LEED Reviews: LEED Online, Appeals, Design/Construction Submittals, and more

I understand your trepidation.
The Appeal button just opens the Appeal stage and allows you to add/delete/edit credits.
A new phase opens with a new Submit Appeal button, for when the ducks are in a row.
If you have specific questions, submit a request for feedback. We had a great call with a reviewer and now know what we missed before. If you had an outside reviewer, they will review it again, but it will also be reviewed by an inside reviewer.
The price is set by the credit or prereq, not the level of change.
Fees: http://www.usgbc.org/leed/certification/fees/overview#tab1 In most systems EAp1, EAp2, EAc1, EQp1 are the complex credits - full list is in the glossary (links from other places seem to be broken)

Tyra-
Thanks for the tips. How did you contact your reviewer? I've gotten general technical feedback through the GBCI "contact us" page, but it was not our project reviewer. A simple phone call could save an enormous amount of time and effort.

Hi Kathy,
You are welcome to send the Customer Experience team any questions that you have through the Contact Us page (http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que...). If you would like to schedule a call, we are glad to set that up. When you write to us, please include a list of your detailed questions so that we can ensure that we have the best people on the call to help.
We're glad to answer questions and set up calls between review phases as well to help project teams avoid appeals whenever possible.

We upload revised documents if required, and we then normally do a Memo to Reviewer, where we repeat their questions/suggestions and then give our answers/clarifications. This is then uploaded as a PDF to the upload files area for the project.

We usually use the 'Special Circumstances' window under "Additional Details" for responses. We type our clarifications there and you are given another button right below to upload any new items.

Sometimes we type the narrative into a word document and upload it as a pdf. In that case, we still use the "Special Circumstances" window, but merely write "See attached narrative."

Hope that helps!

Thank you! Since IEQp1 doesn't have any required uploads, I will have to use the Special Circumstances option.

Thanks!

Go to the Scorecard and hit the Add/Remove Credits button to select the credits which you are planning on pursuing. Once you have selected your credits they will appear in the scorecard.

You'll never see the Regional Priority Credits in LEED Online - they are added to your score automatically. On the scorecard they have a yellow badge in the RP column - the additional point is automatically added to the total pursued (for example, if you select the option to pursue 9 credits it will show that you are pursuing 10 credits.)

I hope this helps. Good luck with your project!

Dear Michael,
Thank you for your help.

It depends on which prerequisite has been denied. If the one denied is at all related to other credits in the construction phase then you should appeal before submitting the construction credits. If not related then it you could do it concurrently.

There is not definitive timeline for submitting an appeal.

maybe they mean including task lighting in your EAp2 calculation... aka having the task lighting contribute to the lighting power density in the room. .X watts per square foot... that's required per ASHRAE 90.1-2007

FYI- IEQp1 and EAp2 are "complex" credits and cost $800 to appeal.

I'd think you could just remove the credit. I don't see why you'd need to pay to do that?

You can withdraw a credit at no charge.

Thanks for the quick feedback!

Why on the project overview tab do they specifically list the appeal fee of $500 and then decide to not mention the $800 fee for "complex" credits? This is very deceiving. Especially since they mention EAp2 and EAc1 as an example. I've braced those footing the bill for $500 each based on the text below, not $800. Thanks for the heads up.

From Overview Tab:
"Appeal information: Submitted appeal applications will only be reviewed once; the fee for each appealed item is $500. Related denied credits/prerequisites (example, EAp2 and EAc1) are considered one item. After clicking the 'Enter Appeal Stage' button, the appeal may be cancelled by clicking the 'Cancel Appeal' button in the Overview tab. However, if any item of the application is marked as changed, the project must proceed with appeal application."

They probably forgot to update the overview tab. This page defines "complex credits" http://www.usgbc.org/glossary

They did update the fees a while back.

http://www.usgbc.org/leed/certification/fees/overview#tab1

Thanks for the links! They really need to update the overview tab to direct people back to the expanded fee list for clarity. Much appreciated!

Therese, you can contact GBCI via the contact form on their website. Include your project number, and your specific question. They are being very proactive about handling questions like yours.

You can change the equipment load. As long as you have a good explanation for doing so the fact that the savings go up does not matter.

Any denied credits can be appealed either after the final design review or after the final construction review. New credits can be attempted and submitted during the initial review or through the appeal process. To appeal, you will need to click the “Appeal” button after the final review has been completed. The project team will then be prompted to submit payment, at which time you should select your payment method. Once payment has been submitted, you will then need to upload the proper documentation under the credits/prerequisites being appealed, and mark them as “complete.” The “Submit Appeal for Review” button will appear, and must be clicked in order to submit the appeal to GBCI for review.

source:http://www.usgbc.org/help/how-can-i-appeal-denied-credit-or-prerequisite

You should wait until construction is complete and there is no longer any waste disposal activities occurring at the job site. Then document MRc2 and submit.

Depending on what is being targetted, either 50 or 75%, you will have to wait to reach your goal.

I think in the "think like a reviewer" webinar someone from GBCI said the reviewers can see everything you ever uploaded...

If true, the reviewers needs to stop using "deleted" materials for the reviews. The word delete means erased. It would be inappropriate to use deleted materials against a project for a LEED review.

Click on the compatibility icon in the browser window first. Then if you still have issues, and this was with IE10, go to the settings in IE, internet options, and reset the settings. These items worked when i first uploaded IE10 and experienced many problems with LEED online.

Todd, forgive my ignorance, I cannot find the compatibility icon in my IE10, what does it looks like and where does it sits? In the icon bar at the top, but I cannot see it. As to the settings button within IE10 Internet Options, which one? There is a Settings button in each of the following tabs: General, Privacy and Content (2x).

It looks like a box broken in half, right beside the refresh icon.

The reset is under the Advanced tab.

Now I got it, thank you Todd. A thumb up goes to you!

Your welcome,

I still experience some issues with LEED online even after doing this. Sometimes, once logged into my projects, the screen will automatically scroll down and there is nothing that can stop it. The only cure that i have found for that issue is to reboot my computer. It has happened twice in about two months and I'm on LEED online at least once a day.

Good Luck until the next change!

