I'm working on a project where we completed a very thorough IP analysis during concept design. I am finding now, however, that filling out the IP worksheet is extremely painful due to very confusing and poorly-worded questions. For example, under Energy-Related Systems, it states: "Describe how research and analysis uncovered through discovery influenced the project building program, form, geometry, and/or configuration". And then there are several boxes to comment on various parameters such as site conditions, massing, lighting levels, etc. Could someone please tell me what one is supposed to write in "Plug and Process Loads" for this particular question? I love the intent of this credit, but it seems to me that this IP Worksheet was poorly QC'd and I could write my own summary of analysis that would give a much better picture of our IP process and what we learned from it. Does anyone know if it is acceptable to submit your own IP worksheet?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
January 23, 2019 - 5:10 pm
The sentence you mention put another way - how did your analysis influence the building's program, form, geometry or configuration? At least that is what I take it to mean. Some projects would address process loads at the concept phase because they could be a very high portion of energy use for some project types. It may not be applicable in your case so type NA.
I would think that you could provide your own narrative instead of completing the worksheet. The worksheet exists because most people do not like open ended kinds of documentation requirements like - provide a narrative describing how you met the credit requirements.
Maria Grimm
AssociateMeyers+ Engineers
5 thumbs up
January 23, 2019 - 5:24 pm
I agree that some projects (I've worked on a few) where there are large process loads to consider. But when the question is asking how analysis influenced the building's form - what are you supposed to comment on in the process loads box? Earlier in the worksheet it asks about load reduction strategies, so I get how you would address process loads in that section. It just seems that if you need to write N/A in half of the boxes on the worksheet than they are not asking the right questions. This has been a point of frustration for me because I really think the IP Credit is worthwhile and I just feel like this particular worksheet is really missing the mark. For my next submission, I will submit my own IP worksheet and I'll post back here to let you know how it goes!
Shabari Shaily Gerber
Sustainability Consultantecocentric (pty) ltd
2 thumbs up
May 15, 2019 - 8:22 am
Hi Maria
Did you manage to submit your own worksheet? I'd like to know how it went. I am also busy compiling the LEED worksheet for an office-building and while, there was a certain degree of integrative exercise resulting in reduced loads, there was no specific action taken within the LEED definition of "integration" to address process loads. Moreover, it appears to me that unless your building doesn't have any plug loads (which will be highly unlikely) one must answer all the questions to demonstrate compliance.
I would love to see the response you received from the reviewer on your project submission, if you can share it.
Thanks
Megan Recher
Sustainable Building AdvisorPerkins + Will
5 thumbs up
September 30, 2019 - 11:46 am
Does anyone have a sample worksheet filled out that they are willing to share?
Summer Minchew
Managing PartnerEcoimpact Consulting
LEEDuser Expert
164 thumbs up
October 1, 2019 - 8:08 am
Megan - You might want to look in to substituting the LEED v4.1 credit requirements for Integrative Process. Under the LEED v4.1 requirements "Develop a Project Team Letter. Provide a dated letter on the letterhead of the Integrative Process Facilitator that summarizes the team’s integrative process approach and describes the difference that this integrative approach made in terms of improving project team interaction and project performance." It sounds like your team may find this option preferable to completion of the IP Worksheet as required under v4. We have successfully substituted v4.1 for this credit on our v4 projects.
Jennifer Wehling
Director of SustainabilityHMC Architects
28 thumbs up
October 10, 2019 - 2:27 pm
We went through a fairly thorough integrated process early on looking at option and setting goals with the owner and the bridging documents team - then the project was bid out to a DB team. When it came to filling out the specifics on the integrated process worksheet, we didn't have the right people around anymore - definitely a lesson learned. Based on Marcus's comments above we put together a submittal package and narrative to explain our process, hoping it would an acceptable replacement for the worksheet. We provided all of our presentations from our workshops, including 2 presentations specific to energy use and thermal comfort, meeting minutes, etc. where we discussed all topics in sustainability. We provided a narrative explaining our process, which I still think is a great one, but the comment we got back was we needed to submit the complete IP worksheet OR look at v4.1. Just an FYI for anyone looking at alternative in v4 for the worksheet.
Gerald Kettler
PresidentFacility Performance Associates
September 7, 2022 - 1:07 pm
Does anyone have a Project Team Letter for v4.1 substitution they would be willing to share for example purposes? I've taken on several projects that are further along in the design or construction phase making it difficult to complete the v4 worksheet.
Nadia Azzam
Sustainable Building Certification SpecialistGresham Smith
2 thumbs up
May 22, 2023 - 2:20 pm
Curious to know if anyone was able to share a sample of the v4.1. letter?