We provided a sample floor plan of future tenant area to document this credit. We received the following review comment: "The total regularly occupied area reported in the calculations for IEQc8.2 is inconsistent with the total regularly occupied area reported within PIf3: Occupant and Usage Data. Provide a narrative describing how the total regularly occupied area was determined."
Has anyone had experience with a reviewer comment like this? It seems to me that inconsistencies are sure to exist when dealing with "sample" tenant plans.
My hope is that a narrative response like the following will be sufficient: "The regularly occupied area reported within PIf3 is the total available future tenant space, the regularly occupied area reported within IEQc8.2 is specific to the sample floor plan shown and excludes typical office support areas that are not considered regularly occupied such as storage rooms and kitchen areas. Regularly occupied area may vary as actual tenant floor plans are developed." Many thanks!
TODD REED
Energy Program SpecialistPA DMVA
LEEDuser Expert
889 thumbs up
May 24, 2017 - 8:54 am
It is typical and sometimes you may get it if there is a large difference between PIF and the credit. Provide the narrative as you noted because that is what the reviewer is asking for. My question is, would you still earn it if you were to use the total area of tenant space without excluding some areas not considered regularly occupied. If so, i would include that in the narrative showing the reviewer, regardless, that the space would meet the credit requirements with or without a tenant layout.