SSc1: Previously Certified Projects

Peter Locke

Sustainability Consulting Director

McKinstry

LEEDuser Basic Member

4 thumbs up

November 30, 2012

It seems that the only way a previously certified LEED EB project can obtain these 4 points is if the project has "maintained tracking" since completeing the initial certification (see guidance on pg 18 of USGBC Recertification Guidance document). In our case our client has not "maintained tracking" for all the previously awarded credits. Our client therefore does not have the option of "recertification". Is there an option to not recertify, just start fresh, but still get these 4 points? As a general comment about the "new recert guidance", while the USGBC has made it more clear and supposedly simpler (need to confirm once all templates are available), we are still not able to convince our clients that it is worth the effort to maintain the level of tracking that the "recert" process requires in terms of effort of already overworked staff, and the subsequent benefits accruing. Our clients generally feel that just starting the process over again once the 5 year window has expired, having a 3 month performance period and making the appropriate changes to whatever the latest rating system requires, is a much more efficient way of doing business.

Post a reply

Jared Silliker

Owner

Silliker + Partners

LEEDuser Basic Member

46 thumbs up

Tue, 08/06/2013 - 22:46

Peter ... thanks for this summary. I may be facing a similar case, where the longer performance periods may prevent a client from meeting their certification goals (by a certain date). And it seems the only clear benefit is the waived registration fee ($900). Are there any more recent anecdotes, re this challenge of re-certifying? And to confirm, must a building let the entire 5 year window pass before registering a fresh project? Lastly, has anybody heard from USGBC on this issue? If Peter's story is common across the market, the current setup seems like it's mortally flawed (as in, nobody will re-certify!). Can we help recommend tweaks that would make re-certification more appealing? As with many LEED-based conversations, we'll be balancing rigor with ease of implementation. Yes, we want to know that buildings are keeping up with their practices and performance. But theoretically, we should make the reporting logistics easier as building continues along its LEED timeline.

Michelle Rosenberger

Partner

ArchEcology

LEEDuser Premium Member

421 thumbs up

Wed, 09/11/2013 - 21:51

100% agreed on all these points. The difference between a performance period that is the entire recert period or even 25% of it and 3 months is so huge as to entirely negate any perceived benefit of recerting. Added to that the "establishment" plans are all insufficient to the new requirements and will require significant revision. There do not appear to be any other financial benefits, excepting the registration fee. I am posting this because I think it is a real shame that we will be put in the position of advising this client that it makes more sense to start over as if they never spent thousands of dollars and years of time getting the initial certification. It also completely undermines the most important issue of the EBOM program which is the performance and ongoing tracking that is supposed to follow certification. No wonder this program can't get traction in the market. As it is, if they start fresh, they also don't enter the 2 year recert cycle of constant performance tracking. They simply start over every 5 years. Has anyone learned anything new or heard anything from the USGBC on this that would alter this negative reinforcement equation?