Re: Review Comments with Phantom Requirements

Yes, Michelle's queston on IEQp2 is addressed on that forum. I am going to leave this forum open, though, and ask if anyone else out there is facing "phantom requirements"? If so it would be great to hear about them in this forum. Perhaps GBCI will tune in and take some feedback on its approach.

I have a good one for you...I have a CI project in a Hospital that I am told by the reviewer shouldn't be considered a Hospital when submitting my LPD calculations. The review says that since there are no operating or Emergencyyy Rooms included I should consider it a Health Care Clinic...last I checked Nursing Stations and Nurseries and spaces like that are used in Hospitals as well...the big sign on the buildinng says its a Hospital...I guess the reviewers know more than the Department of Health

Although this is well known on the forum, another Phantom requirement is 8'-0" minimum for Bike paths which applies to SSc4. Why don't they just state that as a minimum?

They do not state these type of Phantom requirements because they want you to fail in the review. The GBCI claims they are standardizing the reviews but they have so far failed to provide addenda to the Reference Guides to make any of them official.

I am one of the first five LEED APs, helped the USGBC develop LEED NC and CI, was the vice chair of the USGBCs EQ Technical Advisory Group, and have complete several LEED Platinum projects. Still, I have no access to a list of these phantom requirements.

If I was able to crowbar such a list out of the GBCI I would post it so everyone had access to it. It is incredibly unfair to have unpublished requirements that some LEED Consultants seem to have access to but vast majority do not. That provides a business advantage to a few people at the expense of everyone else.

Hi Neil -

On the part of the USGBC staff, we appreciate you raising this issue, as it appears, based on your description of the project, that this most likely was a reviewer error. Should this happen in the future, please contact us through the LEED Certification Contact Us form, http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/contact-us/project-certification-que..., with the project number and name so that we can resolve this issue for you. In this instance, I will contact you offline so that we can resolve directly.

Please note that the option to use the LEED Certification Contact Us form is always available to all project teams who have any concerns or requested clarifications regarding any LEED Certification review comments that are made. We strive to provide a fair review that is consistent with published LEED rating system requirements, the referenced standards, reference guides, and LEED Interpretations. At any time you feel the basis for a requirement has not been adequately referenced in the LEED review comments, or that the reviewer comment was in error, we welcome your feedback, and will provide clarification and correct any errors that may have been made.

Thanks,
Megan R/S

Neil, that GBCI comment is getting added to my LEED review wall of shame. *awesome*

I do almost exclusively healthcare work, and it's quite clear that many LEED reviewers simply don't understand what our projects are all about. They've frequently told us that strategy X is required for LEED that would be prohibited by code. Your comment, however, takes the cake. I hope you pushed back on that one! (As you probably know, office spaces inside hospitals are still office spaces, but nurse stations and nurseries are definitely hospitals!)

[Follow up note - I must have posted my comment at exactly the same time as Megan did. In response to hers, I will say that all or nearly all of GBCI's wall of shame comments were corrected through communication with GBCI. Most of them were fixed easily, but since the burden of proof is on the team, sometimes this process can be really onerous.]

Mara and Neil, We are having the same problems. We do exclusively healthcare work and the USGBC/GBCI does not understand Hospitals, especially ones doing renovation work of existing buildings. I'm currently trying to define a project boundary on the ground/concourse floor of a large suburban hospital. If I strictly apply the LEED definition of separation then the entire conglomeration of 15 buildings, multiple additions and renovations on that level would be in the project boundary. When I look at 2 hour walls as the separation, I can cut it down to half which is only an amount of space equal to the tower above or about 300,000 sf. The original building boundary has been obliterated due to additions and renovations which is common. I'm so frustrated right now, I'm ready to tell the owner to pay the penalty fee to the country for not doing LEED and building it green anyways.

Do not get me started on how lousy the AGMBC guide is for these large Hospital facilities.

Here's my challenge USGBC: you, my projects and myself are all located in the DC area, how about a few building tours and a good plan/code review session. Mara and Neil, you are invited.

Susan, I definitely feel your pain on this one. Amorphous growth and evolution of hospital buildings/spaces are pretty unusual across most building types, and the MPRs are not currently written to clearly support that situation. Are you working on an ID+C or a BD+C project?

I have had some success in receiving at least somewhat reasonable feedback from GBCI on complex campus issues via email and/or conference call.

I've got a BD+C project that I may go into ID+C soon so I can separate the lowest 2 levels from the upper 11 levels. It may be the least painful way to get it through LEED but the Owner is not understanding why a completely renovated space with new mechanical, windows and roof is not BD+C. The project ticks off all the boxes for BD+C except for establishing a project boundary per LEED. I can make one based on the building and mechanical but can't support it with LEED and MPRs. I've been working through emails and am trying to get a conference call set up (with limited luck right now).

