED ON THE FIELD APPLICATION AS INTENDED. THERE IS A GAP OR BROKEN LINK BETWEEN FIELD CONSTRUCTION TEAM AND LEED PROVIDING GROUP+DESIGNER. AND, UNLESS THE GOALS ARE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED WITH PERFORMANCE, THE OUTCOME IS EITHER IGNORANCE OR DISAPPOINTED CUSTOMER/OWNER.
John , CT, United States, 01/14/16 10:54 AM:

What happened to part 2 of specifying for green buildings. Can not find it!
Consulting-Specifying Engineer's Product of the Year (POY) contest is the premier award for new products in the HVAC, fire, electrical, and...
Consulting-Specifying Engineer magazine is dedicated to encouraging and recognizing the most talented young individuals...
The MEP Giants program lists the top mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection engineering firms in the United States.
Solving HVAC challenges; Thermal comfort criteria; Liquid-immersion cooling; Specifying VRF systems; 2016 Product of the Year winners
MEP Giants; MEP Annual Report; Mergers and acquisitions; Passive, active fire protection; LED retrofits; HVAC energy efficiency
Integrating electrical and HVAC systems; Tracking and conserving facility water use; Energy code advancements; The future of professional engineers
Driving motor efficiency; Preventing Arc Flash in mission critical facilities; Integrating alternative power and existing electrical systems
Putting COPS into context; Designing medium-voltage electrical systems; Planning and designing resilient, efficient data centers; The nine steps of designing generator fuel systems
Designing generator systems; Using online commissioning tools; Selective coordination best practices
As brand protection manager for Eaton’s Electrical Sector, Tom Grace oversees counterfeit awareness...
Amara Rozgus is chief editor and content manager of Consulting-Specifier Engineer magazine.
IEEE power industry experts bring their combined experience in the electrical power industry...
Michael Heinsdorf, P.E., LEED AP, CDT is an Engineering Specification Writer at ARCOM MasterSpec.
click me