Mid Review Clarification

Typically an MRC is used to seek documentation that is needed to do the review and has not been provided or further clarification on a specific issue.

There is not a clear, fine, hard line between the two so it is difficult to come up with a comprehensive set of general criteria to use. Each situation tends to be somewhat unique. I am not sure why a particular credit was denied and not MRC'd first without knowing the specifics of the situation. They are often intended to help eliminate the need to deny a prerequisite or cause an appeal. They are intended to seek clarification on technical issues. In the case of insufficient information this would typically not be the only issue that is wrong with the submission. So let's suppose that there are three things wrong with the EAp2 submission. Two of them are clear issues and one is somewhat unclear. If the two clear issues result in an adjustment to the modeling results that take the overall result below the minimum then the third issues would get added and referenced as insufficient. In that case an MRC would not help to award the credit. So if you received a review comment where the only issue raised referenced the sole reason as insufficient information you might have a case to ask the reviewer to provide you with an MRC. This should almost never happen.

I have an active project with an MRC asking for the signed contract between CxA and owner to ensure that the post-occ Cx will be performed (EAc3). Our response to the preliminary review comment informed the reviewer that the CxA is an employee of the Owner (federal gov't. project with Govt. CxA). However, that point didn't seem to get through to them because they're still asking for the contract with this MRC. I've uploaded a letter from the CxA and my own narrative explaining the situation and asking for a teleconference to discuss what form of documentation they need in lieu of a contract (since that is not possible). They have not responded yet (I replied to MRC about 2 weeks ago), and in the meantime, the post-occ. Commissioning has been performed and the report is complete. I plan on uploading the completed post-occ Cx report and replying (again) to the MRC, stating that the post-occ. Cx has been performed so the contract issue is moot. Does this sound like a reasonable course of action? Do you have any other advice on this? Thank you in advance.

Its a little weird that even after an MRC with a narrative that you are still being asked for something that cannot be had in your circumstance. Typically, when the CX is an employee of the owner or even the design team, a narrative along wtih something official confirming their employment is all that is needed. But like you said, commissioning is complete, so i would revise the form noting commissioning is complete and upload the executive summary along with segments of the final commissioning report.

This is not unusual and this question has been asked before. Reviewers seem to want more than a narrative. I performed this role for my firm before I retired. The CFO of the firm wrote a letter with the narrative of my relation and employment by the firm AND (this is key) that we were committed to performing the 10 month review. I recommend that you get a letter from the CxA's supervisor or the supervisor of the department that is the "owner" and state formally the relationship and commitment to the review.

Funny thing... 5 minutes after typing my comment, I got the certification email from GBCI (in which the credit was approved, and we achieved Gold). Apparently, the review team made their decision based on the draft letter from the CxA, and they accepted it. I have two more projects with this exact contractual arrangement, so now I have a clear path forward. I will get a signed letter from the Owner's rep and the CxA indicating the commitment to post-occ Cx and describing the Owner/CxA relationship. Thanks for your guidance, Scott and Todd.