I recall the form saying "estimated" completion date. What can you get away with with "estimated"? The contractor is telling us that the Indoor Air Quality testers say they have to test before the completion date. I find this difficult because the estimated competition date was turned in the deign submission. Our completion date is estimated to be 1 month past what was originally submitted. Not sure what to do here...Can we change the dates in the Construction Review on PIf4?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
William Weaver
LEED Fellow, WELL APJLL
181 thumbs up
August 25, 2014 - 12:33 pm
Yes, you can revise the dates on the Project Information form to reflect the actual dates when you submit for the Construction Review.
Heather DeGrella
Sustainable Design Director, Associate PrincipalOpsis Architecture
71 thumbs up
June 9, 2015 - 1:55 pm
We just had IEQc3.2 denied because the estimated construction and occupancy dates were not updated in PIf4. I have not encountered having to update the estimated dates in the PIf4 before, if the form was approved during the Design Phase review. Is that a requirement? Does "can" update mean "must" update? We were referred to the LEED Certification Policy Manual, pg 40, which I had thought referred strictly to credits submitted in the Design Phase:
NC 13.4.1 Credit Verification and Status Update Policy: For credits marked as marked as “Awarded” or “Anticipated” after the conclusion of two rounds of Design review – if, a Design phase credit is marked as “Awarded” or “Anticipated” prior to the start of the Construction Review, and any changes have occurred to the project that might affect the point total previously awarded, GBCI must be informed. In such cases, documentation for previously awarded credits must be updated to accurately reflect the project and submitted for re-review to ensure continued compliance with credit requirements. Documentation update requirements vary depending on the rating system and project specific circumstances. Project Teams must revise every aspect of the credit documentation necessary to demonstrate continued compliance. The review team reserves the right to request additional information or require an appeal if the revised documentation submitted is inadequate to verify continued compliance for a previously “Anticipated” credit.
William Weaver
LEED Fellow, WELL APJLL
181 thumbs up
June 9, 2015 - 2:17 pm
Either option in IEQc3.2 is tied to / dependent on construction completion and occupancy dates. If you've selected option 1, path 1 or option 2, both must be completed prior to occupancy. If you show test or completion dates that extend well beyond the date you indicated in PIf4 for substantial completion, this may raise an immediate red flag with the reviewer.
Also, if you're pursuing option 1, path 1 there is a calculated amount of time necessary to deliver the outside air. If the substantial completion date noted on PIf4 and the occupancy date indicated on IEQc3.2 don't align with the time necessary per your calculation, you've got a problem.
Best practice, if you're pursuing a time dependent construction credit, always update your PIf4 dates to reflect actual dates so you don't wind up with credit conflicts.
Heather DeGrella
Sustainable Design Director, Associate PrincipalOpsis Architecture
71 thumbs up
June 12, 2015 - 6:28 pm
Thank you William. It seems to me if they are looking for actual dates, they should ask for them in the IEQ form itself; Or, if the intent is to gather the schedule information all in the Project Information form, at least link the fields to the IEQ credit form so the team is aware these dates are being used to review that credit (many other forms do this and it is very helpful). By asking for estimated dates in the initial design application, I don't see what is gained other than more work and confusion down the line. Additional confusion is caused by wording on the PIf4 itself, which states "Enter actual or estimated start dates for each of the following design and construction stages. If date is prior to the date of initial application, it is assumed to be actual.” This wording indicate the reverse would hold true, whereby dates entered that were after the date of the initial application would continue to be assumed to be estimated. It would be better to indicate the dates should be updated.
Anyhow, I hope our lesson learned helps other teams understand this is an important field to update. And hopefully it is less confusing in LEED v4.
Jean Root
Principal, Director of SustainabilityMWA Architects
October 19, 2016 - 6:24 pm
This is a question relating to the initial question above. We are going for LEED campus and individual LEED buildings within the LEED campus. On the Master Site PIf4 form, I have the date of substantial completion for the site (campus), but the campus does not have a "Date on which the project building is expected to be ready for occupancy," because it is the site only. The individual project buildings have a "Date on which the project building is expected to be ready for occupancy," which differ based upon each building because they were constructed at different times (phased). How do I fill out this date on the Master Site PIf4 form? I do not want this denied because it is inconsistent with the individual project building PIf4 forms. Do I explain this with a narrative? As you all know this information is used to verify many other credits, so it is important that it is correct so the other credits do not get denied. Thanks.