Process verses intent

Hi Martha - I'm sorry; your experience sounds really frustrating and not the type of customer experience we're trying to craft. I'll reach out to you offline to get your project details so we can put you in touch with your LEED Reviewer; in general this can be requested through our Contact page (http://www.gbci.org/contact), and we currently help about a half-dozen project teams connect with Reviewers each day. I'll also review your submitted feedback and how it was handled; feedback is important to us - we know its an opportunity to learn from you and improve our processes to better help implement LEED. I'm sorry if we fell short in making you or your feedback feel valued; we will continue to strive to do better. Yours sincerely, MRS

Megan, Martha is the real deal, and no one documents credits better that her. Martha, I have used the conference call system, and it has worked well for me, but it does take some time to get set up. As for the engineers, I know you are right about some, and I am sorry about that. We are not a patient bunch usually.

Martha, we have seen over time based on review comments that the intent of the credit is becoming something of the past. It typically takes a response narrative citing the intent of the credit and making the argument that way. We have succeeded all but one time, and that one time, the response was requirements were not met.

On that note, i wonder why there is so much language in the v4 Reference Guide in, :Behind the Intent, when it seems the intent is not as relevant as it used to be. I also think it depends on the reviewer and whether they have actual experience in the industry and understands the numerous conditions and stipulations that may occur in the process.

Martha, we just send project team inquiries whenever we receive comments like this. Review comments are stock that should be edited by the reviewer to point out the specific issue. If they do not point out the specific issue, we send an inquiry. The response always points out the specific issue. If you try to respond to these general comments you can provide more then what is needed or not what the reviewer wanted. Then you end up with a denied credit that you then have to argue for with GBCI. So as you scratch your head, we do too wondering why this was not done the first time. More time and effort is wasted on both ends.

The issue that is causing the headaches is consistency. Consistent language, consistent issues identified, consistent requested documentation and corrections. With the struggle to become consistent you sometimes end up with comments like this. Its not that the reviewer does not know, its just the process they have been given to try and make things consistent. But it is hard to create a consistent set of comments that deals with every possible situation and project out there. It is ever the evolving process that is working on being better.

How do you guys think GBCI is doing with providing consistent reviews with comments that are relevant to your documentation?What average grade (A to F) do you give reviews from the last 6 months, and how does that compare to reviews from 2 years ago?

Tristan, that is very hard, and I think Martha has tapped onto a major irritation of LEED Professionals (and Todd confirms) that their is no consistency. Most people documenting LEED credits are dedicated and quite competent, and as such, expect the review to be the same. The use of some sort of standard replay and then not editing it is a disservice to the process, and make us all question the veracity of review. If there is a checklist used, which is fine, maybe that should be shared with the user, then the submitter could point out something that might have been an honest oversight.

I know in my previous position, we made hundreds of submittals for the MEP related credits, and the variation in response was immense. Not that we were perfect, and there were some very good review comments that pointed out flaws that we needed to correct. Those we learned from, and for sure did not make that mistake again.

The past two years I would say at least a B+. Two years ago would be definitely in the A range.

As noted in the discussion, the intent of the credit seems to be less relevant over the years even with unique circumstances. Also, the stock comments without specifying the issue are appearing more than before.

Sometimes you wonder if reviews are like cars; was it done on a Monday or a Friday?

Martha, to answer all three of your questions, Green Globes does offer an alternative for some projects where access to a person in the form of the assessor is provided and there is some flexibility in how you document your approach to the intent of an item.

Martha, I feel your pain and tagging along here as we have had a serious case of inconsistencies that have costed us significant time and money. We are already in our 2nd appeal for the same credit (energy - the pre-requisite was awarded on the 1st appeal, but we need the points). We had documented at least 2 projects (in the previous years) following the same ACP we are proposing in this project and we are getting comments that make us think our reviewer does not understand how our system works in full, thus focusing on small items to amend that once amended, did not make much of a difference. The lack of prompt responses is tiring for everyone in the team, including the client. Good luck with everything!