Citation
Factors That Influence the Owner's Representative's Perception of the Budget Allocation on Leed Construction Projects

Material Information

Title:
Factors That Influence the Owner's Representative's Perception of the Budget Allocation on Leed Construction Projects
Creator:
Ryan, Francesca
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (120 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.B.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Building Construction
Committee Chair:
Ries, Robert J.
Committee Members:
Sullivan, James
Srinivasan, Ravi
Kibert, Charles J
Graduation Date:
8/11/2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Buildings ( jstor )
Construction costs ( jstor )
Cost analysis ( jstor )
Cost savings ( jstor )
Credit ratings ( jstor )
Economic surveys ( jstor )
Environmental surveys ( jstor )
Equivalency tests ( jstor )
Minimization of cost ( jstor )
Total costs ( jstor )
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
bim -- budget -- building -- construction -- cost -- efficiency -- energy -- globes -- green -- gsa -- lca -- lcc -- leed -- motivation -- owners -- representative -- sri -- sustainable -- synergies -- usgbc -- water
City of Indian Rocks Beach ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.

Notes

Abstract:
During the process of this thesis the researcher will investigate how an owner chooses to distribute their budget on United States Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). The researcher will examine what influences an internal and external owner’s rep to use and achieve a LEED certified building. The researcher will explore the idea that if an internal or external owner’s rep had any type of an educational background in sustainability they would be more willing to use more sustainable products and systems. The researcher will also look into the financial aspect of the project to see if the economics play a larger role or a less significant role compared to the level of information an owner has on sustainability.  The objective of this research is to determine what variables influence an owner’s budget allocation on a construction project: 1.  Determine what factors may influence spending on projects 2.   Does knowledge about green buildings influence the cost impact. 3.  Examine what type of  economic analysis the internal and external owner’s rep completed for their project 4.  Investigate what type of role LEED plays  relative to the budget ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Ries, Robert J.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Francesca Ryan.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Ryan, Francesca. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
857767272 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2012 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE OF THE BUDGET ALLOCATION ON LEED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT S By FRANCESCA RYA N A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULF ILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Francesca Ryan

PAGE 3

3 To my Mom

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T o my parents and my brother who have been my bigg est fans throughout my life. I would not be where I am today without each of them in my life. Without their help and encouragement I would have never finished or for that matte r started this thesis Also, to Dr. Ries Dr. Sullivan, Dr. Kibert and Dr. Srin ivasan without your direction and knowledge I would have never made it through this process. Thank you for your patience and guidance. Last but certainly not least, t o Dottie Beaupied, thank you for always having the answer s to any question s I had concer ning my thesis or anything else in the Building Construction program I would have been completely lost without your direction.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Statement and Background of the Problem ................................ ............................ 13 Purpose of the Study/Questions to be Answered ................................ ................... 14 Scope and Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........ 15 Importance of t he Study ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 Statement of the Hypothesis ................................ ................................ ................... 17 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 19 Where our Readers Stand on Sustainability ................................ ........................... 19 GSA Cost Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 20 Hard Cost and Soft Cost ................................ ................................ ................... 20 LEED Credit Cost Study ................................ ................................ ................... 23 Synergies ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 24 Moderate to High Cost ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 Cost Savings Credits ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 Summary of Cost Analysis ................................ ................................ ............... 39 Davis Langdon Articles ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 What Does Green Really Cost? ................................ ................................ ....... 41 The Cost & Benefit of Achieving Green Buildings ................................ ............ 44 Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 47 The Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increaed Market Adoption ................... 55 Impact of L EED NC Credits on Contractors ................................ ............................ 57 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 57 Credit Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ...................... 57 Analysis of State Wide Green Building Policies ................................ ...................... 58 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 58 Green Building Policies ................................ ................................ .................... 58

PAGE 6

6 Elements: Inspiration, Motivation, Implementation (Training) and Evaluation .. 59 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............... 61 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 61 The Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 62 Survey Procedure ................................ ................................ ............................. 62 S urvey Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ....................... 65 Evaluating the Survey Results ................................ ................................ .......... 75 4 HYPOTHESES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 77 Overview and Objectives ................................ ................................ ........................ 77 Influence of Spending ................................ ................................ ....................... 77 Knowledge about Green Buildings ................................ ................................ ... 79 Role of Economics ................................ ................................ ........................... 80 ................................ ................................ 81 5 SURVEY RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ 82 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ....................... 103 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 103 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ 105 Recommendations for the Industry ................................ ................................ 105 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ......................... 106 APPENDIX A IRB SURVEY PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL ................................ .............................. 107 B IRB INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT ................................ ............................ 109 C ................................ ................................ 111 D ................................ ................................ 115 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKE TCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 120

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Optimize energy performance point scale ................................ ......................... 32

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 ........................ 66 3 2 rep survey ........................ 66 3 3 ...................... 67 3 4 Question four of the internal and ext .......................... 67 3 5 ........................ 69 3 6 Question six from the in ......................... 70 3 7 .................... 70 3 8 Question e ................................ ........... 71 3 9 ................................ ............ 71 3 10 Question ten from th ......................... 72 3 11 ................... 72 3 12 Que .................... 73 3 13 .................. 73 3 14 Question fourteen from the internal and external ................. 74 3 1 5 ................................ ........... 74 3 16 ................................ .......... 75 5 1 Certification the survey participant had at the time they completed the survey. 83 5 2 Percentage of LEED projects participant completed in past five years ............... 84 5 3 Importance of the project budget realitive to the LEED certification ................... 84 5 4 Participants self rating on their knowledge of green building .............................. 85 5 5 Certication types of participants that rating their lev el of knowledge above average ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 86 5 6 Type of green building education the participants have been apart of ................ 87

PAGE 9

9 5 7 Type of green b uilding education broken down by self rating of knowledge of green buildings ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 88 5 8 ................................ ..... 89 5 9 ................................ ............ 90 5 10 5 scale) ............. 91 5 11 Average rating of the economic evaluations ................................ ....................... 93 5 12 The ranking of most important to least important LEED credits, 1 is the most import 6 in the least important ................................ ................................ ............ 94 5 13 Credit importance ranking; 1 being the most important and 6 being the least important ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 95 5 14 Budget vs. LEED compared to t he cost impact of the buildings the participants listed in the survey. ................................ ................................ .......... 97 5 15 to the cost impact of the buildings lis ted by the participants in the survey .......... 98 5 16 the cost impact of the buildings listed by the participants in the s urvey .............. 99 5 17 The cost impact compared to certification level of all school buildings participants listed in the survey ................................ ................................ ........... 99 5 18 The cost impact compared to certification level of all the office buildings participants listed in the survey ................................ ................................ ......... 100 5 19 Cost impact of buildings in survey with building type and LEED certificat ion level ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 101 5 20 ................ 101 5 21 Economic evaulation average score co mpared to the cost impact average for each owners rep. ................................ ................................ .............................. 102

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S BIM Building Information Modeling CCM Certified Construction Manager CMAA Construction Management construction Association of America Credit E A Credit Energy and Atmosphere Credit EQ Credit Indoor Environmental Quality Credit ID Credit Innovation and Design Credit MR Credit Materials and Resources Credit SS Credit Sustainable Site Credit WE Credit Water Efficiency FSC Wood Forest Stewardship C ouncil Certified Wood GC General Contractor GFA Gross Floor Area GGP Green Globes Professional GPF Gallons per flush GPM Gallons per minute GSA U.S. General Services Administration GSF Gross Square Footage IRB Intuition Review Board LCA Life Cycle Assess ment LCC Life Cycle Cost LEED AP LEED Accredited Professional LEED GA LEED Green Associate LEED Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design M & V Plan Measurement and Verification Plan

PAGE 11

11 MDF Medium density fiberboard MDI Methane Di I socyanate MEP Mechanical, Electrical and Plumping NPV Net Present Value PV Panels Photovoltaic Panels SRI Solar Reflective Index TPO T hermoplastic polyolefin USGBC United States Green Building Council VOC Volatile organic compounds

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE OWNER S REPRESENT AT I OF THE BUDGET ALLOCATION ON LEED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS By Francesca Ryan August 2012 Chair: Robert Ries Major: Building Construction During the process of this thesis the researcher will investigate how an owner chooses to distribute their budget on United States Green Building Council (USGBC) L eadership in Energy and Environmental Design (L EED ) The researcher will examine what influences an certified building. The researcher will explore th e idea that if an internal or external owner s rep had any type of an educational background in sustainability they would be more willing to use more sus tainable products and systems. The researcher will also look into the financial aspect of the project t o see if the economics play a larger role or a less significant role compared to the level of information an owner has on sustainability. budget allocation on a constructi on project: 1. Determine what factors may influence spending on projects 2. Does knowledge about green buildings influence the cost impact. 3. Examine completed for their project 4. Investigate wh at type of role LEED plays relative to the budget

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INT RODUCTION Statement and Background of the Problem on all projects. For example, an employee in the facilities department at the University construction projects. For example, someone who works for companies like; Hines, Hill rep because they do not work directly in the company; they are somewhat of a sub contractor, but for management. If an owner is allocating a budget for a project, they have a right to know where their money is being spent and what the cost impact will be for any additions to the project. The budget is always an important factor of a construction project, so it is help understand how they allocate their budget. But budget allocation sometimes can be more complex than just wants and needs, which is what this study takes a closer look at. Buildings in the United Sates use 36% of the total energy, 30% of raw material s, 12% of potable water, produce 30% of total waste and emit 30% of greenhouse gases (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) Sustainable design recognizes that buildings are major consumers of resources and continually generate waste and pollution (Mehta,

PAGE 14

14 Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) This is why g reen building is a practice that needs to be used for more often, and this can begin from educating the owner. To educate the owner, the educator would need to know how much knowledge and experience they alrea dy have. Knowledge is something that can help the owner know want they want before they even meet with the rest of the team. This can make the designing and building process work more efficiently than usual. Discovering which factors influence udget, could allow a team to make the green building process more obtainable. The researcher believes the main problem with not knowing what the owner main influences are and what their knowledge is; it makes it more difficult to provide the owner with val id reason to build green. If the influence and knowledge is unknown, there is a chance of the cost impact increasing, which would make the likelihood of building green to decrease. This topic will be discussed in more detail in multiple chapters throughou t this thesis. Purpose of the Study/Questions to be A nswered During the process of this research the research er will investigate what factors influence an internal and external rep by asking questions that have to do with policies, economic analys is and credit importance. The researcher will explore the idea that if external and internal owner s rep had any type of an educational background in sustainability they would be more willing to use more sustainable products and systems The owner would lo ok into the financial aspect of sustainable products and systems to see if the economics play a larger role, a less significant role or an equal role relative to the usable level of the building or project.

PAGE 15

15 The objective of this research is to determine budget allocation on a construction project. The objectives the researcher will examine and research more in depth are: 1. Determine what factors may influence spending on projects 2. Does knowledge about green buildings infl uence the cost impact. 3. Examine completed for their project 4. Investigate what type of role LEED plays relative to the budget Each of these objectives will be discussed in more detail th roughout different parts and chapters of the research. The survey that was created by the researcher will allow the researcher to look at these objectives more closely. The results of the surveys and answers to the objectives will be discussed in the resul ts and conclusion section of the thesis. Scope and Limitations of the S tudy The scope of this study will include all types of internal owner s representatives and external external and internal owner s rep of any build ing type, from high rise buildings to data centers to hospitals that are LEED certified or sustainable buildings within the last five years. The external scope in this study is also very broad, any external LEE D or sustainable building within the last five years. Some other limitations about this study are; the building must be within the United States and the building must be a LEED certified building or other sustainable certification building. The reason the scope is limited to just with the United States has to do with a number of reasons. For example, there are different types of building certification in different locations all over

PAGE 16

16 the world, even some of the certification levels are similar they are some times hard to compare. Also, asking for the cost impact can be complicated due to the fact that different countries have different buildings laws F or example there may be different code for mechanical systems in England then American, adding that system i n England would not be considered a cost impact, but adding a specialty system in American would be consider ed a cost impact. Also the monetary units are different, which could affect the cost impact percentage. Other than the location, the building needi ng to be some type of a sustainable certified building and the project needing to occur within the past five years there are no other limitations to this study and research. Importance of the Study The importance of this study is to investigate what influ relative to sustainability. If the construction industry is able to see what influence an external and internal owner s rep make an environmental conscious decision. Al though sustainable materials and construction practices have been growing, they are still in the early stages and are likely to go through extensive evolution as we learn from the experience ( Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) Constr uction creates a lo t of pollution and uses a lot of natural reso urces, as stated in the introduction of this thesis; therefore green building is becoming a necessity for the industry. Knowing what influences an owner to lean towards sustainable building is something that the construction industry needs more insight into. If a project team fully under stand what an owner wants and more specifically how they want to spend their money, it will be easier for the team to help the owner reach a green building standard.