Aye Todd, the scrolling down effect was happening to us since after Easter every so often, we too had to reboot. But last week was ridiculous, it happened ALL the time, so we had to complain to USGBC hotline, they say it is an incompatible issue and we are to wait for the fix. Your way around seem to be working on all our computers with IE10. Why can't LOv3 programmers beta test for compatibility before releasing to us nice LEED practitioners?

No, the credit requires that the plan be complete, and recently we have been asked to provide contracts for completion of the plan, but not the actual data. The owner will be reporting the global use data per the MPRs, but the actual M&V data and report would not be submitted. However, the data certainly sets them up to pursue EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. in the future.

Thanks Scott,
Yes...Plan has been completed.
You mean, we do not have to wait for 1 year after occupancy?
So it may be possible to obtain the certification before Gand Opening?
Than, when would be good time to submit the construction submittal.
Thank you again for your help.

No, you do not need to wait a year to submit related to EAc5, the M&V credit.

We are rarely the LEED Administrator, so I hope someone would chime in on more of your questions, but as related to MEP aspects, the majority of the engineering credits are done with the design submittal. One more to consider is the commissioning, EAp1 and EAc3 if you are pursuing Enhanced. We try very hard to make sure we are not the last ones ready for the construction submittal, and normally we are not. Many of the MR credits involve a ton of paperwork and analysis, and again I am not an expert on that aspect, so we are normally done with the majority of the commissioning work and have resolved most of the action items within a few weeks of occupancy.

I have been involved in many LEED projects now, and none have been able to get the certification complete “on a schedule” so to speak, as you are trying to do.

Sorry I cannot help you more, and hopefully someone with broader experience will answer the rest of your questions.

Thank you again Scott,
Ony thing that I know is, one of project in our area, they had the flag at their Grand Opening.
I am just trying to figure out how they did it.
I will share when i find out how.

Any one?

You will need to complete and submit all of the documentation typically at least 3 months ahead of the grand opening date. As Scott indicates the hold up is often related to the construction credits assigned to the contractor but in my experience commissioning activities can also drag on after occupancy. So you would need to make sure that your documentation is excellent and that all of the documentation tasks are completed on time. You could reduce the 3 months by responding very quickly to any preliminary review comments and there is the option of paying extra for an expedited review. Best case scenario is still probably 1 to 2 months to complete the process.

Thank you, Marcus!!!

Your welcome. As you can see we live for thumbs up!

Albert -
My experience has been that this is typically signed by the Owner or whoever the Project Administrator assigned to that role at the initial project set-up. If the Owner does not see that as an action item upon log-in, contact the GBCI to ask for their assistance.

Yes you could do so but make sure you use the latest version of the form (5.0). Even though LEED 2009 references a more recent version of 62.1 it did not change enough to affect the calculations.

Kevin, we have used the USGBC 62MZCalc spreadsheet as well, since it gives similar output to the template. Our engineers have found it useful, and since it is provided by USGBC, GBCI seems to find it acceptable. Don’t forget to review the EQ Space Type Matrix, which is quite helpful too, and recently updated.

I can tell you that my design submissions on NC projects are happening later and later. This is mostly because of the Energy Model. On many projects, we are asked for things like window assembly information related to the submittals and we do not get those until the project has been awarded and construction starts. We are waiting to receive those from the contractors and they need to be included and accounted for.

In relation to the energy model related credits, I like to submit them once and make sure they are very complete and we know about where we are falling point-wise, so we are waiting until the submittal process begins. It is also so that we don't have to spend a lot of time working on clarifications/narratives during review because we are missing information that the reviewers are looking for.

Submitting the design review (deferring those credits until the construction submittal) without the energy model and related credits complete is just not worth it to me as the bulk of the design points is often tied up in those energey model credits. And that does not give you a clear picture on the points you are earning heading into construction.

It still works out ok if you have a long duration for construction of a project as you will still get final design review complete and a good picture of what credits/points you are earning very early in construction.

There is no documented LEED requirement to provide submittals for review. Why start this now?

I don't see how the USGBC can justify having reviewers doing reviews of A&E submittals. The assumption seems to be that LEED projects have been cheating, and that must be stopped.

LEED certification fees will have to increase to cover these types of submittals.

Consulting fees will have to increase, or the cost has to be eaten at a loss.

I don't see anyone winning here. I also don't see how this helps green buildings in any way.

I agree with Hernando, there is nothing that says construction submittals are required for a design credit. Now, I might understand asking to see the specification for the window assembly, which is a design task. EAp2 and EAc1 continue to generate the most comments requiring answer…that is for sure! Many seem to be of the kind that require a modeler to show that they did something the right way, almost like a QA comment, not a real fault found in the model. Others are legitimate or at least arguable points on choices made or processes followed.

I still feel that the energy modeling is so important, and so contentious, that there should be one more round of questions and comments, and maybe even an automatic conference call. This could save everyone’s time.

I hear what you both are saying and I agree. However, that is not the reality that I have seen in the last year or so with reviews. I have been asked more than once to provide the window specification information separately, above and beyond from what is shown in the project information uploaded as well as the information included in/utilized for the energy model. Our engineers have been waiting for the submittal process to finish the Energy Model credits once we receive and upload the submittals from the contractor on the window assembly info for this very reason... we got tired of getting the credit bounced back with this comment/clarification multiple times.

The energy review comments affect everyone. No one can get through the system.

People now working for the GBCI who were previously LEED Energy Consultants, and some of the best energy analysts in the field, could not get through a LEED energy review without comments.

In California, the people who wrote the approved Title 24 energy software, and also do energy modeling consulting, cannot get thorough a LEED project without comments.

What purpose would be a call with an energy code super-expert, and software author? To tell them they did not know how to model their building properly?

The burden of submittal proof does not fall on the energy analyst. They run their model based on the final design. They do not do Construction Administration. The burden falls on the LEED Project Administrator to do the work, review the modeling assumptions and request modeling updates prior to final LEED submittal.

Regarding the issues raised about the timing of a design submission and how that relates to the energy model - EAp2/EAc1 is listed as a design credit, however, once your design credits are approved you must indicate that nothing changed to affect this credit during construction prior to your construction submission. The ultimate final model must be based on what was built as a result. Typically we do not have the budget to do the final model twice and we have no way of knowing the extent of the likely changes during construction. So we almost always defer the final model until the construction review phase or we do the final model based on the design with the clear understanding that any changes during construction are outside our scope of work.

