Able to use a calculator other than USGBC's?

Hello Tom, My experiences with LEED tools, is the same as it was back in 2000, when you were still with the USGBC. If you don't use the special LEED tool the reviewers have to spend more time confirming your alternative tool hasn't somehow cheated. If you think back in time, and check your ancient LEED Reference Guides, the MRc3-7 tool is very much like the example format used from the LEED v2.0 Reference Guide for the various MR credits. The LEED tool is something that seems invented by the same company, maybe modified by the USGBC internally, but originating with originating with the Reference Guide author nonetheless. I do not like the v3 MRc3-7 tool. It is a poor person's version of a tool I have been using more more than 10 years. My version makes is easy to find data errors (Excel self-checking for math errors), and it generates special progress reports I use to track a general contractors (GC) status during construction (LEED Construction Administration). My tools also tracks details for EQc4 products. The reports also track all LEED supporting documents required from the GC: waste management, storm water management implementation, etc. I still use my version LEED GC tool to properly manage LEED projects, and transfer data over to the special LEED tool. That is a real pain. I will eventually, when time permits, revise my tool so it easily allows transferring data to the simplified LEED tool. None of the special notes I make, and none of special GC tracking information will transfer over for the LEED reviewers to see. So, the answer is, use the LEED tool for LEED review submission, but use an alternative tool that lets you manage LEED projects more effectively.

Hi Tom - Long time no see. I agree with Hernando on the subject of using USGBC’s form for these credits' documentation. Maybe I’m too much of rule follower but the language you quoted sounds like a requirement to me. And my understanding is that when folks submit their own forms it causes the reviewers extra work - especially if they submit PDFs of their Excel spreadsheets. The reviewers have to try to decipher what the formulas/calculations are. I think we should play nice with our review team. Hernando - I have my own tool as well for GC tracking but why I decided doing data entry twice wasn’t worth the energy.

Yes, double entry data can lead (LEED?) to errors. I will eventually modifying my special tool to allow me to cut and paste data from my tool to the LEED tool. Then all I will check that both tools provide the same results and all is well. The issue with non-LEED developed tools has been in place since the start of LEED v2.0. I know from experience, certifying the first ever non-test case LEED v2.0 project, that the reviewers did not like use of special tools. I developed my own water use calculation tool long before the USGBC provided one for use. We had the water use credits rejected because we did not use the recently invented LEED tool. We had to transfer the information to the LEED tool and wound up with the same result.