PAGE 17

17 Statement of the Hypothesis Experts claim that although a sustainable building generally has a higher initial cost, the financial payback through energy savings and lower waste disposal and water consumption cost is rapid (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) LEED or green building s can play a substantial role when it comes to allocation of budget on any project. With the help of the survey the researcher will be able to take a closer look at this topic. Each individual project has different goals and different bud gets, but when a project team decides to build a LEED or green building, sustainability will play a role when it comes to budget allocation. When constructing a LEED building or a green building there is a lot of teamwork and planning needed; in addition to planning, there is going to be some changes to the project plan that could have a cost impact. The budget also plays a large role on any project, but when building a LEED building, it is all up to the owner if LEED or the budget plays the larger role. Definition of Terms S USTAINABLE B UILDINGS A structure that is environmentally res ponsible and resource proficient, throughout a buildings life Green B UILDINGS see sustainable building L EADERSHIP IN E NERGY AND E NVIRONMENTAL D ESIGN (LEED) The rating sy stem for green buildings within the United States, which was created by the U.S. Green Building Council. G REEN G LOBES The rating system for green building that was created in Canada, but is also used in the United States today. L IFE C YCLE C OST (LCC) a m ethod for assessing the total cost of a product or building, taking into account all cost that project will acquired over the product or buildings life span. L IFE C YCLE A SSESSMENT An evolution and investigation of the environmental impacts of a

PAGE 18

18 given prod uct or service caused by its existence. S USTAINABILITY A method of using, harvesting or reusing resources in a way that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged. B UILDING I NFORMATION M ODELING (BIM) A Process that involves generation and manag ement of a digital illustration of physical and practical characteristics of a building or facility. S OLAR R EFLECTIVE I NDEX (SRI) A measure of a materials ability to reject solar heat.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Overview Factors that influence spendin g on LEED construction projects is a topic the researcher feels needs to be studied more in depth. T his topic seems to come up more often due to two factors; the current state of the economy and the need for more sustainable building Sustainable design re cognizes that buildings are major consumers of resources and continually generate waste and pollution (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) There are a lot of questions about what the premium is for a sustainable building, if in fact there is even an i ncrease. There have been studies done to show what the increase would be, for a sustainable building and even t here is a cost increase for each individual LEED credit such as the GSA study There also have been studies done comparing LEED and non LEED buil ding in their total price, instead of going specifically into each credit such as the Davis Langdon study Each of these studies researches the economics of sustainable buildings differently allowing the reader to view the cost analysis in many different ways. This allows the reader to fully understand where the costs come from and how to keep the premium low if there is even a premium on that specific project. Where our Readers Stand on Sustainability The Building Design & Construction journal wrote a supplement to their journal in November of 2003. This supplement included a variety of topics concerning topic is very interesting because it relates back to, where do the survey participants

PAGE 20

20 were: 1. To determine how respondents view key issues related to sustainable design 2. To measure how active they and their firms were I green building 3. To discover any barriers that may exist towards implementing sustainability 4. (Gensler, 2003) The survey also looked into what type of professional the survey parti ci pant was, 23% of the participant s work for a architectural firm and 6% worked for a general contractor, 5% worked for an owner/developer, 3% worked for a construction management firm, 2% worked for a university and 1% worked for a project management company. The survey also looked into what type of experience these participants had that was measurable. Such as; have they built green buildings, sought LEED certification, LEED was not used as often as it i s today. This survey was very good for its time; it allowed the industry to see how much needed to be done in the sustainable building industry. Some of the questions may be outdated now, but they were very important in 2003. GSA Cost Study Hard Cost an d S oft C ost There are both hard costs and soft costs in construction. Hard costs are assets that are tangible that an owner need s to have to complete their const ruction phase of

PAGE 21

21 the project. S oft costs are cost that are not directly related t o the construc tion cost such as; architectural, engineering, legal fees and consultant fees. Three of the main impacts of soft costs are design cost consultant cost and documentation cost. Specifically, LEED Design Cost, LEED Documentation Cost and Consultant Cost; pu rsuing a LEED certification can increase work load which can also during the design and construction phases of the project. LEED Documentation Cost is the cost that comes wi th documentation and submitting all the LEED paper work and the LEED application to the U.S. Green Building Council. The consultant is a very importan t aspect of the LEED project. The team should hire a consultant who has worked on a number of LEED project s because they k now the system and how it works. A consultant can make a LEED project more efficient and even less expensive, if they know what they are doing. When dealing with the LEED design c ost, the team has to consider the Architects cost, the MEP En gineer cost and the Landscape Architect cost. These are all costs that will increase the soft cost of the project. All of those team members would be considered part of the design team, an experienced design t eam can help decrease cost by en suring that all LEED aspects of the project are addressed early on in the planning phase and before construction starts. The documentation on a LEED project can be very time consuming, and if it is not credit s may be rejected by LEED. Having a con sultant or an employee who is experienced in LEED documentation is a m ajor asset to have on a LEED process It will save a tremendous amount of time and money for that matter.

PAGE 22

22 These soft costs do add up and can make a big difference in cost at the end of the project. In the GSA LEED Cost Study, there is a square foot price for LEED soft cost impacts for both an expert consultant approach and for the experienced design team approach. The price per square foot estimates are for a new construction project an d the chart gives prices for a Certified Silver and Gold project. The table below is from the GSA LEED Cost Study written by Steven Winters Associates, Inc. This table shows the difference in price when using a consultant approach or a design team approa ch. They use a high and low cost because there are different options to choose when building a LEED building. The choices that are made can make the project a higher cost project or a lower cost project depending on what the owners choose to use and what the owner choo se not to use for that matter. In the GSA LEED Cost Study, there is a square foot price for LEED soft cost impacts for both an expert consultant approach and for the experienced design team approach. The price per square foot estimates are fo r a new construction project and range from $0.41 per gross square foot to $0.80 per gross square foot for expert consultant approach, depending on what level of LEED certification they earned.. For the experience design team approach the cost range from $ 0.43 per gross square foot to $0.73 per gross square foot, depending on what level of LEED certification they earned. Going back to hard cost in construction, it is a very important factor on a project because this is where value engineering can come into play. When managing a project, especially a LEED project, it is important to look at every as pect and not just the cost. Knowing what type of materials are need ed and what is best for the project. For

PAGE 23

23 example, wood would be a hard cost because it is a mate rial the project need s to build the actual building. In the GSA LEED Co st Study the new building that was reviewed had a cost for certified wood of almost $600,000, which was $2.28/GSF (Gross Square Feet). That was a 1.04% premium, just for wood. For the p roject to get the point for certified wood, 50% of the wood used on the project would have to be Forest Stewardship Council Certified Wood. This number can vary depending on which type of finishes the architect calls for o n different projects. But this is a credit that has the ability to be very expensive for just 1 point on the LEED scorecard. LEED Credit Cost Study The LEED Cost Study takes two different U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) buildings; a new courthouse and a federal office building modernization and goes through a cost analysis of both potential LEED buildings (Steven Winters Associates, 2004) The new courthouse is a 5 story building that is 262,000 GSF, including 15,000 GSF of underground parking, the price of this building is app roximately $220/GSF. The office building is 9 stories and is 306,600 GSF and has 40,700 GSF of underground parking, the price of the building is approximately $130/GSF. This study takes both of these buildings and goes through the entire LEED Version 2.1 rating system. It goes through every single credit and talks about the increase in price due to that credit, or the decrease in price due to the credit. When it goes through every single LEED credit is gives it a 1 5 rating 1 is no LEED cost associated wit h it because it is already a GSA Mandate. 2 is no cost or potential cost decrease, 3 is Low Cost ( less than $50,000), 4 is Moderate Cost ($50,000 $150,000), 5 is High Cost ( more than $150, 000). The study goes through every credit and determines what the cost change will be. The moderate cost (4) and the high c ost (5) will be discussed in more detail in this section.

PAGE 24

24 The study also breaks down each building into 6 different options; there is a low and high cost for each type of rating. For example; there is a low cost and high cost for a LEED Certified building, a low cost and high cost for a LEED silver Building and a low cost and high cost for a LEED Gold Building. The study also talks about soft cost, which is the same as the soft cost discussed in th e previous section. Another main part of the study is synergies between credits, or Synergistic Credit Reviews. This section discusses how some credits are related to one another and in essence intertwine. For the purpose of the review the synergies from the court house and the office building will be used to show the multiple ways credits can be used. The synergies from the courthouse will be examined first. As stated before, both buildings were evaluated using the LEED Version 2.1 rating system. The LEED rating system that is being used today ( LEED 2009/ V3) was not used to evaluate these buildings. S ynergies Synergies are an important part of the LEED process. Combining credits allows the team to save money on some potential credits. There are some cred its that do not have the ability to be combined, but for the ones that can be combined it is the smartest and easiest solution for cost and the LEED process in general. Below is an example of a LEED synergy that would help save cost to a project. Total Sy nergy cost: $1,378,948.00 Synergy combines: Credit SS 6.1(b. Vegetated Roof); Storm water Management, Rate and Quantity. $578,170 (1 Point) Credit SS 7.2(b. Vegetated Roof); Heat Island Effect, Roof. $495,353 (1 Point)

PAGE 25

25 Credit EA 2.1; Renewable Energy, 5% $ 787,586 (1 Point) *The monetary unit next to the credit is the cost of each individual credit. Moderate to H igh C ost During the LEED Cost Study, each individual credit was evaluated and labeled a number associated with its cost. The numbers are assigned a s followed: No LEED cost associated with it because it is already a GSA Mandate No cost or potential cost decrease Low Cost (less than $50,000) Moderate Cost ($50,000 $150,000) High Cost (more than $150.000) First the cost of each credit will be reviewed f or the court house, and then each credit cost will be analyzed for the office building. As stated earlier in the literature review, the researcher is only reviewing the moderate cost (rating of 4) credits and the high cost ( rating of 5) credits. Credit SS 4.2: Alternative Transportation Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms is ranked a 5 for the court house. This LEED credit will cost $248,743. Its cost impact is bicycl e storage room with keyed access at the basement level nearby to the underground parking. The bicycle room is 300 square feet and has 48 racks (can hold each containing abou t 350 square feet. Each shower/changing room has 3 shower stalls, 3 lavatories, 12 lockers and 2 benches. One of the three showers is ADA compliant and one of the three lavatories is also ADA compliant. The next credit is also ranked a 5, high cost. Credi t SS 6.1: Storm water Management Rate and Quantity, this credit costs $578,170, which is a cost impact of $2.21/GSF and 1.01% cost impact. There are two scenarios to choose fro m for this

PAGE 26

26 credit. The first would actually have cost savings of $165,055(($0.6 3)/GSF and (.29% cost impact). If the owner would choose to increase the landscape area for this credit, they would save money on the project instead of increasing the budget. But there is a second option, which is rated a 5, high cost choice. This choice would be a vegetated roof, which is why it would cost so much more. The base case of the site was that 60% of the site would be paved surfaces, 6% would be turf grass and the remaining 34% would be groundcovers, trees, shrubs etcetera. With the increased l andscape areas scenario, the paved surfaces would be reduced to 40%, turf would only be 3% and groundcovers, trees, shrubs et cetera, would be increased to 57%. Since paving will be reduced dramatically, the cost decrease comes from there. The vegetated ro of would be a 4 inch deep vegetated roof that would cover 72% of the uppermost roof of the Courthouse. Since they would have to meet Credit SS 6.1, they would not need to change the base case site plans of paving. The vegetated roof is the high cost (5) op tion for Credit SS 6.1, an d is only included in the high c ost Gold scenario in this case. There are two scenarios for LEED Credit SS 7.2; Heat Island Reduction Roof. One of the sce narios is a 2; no cost premiums and possible savings, the option is an ener gy star roof. The other scenario is a 5, high premium. The scenario that is rated a 5 is a vegetated roof, which would cost $495,353 and has a cost impact of $1.89/GSF and .86% cost impact. The Energy Star option will be a white thermoplastic polyolefin (T PO) roof membrane system. The vegetated roof is a 4 inch deep vegetated roof system that would cover 55% of the most upper roof of the Courthouse. The vegetated roof would be an option in the h igh c ost LEED Gold scenario.

PAGE 27

27 LEED Credit WE 3.2; Water Use Red uction 30% Reduction has a cost impact of a 4; Moderate Premium. The total credit cost will be $62,467; the cost impact will be $0.24/GSF and .11%. This credit specifically addresses internal plumbing fixtures such as; faucets, showers, toilets and urinal s. The cost comes into play when specialty fixtures are used, such as; .5 gpm faucets, sensor controls on faucets, .5 gpf urinals and 2.0 gpm showers. Waterless urinals could have been used, but the product is new and sometimes has maintenance issues due t o the fact that they have specific cleaning instructions. LEED Credit EA 1; Optimize Energy Performance is a little more complex than the rest of the credits. This credit has three options for the Courthouse. Each option offers a different amount of energ y points, there is a 1 point option, a 3 point option and a 5 point option. The 1 point option has a cost impact rating of 2, no premium, possible cost savings. The 3 point option has a cost impact rating of a 5. The credit cost for the 3 point energy opti on is $151,262 and has a cost impact of $0.58/GSF and a .26% cost impact. The 5 point option is the most expensive by far costing $756,101. The cost impact is $2.89/ GSF and a 1.32% cost impact. The credit choice is completely up to the owner, they can get just one point and not add on to cost or they can go for the most expensive option and try to get 5 energy points which would cost them over three quarters of a million dollars, just for 5 points. They also have a choice to fall in the middle of those two options and settle for 3 points. This credit choice is completely up to the owner and how much t he y want to spend or save for that matter on energy. LEED Credit EA 2; Renewable E nergy is a type of credit that can become expensive quite quickly. The Courth ouse is planning on using photovoltaic ( PV) panels

PAGE 28

28 as their rene wable energy; most people know PV panels as solar panels. The Courthouse plans on using 6,000 square feet of the photovoltaic panels. These panels will be utility grid connect ed and will not h ave a battery backup or any type of generator. The credit cost will be $787,586, which would be a cost increase of $3.01/GSF and a 1.37% cost impact. With a cost impact rating of 4, LEED Credit EA 5; Measurement and Verification will have a total cost imp act of $0.41/GSF and a .19% cost impact. The total credit cost for EA 5 will be $107,058, this cost increase will come from additional equipment such as; domestic water flow meters, receptacle panel meters at all tenant receptacle panels, gas flow meters a t supply lines feeding the boilers, lighting panel meters at all tenant lighting panels. The team will also need to create a Measurement and Verification Plan (M&V) based on standards. The M & V Plan is considered a construction soft cost, which was alread y discussed. In some of the credits there are high cost and low cost options, such as LEED Credit MR 4.2; Recycled Content, 10%. The low cost option for MR4 2 has a cost impact rating of 2, which means there is no premium and even possible savings. The hi gh cost option has a cost impact rating of 4 and will cost $79,331. The cost impact in gross square feet is $0.30 and .14% is the cost impact in a percentage. In t he high cost scenarios the steel only has 30% recycled content as where the low cost scenari os steel is 90% recycled. Due to the 60% decrease in recycle material in just steel; the project is going to have to have a wider range of other materials that are recycled. This can become costly because some recycled materials can get expensive.