Valerie, we do quite a bit of LEED and energy modeling ourselves, and we track the comments we get from the GBCI reviewers, and we try to always address that list before submission, if appropriate. They always come up with more! Seems like no matter what, you are going to get some comments to answer, just as a matter of course.

To your specific instance on the window submittals, I have looked at our listing (which is a little behind) and some recent v09 review comments, and we have had questions related to glazing and window systems, but none specifically asked for submittals. I did see where we used the submittals in our response, but it is unclear if that was just because we had them, or that we needed them.

I wonder if you have a particular reviewer that is going beyond what should be asked? Have you ever pushed back or asked for a conference call to justify their request? Have they ever justified their request in writing?

Thank you everyone for all your comments and raising concerns about the complexity of energy modeling and energy credit submissions, but in relation to all the other design credits and prerequisites, is it helpful to submit those prior to when construction documents go out or is it better to wait till that stage in order to ensure minimum changes to the submission is needed later on.

Marcus, there is a huge difference with confirming the installed products were per specifications because no substitutions were allowed. That is not difficult to check for.

It is an extreme effort to package parts of multiple A&E submittals to prove the products match the energy model. In most case the submittals do not provide the required information.

It seems you are supporting the reviewers new requirement to demand these types submittals. Are you prepared to actually provide what is required? If you are, then how do you justify the cost of LEED consulting doing that type of construction administration review?

I did not even comment on the specific submittals issue as it relates to the LEED submission Hernando so please don't put words in my mouth. Submittals are generally not required but can be helpful in a review response.

We do not review the submittals as the energy modeling or LEED consultant. We ask for information from the project team near the completion of construction to enable us to do the final model based on the construction. Sometimes we get as-builts or approved submittals or other documentation. Sometimes we just go over the project's energy modeling inputs with the designers and ask if anything has changed. It is really not that complicated to get the information we need. It is all readily available on the projects we work on, might take a little digging but that has not proven to be a major problem for the teams we work with.

Here is an excerpt from recent v2.2 Design Application review of the EAc1 energy model:

"... Provide additional information to confirm that the framed assembly U-valueU-value describes how well a building element conducts heat. It measures the rate of heat transfer through a building element over a given area, under standardized conditions. The greater the U-value, the less efficient the building element is as an insulator. The inverse of (1 divided by) the U-value is the R-value. was used for the Proposed case fenestrations (e.g. showing that the whole fenestration assembly has been tested by NFRC, or verifying that LBNL Window v6.3 calculations have been provided for the whole assembly, or verifying that the frame effects are captured within the energy modeling software), or revise the model referencing ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004, Table A8.2, if needed."

While it does not specifically ask for construction submittals, it would be tricky to answer this without an actual product. In our case, we had received the window submittals, and chose to upload them as supporting documentation. If we didn't have those yet, I guess we could have indicated that the Design was based on a specific product that was in the specifications. Don't know if that would have been enough to satisfy the reviewers.

Shivani there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Submit it with the design review if you want earlier feedback on your LEED score so you can do something about it during construction and if you are pretty certain that there will be minimal changes that occur during construction to affect the modeling results. Wait until the construction review if you are uncertain about construction changes affecting the model.

Muscoe that review comment has always created some confusion. It goes back to Table 1.4.1B asking for the glazing U-valueU-value describes how well a building element conducts heat. It measures the rate of heat transfer through a building element over a given area, under standardized conditions. The greater the U-value, the less efficient the building element is as an insulator. The inverse of (1 divided by) the U-value is the R-value. and not the whole assembly U-value. All the reviewer wants to know is that the frames have been accounted for in the Proposed model. The reviewers know a reasonable range to expect for a typical window whole assembly U-value. Quite often this comments is provided when it appears as if a center-of-glass U-value was reported.

In your case this is a good example where the actual submittals would be helpful and perhaps save some explaining. If you don't have them there are other ways to address the reviewer's concerns.

Marcus wrote: "you must indicate that nothing changed to affect this credit during construction prior to your construction submission."

Construction submission implies submittals. Submittals are the basis required to confirm material credits. Logic holds the same would be applied to any other LEED credits.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You certainly don't seem to approve of expanded review demands. But you provided a defense for a demand, regardless of what the demand is.

Unfortunately, there is no way to stop the ever increasing review demands. Even the top management of the GBCI can't stop them. The real question is why not? Who is actually running the development of the LEED process? It's not the GBIC people.

You are correct Marcus, and in this case, we were using high-performance windows with pretty low U-values, which might have flagged this comment. Still, the wording certainly implies some finality about what the documentation they are asking for.

Marcus, when you say you defer the energy model, does this mean that you do not mark add EAp2 and EAc1 at the final design submittal and do not submit it? Do you usually submit these points at preliminary or final construction?

Many thanks,
Adrienn

Hernando you accused me of "supporting the reviewers new requirement to demand these types submittals". Just because the LEED rules indicate that the final credit submissions must be based on the final construction does not mean I agree with requiring the submission of a bunch of submittals in the review process. I was not defending the demands, I was merely stating what the requirements are currently because that are many folks who may not realize that the final model is supposed to be based on the final construction.

Regarding the specific window submittal in this thread I have already stated that particular one can be helpful to provide. That also does not mean that I support the submission of all the possible submittals for all credits.

Adrienn - You can defer a credit(s) from the design review phase to the construction review phase in a split submission. So you can either submit EAp2/EAc1 in the design preliminary or wait until the construction preliminary. If you do a combined submission you have to wait until near the end of construction anyway.

Marcus, you are reading too much into the comment. Don't take it personally.

The problem with LEED is that statements made such as, "final credit submissions must be based on the final construction," are a blank check for making up new LEED rules. It is open ended. Word game playing is an unfortunate part of LEED, and it was invented by the original Reference Guide authors.

"Final credit submissions must be based on the final construction" can mean anything the USGBC decides it wants it to mean, and the definition can change whenever the USGBC wants it to. The basis for redefining the definition is that LEED says "based on final construction." The definition of what that means is variable. It shouldn't be that way, but that is what the USGBC has been doing to justify new requirements for LEED.

