To the USGBC staff who I know read these comments, please issue consistent guidance for how this credit will be evaluated. I've submitted twice for this credit. The first submission was accepted without comment. Therefore, I submitted the second project using the same approach. The reviewers asked for specific calculation results and obscure things like, how the energy model was modified to account for a scenario of reducing the building SF accommodating teleworking. Where does this even come from? The comment is not even vaguely appropriate for the project type. The USGBC is asking for comments about LEED. How about setting clear expectations for documentation? And yes, I did read the v4.1 updates. The guidance still leaves the door wide open for reviewers to generate a lot more work for design teams.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Greg Romanczyk
EXP18 thumbs up
August 12, 2019 - 12:20 pm
Same here. Submitted 4 times previously with no review comments, and this last review is pending per additional calculations for energy and water.
Martha Norbeck
PresidentC-Wise Design and Consulting
70 thumbs up
September 15, 2019 - 12:04 pm
GBCI replied to my request for clarification and acknowledged that the review comments may have excessive in scope. While I appreciate this reflection on their part, it would be nice to simply have consistent guidance and consistent reviews. It does now appear that they are now requiring specific numbers in the worksheet to demonstrate you did the analysis. An addenda to recognize this would be nice. My main frustration with this credit is lack of clarity on documentation requirements. The worksheet...well, it may have been well intentioned, but in practice is vague and confusing. v4.1 is slightly better.