PAGE 29

29 LEED Cr edit MR 5.1; Regional Materials: 20% Manufactured Regionally is similar to MR 4.2. There is a low and a high cost scenario, the low cost scenario has a cost impact rating of 2, which again means no premium and possible cost savings, the high cost scenario has a cost impact rating of 4, which is a moderate premium. The total cost of the high cost scenario for credit MR 5.1 is $115,903, which is a .20% cost impact and a $0.44/GSF cost impact. The high cost scenario is assuming that the gypsum wallboard used o n this project is not considered a regional material because it is produced over 500 miles away. If this is true, the credit will have to come from other materials such as pre cast concrete that is manufactured within 500 miles. The cost increase is based off the assumption that the local pre cast manufacturer would not be the lowest bidder. Even though t hey are not the lowest bidder, the owner will have to hire them due to the fact that credit MR 5.1 is needed. The Courthouse has a large amount of wood in it, which is why LEED Credit MR 7; Certified Wood is such an expensive credit and has a cost impact rating of 5. The Courthouse credit cost for MR 7 will be $596,597. This is a $2.28/GSF cost impact and a 1.04% cost impact. According to the LEED guideline s, 50% of the wood used on the project has to be Forest Stewardship Council Certified Wood. Since all fixed furniture in cost impact high. In essence the more wood on the project the more FSC wood needed, which increases the price dramatically. The cost impact rating for LEED Credit EQ 1; Carbon Dioxide monitoring is 4, moderate premium. The total credit cost for EQ 1 is, $64,876 which consists of 45

PAGE 30

30 carbon dioxide monitor s in all parts of the Courthouse. The cost impact is $0.25/GSF and .11%. LEED Credit EQ 4.4; Low Emitting Materials Composite Wood has a cost impact rating of 5, which is a high premium. The total cost of the credit is $455,308; this premium comes from a ll the wood casework pieces and wood doors. Plywood, MDF substrate boards and standard particle boards are replaced with MDF substrate using an MDI binder. The cost impact in gross square feet is $1.74/GSF and the cost impact is .79%. LEED Credit ID 1.4A : Exceed Heat Island Effect, Non Roof has a cost impact rating of 5, high premium. The cost impact is $0.90/GSF and a cost impact of .41%. The total credit cost of credit ID 4.1A is $235,337, this cost premium is caused by two changes on the site paving ma terials. T he first change is using white p ortland cement concrete instead of standard gray concrete for sidewalks and other paths. The other change is using light colored granite pavers (pink, white and light grey tones) instead of medium to dark colored g ranite pavers. Even though Credit MR 7; Certified Wood was already discussed, it has come up again due to Courthouse exceeding credit MR 7. LEED Credit ID 1.4B; Exceed Certified Wood Criteria (75%) has a cost rating of 5; high premium cost. This credit is one of the most expensive credits with the credit total cost being $912,098. The cost impact is $3.48/GSF and the cost impact in percentage being 1.59%. As stated earlier, the rs made out of wood, specifically FSC wood. Also, unrated solid doors, casework and a portion of the buildings hardwood base is all FSC wood, which has a premium cost.

PAGE 31

31 There are still a number of credits that have a cost impact rating of 3, which would be less than $50,000. Even though those credits are important, the credit that costs more play larger role s When costs are between $50,000 and $1,000,000, this is when the impact needs to be looked at more closely. When the cost impact is that high, that is when an owner decides if the credit is worth the actual monetary cost. That is why it is a little more important to look at the credits that have a cost impact rating of a 4 or 5. These are the credits that may not be obtainable for an owner due to the la rge markup in price. Cost always plays a role, the question is how large of a role, and how often does the size of the role change? The office building modernization also has a large amount of moderate premium (4) credits and high premium (5) credits. Goin g through each of these credit cost increases will allow the reader to understand where cost can be cut and where they cannot be cut. When the office building modernization credits were analyzed there were two options used; minimal faade and full faade. Minimal faade would be minor repairs and window replacements, while full faade would be new cladding and faade design, new windows and new insulation. LEED Credit SS 4.2; Alternative Transportation Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms, has a cost impact rating of 5 because it cost exceeds $150,000 which makes it a high premium. The cost of credit SS 4.2 is $239,637, which is a $0.78/GSF cost impact. For the minimal faade option the cost impact is .60% and for the full faade option the cost impact is .59%. There are 2 shower rooms that are about 400 square feet, each room has 4 shower stalls, and 1 of the 4 are ADA compliant, 1 ADA toilet room, 2 lavatories, 16 lockets and 2 benches.

PAGE 32

32 With a cost impact rating of 4 the LEED Credit WE 3.2; Water Use Red uction 30% Reduction will cost $56, 413. The cost impact of credit WE 3.2 is $0.19/GSF, the cost impact for the minimal faade is .14% and the full faade option has the same cost impact of .14%. The cost comes into play when specialty fixtures are used, such as; .5 gpm faucets, sensor controls on faucets, .5 gpf urinals and 2.0 gpm showers. Waterless urinals could have been used, but the product is new and sometimes has maintenance issues due to the fact that they have specific cleaning instructions. LEED Credit EA 1; Optimize Energy P erformance is a very detailed credit in the office building modernization. The credit gives points out by how much the building decrease its energy use in a percentage. The point system will be shown in Table 1 1. Optimize E nergy Performance Point Scale Table 1 1 Optimize energy performance point scale Percentage of energy cost reduction Points 5% 1 10% 2 15% 3 20% 4 25% 5 30% 6 35% 7 40% 8 45% 9 50% 10 Table 1 1 allows the team to have an idea of how many points will be earned with their percentage of energy cost reductions. The percentages shown in the first column of Table 1 1 are not the percentage of energy saved; it is the energy cost reduction. These descriptions may seem similar but it is important to real ize there is a difference. Table 1 1 Optimize Energy Performance Point Scale, has complete control over how

PAGE 33

33 many points a project received for the energy performance of their building. It is important to make sure the energy percentage as accurate as possi ble. Since there are two options to choose from; minimal faade and full faade, they will be discussed separately. First, minimal faade has 3 point options to choose from. The office building can get 3 energy points without any cost increase; the 3 poin t option would be ranked a 2 on the cost impact rating system. Then there is the 5 point option, the cost of this credit would be $357,775. This would be a $1.17/GSF cost impact and a .91% cost impact. Then there is the 7 point option which is the most exp ensive choice, it would cost $941,426. This would be a $3.07/GSF cost impact and a 2.39% cost impact. The 7 point option is very expensive due to the additions that would need to be added. It is the type of option the owner has to decide if it is worth the simply a matter of monetary savings versus energy savings. The second option is the full faade options; which there are only two choices in the full facade. In the full faade renovation there is a 5 point option; its total cre dit cost would be $243,508. The cost impact would be $0.79/GSF and it would also be a .62% cost impact. The other option in the full faade renovation would be the 8 point energy option, which would have a total credit cost of $941,426, which was the same cost for the 7 energy points in the minimal faade renovation option. The 8 energy point option would have a cost impact of $3.07/GSF and a 2.33% cost impact. There are a number of factors that increase the cost for the credit for each point increase, some of the factors are: Reduced lighting power density Occupancy sensors for lighting Daylight dimming system Premium efficiency motors Modulating condensing boilers High efficiency chillers

PAGE 34

34 Energy recovery Variable frequency drive cooling tower fans Carbon d ioxide sensors LEED Credit EA 2; Renewable Energy is a credit that requires 5% of the buildings total energy to come from one site renewable energy, if the building use 10% the project will get an additional 1 point and if the project use s 20% it will get a total of 3 points. The office building modernization chooses to install photovoltaic panels on the building to create on site renewable energy. The minimal faade scenario used 6,750 square feet of photovoltaic panels, which would produce 67.5 kW at pea k performance. The photovoltaic system is utility grid connected and is without any type of battery backup or generator. This system would cost $956,912 in total and would be a $3.12/GSF cost impact. The cost impact in percentage would be 2.43%. The full f aade option actually costs less than the minimal faade option. There would only be 6,200 square feet of photovoltaic panels in the full faade renovation, and the panels would product 62 kW at peak performance. The photovoltaic system in the full faade renovation are the same as the minimal faade due to the fact that they are utility grid connected and is without any type of battery backup or generator. The total cost for the full faade renewable energy credit is $881,282, which is a cost impact of $2. 87/GSF and 2.18%. This credit is very expensive due to the amount of panels needed to produce 5% of the buildings total energy. Not only is the cost of the panels expensive, but the installation is also expensive. For LEED Credit EA 5; Measurement and Ver ification has both full faade and minimal faade renovations. EA 5 is rated a 4 in cost impact, which is a moderate cost. The total credit cost is $121,980 and has a cost impact of $0.40/GSF. The cost impact

PAGE 35

35 in percentage for the minimal faade is .31% an d for the full faade it is .30%. The additional equipment that was not a GSA standard that caused the cost increase was items such as; Lighting panels meter at all tenant lighting panels Gas flow meters at supply lines feeding the boilers Receptacle pane ls Domestic water flow meters Building chiller amp meters Flow meters for cooling tower make up water) LEED Credit MR 2.1 ; Construction Waste Management 50% has a 3 and 4 cost impact rating. The minimal faade renovation has a cost rating of 3; the total cost of the credit is $64,521. The cost impact is $0.21/GSF and a.16% cost impact. The full faade has a cost impact rating of 4, which is a moderate premium; the total credit cost for the full faade is $80,651. The cost impact is $0.26/GSF and a .20% co st impact. One of the main reasons the minimal faade and full faade cost are different are due to demolition cost. There will be more demolition in the full faade scenario which will increase the cost of the construction waste. Both the full faade and the minimal faade have a cost rating of 4 in the LEED Credit MR 5.1: Regional Materials: 20% Manufactured Regionally. The minimal faade renovation cost $83,277; the minimal facade has a cost impact of $0.27/GSF and a .21% cost impact. The minimal faade is mostly interior construction, gypsum wallboard, architectural metals, fiberglass batt insulation, casework and interior float glass are the materials assumed to be from regional manufacturers. For the office building to reach the 20% manufactured regio nal materials threshold other materials must be used such as; acoustical ceiling tiles, porcelain tile and base and steel studs for interior partitions. The full facade renovation cost is $145,307; the cost impact is $0.47/GSF and .36%.

PAGE 36

36 For the full faade renovation new exterior pre cast concrete panels from a local manufacturer is recommended. Certified wood can be very expensive if used in large quantity throughout the project. The office building did not use a lot of wood compared to other construction projects. LEED Credit MR 7; Certified Wood is rated a 4 in cost impact, so it is a moderate premium. The total cost of the credit is $77,332, which is $0.25/GSF. It is only required to use FSC wood for 50% of the total wood used. The owner can choose to e xceed that and try to obtain an Innovation and Design credit. The cost impact for the minimal faade is .20% and .19% for the full faade renovation. The office building uses FSC Certified Wood in all unrated solid wood doors. LEED Credit EQ 1; Carbon Dio xide Monitoring is worth 1 point, but wi ll cost $92,556 for the 1 point. The cost impact is a 4, moderate premium with a cost impact of $0.30/GSF. The minimal facade cost impact is .24% and the full facade cost impact is .23%. The cost will mainly come fro m the 60 carbon dioxide sensors installed in the office building in areas such as; open office areas, conference rooms and some miscellaneous areas for precaution. A credit that is connected to credit MR 7 is LEED Credit EQ 4.4; Low Emitting Materials Com posite Wood. It has a cost impact rating of 4; the total cost of the credit is $91,429, which is just within the moderate premium guidelines. The cost impact is $0.30/GSF and the minimal facade and the full facade cost impact are the same at .23%. The prem ium for this credit is due to the wood case work and the doors that were discussed in more detail in the outline of credit MR 7.

PAGE 37

37 LEED Credit EQ 6.1; Controllability of System Perimeter Spaces has a cost impact rating of 5 for minimal facade renovation. T he total credit cost for the minimal facade is $151,175; the cost impact is $0.49/GSF and .38%. The full faade has a cost rating of 4; the total cost of the credit is $143,686. The cost impact for the full faade renovation is; $0.47/GSF and .36%. In both the minimal faade and the full faade the cost increases come from the addition of operable windows. The minimal faade will have 12% if the fenestration ar ea changed to operable windows. The full faade will do the same, except they will increase the pe rcentage of operable windows to 15% rather than just 12%. Staying with the Environmental Air Quality credits, LEED Credit EQ 7. 1; Thermal Comfort Compliance ASHREA 55 1992 has a cost impact rating of 5 in the full faade renovation. This credit is not pur sued in the minimal faade renovation. The total cost of the credit for the full faade renovation is $166,829. The cost impact is $0.54/GSF and .41%. In the model of the office building humidification is not in cluded t herefore, the cost premium in the ful l faade renovation will include; humidifiers, air compressors, water deionizers, RH sensors and system tiebacks to the building management system. These additions are what make the cost impact high and make the cost impact rating a 5. LEED Credit EQ 8.2; Daylight & Views Views in 90% of Spaces have a cost impact rating of 5. The total cost of the credit is $346, 371 and has a cost impact of $1.13/GSF. The full faade cost impact is .86% and the minimal faade cost impact is .88%. The credit requirements state that the building must achieve a direct line of sight to vision glazing for building occupants in 90% of all regularly occupied spaces. The

PAGE 38

38 cost premium for this credit comes from adding fixed interior glazing at the enclosed offices and conference r ooms. There will be approximately 9,700 square feet of glazing area in the office building, which is enough to meet the LEED requirement. Another credit that is connected to MR 7 is, LEED Credit ID 1.4B; Exceed Certified Wood Criteria (75%). This credit h as a cost impact of 4; which is a moderate cost premium. The total credit cost for this credit is $128,460 and the cost impact is $0.42/GSF. The minimal faade has a cost impact of .32% while the full faade has a cost impact of .32%. This credit mainly pe rtains to the unrated solid core wood doors and hardwood base used in the office building. Cost Savings Cr edits There are not many credits that will save money, especially on renovations. There are zero cost saving credits in the Office Building Moderniz ation and only 3 cost saving credits in the new Courthouse. Each of these credits in the Courthouse will have a cost impact rating of 1, due to the fact that not only is there not any cost but, there is also a cost savings. The Courthouse LEED Credit SS 5 .1; Reduced Site Disturbance Protect or Restore Open Space will save the Courthouse project $110,616. This is a cost impact decrease of $0.42/GSF and a decrease of .19%. In the initial base case about 60% of the open site was paved, 6% would be turf grass and 34% would be; groundcover, perennials, shrubbery and trees. Due to the requirements of SS 5.1, the paved surfaces were reduced to 47%, a 13% decrease. The turf grass was reduced by half and is now only 3% of the site area. Therefore, the remaining 50% will be dedicated to one of the following; groundcover, perennials, shrubbery or trees.