I can say the same thing about your comments Hernando. You seemed to me to read into my comment something I did not say. Just making sure I was clear about what I was saying, nothing personal about it.

Basing the final submission on the final construction has always been a requirement. It is not a new rule. Word game playing has been around far longer than the original Reference Guide. In my opinion it is a limitation of the written nature inherit in the Review process. As you and I have demonstrated in our exchange above, written words can be interpreted in different ways by different parties.

As someone involved with doing LEED Reviews for 10 years now I will be the first to admit the process is not perfect and that it often appears as if "new requirements" are included in Review comments. Often however, the additional documentation asked for in a review comment is just provided to give project teams an idea of what the acceptable documentation might be in a given situation. Usually project teams are given options (like the review comment Muscoe mentioned above) and a submittal might be one of the options suggested. That is not a new requirement but rather providing project teams with suggestions on the documentation that might provide the clarification being sought. GBCI is well aware of this situation and believe it or not they do try and bend over backward to give project teams the benefit of the doubt in the final (or appeal) review. They are not trying to make stuff up to make it harder for the sake of it being harder, that would be counter to their long term interest.

It seems that what you view as new requirements is just GBCI trying to ensure the integrity of the system (did you do what you said you did). The whole point of certification is to prove to a third-party that you did what you said and sometimes that just means projects need to clarify what they did. Given the current system this means a response in writing. Hopefully in the future project teams will be able to talk to their reviewer (something I have been advocating for many years) to provide some clarifications and engender a more positive experience as opposed to the largely punitive nature of the current process.

I basically volunteer my time in these forums to help project teams to understand and navigate the system so that we get better submissions that generate fewer comments.

.....And that's a wrap. Time for a new topic.

This is done at no additional charge.

We have also received our credits for the Design Review. For credit SSC4.3 we had to resubmit some clarifications to get that credit. Now the owner would like to make some changes. If we resubmit this again in the Construction review, do we have a chance to give them clarifications?

Yes if there are changes during construction it gets a third review. Just explain the situation and revise the credit calculations.

Thanks Marcus for the insight!
Just checking, there is no charges involved even for Complex Credits (for NC: EAp1, EAp2, EAc1, IEQp1)?

Yep even those credits except EAp1. This only applies to a split submission (design/construction). The allowed changes are only related to changes in construction, not fixing the calculations related to any other issues.

EAp1 is a construction credit and cannot be submitted during the design review phase.

Perfect, Thanks Marcus!

The reference you got does not originate with a LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. or CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide. The reference comes from the LEED Reference Guide in the Potential Technologies & Strategies section:

"Native/adapted plants require minimal or no irrigation following establishment, do not require active maintenance such as mowing or chemical inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, and provide habitat value and promote biodiversity through avoidance of monoculture plantings."

For SSc5.1 native and adaptive applies. For SSc5.2 regulate planting can be claimed.

Bernard,
I'm assuming that you have just received you preliminary review comments (stage 1). As long as you agree with all comments you have received, then you will accept your preliminary (stage 1) comments. This then allows you make to make the changes to the prerequisites and credits which are pending. Once you have made the changes, you mark complete, and resubmit for your final review.

My experiences are (from NC, CS and CI) that if you were to accept now then you have missed the chance to correct your prerequisites. And design prerequisites cannot be deferred until construction phase, they need to be addressed now. So fix them first: Reopen them, fix comments, close them and then resubmit. Am I understanding your question correctly? And also, you only get two chances to review each credit, never three or four.

For example, NPDp3 relates a lot with the design of the masterplan and this is bound to change from Stage 1 to Stage 2 to Stage 3. Therefore, even if a design prerequisite passes or fails in Stage 1, it is due for changes anyhow in Stage 2 or 3. Most importantly is passing it by the final construction review (Stage 3) correct?

To compare with other rating systems, have projects failed 1 or more prerequisites in design stage but corrected and passed them by construction stage?

What do you mean by stages, are you talking stages in the review process or your project?

Maria, you can defer the final review of a design prerequisite to the construction review. Design prerequisites do not need to be completed in the design phase review.

Each credit or prerequisite gets two reviews. A preliminary and final review. The only reason a credit or prerequisite would get a third review is if it were earned during the design review, but something changed during construction that effected it, you would then select it in the construction review for re evaluation. The only other time you get a third review is if you appeal. As already noted design prerequisites cannot defer the

In LEED ND, submission is in 3 stages as opposed to just design and construction. I am in Stage 1 (conditional approval).

So from what I summarize from you Todd, even if it is very advisable to appeal and settle a failed prerequisite in the early design stage (Stage 1), it can be deferred to the next stage when more detailed design is available. As long as they clear by the construction (final) review. Correct?

Bernard, to answer your question correctly you need to tell me, not using "stages", as to whether you have had your Design Preliminary review or the Design Final review. Based on which one you have just received will allow me to give you the best answer.

Todd, as per page xxiii of the LEED ND Reference Guide, Stage 1 is preliminary design, Stage 2 is final design, and Stage 3 is construction and occupancy. I am at the appeal stage of Stage 1.

So if I were to equate LEED NC and LEED ND, Stage 1 is Design Preliminary Review and Stage 2 is Design Final Review

The only reason you would select a previously reviewed and earned design credit would be if something changed during construction which would effect the design credit. There is no requirement for having to select a certain amount of previously earned credits for re-evaluation.

My bad Bernard, i was thinking this was NC and was not understanding why you were noting Stages, now seeing its ND I see why.

Did you make sure that you attempted the correct threshold for the credit? For these multiple-threshold credits, you need to indicate which threshold you're attempting via the Credit Information Tab to have the Scorecard Tab display properly. For the multiple threshold credits, I believe that LOv3 automatically selects the lowest threshold unless you update it. The points you see displaying on the Scorecard Tab are linked to that threshold selection - not to what the form is displaying; so if you haven't updated the threshold selection, the attempted points and your totals will be off.

To fix this: when you first open the WEc1 and that initial page opens (before you click the Form/any other buttons), scroll down to the "Thresholds" section. Make sure that you've selected the 4 points option ("No Potable/Irrigation"). In order to update this, the credit must be marked as "In-progress". Once you make that change, make sure to mark the credit as "Complete" to save the attempted threshold. If you're not done with documenting the credit, just then re-mark it as "In-progress" after it goes through the saving process. When you go back to the Scorecard Tab, you should then see 4 of 4 points attempted for WEc1.

