Shell & Core versus Integrated Fitout

shellandcore
greenstar
#1

Hi Francois,

If we have a Green Star project that is 50% Integrated Fitout and 50% Shell and Core - how do we deal with the credits that require detail design information and you have to demonstrate 95% compliance (e.g. Lighting Power Density).

Marloes

#2

Hi Marloes

The ‘shell and core’ issue is an age-old Green Star problem it seems. Whilst it is still not 100% clear in the Technical Manual and TC’s, my understanding is as follows:

  • As the tool currently stands, you are technically not able to target the ‘detailed design’ credits such as Lighting Power Density if more than 5% of the space is delivered as Shell & Core. E.g. See the TC here on Thermal Comfort https://gbcsa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/202959611-IEQ-9-THERMAL-COMFORT
  • The above does make some sense to me, as why should someone be rewarded for something they are not going to do right?
  • HOWEVER I have had some discussion with others about developing a detailed ‘Tenant Criteria Document’ for such Shell & Core spaces which then requires the tenant to implement a certain detailed design element or a minimum performance spec. This is not officially approved by the GBCSA, but I would suggest submitting a CIR to the GBCSA in this regard.

So the above is just my take on it and obviously not an official GBCSA approved route, but hopefully it helps. Not sure if anyone else has had any experience with this? @Yogesh?

#3

Hi Francois and Marloes,

We have had trouble on a project with a similar issue. The original idea was to demonstrate, through the commissioning records and as-built drawings, that the remainder of the untenanted floor plates would follow the same route as the ones with the detailed installation (a little similar to the typical layout routes on design submission but including a commitment by the Client - the same idea which Francois mentions above regarding a minimum tenant spec).
However, we eventually didn’t have to submit the CIR and discuss with the GBCSA as the submission ended up being delayed for other reasons and all the floor plates being tenanted by the time we are going to submit.

I think that I just gave the same answer as Francois :slight_smile:

#4

Hi All

So the Green Building Council of South Africa (GBCSA) is currently doing a market canvas to get some thoughts on an alternative approach. Below is an extract from a mail I received from them. It would be great to get people’s thoughts on this.

P.s. just a reminder that this is not a formal GBCSA channel, so the views shared here are those of the community, not the GBCSA.

"To enable Partially Fitted Out office projects to achieve As Built certification under the GS Green Star Office v1 & v1.1, a consultant has proposed the below CIR:

It is proposed that an area weighted approach to points be approved for partially fitted out projects i.e. in a 80% conventional and 20% shell and core scenario, the points related to the UA calculations are to be apportioned based on the delivery type, i.e. area weighted. For instance, if the conventional delivery part targets 1 point for Ene-03, the actual score of the building for this credit becomes 0.8 points (80% of 1, based on area with conventional delivery).
_ _
Please can you comment in the below ways:
1. Do you agree with the above approach in terms of workability in the industry?

2. How do you think the industry (clients, design team, Green Star critics) would view this approach?

3. Which credits do you think the above approach could apply to?

4. Do you have an alternative proposed approach to deal with Partially Fitted Out projects?

5. Do you have a proposed approach to deal with 100% Shell and Core projects for an As Built submission (other than excluding affected credits as required by the TM)?

_ _
Please provide your responses by the 16 November 2017"

#5

My thoughts are as follows:

  1. I think this could be a bit of a slippery slope. If approved, then I don’t see why the same logic should not apply to conventional buildings that for example only achieve 60% area compliance with a credit (for them to then claim 60% of the points). Each credit has specific benchmarks for a reason, e.g. a building should only be recognised to have good daylight if at least 30% of the floor plate has good daylight. If we then start recognising buildings that achieve 50% of 30% (15%) good daylight, it perhaps begins to defeat the aim of the credit and could send the wrong message in the industry.

  2. As per my thoughts above, I think it has the potential to muddy the waters in terms of what represents best practice in the industry.

  3. In my experience, it is generally the IEQ credits that are affected most on a Shell & Core building. These credits actually carry a relatively low weighted score and thus often it would not be jeopardising the project’s rating if the credit can not be achieved in As Built.

  4. I would suggest that in the current version of the tools, things remain as they were. I.e. ‘Shell & Core’ projects can achieve the Design rating points, but the As Built points can only be achieved once the elements seeking reward have been installed. In v2 of the tools (where the As Built becomes mandatory), perhaps there could be a minimum threshold (e.g. 80%) of area that needs to be fitted out to get the points. Or perhaps in v2 a ‘green lease’ requiring certain specs could be accepted. The project could then be labeled as ‘Shell & Core’ under the rating name?

  5. In the current version, my feeling is that if it is not built, it can’t get As Built points. In future versions, perhaps there could be a ‘Shell & Core’ label for the rating, where an alternative, like a green lease is perhaps acceptable.