in one of our projects prerequisite IEQp1 minimum indoor air quality performance was denied both in design preliminary review and final review. then we submitted it again after doing the required changes as advised by the reviewer. it was denied again in the construction preliminary review. so the project team submitted the prerequisite again for the construction final review. it has been denied again giving the following review comment.
"this prerequisite was previously denied after receiving three full rounds of review Design preliminary, design final and construction preliminary review phases. as the design strategy regarding this credit was not earned in the construction preliminary review an appeal will be necessary should the project wish to obtain this prerequisite"
isn't it possible for us to submit this prerequisite for the construction final review as mentioned by the reviewer? what is the best way to proceed for us to obtain this prerequisite?
Hernando Miranda
OwnerSoltierra LLC
344 thumbs up
May 31, 2012 - 1:46 pm
It looks like they will not let you submit a free review as part of the second construction submittal. Following the Reference Guide example will lead to failure of EQp1 and EQc2.
Your only option is to pay $800 for a first level appeal review of what the GBCI calls a complex credit.
At least as of last summer, according to the GBCI's Sarah Alexander, you can submit an an unlimited number of first level appeals. Nothing in the LEED Certification Policy Manual states you are allowed multiple first level appeals, but as long as you pay an appeal fee each time the GBCI will let you appeal a credit.
Unless your HVAC systems are incapable of providing much more OA that the design provides, in a worst case scenario you would need to do a new TAB, provide the new OA results and document the credit.
Be aware the the certification rules for EQp1 keep changing.
The original method only used cooling distribution as the documentation mode at the system level, just like shown in the Reference Guide.
Later, heating air supply was required as the documentation mode, based on a single, obscure, sentence in the ASHRAE 62.1 User's Manual. You won't find this documented anywhere. You only find out this is required during a review.
Currently, heating air supply and documentation at the zone level, rather than the system level, is required.
In all of the above cases, if you were smart enough about ASHRAE 62.1 you could use Time Averaging (e.g. 1 hour full occupancy meeting with 2 hours of partial occupancy meetings per day either consecutively or with a meeting gap) and Occupant Diversity (useful for reducing occupancy when heating air is typically provided) to document compliance with the credit. The recent v4 FORM now integrates Occupant Diversity into the form but not Time Averaging.
What does all of the above mean. It means that for EQp1 you need to provide about 10-15% more OA for overhead distribution than would if you strictly followed the LEED Reference Guide example.
Shannon Allison
Project EngineerIntegral Group
35 thumbs up
May 31, 2012 - 2:09 pm
Udana, there is a version of the ASHRAE 62MZ Calc file that you can download from LEED Online. Go to IEQp1 for your project on LEED Online. Under "Quick Links" click on "Credit Resources." A window will pop up and give you the option to download the file "USGBC LEED 62MZCalc (May 2011).xls." This particular sheet has tabs labeled LEED Comments that lists additional information required for LEED documentation. On our last LEED project, I provided a narrative with answers to the questions listed on this tab.
We haven't received our comments on this project yet so I can't tell you the outcome. It's hard to say with reviewers since more often than not the comments are not consistent. It would be helpful if we were provided the list that the reviewers have for things to look at for each credit. I have heard that this is not available to us.
Good luck!
Udana Ratnayake
121 thumbs up
June 1, 2012 - 12:24 am
thank you both for comments. But let me explain the situation little more.
we receive several technical advices during preliminary Design review. One advice was regarding a non-ventilated corridor space (which is rarely used). We submitted a narrative answering all technical advises and we argued that it is not necessary to ventilate the corridor as it is rarely used by occupants.
Reviewers accepted all our arguments but denied IEQp1 insisting we must provide ventilation for the corridor. Then we had no option but to make a design change. We changed our design to provide ventilation to the corridor and resubmit IEQp1 with preliminary construction submission.
then the reviewer came up with completely new comment (not raised during design review stages) asking clarification regarding a multi-zone system.
Then we submitted clarification to his comments with the final construction submission. But reviewer has not reviewed our clarifications and has denied IEQp1 asking us to appeal.
is this the correct procedure? Is a design change is reviewed only during preliminary construction submission and if denied, do we have to appeal instead sending clarification with final construction review?
thanks
Hernando Miranda
OwnerSoltierra LLC
344 thumbs up
June 1, 2012 - 11:40 am
I have run into similar review nonsense before. The reviewer asks for clarification. The clarification is provided. The review accepts the clarification then invents a new reason for denial.
It is the reviewer's mistake to forget to ask about a multi-zone analysis with the first review comment. What this tells me is that the reviewer was told to look for something in the review of this credit that they were not told to look for in past. Your project falls into an ugly LEED gap where the new review requirements get imposed after-the-fact because someone at the USGBC has told the GBCI to enforce the new requirements, as if they had always been there.
Try contacting the GBCI and explaining the situation: A new question was asked after the first review and the project being forced to pay $800 for appeal.
Five years ago maybe one credit would be forced into an appeal, and generally none. In last two years it an absolute guarantee that several credits will be forced into an appeal.
Although the GBCI is a non-profit the cost of LEED reviews is getting higher. Rather than remaining consistent, the reviews are getting more intense, and costing the GBCI and the projects more to get a LEED rating. Unfortunately it appears that appeal fees are helping them recover those increased costs.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
July 1, 2012 - 3:39 pm
Udana, it is my understanding that it is GBCI policy not to raise a new issue in this way (it's essentially "double jeopardy"), and I would say that you should be able to talk to GBCI and get this issue dealt with. However, I don't know if that is an "official" policy and I could be wrong... let us know what transpires.