Even if you don't update the attempted threshold, that shouldn't affect the reviewer's ability to award all 4 points if you have met the requirements. But it will through off your scorecard totals until the points are actually awarded. So it is probably something you'd like to fix before submitting so that your scorecard tab is accurate for what you are looking to get.

If you have already submitted your project for review, please use the Contact Us form at http://www.gbci.org/contactus as soon as possible, explaining the issue, and we will be glad to contact your review team on your behalf.

Kristina, Elizabeth- Thank you! That was extremely helpful. We had not submitted our design credits yet for review because of this issue. The scorecard is now showing the 4 points we had documented. Thanks again for your advice.

Maria, I think if you contact GBCI via their website they'll certainly help with this.

Yep you can't do it, GBCI has to do it.

Thanks guys! So that is positive news for me then! I didn’t know that it was possible at all. I’m not in a hurry so contacting GBCI is not a problem.

Will there be a problem that the documents have the old name? Or will reviewers see that the project used to have another name?

To avoid any confusion you could wait until after the construction review phase and have the name changed right before you accept the certification.

If you change the name now there might be some reviewer confusion but I am sure it could be dealt with.

The GBCI tracks projects by the ID number not the name. I've had project name changes done several times without any issues.

You should continue to defer those credits until the construction review phase. If you submit them now they will only get one review and not the customary two.

You can request an extension from GBCI through their web site.

Thankyou Markus for your answer.
What means an extension?
On the other hand, a denied credit on the design phase, can be submitted again on the construction phase?

GBCI will provide extensions to provide answers during the preliminary review part of the process. Normally the coordinator of the project just has to request it by email.

We just had the issue of appeal clarified on a recent project. If a credit is denied during the design review, you have the option of accepting the design review, proceeding through the construction review, and then if you desire, appeal that design review at that time. This allows you to maximize the construction phase points, and then decide if you still need to appeal the design credit. Once denied, it is still an appeal no matter what.

An extension is simply asking GBCI more time for you to submit review responses.

If you submit additional design credits now you are significantly complicating the review and will likely have a much higher risk of having to submit appeals. It is far better to wait until the construction submission and submit them then. It is all about trying to avoid appeals and waiting will minimize the likelihood of appeals.

If you're preparing your clarifications to a Preliminary Review (design, construction or standard), the period to provide clarifications is 25-business days. Generally you do not need to request an extension to that time as reviewers won't do any work/look at the project again until you resubmit for the Final Review (design, construction or standard). If you're going to be delayed submitting for the Final Review for an extreme period (50+ weeks for example), I would probably contact GBCI just in case.

HOWEVER ---
If you received a Mid-Review Clarification Request, it is imperative that you respond to that request noting that you will need additional time to collect the necessary information. These requests are sometimes sent during the review process and there is a 10-business day window to provide the necessary clarifications. This deadline is more firm as these clarification requests only temporarily pause the review process. If you fail to acknowledge the clarification request and ask for additional time, reviewers could re-start the review when the 10-days are up, finish and return the review without the requested information (so then you would lose the opportunity to provide the necessary clarifications and potentially be forced to appeal if you really needed the credit). If this applies to you --- to request the additional time, you should respond to the Mid-Review Clarification request in the same manner you received it and make sure to include the date when you anticipate being able to provide the necessary documentation (i.e. respond either via the Messages Tab in LOv3 or via an email for a LOv2 project depending on how you received the clarification request). That way the specific review team handling your project will know when they can expect the information and will not start working again on the review too early/return it before you provide the information.

Hope that helps! I threw in the Mid-Review Clarification stuff as you mentioned a 9-day deadline which is more in keeping with the 10-day deadline for those than with the 25-day "deadline" for general Preliminary Review clarifications. If those were the clarifications you were working on, I wanted to make sure you knew that you should definitely send in the request for an extension to avoid having your review finalized without the requested clarifications.

Hi Muscoe,

It's a little late to answer this but ...
I've been using leedonline with Internet Explorer 10 and Windows 8 for over 2 months. Perhaps you can go to 'Tools' and then to 'Compatibility View Setting' and finally add the web of leedonline.
Hope it helps.

To add to Ronald's comment, per a call to GBCI today, try Tools > F12 Developer Tools and at the top of the screen set Browser Mode to IE10 Compatibility View and Document Mode to IE5 quirks. Seems to fix the issue in Windows 7.

Nope, the reviewers will not look at any construction credits (even if they are complete) until the preliminary construction review.

I think LEED Online can only be accessed using Internet Explorer.

All communication coming out of the group within USGBC that is developing v4 and the support documents is that improvements will be made and that the LEEDonline will become "browser agnostic" to use their term.

I'm able to access LEEDonline on my Mac through the Safari browser.

The problem isn't with browsers on PCs or Macs. The problem is Adobe not using open PDF format. The PDF format used by LEED Online only renders using Adobe plugins, and their software. That means the PDF format is proprietary.

I use a Mac. If I open a LEED Sample Form in Apple's Preview PDF Viewer this is the what the PDF shows:

"To view the full contents of this document, you need a later version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader from www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html."

Yes, an advertisement to buy Adobe's product is all that you get to see. The Reader is free, but I experienced difficulties using it and eventually had to upgrade my perfectly good older version of Acrobat to get the newest LEED Forms to work as offline work tools.

I assume that you mean the project design has not been completed? Developed to an executive level is not a term I am familiar with but assume that this means the design is complete at that point?

If so then you cannot even complete much of the documentation until the design is completed. I don't think it states this anywhere but would become very obvious if you attempted to do so. The only exception is for CS projects who can get an early design stage review.

Marcus is 100% correct that the design needs to be complete to submit for the Preliminary Design Review in a split review process. (If the project team were to use a standard/ combined review process, the design would also need to be complete for the Preliminary Review.)

