Our LEED ID+C V4 IP credit was denied and the following review comment was provided:
Site Selection and Energy-Related Systems
The form narratives indicate that occupant satisfaction feedback was gathered before the design phase. However, this credit requires projects to commit to the establishment and use of ongoing feedback mechanisms that provide information about tenant space performance and occupants' satisfaction. Occupants’ feedback is critical to ensuring that the project is operating as the design intended. A narrative must be provided to describe the planned method for gathering ongoing feedback on occupant satisfaction. Information on sample sizes, timing, and format should be included.
The documentation does not demonstrate compliance.
We would appeal this credit but don't know how to reply such review comment because reference guide does not provide "ongoing feedback" definition and examples to do such kind of feedback. Shall we use survey plan submitted in LEEDE v3 IEQc7.2 or any good ideas?
Thank you
emily reese moody
Sustainability Director, Certifications & ComplianceJacobs
LEEDuser Expert
452 thumbs up
December 24, 2019 - 3:09 am
Hi Jorng-ren,
This is an odd comment for the Integrative Process credit. I have seen comments similar to that when pursuing the Innovation in Design (ID) credit for Occupant Comfort Survey, where they require ongoing surveys and actual survey results. The Integrative Process credit, though, starts in pre-design and the template they provide is meant to document the early discussions and exercises and how the team worked through the design process together to inform the projects elements. Requiring any sort of ongoing documentation from the occupants just doesn't make sense.
If you double-check your review comments, are you certain this feedback was for the Integrative Design credit (the first one in the Reference Guide) and not a different one somewhere?
The only things I can think of is that either the reviewer's comment got copied to the wrong credit on their end, or perhaps the reviewer is simply confused and provided incorrect feedback for the IP credit. If you feel like it's one of these things or some other similar error on the reviewer's part, I would contact GBCI (https://www.gbci.org/contact) directly and ask about this comment prior to appealing. They should be able to clarify before you have to go through the process of payment and possible refunds if it's their error.
Renee Shirey
Stantec421 thumbs up
January 2, 2020 - 9:46 am
An ongoing feedback mechanism for occupant satisfaction is indeed part of the LEED ID+C V4 IP credit, and the online credit template has a window to enter in a narrative concerning this process. The language says "Briefly describe the planned method for gathering feedback on occupant satisfaction. Include information on sample sizes, timing, and format." It might help if they added the word "ongoing", but the language is pretty clear that it is something that is required to happen in the future, not the past. I don't believe this is a requirement for the BD+C v4 version of the credit.
I have approached it like the LEED CI-2009 IEQc7.2 Thermal Comfort-Verification, but not quite as rigid. It sounds like you need to talk to the client about them administering a survey periodically, in whatever format would work best for them. If they aren't on board with this, the credit is dead.
Question: You said it was Denied and you were looking to Appeal - so it already went through 2 reviews? Did they not give you feedback on this requirement on the first/preliminary round of reviews?