Virginia Real Estate, Land Use & Construction Law : Virginia Construction Lawyers & Attorneys : Bean Kinney & Korman Law Firm : VA Real Estate, Land Use & Zoning

The GBCI has quietly changed the rules associated with the LEED challenge process.  Few people were even aware of the challenge process and its implications until the Northland Pines High School challenge became a topic of discussion and even controversy.  The original LEED challenge process permitted literally anyone to bring a challenge to a LEED certification at any time.  Chris Cheatham covered the Northland Pines challenge and its aftermath in a series of great posts.

I went to write a quick note on this for the Washingon Business Journal yesterday and was adding a link to the policy manual.  Broken link.  Digging revealed a new policy manual dated September 17, 2010.  The new policy manual contains some interesting tweaks that will hopefully stop the truck sized holes pointed out during the Northland Pines fallout:

1. Rather than the unlimited timeline in the original process, "GBCI shall not open a formal investigation related to any project beyond two (2) years after the date the project is awarded LEED certification." 
2. "Parties sheeking to submit a complaint ... must have personal knowledge of any event or condition that would prevent a project from satisfying a particular credit, prerequisite, or MPR".  Not a standing requirement per se, but at least some attempt to rein this process in.

I know there had been rumblings of intended patches to fix the process.  I did not expect to find a new policy manual.  I ran some searches and found no press releases, announcements, or analysis to date. In any event, it appears the GBCI has heeded the very reasonable concerns raised regarding the complete free for all the original procedure invited.  It remains to be seen how the newly defined challenge process will play out in the future.

Image by Anthony Gattine

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The blogs have been crackling for several weeks with reports and analysis of the LEED "challenge" process.  Chris Cheatham devoted a multiple part series to analyzing the challenge filed and ultimately rejected to the LEED Gold certification awarded to the Northland Pines High School in Wisconsin.  Shari Shapiro has discussed the same and included an interesting interview with the challengers discussing their reasoning for the protest.

Without getting too bogged down in the technical details of the Northland Pines case that are covered elsewhere, I would highlight a couple important takeaways from what we have learned from the Northland Pines challenge case:

1. Currently, anyone can file a challenge - there are no standing requirements whatsoever.  If anyone can file a challenge, the threat to projects, and to LEED, is that anyone will file a challenge.
2. There are very loose/limited guidelines or rules on procedure, hearings, document and information exchange and the like in the challenge process.  Look for a future revamping adding more clarity in the challenge process rules.
3. It appears that USGBC permitted Northland Pines to correct, amplify and update its submittals during the challenge process to demonstrate compliance with the prerequisites.  USGBC needs to make clear whether certification requires bright line compliance based on initial submittals and information, or whether they are more interested in allowing some wiggle room as long as the project meets the standards at the end of the finish line.  Failing to make this basic philosophical tenet clear is not fair to project participants, opens the process to future inconsistency during later challenges, and ultimately threatens the credibility (and thus potentially the viability) of the USGBC process.
4. Last point, which may be the biggest and has not really percolated as a point of focus: as currently conceived, the LEED challenge process adds another completely unpredictable line item expense to the process.  The challenge process may also add another angle of attack on projects for unhappy losers in bidding, neighborhood NIMBY uprisings, and competitors that may want at low cost and effort to financially damage their opponents.  At least courts have a theoretical sanctions approach to address complaints filed in bad faith.  USGBC should strongly consider adopting rules that require a USGBC member to certify the challenge as being in good faith, along with membership penalties or sanctions for individuals signing off on complaints that have zero merit.

The challenge process in theory may add an important element of credibility, verification and transparency to LEED certifications.  As it stands though, there are loose rules, no standing requirements, and one can easily file challenges even in bad faith without facing any impact.  If we start seeing a rash of such challenges, we may start also seeing a growing movement away from LEED certification due to increased unpredictability.  The current challenge structure presents some serious risks and issues moving forward and needs to be the subject of significant thought and retooling to avoid future problems.

Image by swanksalot

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link