As far as a providing a GBCI-issued document that you can reference, it might help to reference page 30 of the Certification Policy Manual (https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/te...), where at the bottom of the page under section NC 13.3, the paragraph on 'Application for Design Review' states:
"Prior to substantial project completion (defined as the date on which the building receives a Certificate of Occupancy or similar official indication that it is fit and ready for use), the Project Administrator or Project Manager shall submit, via LEED Online, a complete application for Design Review. Only credits and prerequisites indicated to be fit for review at the design phase may be submitted for design review."

I hope that helps. If you have any further questions or concerns, you are always welcome to write to us using contact form at http://www.gbci.org/contactus.

Thanks Elizabeth! This is very helpful information to subsidiate our argumentation!

Regards,

Nathan, I would contact GBCI and ask for help with this. I'm sure they'll oblige.

We would be happy to take a look at the project in our system, and adjust the project review status as needed. We'll contact you through email to resolve this. Thank you!

For others interested or for those that may have similar situations, please note that because the review for the project that Nathan has described has not yet started, it makes it easier to adjust the project status as there is nothing to re-review. However, please note that adjusting the project review status may not be appropriate for all phases of review and in all instances, especially if credit reviews have substantively commenced, and fees/payments are still subject to the policies outlined in the current Certification Policy Manual: https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/te....

Kerrie, thank you so much for your assistance on this.

The Project Name is registered as: Parnas Tower. Please let me know if there is any other information that you require.

Thank you again!

The LOv3 Help Content actually goes through the extra/other requirements for the PI Forms in the Master Site. Refer to the "Master Site Documentation Tips" section of the larger "How to Use the 2010 AGMBC in LEED Online v3" page:
https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/common/LOv3Help/application_guide_for_multiple_building_and_on-campus_building_projects_(agmbc).htm#Master Documentation Tips

When you get the individual building, you'd want to fill those out with the information specific to that particular building.

Thank you Kristina

Gaston,
Q1: The design submittal is done at one time. You can defer credits to the construction phase submittal if you don't have enough information to document them when you want to get the design review started.

Q2: You can save data to the dynamic LEEDOnline forms while you are online, and it will stay there. The data only gets submitted for review when you tell LEEDOnline you are submitting for design review. To work offline, you can download “static forms” from:
http://new.usgbc.org/sampleforms/New%20construction/all/all
but they won't be uploadable.

Q3:In the past, the preliminary design review has taken at least 45 business days. You then have a month to respond to the comments or requests for clarification, and the final design review takes a minimum of 15 to 20 business days. It can take several months, so some projects are already in construction by the time they get the review back.

For more details on the process, you can refer to:
http://new.usgbc.org/resources/leed-certification-policy-manual

Request an extension on the appeal. You want these credits/prerequisites resolved before your construction review.

I absolutely agree with Marcus, resolve any design issues now, especially prerequisites. This is the time that all the information is fresh in the teams minds, and it will take much less time now than waiting sometimes years before the construction submittal. These are words of experience, so do not make the same mistake that we made earlier in our LEED experience!

We are having a similar issue. We have been denied EAp2 due to the energy model, despite the numbers working out.
Have you had any luck SPEAKING to the review team?
We are trying to figure that out, as it seems much if this could be fairly quickly resolved if we could Speak to a reviewer.

Tyra, you should be able to arrange a call with your reviewer. I wrote about GBCI's greater openness to direction communication in new blot post on LEEDuser.

We have had very good luck with conference calls with the review team, as Tristan indicates. Tell them what you would like to discuss so they have the right people on the call, and they are very open to discussion and making sure you understand the questions and what they are looking for.

It is very common to get several questions on an energy model, and our engineers have gotten good at trying to anticipate the questions, but they always seem to find something to ask. We assume that some of this is a way to make sure that someone can articulate why decisions or adjustments were made as much as true concerns over what was done…or at least that is what we think.

Tyra, we saw your post and received your inquiry via our website. We will reach out directly to you. Thank you for contacting us.

That sounds like the amount for an EAp2 appeal. If you changed the mechanical schedules would that create an inconsistency between EQp1 and EAp2?

Spoke to a representative and it looks like there are what are called "complex credits" IEQp1 falls under this. The charge for Complext credits is $800.00. http://www.gbci.org/main-nav/building-certification/fees/bdc.aspx

The $500.00 charge seems to be for the PIf4 form. Have sent a direct inquiry to the USGBC to clarify what the procedure should be. I did not think there was a charge PI forms to be reivewed. Will follow up with the response.

Erika, did you get a response if you have to pay for changing the PI forms?

Have found the answer in LEED online Help.
"As with prerequisites and credits, Project information Forms that have not been approved may be submitted for an appeal review for $500 per form.

Elke thanks for that. The form was originally approved and the revised schedules were uploaded after the second design review, since the form showed a change, the system indicated that there should be a charge. However I emailed a feedback form explaining the situation and the rep said he would adjust the invoice for me and not charge me the additional $500.00 - which I thought was fair since we were clarifying the credit and the revised schedules were to address a few discrepancies between how the system was designed and how we filled out the form. Additionally we provided a narrative clarifying the ventilation strategy which wasn't as cut and dry as the form would have you think. It took a while and a couple of inquiries but we go the prereq approved. I guess that's just the nature of the beast.

Because this is a multiple building on campus submission, i would suggest that you just do a combined review. This way,prior to submission, you will be able to ensure consistency between all the credits, both individual and campus/master plan based. This will also allow the reviewer to see the submission as a whole and if everything is correct and coordinated, will make for an easier review.

Thank you Todd, Is there any risk i should know if i choose a combined review instead of split review.
Regards

I would not say there is a risk to a combined review if everything has been designed to meet the credit requirements. There is a possibility that a design credit, say light pollution or one of the EQ credits for controls is denied based on not meeting the requirement. Depending if you need that credit or want to earn it, then you;ll have to change what has already been built or installed. So you may end up in a scenario where you have to bring back the contractor and get a system changed, which may not be feasible or possible. Kind of like, it is what is.

I suggested a combined based on your OP which it appears that design and construction will be finished really close together where time between the two is minimal. If you have been uploading and completing the credits as soon as design is done and there is a few months till completion of construction, then it would be feasible to do a split. Not sure as to what is all involved with your project and the complexity to say accurately do one or the other.

You could also defer design credits until the construction review also. We always defer EAc1 and EAp2 until the construction review. That way the model reflects the as built drawings.