PAGE 39

39 LEED Credit SS 6.1; Storm water Management Rate and Quantity is the only credit that has two options on two opposite sides of the spectrum. There are two scenarios to choose from for credit SS 6.1, the increased landscape areas scenar io has a cost impact rating of 1 and the Vegetated Roof has a cost impact rating of 5. The increased landscape areas scenario is the one that will have cost savings for the Courthouse. The re will be a total credit savings of $165, 055 if the owner chooses to use the increased landscape areas scenario. The cost impact is a savings of $0.63/GSF and a decrease of .29%. This credit is very similar to SS 5.1; due to the fact that base case area will be discussed. The base case area was 60% paved surfaces, 6% turn grass and 34% would be; groundcover, perennials, shrubbery and trees. This credit would reduce the paved area to 40%, which is reducing the paved area by half It would also reduce the t urf area by half and only leave 3% turf grass. That would leave a large percentage of groundcover, perennials, shrubbery and trees; 57% to be exact. This would reduce the site imperviousness to 25.5%, which would meet credit SS 6.1 requirements. The last credit that has cost savings is, LEED Credit WE 1.2; Water Efficient Landscaping No Potable Use or No Irrigation. Credit WE 1.2 has a cost savings of $39,467, a cost impact savings of $0.15/GSF and a cost impact savings of .07%. The cost deduction comes f rom the elimination of a sprinkler system, using low water use plans allows the Courthouse to eliminate their sprinkler system, resulting in cost savings. Summary of Cost A nalysis The LEED analysis allows the owner to see the actual cost per credit and ev en what kind of savings the owner can have from some specific credi ts. The analysis also

PAGE 40

40 shows how an owner can decrease cost by using synergies. The main component of synergies is planning, if the owner plans ahead and plan s to combine these credits savin gs will come more easily. Even the United States Green Building Council has always stated that using a LEED Charrette is very important to the project. Having a Charrette will allow the team to not only plan ahead, but it also allows the team to have multi ple people brainstorming about ideas, materials, methods and other aspects in the LEED construction process. The Courthouse final cost was approximately $220/GSF, the final cost of the project was nearly $61 million. When look ing at the final cost some o f the credits are not that expensive relative to the cost of the building. For some of the credits it is important to focus more on the cost impact percentage then the total credit cost. For example, look at LEED Credit EA 2; Renewable Energy; the Courthou se would have to spend $787,586 on photovoltaic panels This would produce around 5% of their needed energy (which would save them money in the long run), three quarters of a million dol lars seems like a lot, but look ing at the cost impact in a percentage it shows that it is a minuscule 1.37% cost increase. The total cost is a lot, but in retrospect it will save money in the long run and it is only 1.37% of the building cost. That is one of the main reasons this study is so important, is it allows the team to look at every credit from mu ltiple angles to figure out if the team really want to spend the money on that particular credit. This study also allows the team to ask and answer financially feasible? This study is so detailed that th e reader can look at each credit in suc h detail it will not only help the team decide what credits they t need, it will also help the

PAGE 41

41 team decide which credits they s goal is to be LEED Gold and they are 1 or 2 points short, the team can go back to th e study and see which credits they did not use and figure out which ones would be the easiest to earn or even the cheapest to earn. With the low cost and high cost options, the study shows that cost is very impo rtant and sometimes owners want to spend more money and sometimes they want to save, it all depends on what the owner wants and needs are The study also incorporated soft cost into the research, which is an important aspect of the LEED process. There a re many soft costs that owners expect to have, but there are also some they do not expect to have, the soft cost impact section did an outstanding job of discussing all of those in detail. Some soft costs that are obvious are fees, LEED document cost, LEED application cost and permits cost. All of these are well known cost, but there are also other cost that are and Verification Plan, BIM mo deling and energy modeling. Those are just some of the soft cost that can be over looked, that is why it is important to have a LEED Charrette whenever striving for a LEED certification on a project. Having multiple people with LEED experience prevents a team from overlooking any aspects of a LEED project Davis Langdon Articles What Does Green Really Cost? What Does Green Really The article talks about the cost of green, the components of bui lding a green building, the choices the owner has, the hard work that it takes to build a green building and how to do it. Morris talks about other popular cost studies that have been written by Davis Langdon and other well respected authors in this field. He used these articles and

PAGE 42

42 value ( Morris, What Does Green Really Cost?, 2007) try to throw a large premium percentage on green buildings, such as 30%. The 30% premium may be true in some cases, but it is indisputably not true in all cases. One of the most common excuses for not making a building a green building is cost mainly cuse people will accept as true. But the cost of green depends on many different factors that need to be looked at more in depth before anyone can just pick a percentage premium to tell an owner or developer. The factors that will affect the price are; lo cation of the project, size of the project, climate, site conditions, building type, project teams experience, which certification used(LEED/ Green Globes/etc.), level of certification and what part of the project the team choose s to make the building gree n. All of these may seem like small elements, but when they are all put together, they can add up to a very large premium. What does Th e location of the project is a big cost factor, not just due to the pr ice of the land, but also if the owner is choosing to be certified in LEED, the location can make a big difference. If the owner chooses to build the building in a city, the land may co st more, but there are some credits in the LEED rating system they will get because of their location. For example, the building will probably get; credit SS 2 Community Connectivity & SS 4.1 Public Transportation Access. These credits would be easy to

PAGE 43

43 ear n because everything is very condensed in a city and these credits would be obtainable just due to the location of the building. e very different from a 3 story buil ding to a 30 story building. The team need s to not only know th e size of their building, but they also need t o know what type of building they are building. The type of building could increase the co st of green depending on what the team is building. The cost of a green office building is going to differ from a green lavatory. These are two very important facto rs that will affect the cost to the highest degree. The cost will vary depe nding on which rating system is chose n on the project, if the team chooses to try to certify the building at all. Not only will the cost be different due to fees, but the different rating systems have different credits that have a possibility to vary in price (Morris, What Does Green Really C ost?, 2007) This is a very important issue when it comes to cost, due to the fact that different rating systems aim their focus towards different environmental factors. These factors can change the design of the building and what systems are being put in the building. The last factor that can affect the cost is the team that will build the building. If the team has never built a green building before, there is a good chance that the co st of the building will increase. When choosing a team to build a proje ct, the owner should pick a team that has experience in green building and who is knowledgeabl e in green building. The team the owner chooses can make all the difference, not only in cost, but also in; quality, ease of work and the amount of time it takes to finish the project. The team is a

PAGE 44

44 very important element in green building, choosing a team is something the owner should not take lightly! What The autho r Davis Langdon study shows projects of similar nature often cost at different rates due to many drivers; but green is not one of them (Morris, What Does Green Really Cost?, 2007) The Cost & Benefit of Achievin g Green Buildings Davis Langdon did another green building study relative to the cost of a green building, it was called, The Cost & Benefit of Achieving Green Buildings. This study specifically uses Green Star rating system to make comparisons and contrac tions. It is still relative to the other articles previously outlined, due to the study being specific to green building cost. The article references the Australian Green Star reference system; specifically the Australian ting system for Green Star is 4 Star 5 Star and 6 Star; 4 Star being the lowest and 6 Star being the best. 6 Star would be comparable to a Platinum LEED building, 5 Star would be compared to a LEED Gold building and 4 Star would be compared to a LEED Silv er building. There is a great deal of benefits for the owner when building a green building. For example the owner has the ability to generate more pr ofit than a non green building, by gaining the capability to charge higher lease rates. They also will ha ve lower operating cost, which will not cut into their profit as much as usual. It will cost less to maintain and operate the building due to better and more efficient equipment. Another positive financial quality of having a green building rather than a n on green building is that the

PAGE 45

45 value does not depreciate as quickly and it will have a higher future value then a non green building. Other benefits to green building compared to non green buildings are; the owner has the potential for high occupancy rates depending on the location and on what the building is built for. There is usually less of a tenant turnover rate in green building due to factors such as; high employee productivity, lower water bills and lower utility bills. Another benefit is that gover nment agencies have to be located in green buildings if at all possible due to mandatory laws. Therefore owners have a higher probability of having full occupancy because a government agency would have to rent from them if they were looking for space and there was open space in the owners building. Some other benefits The Cost & Benefit of Achieving Green Buildings brings up are; reduces the risk of being an obsolete building, less need for refurbishment in the future, and higher demand from an institutio nal investor. These are also important benefits to green building that were not touched upon when discussing cost and occupancy. Even though The Cost & Benefit of Achieving Green Buildings is using Green Star to evaluate price premiums, which is not the A merican standard, it is still a very valuable study and lesson in green costing. After all the data has been collected a Green Star 4 Star building would have a 0% premium and a $0 initial impact on construction cost GFA. This means that building a green building does not cost more than a non green building. Achieving any type of green certification has always had a reputation of being expensive and having a premium compared to a non green building. This study and other green cost studies are starting to p

PAGE 46

46 As long as the team value engineer s the project and budget wisely, the owner are able to build a fully functional green building at no additional cost to the owner. The 5 star Green Star level did have a pre mium if that is what the owner wanted to achieve. It was a 3% 5% increase to achieve a 5 star Green Star Building, the increase in GFA would be $98.00. This is not too much of an incr ease for a green building, remember some skeptics in the article; What Do es Green Really Cost? said premiums could be around 30%. The cost premium for a Green Star 6 Star building is obviously going to be more expensive when using multiple projects to create an average. The cost premium for the 6 Star rating is a 9% 11+% incr ease. This is actually more than double the increase for the 5 Star premiums; the GFA for the 6 Star Certification is $208. Even though this study proves that a high level of green building has a price, it is important to realize that some could have cost more and some could have cost less. For example, for the 6 Star buildings; one could have had a cost premium of 15% and another could have had a cost premium of 5%. Since the researcher only gave us the averages we do not know what the minimum premium is for a 6 Star and what the maximum premium is for a 6 Star. Factors that the builder and owner may have not been able to control could have cost increase or even cost decreases for that matter. nt because there is many, the idea that green costs a certain amount or a certain percent markup, is only an estimate. It may get the team close to how much green will cost the project, but it will never be precise.

PAGE 47

47 Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology In 2004 Davis Langdon; a cost consulting company did a thorough costing of green study. The Davis Langdon study consisted of almost 600 proj ects that were located in 19 different states, including a variety of building types, size and location. Some of the building types included in this study was: Universities and Colleges Classrooms (higher education and K 12) Laboratories (academic and comm ercial) Offices Hospitals Libraries Multilevel Parking Structures (above ground and underground) Theaters Gymnasiums, Multipurpose rooms, and Auditoriums Sports Facilities Animal Care Facilities (such as shelters and vivariums) The LEED version that was u sed during this study was LEED Version 2.2. LEED Credit SS 1.0 Site Selection and SS 4.2 Bike Racks and Showers were achieved by more than 80% of the projects in this study. SS 3.0 Brownfield and SS 4.3 Refueling Stations were achieved by less than 20% of the projects in this study. When this study was done, the total amount of LEED points that were able to be awarded was only 69. The LEED version that was used during this study was LEED Version 2.2. The study has created a figure that includes every credit in the LEED Version 2.2 S corecard For example LEED Credit SS 1.0 Site Selection has all three bars (green, silver and gold) above 80% and the silver line is above 90%. This means that Credit SS 1.0 Site Selection is achieved by more than 80% of the proje cts in this study. Below is an example of one of the sustainable sites figure that explains which credits were obtained by a certain percent of the projects. The green bar is for LEED

PAGE 48

48 Certified buildings, the silver bar is for LEED Silver certified buildi ngs and the gold bar is for LEED Gold certified building and LEED Platinum certified buildings. Some of these credits are rarely met, but there are others that are obtained more than 80% of the time. To get a better look at which credits owners usually tr y to meet, the credits that are met more than 80% of them time will be looked at in more detailed. To begin with Credit SS 1.0: Site Selection was obtained by more than 80% of LEED Certified and LEED Gold/Platinum certified. The buildings that were LEED S ilver certified obtain Credit SS 1.0 more than 90% of the time. This shows that it is not very difficult to earn this credit, if the team knows what the credit calls for; they just have to make sure they look for it when deciding on a project site. Credit SS 4.1: Alternative Transportation: Public Transportation Access is a credit that was earned 100% of the time by LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings. To earn this credit the site has to be mile from a bus line, subway station, commuter rail or light rail. The credit can be earned if the public transit is already there or is planned and funded. This may be why only the LEED Gold/Platinum certified building earned this credit due to the cost of adding public transit location to a city or town. Credit SS 4.2: Alternative Transportation: Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms is a LEED credit that was obtain by more than 80% of LEED Certified, LEED Silver certified and LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings. This credit is earned if the building adds a secure bicycle rack for 5% or more of the building and also provides showers and changing areas for the cyclist that are commuting by bike to their destination. This is another credit that is easily obtained as long as the owner is willing to spend the money on i t and accept a cost impact.

PAGE 49

49 LEED Credit SS 7.1: Heat Island Effect, Non roof, is obtained in slightly more than 80% of LEED Silver certified buildings. This credit is put in place to decrease the amount of heat islands on the ground or non roof area of the project. LEED Credit SS 7.2: Heat Island Effect, Roofs; is similar to SS 7.1because it deals with heat islands. But SS 7.2 has to do specifically with the heat islands on the roof of a building. In this study on LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings achi eved LEED Credit SS 7.2 more than 80% of the time. There are a few ways to earn LEED Credit 7.2, the project could h ave a vegetated roof (green roof ) for at least 50% of the roof area, it can have a high SRI value roofing material (a LEED table with indica te the value) or a combination of the previous two recommendations. Credit SS 8.0: Light Pollution Reduction is earned by more than 80% of the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings and is achieved by more than 90% of LEED Silver certified buildings. This is a credit that is sometimes hard to achieve due to the balance of light and security. The owner should want t o reduce light pollution so they are no t harming the environment, but they also want to m ake sure that the people in the building are safe and h ave enough light to see. By reducing light near a building sometimes unsafe areas are created, which is something an owner does not want. It is not surprising that only 60% of LEED Certified buildings earned Credit SS 8.0, it is a harder credit to achieve and when trying to only ac hieve LEED Certified building, the team make s cuts where ever an owner sees fit. Credit WE 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping (reduce by 50%) is achieved by more than 80% of LEED Certified buildings and by LEED Gold/Platinum certif ied buildings.

