[Equest-users] LEED Paperwork - Defaults Overridden

[Bob Fassbender]

I can confirm this as well (that you should just ballpark the number). Try
to consider this from a LEED reviewer's point of view tho; they are really
looking to see if you changed any value abnormally. I think the original
intent was "Major defaults overridden". So, for instance, if you changed
default load methodologies, or something that most users do not change, that
is what they want to know about. However, if many people are putting
hundreds of defaults overridden, this may become what the LEED reviewer
expects to see anyway.

I have to say the reviewers have gotten pretty savvy over the last few years
and most of them probably see that you are using eQUEST, and then they
understand (because eQUEST has so many defaults, by it's nature of being a
fast simulation tool). Remember that some reviewers are more familiar with
certain software, so if they ask, it's likely that they aren't too familiar
with eQUEST, and you need to explain that eQUEST has defaults for nearly
every value (though in my experience, eQUEST is the most well-known by LEED
reviewers).

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Dakota Kelley <dakotak at teliospc.com> wrote:

> Yes, I’d echo Bill’s advice here. Estimate a reasonable number and run with
> it – like the Target Finder score, this information is used as a soft check
> for the model’s “reasonableness”, but it also depends on the modeling
> software. I’ve had one question before about why so many defaults were
> overridden, and my response was basically “you can’t incorporate Appx G or
> the proposed design in eQUEST without overriding many, many defaults” (the
> project was accepted).
>
>
>
>
>
> *DAKOTA KELLEY ***
>
> Project Designer | Energy Analyst
>
>
>
>                               Office: 214.744.6199
>
>                               Cell: 214.280.3825
>
>                               Fax: 214.744.0770
>
>
>
> http://www.teliospc.com          3535 Travis St. Suite 115
>
> dakotak at teliospc.com            Dallas, TX 75204
>
>
>
>
> | MEP ENGINEERING · ENERGY MODELING · LEED CONSULTATION · COMMISSIONING |
>
> * *
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which it is addressed,
>
> And may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt
> from disclosure under applicable law. If you
>
> are not the intended recipient, please email the sender immediately, and
> delete this email from all computers.  Any
>
> distribution or other use is strictly prohibited.  Copyright © 2009 Telios
> Corporation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bishop, Bill [mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:48 AM
> *To:* M. Shields; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] LEED Paperwork - Defaults Overridden
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> My suggestion – don’t waste time on “defaults overridden”. You can’t leave
> it blank – the online template won’t let you. For my first submission, I put
> “1776” and “2008” (years – I was feeling patriotic), but the reviewer asked
> why I changed so many defaults. So I lowered it closer to zero. Try putting
> numbers less than 20 and change them if your reviewer asks about it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> *William Bishop, PE, BEMP, LEED® AP **|** **Pathfinder Engineers &
> Architects LLP***
>
> Mechanical Engineer
>
>
>
> 134 South Fitzhugh Street                 Rochester, NY 14608
> T: (585) 325-6004 Ext. 114                F: (585) 325-6005
>
> wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com           www.pathfinder-ea.com
>
> P   Sustainability – the forest AND the trees. P
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *M. Shields
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:31 AM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] LEED Paperwork - Defaults Overridden
>
>
>
> Good Morning All,
>
>
>
> I know this has come up in the past and I have seen several responses from
> going through and counting all of the schedules to just estimating.
>  Regardless of how you have determined this value has anyone then included a
> description of how this was done in their narrative, or has anyone ever
> gotten any questions from their reviewer about how the number was
> tabulated?  Also has anyone ever left it blank as an unquantifiable number?
> I think I could spend days trying to count every default of my model and
> still be off by hundreds.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any feedback,
>
>
>
> ____________________________
> Michael Shields
>
> Phone: 803-493-4507
>
> Fax: 803-548-2511
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110118/6d6d4521/attachment-0001.htm>