Todd, I will mildly disagree. While we have had great success with our LEED credits, the couple of times where we had issues they were much easier to resolve with the split review, having the design review before the construction review. Ameet, I do not know your situation, but in our design/build work there is still a fair amount of time after the design is locked in and construction finishes. I would agree that the line can be fuzzy for some things, like structure, but for MEP systems we still seem to have some time other than underground, or pre-ordering equipment, that sort of thing.

The other benefit that we see with the design review is that the team is freshest with the information and can complete the documentation the most efficiency at that stage. We all have a lot of projects, and it is too easy to just move to the next deadline and push off the documentation until tomorrow if you do the combined review. The design review forces the team to get everything ready and submitted when it is the easiest to complete.

Thank you Scott and Todd.
I have issued all the LEED credits construction requirements such as construction activity pollution and construction contractor is following the requirements.However I am just concern that USGBC reviwer notice that construction activity is taken place before the Design submittals and might reject some credits or worse project even will not be eligible to LEED certification or am i just thinking too much in a wrong direction?

Ameet, it is fine to have construction activity take place before design submittals are put together. Just make sure everyone is following the rules, and get help when you need it.

Thank you Tristan! you just made my Christmas merry! Happy Holidays now!!

Well said Scott, for your pragmatic insight. Usually projects those that are of multiple building campus type, large buildings, highly complex and with good project lead time we adopt the split review. It will afford the project team to optimise their delivery & submissions by focusing on design related issues, which account a lot out of the 100 available points.

There is also the advantage of changing an Innovation in Design credit during the design review if it is likely that the reviewer will deny that points. When one is seeking that last mile to attain the desired certification level, it makes a big difference.

Hi Ameet,

We are in the same situation as yours in one of our projects. Multiple building campus approach with a D&B contractor. We decided it will be a safer route to go with a split review since it will allow us more time to rectify any design changes required prior to actually having the system installed.

With multiple buildings, you just can't afford to go back on an installed system to try making it comply with LEED if something goes wrong and your credit is rejected.

As for when the cut-off date for design phase, we coordinated with the D&B contractor to set a timeline of design submission in which the design would be mature enough to be submitted.

Hi Dion, it is always nice to hear from a long lost friend!!! I guess LEEDuser group is going beyond it's purpose,nice work!

Thank you for your sharing your approach, great help!
Regards

Quick clarrification: I am wondering what is the benefit of trying to rush an answer now when I can hit the "skip review" button and get a year to complete the submittal? Unfortunately I thought you were able to get the design review and then a final complete review of the project, I didn't understand that the final deisgn review is all a credit gets without paying for an appeal (is this correct). Thanks eveyone.

You can defer those design credits to the construction phase by un-checking them when you resubmit your design final review, that way their second round of review is with the construction credits. Choosing "skip review" means you accept GBCI's decision as-is and you aren't changing anything.

Thank you Kinberly, so just to clarify (as I don't want to mess this up), credits that were indicated as "pending" or "not approved" can be un-checked as complete for the final design review. The credits indicated as accepted should be left checked and submitted for final design review approval. By doing this I will get the accepted credits locked in and will be able to update / clarify the "pending" / "not approved" credits during the preliminary construction review? Thanks for the info and verification.

Why defer? It is obvious that a design review does not require photo proof. This is a problem created by the USGBC/GBCI.

The reviewers use "canned" review comments, and someone at the USGBC recently decided they want photo proof. Unfortunately, they neglected to adjust the comment to take into account what a "design review" is intended for.

Yes Todd, anything that you un-check as complete will not be allowed to be submitted for the design final review (i.e. the green check on the scorecard should be gray). When you're ready to submit for the construction review, mark those remaining design credits as complete and submit them all together.

Hernando brings up a good point; however, I am hesitant to submit and then be rejected, requiring to pay for an appeal. With that being said, what is the benefit of a design review? What if something changes during construction that would change a previously approved credit? Now that I fully understand the review process it seems very risky to submit during the design process as things can change during a long construction time frame.

The 25 day window for your reply is not required. You can get as many extensions as you like or if you do not even ask for an extension nothing will happen. So another possible response is to simply wait until you do have the answers and respond then. I think this is probably the simplest route to go since you already paid the premium for a split submission. Go to GBCI's web site under Contact Us and request an extension there.

Todd, projects are required to confirm that features claimed for credits earned during a design review are installed. This is supposed to ensure that value engineering has not removed the features.

Photographic proof is a recent review comment invention. My guess is that one or two LEED projects did not install all of the features claimed for their earned LEED credits. This is nothing new.

Evidently, the problem missing features has been deemed significant enough to demand photographic proof. But, demanding photographic proof during a design phase review makes no sense at all.

The benefit of a design review is to get early feedback and to space out the credit documentation. If something changes during construction to affect an approved design credit you are supposed to make the changes and resubmit it. The level of change risk depends on the project in my experience.

Thanks Marcus, I am going to request extensions for my project and get the photos when they can be taken. I don't want to risk not getting the credit as we need all of them. Thanks everyone...

No problem. FYI proof may not require photos. Did the reviewer specifically ask for photos? Often things like a purchase order, letter from the owner, etc. are enough for proof depending on the issue.

On a similar note; I am getting ready to submit for the Construction Preliminary Review and on the 'Submit for Review: Form Selection' page I understand that I check every form (construction phase) that is marked complete, but do I need to check/submit the forms that were Design Phase, already awarded, and not changed?? A little confusing, since they have already been reviewed and approved I am not sure why I have the option, especially since they haven't changed. Any help is great..

I think you are required to indicate that nothing has changed during construction that would affect each of the approved design credits in order to move into the construction review phase. If nothing changed in construction to affect the accuracy of any of the approved design credits then indicate as such. If something did change then change the documentation and resubmit.

The LEED submission should ultimately reflect what gets built, not what was designed.

Marcus, thanks for the reply.
We didn't have any changes from what was submitted for Design Review and what was built; it was a very thorough process and we stayed on the GC the whole time and documented everything every step of the way (more than probably needed). So, when you say that we are required to indicate that nothing has changed, do you mean that I should submit the Design Phase credits that were approved and just make sure the flag that states it was changed says 'no'? Basically, for the Construction Preliminary Review should I submit all of my credits (even though the Design Phase credits are approved)? Thanks again...

