review comments not matching

The example you use with WEp1 doesn’t sound like an issue that is directly tied to the new forms, in my opinion. That sounds like a pretty standard review comment that is used in the case of miscalculated Fixture User Groups to account for unisex restrooms, which is a common issue for a lot of project teams. Some may even ignore it entirely if they don’t understand that WEp1 is all about flow rates/occupancy use. Without seeing the form, or knowing how you’ve calculated/explained these in the past, one of two things:

1. If you’re sure you’ve accounted for unisex restroom use correctly, this may just be a simple oversight on the reviewer’s end that can be explained in a supplemental narrative. Buildings are complex, and reviewing a new project after reviewing multiple different projects (without being on the project team for months) can lead to errors, especially if it is not explicitly addressed up front or if you have a complex occupancy with levels of controlled access that you are trying to address. Email GBCI if you aren’t sure…there’s confusion somewhere. How did the last project turn out that had this same comment?
-or-
2. You have not properly allocated a number of FTE/Transients in your Fixture User Group(s) that have access to the unisex restrooms, and/or you have not clearly explained your calculation methodology in a narrative. Perhaps the methodology you are using in this case is not acceptable. Really take a high-level look into the calculation trail for those specific restrooms and how someone who has not been on the project team would view it. In the old form, I would create a dedicated Fixture User Group for occupants using unisex restrooms that would separate out a portion of FTE/Transient occupants that had access to those unisex restrooms. The Gender Ratio of the Unisex fixture group would be changed to 100% female to easily calculate the Total Daily Uses that would result from men using a restroom without a urinal. There are other ways to do this, and if you haven’t already, take a look in the WEp1 forum for “unisex”.

At first glance, the v06.0 form and “2009_Water Use Reduction Calculator_v06.6” seem to add tools to make that calculation easier and much more visible (by allowing you to set your urinal use/unisex % in one fill-in cell). It also gives you an easy way to account for multiple fixtures available to a Fixture Use Group with different GPF/GPM rates. It doesn’t seem like there are new requirements in the new WEp1 form that would trigger this comment.

Yeah, doubling up on the issue in the review comment for WEc3 is not standard. On the other hand, having a supplemental calculator outside of the form is a major departure from the way this has been applied and included in previous versions of the form for v2009 projects…they may see that as something that needs to be relearned, and reinforced with comments in both locations to ensure no one will miss that calculator upload. My guess is that they haven’t adjusted quality control for comments related to the v06 forms and to account for those that are using the new forms and those who are not.

Good luck with your narrative/calculation.

Jarrod - Thanks for sharing your experience with Emily on the unisex restroom calculations. That scenario has never been straightforward to document and it would be great if the Water Use Reduction Additional Guidance document had more detail than just the first footnote on page 2 about modifying the usage rates.

Emily - I attempted to ask a question about v06 forms and the impact on reviewers on last week's LEED v4 documentation tips webinar. I lost audio during the webinar right when they were answering my question and the video version they posted the web is the one held at 10 pm, which I did not attend (http://www.usgbc.org/education/sessions/leed-v4-education-series/documen...).

Emily - hopefully you have resolved this satisfactorily by now, but just in case... I run into the urinal issue frequently. I generally find the Online Form entirely inadequate for calculating meaningful usage, and have created my own spreadsheet that works well for me. I will usually upload a pdf of this spreadsheet as backup. If it gets really complicated, I also supply a narrative of my assumptions and calculations. Below is an excerpt from a recent project (large university building with classrooms and offices; "transients" in this case are the students) -- this methodology was approved (the tables do not past very well here, but you get the idea):

"Urinals are provided on some floors, but not on others. All but five floors in the building have urinals, and the vast majority of male occupants have access to urinals. To be conservative, water use calculations were weighted based on expected occupants per floor. Occupants were assumed most likely to use the restrooms on the floor they occupy.

Transient occupants will migrate through the building throughout their time in the building, as opposed to the full-time occupants who will spend the majority of their time in their office or other assigned space. Therefore, the “potential” transient population was determined for each floor by counting the total seats used primarily by transients on that floor (i.e., seats not assigned to full-time occupants, such as classroom seating). Because there are a greater number of seats than there will ever be transients in the building at a given time, this “potential” population was then converted to a percent of the total daily transients expected in the building. The actual transients expected per floor were determined by multiplying the (potential) percent per floor by the actual expected transients for the building. Transients on floors with urinals and transients on floors without urinals were summed for the respective User Groups. For example:

Total “Potential” Transient seats in Building 2,369
Total “Expected” Transients in Building 871
3rd Floor “Potential” Transient Seats 284
% 3rd Floor Transient Seats in Building 12%
% 3rd Floor Expected Daily Transients 104

A detailed table with information for each floor has been uploaded to the site. Full-time occupants were assumed to use the facilities located on the same floor as their office (or other point of full-time occupancy). Full-time and transient occupants on floors with and without urinals were summed for the respective user groups.

The following “Expected” Occupancies were determined:
Total Population On Floors w/ Urinal On Floors w/out Urinal
FTE 341 294 47
Transients 871 837 34
Total 1,212 1,130 82

Erica,
Instead of using a separate spreadsheet, can you enter each floor as a separate fixture group in the standard LEED spreadsheet, and assign FTEs & Transients to each fixture group as you've described above? A narrative justifying the distribution of FTEs and transients would still be required, but maybe this would make the calcs more standardized (and easier for reviewer to approve) (?)

Hi Lyle - that certainly sounds like a viable option. This particular building was 18 stories, so that would have been a LOT of fixture groups, but on a smaller building I will definitely look into doing it that way. Thanks for the suggestion!