I have received 2 review comments in the past few weeks that take issue with the fact that the "Substantial Completion" or "Estimated date that project will be ready for occupancy" date on the Pform is not exactly the same as the "Occupancy" date on the EQ3.2 form.
I don't interpret these two dates as the same anyway. An estimated or substantial completion date that the design team puts down on a Pform that is likely submitted long before the project is complete is basically never going to be the same as an actual Owner driven occupancy date. Not unless you are doing a combined submittal and make them the same, despite the fact that what is being asked is different.
So now I'm in the position of explaining that the dates aren't the same because they aren't asking for the same thing in both places.
Is anyone else seeing these comments? Does it make sense to have to make a pre-emptive narrative statement that these dates actually aren't the same to forestall the comment? Or are they actually indicating that we should be making those dates the same whether they are or not?
Susan Walter
HDRLEEDuser Expert
1299 thumbs up
July 18, 2012 - 3:26 pm
I think you have to explain how this could be different. Thanks for the heads up. I've got two projects going in for construction review soon and both have a significant separtion between Substantial Completion and Occupancy. I will be sure to explain the difference in the write up.
Dylan Connelly
Mechanical EngineerIntegral Group
LEEDuser Expert
472 thumbs up
July 27, 2012 - 4:25 pm
Please note the following instructions on the PI4 form:
"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 could be why there was an issue. I'd suggest updating your PI4 form with the update information when you resubmit.
Heather DeGrella
Sustainable Design Director, Associate PrincipalOpsis Architecture
71 thumbs up
June 12, 2015 - 6:48 pm
We just lost this credit for similar reasons: our estimated substantial completion and occupancy dates entered in PIf4 were estimated and so did not match the final dates. The wording on the PIf4 is very confusing and the dates are not linked to the IEQc3.2 form to indicate they are part of the review for that credit. Furthermore, the credit came back as denied after the preliminary phase review, not just pending, and with no technical advice to guide the team's response. When we inquired if we could still submit for final review, the response back was basically fine go ahead if you want to, but the dates clearly indicate you didn't meet the credit. It was a very adversarial experience, not one we are used to having.