What mechanism is in place to ensure that review comments are based on the requirements that were in place at the time of registration? The LEED Certification Policy Manual, Section 6.2, states that GBCI requires compliance with the version of the reference guide, including all published addenda, that was in place at the time of project registration. However, we have noticed that reviewers often make comments based on addenda that were issued after the date of registration, and sometimes even after the date that documentation was submitted.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
JOHN BURNETT
FAC-LEEDership19 thumbs up
May 1, 2012 - 11:15 pm
It seems there is no mechanism in place to address this! We note instances where reviewers request additional information because addenda issued after project registration requires same.
Inconsistencies in project reviews, CIRs and even 'applied logic' occurs within the LEED rating systems, maybe due to a lack of cross-platform dialogue?
Decisions seems to be based on a one-dimensional view of the environmental impacts, or are simply biased. For example, decisions have been made on the basis that the project 'did nothing' to achieve a credit/point, forgetting that many projects achieve points due to circumstances. This is particularly true of points relating to commuting/transport.