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!
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2015 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
2015 Top Plant: Phoenix Contact, Middletown, Pa.; 2015 Best Practices: Automation, Electrical Safety, Electrical Systems, Pneumatics, Material Handling, Mechanical Systems
A cool solution: Collaboration, chemistry leads to foundry coat product development; See the 2015 Product of the Year Finalists
Raising the standard: What's new with NFPA 70E; A global view of manufacturing; Maintenance data; Fit bearings properly
Special report: U.S. natural gas; LNG transport technologies evolve to meet market demand; Understanding new methane regulations; Predictive maintenance for gas pipeline compressors
Cyber security cost-efficient for industrial control systems; Extracting full value from operational data; Managing cyber security risks
Drilling for Big Data: Managing the flow of information; Big data drilldown series: Challenge and opportunity; OT to IT: Creating a circle of improvement; Industry loses best workers, again
Migrating industrial networks; Tracking HMI advances; Making the right automation changes
Understanding transfer switch operation; Coordinating protective devices; Analyzing NEC 2014 changes; Cooling data centers
Upgrading secondary control systems; Keeping enclosures conditioned; Diagnostics increase equipment uptime; Mechatronics simplifies machine design

Annual Salary Survey

After almost a decade of uncertainty, the confidence of plant floor managers is soaring. Even with a number of challenges and while implementing new technologies, there is a renewed sense of optimism among plant managers about their business and their future.

The respondents to the 2014 Plant Engineering Salary Survey come from throughout the U.S. and serve a variety of industries, but they are uniform in their optimism about manufacturing. This year’s survey found 79% consider manufacturing a secure career. That’s up from 75% in 2013 and significantly higher than the 63% figure when Plant Engineering first started asking that question a decade ago.

Read more: 2014 Salary Survey: Confidence rises amid the challenges

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.
This article collection contains several articles on the vital role that compressed air plays in manufacturing plants.