Susan, you need to refer to the LEED Guidelines for which system to register under. The 60-40 rule.

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6667

If the owner owns or controls 90% of the building and is renovating more than 40% or more of the gross floor area of the interior floor area then LEED NC must be used.

If less than 40% of the area is renovation then you must use LEED CI. Under this case some parts of the project outside the scope-of-work must be included as part of the certification. Energy use using an energy model is the one outside the scope LEED CI credit. If an HVAC system serves and entire floor but only half of a floor that is renovated the entire HVAC system must be considered in the submittal.

Good Luck.

Check and check. The problem is drawing the LEED boundary on the lower two levels. LEED requires that the building 'in its entirety' be included in the project boundary for BD+C. My problem is defining the entire building and the project boundary on the very large, contiguous levels.

Imagine a college campus with all the buildings pushed together and being able to walk from one building to the next without reaching a party wall or going outside. That is a Hospital. And we aren't talking about a small amount of space either. The current facility is over 2 million contiguous SF and we're adding on a million more SF and renovating a quarter million SF.

My LEED gut and experience tells me that this is an BD+C project and to draw the project boundary as close to the original project boundary as I can using a combination of 2 hour and 1 hour walls. (Luckily, my smoke compartments are aligning with these rated walls.) I can only find LEED guidance that says no to this approach.

The other thing I would like to propose is a master planning approach to existing Hospital campuses which would allow the Owner to use a combination of BD+C, ID+C and EB+OM to bring their structures up to LEED certification over time. This would require the ability to rate buildings over different versions (ie v2.2 and v3) under a master building/block/what ever.

Dear Hernando –

LEED Reviewers, like project teams, are end-users of LEED and access the same publically available guidance documents and databases that are published by USGBC. Their goal is to provide a fair review that is consistent with the published rating system requirements, referenced standards, reference guides, LEED Interpretations and all other USGBC LEED publications. If at any time you feel the basis for a requirement has not been adequately referenced in the LEED Review comments, or that the reviewer comment was in error, we welcome your feedback and will fully investigate the issue in order to provide further clarification or an immediate correction if a reviewer error or oversight has been made. The best way to do this is via our Contact Us page (http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que...), selecting “Questions about Review Comments” from the drop down menu.

Hernando – while I know that you have already been in touch with us – for other LEEDusers out there, please note that should you also have additional questions after having already contacted us via email (i.e. the ‘Contact Us’ page), we are available for phone calls and/or conference calls. We welcome the opportunity to discuss LEED technical issues with project teams directly, and this can be arranged via our Contact Us page (http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que...), selecting “Follow Up to Prior GBCI Reply” and checking the “By Phone” option.

Best,
Megan R/S

Megan,

I know the process. I am way ahead of you on this issue. I have already discussed the issue directly with GBCI upper management.

LEED Reviewers are not supposed to be end-users if you mean consultants working to certify LEED projects while also doing reviews of their competitors LEED work. GBCI executive management confirmed that consultants working on LEED projects are not LEED reviewers, at least in the last few years. I know that is not exactly true because I have evidence of a business competitor of mine who tried to get a client of mine to fire me and hire them about two years ago. the client turned them down. That same competitor reviewed a project of mine slightly more than one year ago.

I do not know what is true about reviewers and what is not true. I am told one thing when I have evidence of something else is actually going on. Maybe there were too many projects to review at one time for the non-end-user reviewers? Either way an unhappy competitor of mine reviewed my LEED project in the recent past.

Hi all,

I really enjoyed some of the stories in this thread. Michelle's in particular. We've had many of the same or similar challenges over the last few years. Generally we've found that if we are positive we are right, we eventually get approved. However, although not always clear at first, we've also found out they (GBCI and reviewers) were right and backed off. By "right," I mean the requirement was buried somewhere we could have found, not that it was clear or obvious.

I am curious if anyone has tracked the review teams that provide the sometimes phantom requirements? I don't want to create a place to complain about reviewers in discriminently, more to share observations about where some teams might need more guidance that we can pass on to GBCI or to be best prepared for teams that are just particularly good at knowing every last detail.

I also wanted to put in a plug for Megan Ritchie. I knew her when she was at Paladino and she is great. I believe her when she says that they (she at least) welcome feedback and are trying to fix inconsistencies.

Thanks Elizabeth! Providing consistent, high-quality reviews is of our utmost concern. To ensure that we are always maintaining or improving our quality, we track feedback at both the individual and team level, and use this data to direct targeted training and, as necessary, termination. So yes: please do continue to provide us with your feedback so that we may continue to identify our weaknesses and improve upon them. Megan R/S

I am regularly being asked in preliminary reviews to provide "optional" signatures. What is the meaning of "optional" if my credits are marked "pending" when I opt to not get the "optional" signatures?

This adds time and thus cost to my projects.

Are LEED reviewers following a check list for a previous version of the form?