PAGE 50

50 LEED Silver certified buildings achieve this credit on more than 90% of the projects in this study. LEED Credit WE 3.1: Water Use Reduction: 20% Reduction is achieved by 80% of the LEED Certified buildings in this study. This credit is also earned by more than 90% of the LEED Silver certified buildings in this study and by 100% of the Gold/Platinum certified buildings in this study. LEED Credit WE 3.1 is followed by LEED Credit WE 3.2: Water Use Reduction: 30% Reduction. Credit WE 3.2 was ac hieved by a little more than 80% of the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings in this study. There are four different credits in Energy and Atmosphere that are achieved more than 80% of the time in at least on type of certification. Credit EA 1: Optimizi ng Energy performance, was earned by over 90% of all the LEED Certified buildings, LEED Silver certified buildings and the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings reviewed in this study. In the study Davis Langdon calls this credit 1.1, the next credit 1.2 and so on until 1.5. This is because in LEED Credit EA 1, the project can earn up to 10 points, but the study EA 1: Optimize Energy Performance. There is a scale for how the building receives 1 point to10 points depending on the energy cost savings in a percentage form. LEED Credit EA 3.0: Enhanced Commissioning is a credit that was earned by more than 80% of the LEED Silver certified buildings and the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings. This credit is easily obtainable, but the only issue is that it has the ability to be expensive. Last in the Energy and Atmosphere category is LEED Credit EA 4.0: Enhances Refrigerant Management was obtained by more than 80% of the L EED Gold/Platinum

PAGE 51

51 certified buildings, mainly because this credit is achieved by planning and cost impact. To earn t his point the team has two choices, they can either not use any refrigerants or only use select refrigerants; both options are expensive, w hich is probably why only a majority of the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings earned this credit. LEED Credit MR 2.1: Construction Waste Management: Divert 50% from Disposal is one of two credits in this study that all 3 certifications (Green, Silver and Gold/Platinum) obtained 100% of the time. This means every single building in this study earned LEED Credit MR 2.1. There are two possible reasons for this to occur, it is an easy credit to achieve or it is a less expensive credit to achieve. The stud state which one it is, it is very well possible for it to be both, but again the study does not have that type of information. Credit MR 2.2 is building off of MR 2.1, instead of diverting 50% from disposal Credit MR 2.2 demands the building dive rts 75% from disposal to earn the credit. The only certification type that achieved this credit on more than 80% of the building in the study was the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings; it actually earned Credit MR 2.2 on 100% of the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings. MR 4.1: Recycled Content 10% was earned by more than 90% of all LEED Certified buildings in this study. This credit was also earned by more than 90% of all the LEED Silver certified buildings in this costing green study. Credit MR 4. 1 was earned by every LEED Gold/Platinum certified building that was included in the costing green study. Credit MR4.2 is similar to MR 4.1 except MR 4.2 increases the percentage of recycled content to 20% instead of 10%. None of the 4 certification levels had 80% or more of their buildings earn this credit, so there was no need to examine it any closer.

PAGE 52

52 MR 5.1: Regional Materials: 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regionally is the last credit on Materials and Resources that 80% or more of the build ings of any certification level was met. More than 95% of the LEED Certified buildings reviewed in the study earned Credit MR 5.1. 100% of the buildings used in the study achieved LEED Credit MR 5.1 under the LEED Silver certified buildings and the LEED Go ld/Platinum certified buildings. LEED CreditEQ 1.0: Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring was earned by a little bit more than 80% of the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings in the study. LEED CreditEQ 3.1: Construction IAQ Management Plan: was achieved by 95% of LEED Certified buildings in the costing green study. Over 90% of the LEED Silver certified buildings in this studied earned creditEQ 3.1. CreditEQ 3.1 had a high percentage of both LEED Certified and LEED Silver certified buil dings in the study, but the LEED Gold/Platinum had even more. 100% of all LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings in the study earned LEED CreditEQ 3.1. B y the high percentages this credit achieved, this is an important credit for a building. When anaylzing a LEED cost study, it is im portant to look at credits like EQ 3.1 then ask why this credit is achieved by such a high percentage of the buildings in the study. LEED CreditEQ 3.2: Construction IAQ Management Plan: Before Occupany is similar to LEED CreditEQ 3.1 except for w hen the plan takes place. Almost 90% of the LEED Certified certified buildings in this study earned CreditEQ 3.2 and more then 90% of LEED Silver certified buildings in this study earned this credit. Just like CreditEQ 3.1, 100% of the LEED Gold certified buildings in this study earned CreditEQ 3.2.

PAGE 53

53 LEED CreditEQ 4.1: Low Emitting Materials: Adhesives & Sealants is the one other credit that in the study that was achieved by every single building. CreditEQ 4.1 was achieved by 100% of LEED Certified LEED Silver and LEED Gold/Playinum certified buildings in the costing green study. As stated before in Credit MR 2.1, t here every building to have earned this credit, so t herefore there cannot be more analysis on this topic. Credit EQ 4.2: Low Emitting Materials: Paints & Coatings is a credit that is achieved by 100% of the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings. EQ 4.2 was also was earned by 95% of the LEED Certified bui ldings in this study and it was earned by more than 90% of all the LEED Silver certified buildings in the costing green study. This credit is to ensure that the VOC content is not too high inside the building. LEED Credit EQ 4.3: Low Emitting Materials: C arpet Systems is also another credit to increase the quality of air inside of a building. More than 90% of the LEED Certified buildings in this study earned Credit EQ 4.3. All (100%) of the LEED Silver and Gold/Platinum certified buildings in this study ea rned Credit EQ 4.3. LEED Credit EQ 4.4: Low Emitting Materials: Composite Wood & Agrifiber ings and it was earned by 0% of S ilver buildings. But on the other hand, Gold/Platinum buildings achieved this credit on every one of their buildings in the study. LEED Credit EQ 7.1: Thermal Comfort: Design is a credit that will provide a comfortable the rmal environment for the occupants of the building and will also provide

PAGE 54

54 a productive place to work. The LEED Silver certified buildings in this study earned Credit EQ 7.1 on over 90% of the buildings that were reviewed. 100% of the LEED Gold certified bui ldings in this study earned Credit EQ 7.1. Credit EW 7.2: Thermal Comfort: Verification is the assessment of the buildings thermal comfort over a period of time. This credit was only earned by 80% of the LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings. This credit was earned by less than 50% of all the LEED Certified and LEED Silver certified buildings. The last LEED category is Innovation and Design, there is a possible 5 points to be earned in this category. This category allows the LEED Charrette team to be cre ative and come up with different design approaches, classes, and community involvement. In the study most buildings did not take advantage of these points, only 80% of the LEED Silver and LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings earned ID 1.1. No other ID 1 series(ID1.2,1.3 &1.4) credit was even near the 80% mark. Credit ID 2.0: LEED Accredited Professional was earned by 95% of LEED Certified buildings, which seems low compared to todays standards. The LEED Silver and LEED Gold/Platinum certified buildings i n this study earned Credit ID 2.0 on 100% of the buildings. It is important to keep in mind that this study was done in 2004 and even though it is only 2012, there has been a lot of changes and innovation in this type of construction. The learning curve has advanced more then anyone could have imagined in the past 8 years. The business of green building has reached a point that hardly no one expected, but even though this study may seem out dated, it is important to learn from the costing green study tha t greatly helped to advance this subject.

PAGE 55

55 The Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of S ustainable Design in the Light of Increaed Market Adoption This study was done in 2006, but fundamentally shows the same results as the previous study. There is no significant difference in price from 2004 to 2006, but the 2006 article changed the costing approach. Davis Langdon found that the cost per square foot for buildings varied regardless of the LEED certification of that building. For example in terms of the academic buildings in the study, the two LEED Gold buildings are less than the average cost per square foot of academic buildings and about half the price of the most expensive academic building in the group. The two least expen sive projects are not LEED certified buildings, but the three most expensive academic buildings are also not certified. The same study was done for laboratory buildings, this green cost study consisted of seventy buildings. Of those seventy buildings, twe ntysix are LEED seeking buildings. Of these LEED seeking buildings, nineteen are Certified, six are Silver and one is Gold. The four most expensive laboratory buildings are non LEED seeking buildings, but the two least expensive laboratory buildings are a re also non LEED seeking buildings. In or Platinum building, it is a LEED Silver certified building. This is not uniform distrubution in cost betwe en LEED and non LEED la boratory buildings. Another building type that was studied in The Cost of Green Revisited was libraries. There are fifty seven librarie s that are being studied for this green cost study Of these fifty seven buildings, twenty five are seeking some type of LEED certification. There are no LEED Gold seeking buildings in this categor y, but there are two buildings tha t are seeking LEED Silver and twenty three buildings that are seeking LEED

PAGE 56

56 Certified. The most expensive building in this category is a LEED Cert ified building; this means that the LEED Certified building cost more per square foot then a LEED Silver building. For this type of building, t he second most expensive building is a non LEED seeking building. There is no indication that LEED buildin gs of a ny level will cost more. C ommunity centers was one of the smaller groups of building types used in the green cost study, there is a total of eighteen community ce nters in this study. Of these eighteen c ommunity centers half of them (nine ) are seeking LEE D certification and the other half are non LEED seeking buildings. Of the nine LEED buildings; zero are se eking LEED Gold certification, three are seeking LEED Silver certifict ion and six are seeking to be LEED Certified. Of these community centers the two most expensive community centers were non LEED seeking, but the three least expensive were also non LEED seeking. T he two most expensive LEED seeking community centers are not even Silver, they are LEED Certified. These cost, like previous cost show that there is no corelation between the price and LEED certification, even level of LEED certification for that matter. The smallest group of buildings was ambulatory centers, which had a total of seventeen buildings. Of those seventeen buildings, nine are LE ED seeking and eight ar e non LEED seeking. There are zero LEED Gold seeking buildings, one LE ED Silver seeking building and eight LEED Certified buildings. Similar to the community center, the sample size is very small, so it is hard to make a reliable ana lysis but, the ambulatory care will still be discussed. The three most expensive ambulatory care buildings are non LEED seeking buildings and the least expensive building in this category is a LEED Certified building, coming in just above $250 per S/F. The median

PAGE 57

57 priced building in the ambulatory care category is the only LEED Silver building in this category. E ven with a small sample size, LEED certification did not affect the cost distribution in the ambulatory center category. Impact of LEED NC Credits on Contractors Introduction Sustainable development has long been recognized as the next step that human kind should take in order to recuperate from the aftermath of the industrial revolution (Gottfried, 2000) Buildings in the U.S consume a large amount of energy, according to the text book; Building Construction, in the United States buildings consume 36% of all energy (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) Since sustainable development is being incorporated into the construction business, team efforts or C harrette are important to the building process (Syal, Mago, & Moody, 2007) This study categorized the LEED NC credit in three different ca tegories, which are; Major Impact, Moderate Impact and Some Impact Major credits consist of credits that are co nstruction intensive, M oderate credits are credits that are both construction and design based, while S ome credits are those that are mainly design based. There were four case studies and eighteen members in the advisory group for this study. It is very important that the contractor be involved in the sustainable development process because they are the ones constructing the building. Credit Impact Analysis Credits such as Materials and Resources 2.0 Construction Waste Management, is a credit that wou ld be considered Moderate because the general contractor has direct involvement with it and the design team is not involved with that credit. This study is based off of the LEED Version 2.2, which consist of 6 different categories, forty one

PAGE 58

58 credits and a maximum of sixty nine points. Of the forty one credits listed, Syal illustrated that twelve of them are Major Impact credits, seven of them are Moderate Impact credits and twenty two of them are Some Impact credits. The concept of green buildings has rece ived tremendous interest in the last few years and is gradually becoming a part of the mainstream construction industry (Syal, Mago, & Moody, 2007).Focusing on the credit that require a general contractors attention and involvment is one of main components to success in the LEED process. Early involvement of a contracvtor can also provide the owner and designer with information related to cost implication on pursueing certain LEED credits (Syal, Mago, & Moody, 2007). Analysis of State Wide Green Building P olicies Introduction As benefits of green building such as cost savings and improvements on worker productivity become more apparent, many public sector organizations in the U.S. ad abroad for that matter, are adopting policies to ensure that their facilit ies are designed to be green (DuBose, Bosch, & Pearce, 2007) Some agencies in the U.S. require LEED certification, other require following some LEED standard and there are even some that be certified, but it could be if they wanted to apply for the certification. Green Building Policies States throughout the United States are starting to create green building programs. Two states have passed state legislation concerning green building sta ndards. T h e two states that passed legislation are; Nevada in 2005 and Washington in 2005. There are nine states that have issued an executive order for green building

PAGE 59

59 policies. The executive order is not as permanent as the legislation, but it shows state governments are taking steps in the right direction. The states that have issued an executive order for green building policies are; California in 2004, Arizona in 2005, Colorado in 2005, Michigan in 2005, Pennsylvania in 1998, Maryland in 2001, New Jerse y in 2002, New York in 2001 and, Maine in 2003 There are five states that are considering creating a green building program, the five states are; Georgia Arkansas, Illinois, Massachusetts and Connecticut. These states with either, legislation, executive o rders or consideration for green building programs were derived from statics in 2005. If there have been additions since then, these statics would not include those changes. Elements: Inspiration, Motivation, Implementation (Training) and Evaluation Inspi ration can come from many things, such as; education, knowledge, passion and many other elements. An owner may be inspired to build green do to environmental issues. There needs to be some type of leadership involved in the inspiration (government) to set a standard for society. Motivation for green building is an important aspect of the green building process. Understand why an owner wants a green building is a factor that will help the contractor in the long run. Some motivation strategies are; mandates, reference standards, energy specific elements, decision making bodies, exemptions, special rules, unique elements and linguistic ambiguity. Implementation is the third element this is the phase in which the parties responsible for implementation as forma l or informal policy decide what programs and actions will be needed to meet policy goals and execute those programs and action to achieve the goals (Syal, Mago, & Moody, 2007). The components of implementation are; techical support, training, guidance doc uments and demostration projects.

