I coordinated a project in which the IEQp1 was audited. There were a few AHUs that did not comply with the ASHRAE 62.1-2007 neither the 10 cfm/person, others do; this situation was described and justified on the prerequisite template. However, I received the technical advice on the standard preliminary review that I quote below:
"The form states in option 1 that all AHUs must be able to meet the minimum air flow requirements.However, It appears that some of the building’s AHUs do not meet the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. If that is the case, Option 2 must be selected on the form. Additionally, sufficient documentation must be provided to demonstrate the building AHUs that are incapable of supplying the outdoor air flow required by 62.1-2007. Provide a narrative that clearly indicates why building AHUs are incapable of supplying the outdoor air flow required by ASHRAE 62.1-2007 and provide technical evidence that demonstrates that these limitations are true for all system operating conditions, even when functioning properly. If the project team is able to make minor adjustments, such as setpoint adjustments, damper positioning, etc., to meet the requirements of Case 1 they are required to do so for prerequisite achievement. It is not necessary make adjustments if it involves any amount of capital investment or equipment purchase."
The problem was solved as the building owner did want to anticipate a significant investment as the building needed to be adjusted to comply with the Brazilian national law. So, only by this matter, the ventilation system was able to meet case 1 and be in accordance with prerequisite.
I would like a feedback from the colleagues of this forum, mainly the last sentence of the quoting.
In my opinion: if any investment is necessary to adjust and/or to correct the ventilation system(s), then the building is not obligated to make any investment in equipment and/or corrections to the system(s).
I am going to adopt this path in future cases like this.
Can I get some opinions, please?