[Equest-users] New LEED issues brought up in Final review comments??
Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.
poleary1969 at gmail.com
Tue May 27 15:55:24 PDT 2014
i've had mixed success in the past about emailing tech support (thru the
usgbc website) & asking for clarification about whether a reviewer's
comments are accurate/correct in the process. you might try that route
though there's no guarantee the reply will be swift or not. i've had
answers in a week or less and i've waited months & had to resubmit to
get an answer on a few projects.
On 5/27/14 12:39 PM, Nick Caton wrote:
> Hi Pasha (and everyone),
> From my experience, this does sound weird, but there may be missing
> context to make it more reasonable.
> I have seen final documented EAc1 credits being reduced in response to
> a calculated "adjustment" for the baseline and/or proposed energy
> tallies, based in turn on some measure being determined invalid or
> similar. These adjustments are typically reasonable and clear enough,
> even if I don't always agree with them. This would be the first I've
> heard of an entire model (or all EAc1 credits) being rejected outright
> in final review, and the first I've heard of a LEED reviewer reducing
> *or* denying credits over zoning decisions, which are clearly under
> the umbrella of the modeler's prerogative. Again, these are
> observations from my bubble of experience.
> You can assert the modeler is permitted broad leeway to define zoning
> as simply/broadly as may be necessary for an Appendix G model -- this
> is touched on in Appendix G, and dealt with more explicitly in the
> 90.1 User's manual. It's routine practice in my experience for large
> and otherwise complex projects where floor layouts and mechanical
> system designs lend themselves to grouping spaces together, and for
> when actual zoning layouts are "unknowable" for the duration of
> modeling (such as with shell/TI construction). On the flip side, the
> person assembling the documentation should be prepared to explain and
> provide context for why any zoning simplifications are undertaken,
> should those decisions be called into question.
> It may be that zoning for your project wasn't documented well (or at
> all) for preliminary review, and so wasn't available to comment upon
> or question. In that scenario, the preliminary review commentary
> should have firstly noted that deficiency in documentation. In
> response to such preliminary commentary, the modeler should have taken
> explicit care to fully document zoning, and to provide reasoning &
> explanation for any simplifications.
> I don't know whether there are any hard and fast rules as to whether
> the LEED reviewership is discouraged from bringing up new issues in
> final review, particularly those they had an opportunity to take issue
> with in preliminary review, but if the preliminary review
> model/documentation were really deficient I can imagine it being
> within reason to recognize new problems.
> All told, it sounds as though the mess was already made when you came
> into the project. Perhaps after this "damage assessment" is over, you
> may need to re-assess your fees/scope to actually re-build the entire
> model with appropriate zoning. There should be a lesson in all this -
> Chalk it up as the cost/risk of not hiring a qualified energy modeling
> professional from the get-go.
> For such an "extreme" punitive reaction as denying all EAc1 points
> over a "new" issue in final review, I should think LEED would have
> some means of communication with those familiar with your project,
> short of undertaking the ($$$) appeal process, so that you could
> assess what compromises are necessary to arrive at an acceptable
> zoning layout. That I should think would be reasonable at a minimum.
> You'd think they'd also have some additional degree of oversight for
> such cases to ensure individual reviewers aren't just writing off
> entire projects they're uncomfortable reviewing.
> I'm hopeful someone from the LEED side of things monitoring these
> lists will either chime in with whether any such intermediate mode of
> recourse is available, or at least contact you off-list if need be.
> Best regards,
> cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB**
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*
> SENIOR ENGINEER
> Smith & Boucher Engineers
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
> olathe, ks 66061
> direct 913.344.0036
> fax 913.345.0617
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:50 AM
> *To:* eQUEST Users List
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] New LEED issues brought up in Final review
> Hi colleagues: This is the first time this has happened to me...
> We received final LEED comments back from a project and 3 new issues
> were brought up that were never recognized in the first round of comments.
> The issues focused around unacceptable zone groupings, but this had
> not changed from the first submission of comments, so it felt like we
> were blindsided by the new issues that we were not given a chance to
> address the first time the LEED reviewer looked at the model results.
> Based on these 3 new issues regarding the zoning all of the EAc1
> points were denied and the project is now forced into an appeal process.
> The kicker is that I didn't acquire this model until they needed help
> with the Reviewers comments...so the zoning was out of my hands, and
> it feels like there was no chance at "passing" LEED because we were
> never given a chance to address the zoning issue because they didn't
> recognize it the first time...
> I'm frustrated...has anyone else had this happen, does it seem
> Equest-users mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Equest-users