PAGE 60

60 The last element is evaualtion, which is composed of; standards, certification and reporting. Evaulation can cover both program compliance and the effectiveness of the policy at the individual build ing level or overall (Sy al, Mago, & Moody, 2007). Policies, training, motivation and standards are very important in the green building process. These components were mentioned throughout Analysis of State Wide Green Building Policies, which shows the importances of those compoen ts.

PAGE 61

61 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The research for the topic ; Factors that Influence the Perception of the Budget Allocation on LEED Construction Projects, has two main approaches to research, the first is past articles written, which has already been discussed in the literature review. The other research technique is ; surveys. Analysis When starting to plan for a project an owner should start to think about what they may want from their building and what they may not want. When constructing a building that will be LEED cert ified the team has to not only construct the building to meet the cre dits but they have to construct the building for what the owner want s it to do for years to come. Another example w ould be the state of Cali fornia; California has had energy issues in the past, that is why as a state they have come together to find solutions. One solution was to improve building codes and standards. Since California has improved their standards it means that some of their buil dings would earn LEED credits by default of the California Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green, 2011) Since these certain requirements have to be do ne on every project, even if the team is not striving for a LEED certification, these credits would n ot have been ings due to the LEED process, the team at they would have to do if they were not striving for LEED certification. Even though a cre dit and a standard might be exactly the same, since it has to be done no matter what, the team would not include that in the LEED cost impact

PAGE 62

62 commission standards on new buildings are parallel with the LEED commiss ioning standards. But, if a cost analysis of LEED buildings were done on the University of increase because it had to be done regardless of any type of USGBC LEED credit. Even though it is included in the LEED credits and is something that will be checked off of the LEED Scorecard, it is a credit that would normally cost a premium to earn the point. Therefore it stays neutral and it is noted that that credit is spoken for by a standard and will not assume cost or savings. These standards do help decrease the LEED cost on most buildings due to the fact that without these standards these premiums would have to be included in the total percent increase. These standards do mo re then bring down a premium percentage; they allow us to see how an industry is changing and striving to do better even when they do not have to. Standards set by companies, universities and even states allows the industry to grow and become more knowled geable in this type of building process, since the industry is going to learn how to build in this way. The Survey Survey Procedure First the survey started off as a questionnaire that had fill in the blank answers. The questionnaire evolved into a surve y through the literature research process. Once the questionnaire was changed to a survey there were other aspects that had to change as well. Since the topic has to do with there is also is the aspect of external representatives that serve as the owner on some projects. Gaining an insight from both an internal owner and an external

PAGE 63

63 rep, since they are a private entity. When the survey were first created the researcher had made the two categories; owners and owners rep, but throughout the researcher process the researcher realized the two samples needed to be renamed. This is why Due to the fact that the internal owner and the external different viewpoints; some of the que stions had to be altered for each category ( external / internal ). Since there are two samples there were two surveys made; one survey for the internal owner and one survey for the external reason why the researcher chose to do two form s of the survey was so the internal owner or external them. Dr. Robert Ries, t would review the survey with the research and together they wou ld make changes. After this process, the researcher would take the survey to a peer group, who would review the questions. They would look for errors and parts of the survey that would be confusing to the participant, this process happened three times. Aft er the last peer review, Dr. Ries and the researcher did a final review before the test survey. Before the test survey was released the surveys and consent forms were sent to psychology department. IRB has to review all surveys that are produced from any University of Florida student, faculty or staff to ensure no one will be harmed in the research process. The first submission for the survey and content form was on

PAGE 64

64 December 7 th 2011. The first submission was not approved due to issues with the content form. The second submission was approved with notes but before the survey could be released all issues needed to be corrected and sent back to IRB. On January 27 th 2012 IRB off icially approved the survey and consent form and the researcher was allowed to release the survey. Even though the survey was not approved, the test survey was allowed to be performed during the time the researcher was waiting for approval from IRB. The r esearcher formatted the surveys and uploaded it to zoomerang.com, which is the survey website the researcher used throughout the entire survey process. Once the Survey ( external) ( internal) The test surveys were released on January 11, 2012.The test survey was smaller compared to the actual survey, and the surveys were each tested by three people. These people were not internal or external e test surveyors were people who worked closely with internal and ow external and think and how they would perceive the question. After the test surveys were completed, the researcher closed the survey which was on January 23 rd 2012. Once the survey was closed, the researcher requested feedback from the test group. Through either email, phone calls or personal meeting the researcher was able to get information on the survey from the test group. There was both negative and positive feedback from the test group. The test group explained the problems they had and pointed out where questions became confusing. The researcher took all of the suggestions and made the changes that th ey felt needed to be made.

PAGE 65

65 On January 25 th the researcher and Dr. Ries met for the final time to go over the final changes that were made to both surveys. They both agreed on all the changes that have been made over the past few months and on the format of the survey. The Once the researcher received approval from IRB they were able to release the survey on zoomerrang.com on January 27 th 2012. Once the survey was rele ased, the researched sent out emails to the parties who volunteered to participate in the survey. Once the emails were sent, the researcher had to wait two weeks to see who had t contact anyone who volunteered for the survey and has not completed the survey. A reminder email was sent out to all volunteers to ensure they will complete the survey. After the reminder email was sent out and after responses came back in, the research er realized they would need another sample group to send the surveys out to. The survey was closed on April 6 th and 11:30PM. Once the survey was closed the researcher compiled all of the data from the internal and external The evaluation of the results will be discussed within this chapter in the sub section, evaluating the survey results. Survey Questionnaire Below are the questions in the internal owner s rep survey with explanation of why they are asked. The external questions that are different from the internal rep survey, to eliminate being repetitive.

PAGE 66

66 Figure 3 1. Question one from the internal and external This question is asked for records for the researcher. The researcher needs to know which companies have responded to the survey and which ones have not, so the researcher is able to follow up with the com panies that have not completed the survey. Figure 3 2. Question two from the internal and external This question is asked to see if the participant has been certified in any specific organization. This will help provide proof that th ey are knowledgeable in the topic of construction and/or sustainability. Some participants may not have any of the listed certification or licensees and still be very knowledge. But usually a person who strives to be knowledgeable in both sustainability an d construction will try to obtain at least one of these listed certifications or licenses, if not more than one. This question has a direct rel ationship with question six, which will be discussed by the researcher when question six comes up later in this s ection.

PAGE 67

67 Figure 3 3 Question three from the internal and external This question is part of the survey to see how often the participant works on LEED projects. The more often a participant works on a LEED project, the more familiar the y would be with the process and hopefully the more knowledgeable it would make them. The reason the question is asked as a percentage is because the next question asked ted and the percentage of LEED jobs they worked on, the researcher can figure out how many projects they have worked on within the last 5 years. Figure 3 4. Question four of the internal and external Question four is one of the most important questions of the survey. It is very detailed and demands multiple answers to the question. Due to the format of

PAGE 68

68 researcher provided examples for the owner to unders tand what they were asking of the participant. This question allows the researcher to not only know what kind of building was built, but what type of LEED certification was awarded to that building type. Also, what year the building is built allows the res earcher to understand the cost impact in more depth; this is relative because the costs of buildings have decreased recently due important because it shows how much th ey planned for this building. The earlier the team decides to build green the cheaper the cost usually is. The same thing is true when deciding which LEED certification level to choose. The earlier the team make s this decision the easier the process will b e and for the most part, the process has a higher chance of having a lower cost impact if the certification level is chosen early enough. The phases the participants had to choose from were; Predesign, Design, Preconstruction, Constru ction and Postconstru ction Phase. The Predesign phase is also called the planning phase, and the project is defined in this phase in terms of its function, purpose, scope, size and economics (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) The Design phase begins after the selection o f the architect. This stage also consists of three separate stages; the Schematic design stage, the Design development stage and the Construction documents stage (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) The Preconstruction phase is also known as the bid ne gotiation phase. This phase begins after the construction drawings and specifications have been completed (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) The Construction phase is the next phase in this process. The General Contractor (GC) has already been select ed in this phase and the construction work begins (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) .The last phase is

PAGE 69

69 the Postconstruction (project closeout phase). Once the project is sufficiently complete, the GC will request the architect to conduct a substantial completion inspection to confirm that the work is complete (Mehta, Scarborough, & Armpriest, 2008) Each of these components of the question is very important to the research, but it would not be as important if asked separately. When each element of the question is asked relative to a specific project, it makes the data and information more valuable to the research. Question five is also relative and connected to question four, which will be the next question that will be discussed Figure 3 5. Ques tion five from the internal and Question five is a lso one of the most important questions in the survey, due to the fact that each answer is specific to an individual project. This question lets the researcher know more about th at specific project the participant is referring to. This question asks what was more important LEED, the budget or were the equally important. This question allows the researcher to see if the owner cares more about saving money or getting their certifica tion. It allows the researcher to see what the

PAGE 70

70 priorities were in the building process compared to their cost impact and the certification level they chose for their project. F igure 3 6. Question six from the internal and external Question six asks the participant to rate their level of knowledge, to see how the participant perceives their knowledge about the subject being discussed. This question is relative to question two, by answering what they be lieve their level of knowledge is relative to what certifications they have, will show the researcher if there is some type of support the lack of knowledge relative to any type of certification and they believe they have a very low level of knowledge the researcher will be able to see the correlation. Question seven is related to the knowledge of the participant; this will b e discussed in more detail in this section. Figure 3 7. Question seven from the internal and external Asking the participant if they have had any type of green building education allows the researcher to relate back to question six a nd two. If the researcher has any type of training, their level of knowledge on green buildings should be a little higher due to the

PAGE 71

71 education they have had. This question will allow the researcher to see if the participant is correctly rating their knowle dge. For example, if a participant rates their level of knowledge at very low, but they have had LEED AP/GA test prep and have also taken the test, the participant might be giving society as a whole too much credit regarding knowledge of green building or they think that their certi fication may not mean anything. Questions such as ; question two, six and seven allows the researcher to see a correctly and to their best abi lity. Figure 3 8. Question eight from the internal owner s rep survey Questions eight and nine are the same question except question nine allowed the participant to elaborate if it wa s necessary. The survey tool; Zoomerang.com, did not allow the resear cher to combine question eight and nine, therefore the researcher had to separate them into two separate questions, but still relating them back to each other. Figure 3 9. Question nine from the survey Questions eight and nine allow the researcher to see what type of policies the company may have even before they decided to build a green building. If a company has any of these policies the researcher can see what the participants care about the

PAGE 72

72 most and relate that to their green bui lding. This question is also related to other questions that will be discussed in more detail later in this section Figure 3 10. Question ten from the internal and external Question ten is related to question eleven, due to the issue of the survey tool not allowing the researcher to allow participants to shar e their own information. The for mats of these questions are similar to questions eight and nine. The purpose of question ten is for the researcher to try to underst and the most po pular reason for building a green building. Another purpose for this question is to see which of the motivation s the researcher believes to be relative is not relative to at all. F igure 3 11. Question eleven from the internal and external Question eleven plays a large role as well; the question allows the participant to fo r building green. This is important to the research because the researcher needs to

PAGE 73

73 know if there are any other policies in the industry to take into account when analyzing the research. Figure 3 12. Question twelve from the internal and external owner Figure 3 13. Question thirteen from the internal and external Just like the four previous questions in the survey, these two questions are one large question broken up into two questions, due to the survey tool used; whi ch was zoomerang.com. Q uestion twelve and thirteen in the survey allows the researcher to see what type of financial evaluations the participant did for their project. The economic element of a project is very important to the project ; this is why it impor tant to know what type of economic evaluations the participant did before the building was built. Question twelve allows the researcher to see what type of economic planning the participant did, which creates a relationship with questions four within the t opic of cost impact. Question thirteen just allows the participant to add any other type of economic evaluations they may have done in the building process. Question fourteen is very important to the research because it allows the researcher to see what t opic is most important to the participant when building a green building.

PAGE 74

74 Question fourteen allows the researcher too see if they are just trying to get a green building at the lowest cost possible or are they building a green building because they want to be environmentally efficient, or is it because they want their employees to be more productive and work in a clean work environment. There are many motivations for green buildings, but each owner will have their own personal motivation. Figure 3 14. Question fourteen from the internal and external The last question of the survey is question fifteen, but it is not mandatory to answer because it asked the participant if they would like to be a part of the interview process. If they wo uld like to be a part of the interview process there are a few fill in the blank spots for the participants to fill in their information such as; name, email, phone number and best time to conduct the interview. Figure 3 1 5 Question nine from the exte ner, therefore the motives of could vary from owner to owner. The only survey states;

PAGE 75

75 R eference question eight in the internal reps survey that question asks which policies the owner has in place, and allows the pa rticipant to check off which policies they do have and leave the ones blank exte rnal rep survey it asks how often theses are used, this is done because, some companies have an ethics policy and other may not. Formatting question eight this way allows the researcher to have more information on this subject instead of just colle cting external Once the survey is completed and the researcher has enough surveys compl eted to validate their research. The researcher will take the data from the survey and evaluate it to see what they s urvey tells the researcher about the topic of. Figure 3 16 Evaluating the Survey Results The researcher took all the data from the surveys that were conducted on zoomerang.com and compiled them into o ne excel document. The researcher then separated each question and started to analyze them separately, then analyzed the questions that were relevant to each other.

PAGE 76

76 The researcher knew th at quest ions two, six and seven were going to be relevant to each oth er. The researcher then created documents of two of those questions to compare the data. There were graphs that compared questions two to six and graphs that compared two and seven. The research made graphs for all questions except one, four and fifteen. The researcher never planned on making a graph for one or fifteen because they were questions that gave more information on the participant, such as their email and the company they worked for. Question four was the most complicated question in the survey; due to this the results of this question were rather complicated. The researcher had to go to the University Of Florida Statistics Department for consulting. The researcher evaluated each question using either a total number that the researcher added tog ether from the results or an average number for some of the questions that were more complicated. For the question where the participant had to rank or rate a topic the researcher used averages, because it allowed for a better understanding of the question asked and the results given. For questions that asked the participant to check yes or no, the researcher used total numbers to show how the answers were distributed.

