We submitted for this credit using the results from the REVIT 2016 daylight analysis tool. Both the Lighting Analysis plans and the Room Schedule Threshold results were submitted as part of the documentation.
The credit was denied. The reasons given included one, that some of the spaces had simulated illuminance levels of less than 10 fc. Our submitted documents include lighting analysis plans that clearly showed NONE of the spaces mentioned in the Review comments had illumination levels below 10 fc. Another reason for denial of the credit was that the interior renderings did not show shading devices. Well, the renderings were created showing the shading devices concealed in the pockets. If the intention is to indicate shading devices, we could have included the drawing sections that call them out.
We are mystified.
How do we question this? We don't think it falls under an appeal, as we are not requesting a different interpretation. We think the ruling is incorrect.
Thanks in advance for any helpful suggestions!