Sounds right to me.

While this somewhat exposes an issue we had, I have become a firm believer in doing Design Reviews. We had a situation related to a prerequisite that could have been easily resolved if a design submittal had been done, but turned into a much more significant problem when found during the construction review. All was resolved, but you never want to be finding a problem with a prerequisite at that stage of a project. A little plug for the LEED Work Zone at GreenBuild. I had a great meeting with a reviewer from GBCI who was great help in developing a strategy to resolve this issue.

This particular project did not do a design review because a decision on inclusion of renewable energy was pending, and of course that affects the EAc1 calculations. My discussions with GBCI indicated that we probably should have done a design review, deferred the EAc2, not shown any renewable in EAc1, and moved forward. Then during the construction review, add in the EAc2 information, including the minor change to EAc1, and that would have been acceptable.

Marcus,
FYI: I just got off the phone with the GBCI and was informed that we must request a 25 day (buisness days) extension to avoid my design review becoming final (see my entry above), and can only get 2 extensions per project. If my issues aren't resolved in that time frame, my intent is to submit the credits that are complete and hold-over the credits that aren't ready for the Construction review. This is what I have been told and therefore what I intent on doing. I wish this was spelled out better in the LEED Certification Policy Manual...thanks again.

I can tell you that projects often go many months and sometimes over a year before replying. Far more than 2 extensions have to have been granted or GBCI does not enforce the requirement for asking for an extension. Perhaps the response you received indicates a new found desire to enforce the rules.

Could be, I really appreciate your help!

Marcus is correct.

It would be a disaster for the GBCI to strictly enforce a limited response time to reviewer demands.

Local, state and federal government projects would be hardest hit. Those entities have a tough time responding to requests. Adding a few smoking control signs can take months for the paperwork to get through their systems.

My project is a local governmental building, hence my delima. Thanks

You can always get an extension on the 25 days.

You should always determine before submitting whether you want it reviewed in the design or construction phases. The ID credits are typically listed as design credits but they can always be deferred.

Technically each credit only gets two reviews. Typically at this point you can either withdraw the credit or continue to pursue it in the design phase. I suppose you could withdraw it and resubmit in the construction phase. You cannot have a design final and then a full two phase construction phase review for the same credit. If it is denied in the design final you will need to pay for an appeal.

Most of the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. credits submitted for ID are based on the creation of a plan and do not require actual implementation over a period of time to be earned.

You are making changes and modifying the documentation so you will need to pay for the appeals.

If the design appeals affect any of the construction preliminary credits then I would wait. For example EAp2 should be determined before submitting EAc6 as the results from EAp2 affect the quantity of the green power purchase.

Submitting the final review is the same as responding to the preliminary review comments.

The final review will begin when you submit it.

leedonline.com is used for LEED 2009 (v3) projects, while leedonline.usgbc.org is used for projects registered before LEED 2009 (i.e. LEED NCv2.2, LEED CSv2.0, etc.).

leedonline.com was created separately when the USGBC split-off the LEED reviews from directly involving the USGBC. The GBCI was created and the intent was that it operate as an independent profit-making entity. Hence, the .com, rather than .org, designation.

Since the GBCI was split-off occurred I have always referred to the two entities as USGBC/GBCI. When the split first occurred I used USGBC/GBCI and was severely scolded by a GBCI employee. The comment I received was, more or less, "Please do not refer to the GBCI as related to the USGBC. The GBCI has nothing to do with the USGBC."

Well, now you will find out that the two entities are indeed interlinked. The USGBC claims the GBCI as an entity it operates. The split-off did not work as originally intended.

Eventually, leedonline.usgbc.org will sunset all v2 projects. It will only exist as an archive database.

In my opinion, leedonline.com will likely switch over to leedonline.org. The USGBC owns both domains. Type leedonline.org into your web browser and it immediately connects you to leedonline.com.

Hernando,

I also consider the two as flip sides of the same coin. They even have the same mailing address.

But, GBCI is a Non-Profit per its tax return. 501(c)(6). And its website is .org . But then the NFL is a non-profit officially too.

Now, almost $16 million (or 39%) of GBCI's expenses are paid directly to USGBC for "management and royalty". They are definately joined at the hip and not independent.

Another reason for split-off was to reduce liability risks. Having multiple entities all working for the same organization is not unusual. It is a means of reducing risk of the parent controlling entity.

The GBCI could lose a major lawsuit, be forced to close shop, and the USGBC would still remain.

Some construction subcontractors do do a type of risk control which is interesting. They complete construction of a project and the business closes. A new business appears with many of the same individuals "resurrecting" essentially the same company but under a new business name.

Joshua,

Check out the MPR Supplemental Guidance page 18 where it explains how projects on a previously developedPreviously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development." support structures and artificial land mass are OK for certification. For example, I'm certifying a renovation to an old boat house that sits on an existing pier and we are approved for all of the MPRs based on this exemption (the support structure was already existing). Good luck!

Maura, that should be fine.

Always use "substantial completion" as your target for certifying a project. Contracts are not enough.

I have a group of projects that are pending the final installation of renewable energy systems. The systems were not part of the the basic scope of work for the projects.

It is a good thing I applied "substantial completion" to the projects, otherwise the projects would have claimed rooftop renewable energy systems as installed. They were not. As construction started it was determined that the roofs were not as originally designed. What was actually installed was not what was approved. As a result, the renewable systems got "smaller."

"Substantial completion" for a renewable energy system means installation, and commissioning. Commissioning gets included because the renewable systems are a separate project. The completed commissioning reports for the projects do not include commissioning of the separate renewable systems.

Yes you can. I do not think that the streamlined path is available for this option however.

I would suggest however that this is a potentially risky option. Before going there be sure you meet or exceed everyone of the CP requirements. Then make sure you have documented it perfectly as it will only get one review.

A warning for other project teams, if you have an old v2.2 project verify that you do not have to earn 2 points in EAc1. I'm still wrapping up one of those projects and this approach would not work.

Thank you for your the quick response. EAp2 (for LEED v3) does indeed have the the LPE streamlined option. I'll be sure to include all necessary documentation to meet CP requirements.

Thanks again,
Matt