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 4 HYPOTHESE S Overview and Objectives The objectives and hypotheses of this res earch are reviewed in this chapter 1. Determine what factors may influence spending on projects 2. Does knowledge about green buildings influence the cost impact. 3. Examine rep completed for their project 4. Investigate what type of role LEED plays relative to the budget Influence of Spending The first objective that will be discussed is; determine what factors may influence spending on projects. Of course the needs of the buildings come first, such as what is essential for the building according to the building code. There are five questions in the survey that will address this objective. Question four is one of them, a ll parts of this question are important to the research, but there are parts that are more important to O bjective 1 The parts of the question that are most important to discovering what influences spending on a project are : the LEED certification level that is selected, phase in which owner decided to build a green building and phase in which the LEED certification level was selected. It is believed that t he LEED certification level is one of the main questions an owner has to consider when deciding to build a green building. The hypothesis is that the higher the certification level, e ssentially the higher the cost impact will be. T he phase the owner decides to build a green building and the phase the certification level is select ed are relative to cost impact The hypotheses are that, the later a decision is made on whether the project will be a green building and on the certification level the higher the cost impact

PAGE 78

78 on project s is survey question five. It takes the projects from question four and asked if the budget was more important, if LEED certification was more important or if they were equal. If the LEED certification level is more important the hypotheses is that this will increase the spending on the project and increase the cost impact. If the budget is more important to the owner it will influence the owner spending on the project by not affecting the cost impact on the project. If LEED and the budget were equally important t dramatically due to the owner trying to balance both factors. Question eight and nine is one question broken into two parts. Question eight asked the participant if they have any of the following policies in place: corporate social responsibility, susta inability policy, ethics policy, global reporting initiative or energy efficiency policy. Question nine allows the participant to fill in any policies in place that are not listed in question eight. These policies may influence the budget allocation. The hypotheses is that; a company with a sustainability policy or energy efficiency policy, should have a high p robability of spending more on a project, and a company that a higher chance of a lower cost impact, because th ey are most likely more concerned with the budget first and not meeting any corporate goals or policies. Question ten and eleven are survey question s that help answer the question of what factors may influence spending on a project. Q uestion ten asked, W hat was the ? The possible choices were: Environmental Responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility Policy, Operational(cost

PAGE 79

79 saving) Policy, First Cost Saving Policy, Work Force Productivity Policy, Ma rketing/Leasing Advantage. Question eleven is a fill in the blank for any policy not listed. Each of these motivations could cause a cost impact increase in the project cost. the hypothesis is t hat the goal is to control the budget. The hypothesis is that, i f any of the other five policies were selected, the cost impact of the project has a high probability of increasing. The other policies would most likely cost more to implement, but if the own er has created these policies, they will most likely do whatever they can to follow them. Therefore, their The last question that relates to what factors influence an externa l and internal spending on a project is question fourteen The question asks to rate the following top ics from most important to least important when choosing which LEED credits to select on green building projects; less cost, easily obtainabl e, energy saving, environmental impact, water saving, productivity/indoor quality. This question allows the researcher to see what the owner considers most important on their project, what is considered to be of average importance and what is considered to be of least importance. The hypotheses is that the topic t hat is considered most important will have direct correlation with the needs. If th e owner is more concerned with energy policies, they would rank energy savings as important. If an owner i s just trying to achieve a certain level of LEED, then either least cost or easily obtainable would be consider high importance. Knowledge about Green Buildings The next objective the researcher is examining is; does knowledge about green buildings influe nce cost impact The researcher believes that knowledge about green

PAGE 80

80 buildings does influence the cost impact. This is because the owner will know in which stages to start planning, which LEED credits are obtainable for their building and which LEED credits to this objective. One of the questions asks the participant to rate their level of knowledge of green buildings. A self rating which is w hy two other question s back up the self rating Question seven asked the participant if they have had any green building education. Q uestion two, which ask s the participant if they have any type of certification or licenses. There should be a correlation w ith the cost impact and the amo unt of knowledge the owner has. The hypotheses is that th e less knowledge the owner has, the higher the cost impact will be and likewise, t he higher level of knowledge the owner has, the less the cost i mpact. Role of Economic s The next objective that will be discussed is; examine the role economics play Question twelve allows the researcher to look at the objective more in depth, this question asks which of the following types of econom ic evaluations were used to evaluate the project; Net Present Value, Life Cycle Cost, Simple Payback, Annual Return on Investment and/or LEED Credit Cos t Analysis. The owner should have done all of the above economic evaluations for their project, if they were knowledgeable about green buildings and building economics. The hypotheses is that the projects with the lower cost impact will have used at least three of the listed economic evaluations. Also any project that might consider the project budget more i mportant than the LEED certification should complete at least 3 of these listed economic evaluations as well. Economics will always play a large role in construction, but it also plays a large role in green building to due Life Cycle Cost. Each owner is

PAGE 81

81 di fferent, but the budget is always going to be an issue on a construction project, the owner has to realize there is usually some type of premium for green buildings. Role in Allocation of Budget According to numerous LEED studies and the USGBC, a L EED building does not necessarily lead to increase d cost If the project and budget is managed correctly a LEED project could either be a zero cost impact or even a negative cost impact. But LEED can play a large role when it comes to allocation of budget The last objective n is what role LEED plays relative to the budget Question five asked the relative importance of LEED certification and the budget,

PAGE 82

82 CHAPTER 5 SURVEY RESULTS The survey consisted of fifteen questions the first question and the last qu estion were not questi on that would create results they were questions that asked the participant for information such as name and company they worked for. Therefore, there will only be thirteen questions analyzed and some of them will be compared to each other for the analysis. There were fifteen participants that completed the survey; consequently all of the results w ill be comprised of only those fifteen answers. Of those fifteen answers ten will be from external in ternal owner s reps The researcher went back and looked at the questions that were in the survey to see what the survey has concluded. The first question that will be discussed and analyzed is question two, ave any of the were; CMMA Certification, LEED AP/GA, Green Globes Professional, Other Green Certificate, General Contractors License, Registered Architect, Professional E ngineer, None of the above or Other and please specify. F igure 5 1 shows the results of this question some of the participants had multiple answers which is why the total of certification is twenty The figure shows that there were three participants that did not have any type of certification at all. This is surprising because most experienced internal and external knowledge. Obviously, the most common certified is the LEED AP/GA Certificati on; the

PAGE 83

83 both. That means more than 50% of the survey participants are certified as a LEED Associate Professional or a LEED Green Associate. Figure 5 1 Certificat ion the survey participant had at the time they completed the survey. The next question asked the participant what percentage of the projects they have worked on in the last five years have been LEED. Figure 5 2 shows the answers to this question by disbur sing them in groups of ten percent increments. This question allows the researcher to see how often the participant worked on LEED projects, which helps the researcher understand what kind of experience the internal and external along with their experience is a very important aspect of this study.33% of the participants said in the past five years they have worked on LEED projects 91% 100% of the time, this shows that the participants in this survey have a great deal of experience in the green building industry. The second highest percentage group was 41% 50% group, which is also a high percentage. These high percentages show that

PAGE 84

84 the participants are experienced in green building and have been arou nd green building for a significant amount of time. Figure 5 2. Percentage of LEED p rojects p articipant c ompleted i n past five y ears Figure 5 3 Importance of the project budget r ealitive to the LEED c ertification Figure 5 3 shows the results to the question asked to the internal and external budget was more important than LEED. The survey asked the participant to answer this

PAGE 85

85 question for each specific LEED project they have worked on in the past five years. There were a total of forty one building that were taken into account for this question and more than 75% of those forty one building would consider LEED and the budget to be equal on their project. Evidently, ea ch project has its own agenda, which is why the researcher asked the participant to answer this question in relation to each project. The results for this question show that the building type, year, or certification level is not one factor that consistent when it comes to the importance of budget relative to LEED. Figure 5 4. Participants self rating on their knowledge of green building Figure 5 4 is the results from question six in the survey. This question asked the participants to rate their level of k nowledge of green buildings; very low, low, average, above average or high. Every participant stated that their knowledge was at least average when considering the topic of green building but almost 2/3rd of the participants rated themselves above average The participants are people who work on LEED building mult iple times in five year span, the researcher would expect a high self rating, but there were some results that were unexpected from the self rating.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 5 5. Certication types of participan ts that rating their level of knowledge above average Figure 5 5 shows all of the certification of the participants that rated themselves above average in their green building knowledge. Again, some of the participants have more than one certification but there a re nine participants that rate themselves above average. Of those nine, four of them do not have any type of certification. That mean 44% of the participants that would say they are above the average person in knowledge when it comes to green buildi ng, do not have any type of construction related certification. Another fact that Figure 5 5 reveals is that if the participant self rated their knowledge of above average, they either have no type of certification at all or a LEED AP/GA Question seven a sked the participant to specify what type of green building training they have had. The answers they had to choose from we re; in house training, USGBC classes, LEED AP/GA test prep, LEED AP/GA test, no training or other, please

PAGE 87

87 specify. Figure 5 6 shows th e results of this question, representing the importance of green building education. For question seven, one participant checked off other, and specified that they were self taught. This was not included in the result, because the participant also stated t hat they had in house training. Figure 5 6. Type of green building education the participants have been apart of Figure 5 7 also has to do with question six as well as question seven. Question six asks about their self rating of knowledge, and question seven asked about what type of green building education they have had. Since the participants only answered average, above average and high for their level of knowledge the researcher is going to compare those three ratings to the type of green building ed ucation t he y participant has had. Te comparison will be done in a percentage, to make sure apples are being compared to apples. There were only three participants that rated themselves average level of knowledge and high level of knowledge, but nine partic ipants rated themselves above

PAGE 88

88 average level of knowledge. There for the percentages are based on how many people are in each specific category. Figure 5 7 shows that the participants who rated themselves high level of knowledge, have a high percentage of having some type of certification hat is listed. The figure also shows that most of the education types show a valid incline from average to above average to high level of knowledge, except for the USGBC Class. Figure 5 7 shows that only 55% of the above a verage level of knowledge participants had a USGBC class, while 66.6% of average level of knowledge participants have completed the USGBC class, which is the same percentage as the high level of knowledge participants. Figure 5 7. Type of green building education broken down by self rating of knowledge of green buildings Figure 5 7 is an important graph for this research. This shows that the participants who rated themselves high level of knowledge, had a reason to believe they do have a

PAGE 89

89 high level of kn owledge. Even though there were only three participants in the high level sample all of them have had in house training and two out of three have the LEED AP/GA. The researcher still believes that the participants may have overrated their knowledge due to the fact that if the participant has either high level of above average level of knowledge the participant should have a LEED AP/GA. The reason the researcher believes their self ratings may be overrated is because there is over 85,000 LEED professionals. This is a large number, therefore if the participant believes they have an above average or high level of knowledge in green buildings, the participant should probably have their LEED AP/GA Figure 5 8. External reps corporate policy rating averag es Figure 5 8 is related to question eight from the survey, which was different for the internal and external external the owners/companies you have worked for have any of the following policies in p rate the policy 1 5. 1 being never, 2 being almost never, 3 being About half the time, 4 being almost always and 5 being always. The policy that was rated a 5 by 80% of the

PAGE 90

90 participants was the ethics policy, corporate s ocial responsibility was als o rated high, its rating was a 4.5 Both corporate social responsibility and an ethics policy is something a company may have even if they do not build green buildings. The other three policies listed were focused on green buildings and they were ranked r ather low. Sustainability was ranked the highest out of the green building policies with rating of 3.3, which is still only considered as being used about half of the time. Green building policies is something that needs to be seen more often in the corpor ate world, it is important to know and understand that constructing a building has an environmental effect. Figure 5 9. Company policies utilized by internal owner Figure 5 9 is somewhat similar to Figure 5 8, it also represents question eight but internal owner if it uses any of the following policies, and the choices we the same as the external imply

PAGE 91

91 were able to check it off if they utilize it and did not check it off if they do not utilize that policy. The owner could check yes for all of them or none of them, thus even though there are only five internal owner s reps in the sample, there will be more than five policies checked off. If a specific policy has a total of five participants who said yes, it indicates that everyone in the sample of internal owner s reps uses this policy. Figure 5 lding green ( 1 5 scale) The second part of question eight was question nine, which asked the participants a participant from the external ote a response in for question add. One of the participants stated that their company had their own sustainability guidelines; this participant was from Middlebury Colleg e. Another participant who did not state which company they were from, listed that their company has multiple other policies that are; community relations policy, Air, Water, Land, Safety and

PAGE 92

92 Environmental policy. The other participant that included an ans wer in question nine was from the University of Connecticut, they stated that they have a climate change commitment policy. It seems that the were able to show more detail in their response to question eight and nine due to the familia policy. Figure 5 10 gave e ach participant the opportunity to ra te the ir motivation for green building from a 1 5, 1 being never, 2 being almost never, 3 being about half the time, 4 being almost always and 5 being always. The part icipant also had the opportunity to list listed in number ten which they felt needed to be stated in their response. The motivation that had the highest rating was corporate social responsibly; it had a 4.33 average rating. Tw o of the lowest ratings came from cost savings, which was surprising to the researcher, s ince cost is usually a main motivator. Work force productivity policy was the second highest rating average for question ten This shows the owner wants their employee s to be as productivity as possible and enjoy the place they work. One of the external s rep participants listed other mo tivations for building green requirements such as bonus density and even tax credits or requi rement of law such as This addition makes a very important point, a company could save money in taxes by building green or they may have to build green due to building codes. There are no building codes that require a company to build a LEED building but there are some requirements that are trying to make buildings less harmful to the environment. The owner from the University of Connecticut added to his response another motivation was, scale projects for alternative en ergy Even though the University of

PAGE 93

93 Connecticut rated the opinions listed, but they also have their own motivations as an owner. This indicates that they consider all aspects before constructing a building for their campus. Figure 5 11. Average rating of the economic evaluations Figure 5 11 represents question twelve from the survey. Question twelve asks the participant to rank the given economic evaluations on a scale from 1 to 5. The rating of 1 to 5 is the same as it was for the rest of the question 1 being never, 2 being almost never, 3 being half the time 4 being almost always and 5 being always. The economic evaluation is an important factor in this study, because it allows the researcher to see how much of a priority economics is to the owner. U nexpectedly, Life Cycle Cost (LCC) was done the most almost being rates a 5. LCC was rated a 5 from nine of the fifteen participants. The next highest rated opinion was annual return on investment, which is somewhat predictable. Another surprise was the LE ED credit cost analysis; it has rating of 2.72, which means on average it is not

PAGE 94

94 even used half of the time. When a project is evaluating which credits to aim for, a credit cost analysis is something that can be very useful. This is because some credits ar e not worth obtaining because the cost is much higher than the reward, but the reverse is also very much worth the reward. Question twelve also had a second part to it lik e the previous questions, the second part was question thirteen, which asked the participant to list any economical evaluation they use that was not listed. Again the participant from the University of Connecticut, the participant stated that his company u ses other economic evaluations such as; social cost environmental and resource valuation. The researcher was surprised to see this, even though social cost environmental is used in the green building industry, but it is not as common as the other opinions listed and is rarely mentioned Figure 5 12. The ra nkin g of most important to least important LEED credits, 1 is the most import 6 in the least important

PAGE 95

95 Figure 5 12 is a little different from the rest of the figures, the less the ranking is the better i t scored. The participants were asked to rank credit topics in order from most important to least important 1 would be considered the most important and 6 would be considered the least important. The category that scored the best was energy savings, which amount of LEED points, but they are also saving their company money in the long run by cutting down on utility cost. The category that had the second best average was easily obtai water or even helping the environment. The study seems to express that the main concern is being to obtain the actual credit. The researcher believes that this question is particularly important to this study, therefore this question will be broken down to each category to see how it was ranked by the participants. Figure 5 13. Credit importance ranking; 1 being the most important and 6 being the least important Figure 5 13 show how m any times each specific category was rated each ranking. The figure also shows the averages the category scored; which can also be found in figure 5 12. The figure shows that Easily Obtainable was rated number one the most

PAGE 96

96 often but, did not have the lowes t average. Energy Savings had the best average ( lowest) and only was ranked number one four times, compared to easily obtainable six times. This figure also shows that even though Less Cost was rated number one the second most ( four) it still has the most number six rankings ( four). Question fours result were not what the researcher believed they would be. They did not show any correlation between any of the fields provided by the participants such as; year built, certification level, cost impact, importan t of budget versus LEED, phase of green building decision, or phase of project certification selection. Question four allowed the participant to answer the question for each project they have done in the past five years, therefore the answers to each categ ory was specific to each project. There were three correlation coefficients the researcher did and they were; the budget versus LEED category compared to the cost impact percentage, the phase in which the owner choose to build green compared to the cost im pact percentage and the phase in which the owner choose the green certification level compared to the cost impact. The cost impact category was used as a constant in each correlation coefficient because the researcher was trying to see what role the cost p lays and how it is affected by other components. One of the questions asked the participants what was more important on the specific project they worked on; LEED or the budget, they could answer that they were b udget vs. When budget vs. LEED was compared to the cost impact on each individual project the correlation coefficient was 0.1825 This shows that there is very little correlation between these two factors. Figure 5 14 shows the cost impacts compare d to budget vs. LEED. On the Y axis there is number 1 through 3, the 1 stand for LEED being more important than budget, 2

PAGE 97

97 stand s for budget and LEED being equal and 3 stands for budget being more important than LEED. The red dotted line shows where the dot s should be if the two components had any type of correlation. The dots are scattered in the graph, which shows no correlation between the budget vs. LEED compared to the cost impact. Figure 5 14. Budget vs LEED compared to the cost impact of the build ings the participants listed in the survey. Question four asked the participants which phase of their project they decided to build a green building. That question is being compared to the cost impact the participant listed The phases that the participant can chose from are; Predesign(1), Design(2), Preconstruction(3), Construction (4) and Post Construction(5). The numbers after the phases is the number the researcher assigned to the phase for the correlation coefficient equation. The correlation coefficie nt for the phase in which the owner decided to go green compared to the cost impact was .0469, which mean s the two components were not correlated. Figure 5 15 shows each building the participants listed, which is represented by the dots. The red dotted lin e represents where the dots

PAGE 98

98 would need to be near to make this comparison correlated. As the graph shows, th e ,. Figure 5 15. Phase in green building compared to the cost impact of the buildings listed by the participants in the survey The next correlation is the phase in which the owner decided what certification level the project goal would be compared to the cost impact. The phases the participants had to choose form were the following; Predesign Design Preconstruction, Construction and Post Construction When using the correlation coefficient equation the results were .55315. This is directly in the middle of being correlated and no t correlated. Even though the score is in the middle of 0 and 1, it is the highest correlation coefficient that any of the comparisons have shown. Figure 5 16 has a red dotted line similar to figure 5 15 and 5 14, which represents where the plotted dots sh ould go if the two components being compared were strongly correlated. The green line in figure 5 16 shows where this graph has its correlation, it is not completed off from the correlated line but it is somewhat off. Not only does the graph show this, but as previously stated the correlation coefficient equation calculated a .55315, which makes the two components somewhat correlated.

PAGE 99

99 Figure 5 16. Phase in which the to the cost impact of the build ings listed by the participants in the survey Figure 5 17. The cost impact compared to certification level of all school buildings participants listed in the survey Figure 5 17 is a figure that is comparable to the Davis Langdon charts in the publicatio n, The Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increaed Market Adoption The researched created

PAGE 100

100 a few of Davis Langdons charts that were dervied from The Cost of Green Revisited These fig ures are 2 2, 2 3, 2 4, 2 5 and 2 6. Figure 5 17 and 5 18 have a similar look to the figurers derived from, The Cost of Green Revisted The main differences is that the David Langdon studies had more buildings to compare, but they also used non LEED buil dings as well as LEED building, which gave them a larger sample to study. Both figure 5 17 and 5 18 show that the cost impact is not effected by the LEED certification level. Figure 5 18. The cost impact compared to certification level of all the office buildings participants listed in the survey Figure 5 19 is a figure that shows every single building collected from the survey results. The figure shows the cost impact of the buildings in the survey from least to most expensive. The color of the bar repre sents which type of LEED certification the building received, the key for LEED certification is in the top right corner. The building type is listen next to the bar, therefore you can see the cost impact of the building, the

PAGE 101

101 type of building and the LEED c ertification all in one graph. This graph shows that there that these three factors are not relevant to each other. There is no consistency when comparing these three factors in this industry. Figure 5 19. Cost impact of buildings in survey with buildin g type and LEED certification level Figure 5

PAGE 102

102 Figure 5 cost impact for that strongly correlated, and this can also be proven by using a correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient for this specific comparison is .0557, which also proves that these two components are not strongly correlated. Figure 5 21. Economic evau lation average score compared to the cost impact average for each owners rep. In the survey the participant was asked to rate how often they use five specific economic evaluations, the rating scale was; 1 being never 5 being always. The researcher took th ese rating and made an average for each participant. This average was then compared to that participants cost impact average. This two factors were not strongly correlated, they were on the weaker end of somewhat correlated. The correlation coefficient was a .45. The graph also represents that there is not a strong correlation between these two factors.

PAGE 103

103 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOM MENDATIONS Overview After surveying fifteen s in the industry and reading publications, the researcher believes that each project is different from the last; even it is the same owner. No two projects will ever have the same objectives and goals. Cost can sometimes be the most important factor and there are times when LEED is the most important factor, then there are times when they are completely equal. There is currently not one factor that influences an owner spending on a project, and the researcher truly believes that there will never be. Cost will vary depending on what years the project i s built, which certification level it is, what type of building it is and when they team decided to pursue LEED. The researcher believes the earlier the team decides to pursue LEED the less difficult the project will be and consequently the cost impact w ill be less as well. Cost and economics is a constant when concerning construction projects, the importance of it will always be the variable. There were no strong correlations between cost and other factors such as; LEED certification, phase deciding to g o green, phase deciding on LEED level, priorities of budget, priorities of LEED and year built. Some of the comparison had a mild correlation, but none of them were strongly correlated. Knowledge of green buildings from the perspective is very imp ort. The owner is the person on a project that usually has the final say on what is approved and construction project and can hinder the project a great deal. Having an o wner who is

PAGE 104

104 knowledgeable in green building can help decrease cost and make the green building process a lot less complicated for the team as a whole. Since cost plays a large role in construction the researcher believes that it is important to use multip le economic evaluations. The survey results showed that internal much it credit will cost. On a scale from one to five one being never five being always the LEED credit cost earned a 2.73. Then when the owner reps were asked if least cost was a factor when selecting credit they rated a 2.93 on a scale of one to six, one being cheapest credits, but how do they know they are the cheapest without the credit cost analysis. Therefore it is important to use as many economical evaluations as possible credit or even any t ype of material or labor without an economic analysis. Policies are also something that is very important, this is because it sets a standard for all the participants one project A policy can come from the federal government, a state, a county, a city, a town, a company or even a university. A green policy creates a standard that all building will be to from that point on. It is a goal that has to be reached, but it can also be surpassed; which is a good thing. The federal government to university should and need to have green policies. The government policies may be less strict then others because it would be harder to watch over. If a company sets a policy for all of their new buildings, its more of a goal then law. A companies green building standard sh ows they are trying to make a change for the better.

PAGE 105

105 Recommendations Recommendations for the Industry The researcher learned a great deal from the research, not only by reading publications and conducting the survey, but by talking to general contractors engineers and architects about the research topic. Th r ough this knowledge, the researcher believed that there should a type of LEED accreditation for owners this accreditation would have to be done before any major planning was complete d on the project they are working on. If the owner was more knowledgeable in the green building industry they would be able to contribute more to the team, this would make an enormous difference because the owner is the party who controls a lot of the spen ding one a project. The accreditation would be completed the same way a LEED AP or GA is completed. There would be study guides and of course a test. This test would be somewhat different from an AP or GA test, and it would be focused on more topics an o wner would deal with on a green building project. LEED could also award a point to the team as they do for a LEED AP. Another reason LEED should have an owner accreditation is because the owner is the person who will be over seeing the building for its li fe span. A building is only a tool the environment. The building is only as good as its operator and even though the owner may not be operating the building first hand, they have more of an opportunity to work with the operators of the building, then the general contractor, the architect or the engineer would have

PAGE 106

106 Recommendations for Future Research ould attempt to look more into the knowledge of the owner. Green building knowledge of the owner is an important factor when considering this topic. The researcher also recommends the future researcher to use a larger sample of internal and external s rep. When surveying the sample group; be sure to keep the question s simple and to the point s The researcher found that the participants would lose interest and quit the survey when they came to a more detailed lengthy question. As the construction ind ustry has begun to improve their environmental practices, this research will become easier to obtain, with the increasing number of green buildings constructed.

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX A IRB SURVEY PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

PAGE 108

108

PAGE 109

109 A PPENDIX B IRB INFORMED CONSENT DOC UMENT Depa rtment of Building Construction PO Box 115703 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 5703 Informed Consent Protocol Title: Factors that Influence the Owner Reprehensive Perception of the Budget Allocation on LEED Construction Project s Please r ead this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine budget allocation in construction projects. What you will be asked to do in the study: All participa nts will partake in a survey that will ask 11 questions. If you are an internal owner then your external e answered, but it is recommended to answer all. This can be done at any time while the survey is still opened. Time required: 15 20 Minutes Risks and Benefits: There are no risks or benefits to the participants. Compensation: There will be no compensati on to the participants. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. No names will be used in the results or data, your information will be assigned a code number. Your name will not be used in any report. Volunt ary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.

PAGE 110

110 Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me Francesca Ryan at 561 281 1333 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Ries at 352 273 1155 Francesca Ryan, Graduate Student, Department of Building Constru ction, RNK 304/ Box 115703 Gainesville, FL 32611 5703 Robert Ries, PhD, College of Design, Construction and Planning, RNK 304/ Box 115703 Gainesville, FL 32611 5703 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. If you agree click here___

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX C SURVEY

PAGE 112

112

PAGE 113

113

PAGE 114

114

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX D SURVEY

PAGE 116

116

PAGE 117

117

PAGE 118

118

PAGE 119

119 LIST OF REFERENCES Analysis of State Wide Green Building Polocies. (2007). Journal of Green Building 161 177. Ahn, Y., & Pearce, A. R. (2007). Green Constr uction: Contractor Experience, Expectations, and Perceptions. Journal of Green Buildings 106 122. Cal Green. (2011). California Green Building Standard Code. California Building Standards CommissionSacramento. Davis Langdon. (2007). The Cost and Benefit o f Achieving Green Buildings. Australia: Davis Langdon. Gensler. (2003). White Paper on Sustainability Building Design & Construction 14 17. Matthiessen L. F., & Morris, P. (2007). Cost of Green RevisitedDavis Langdon. Davis Langdon. Mehta, M., Armprie st, D., & Scarborough, W. (2008). Building Construction; Principles, Materials and Systems. Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc. Morris, P. (2007). What Does Green Really Cost? New York: Davis Langdon. Morris, P., & Matthiessen, L. F. (2004). Costing Gree n Revisited : A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology. Davis Langdon. Rawlinson, S. (2007). Sustainability Offices. Building Magazine 54 58. Steven Winters Associates. (2004). Steven Winters AssociaLEED Cost Study Final Report Washington Washington D.C.: U.S. General Services Administration. Sya, D. M., Moddy, D., & Mago, S. (2007). Impact of LEED NC Credits on Contractors. Journal of Architectual Engineering ASCE 174 180. U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Buildings Technologies Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Silver Spring: National Energy Technology Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency (2000). Sustinable building technical manual U.S. Green Building Council.

PAGE 120

120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH of Building Construction at the University of Florida. While at the University of Florida she worked for the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction as a graduate teach ing assistant for the BCN 4753 Construction Finance course. Prior to attending the University of Florida, Francesca earned her bachelors in Business Administration with a minor in Finance from Northwood University. During her time at Northwood she was a f she interned for Holder Construction. While working on a 52 story tower, she kept noticing that the owner would spend un necessary money on non green building practices. She then realized that this was a topic she was interested in looking at in more depth. Francesca will be working for Holder Construction on the project management path, wh ere she will use her findings to he lp improve green building practices.