<div>Hi Paul,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>we are on the same page that the reveiwers of our LEED or Compliance models are (majority) not as skilled as the simulators turning in the models.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would like to share with you and others if they are interested; I intereviewed with GBCI and Ms. Gail Hampsmire to become a LEED reviewer last year. I thought this move in my career would be supportive to my professional growth and the services that I offer my clients---I thought it would make me a better simulator & LEED compliance documentarian while being able to offer some of my simulation experience & training back to GBCI and the industry. This was my goal.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>During my interviews with Ms. Hampsmire who is the Team Manager for the EAc1 reviewers (as was my understanding); we conversed how I have felt that the EAc1 reviewers on my past LEED projects appeared to know less about whole building simulation than I did--therefore rendering them unqualified to review my models or others who might have similar simulation experience to mine. Ms Hampsmire conceded to say that it was an orgainization issue that thier LEED reviewers do not gain on-going, present simulation experience as they are also working only as LEED reviewers. It is her challenge as a manager to hire the most qualified of simulation reviewers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It was further conveyed to me that the LEED reviewers that are hired by GBCI have a strict "conflict of interest" policy in that they cannot work on any other LEED projects in any other capacity so long as they are employed by GBCI. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Professionally & Organizationally I respect and agree with this policy. However; as it applies to the EAc1 reviewers it is my professional opionion that this policy is restrictive in allowing or supporting the present & ongoing training that it is EVIDENT these EAc1 reviewers are lacking from the comments they are providing to us when we recieve our LEED reviews back;.and as supported by the discussion I had on this topic with GBCI during my interview process.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Furthermore (to feed other curiosity if interested.) It was the conflict of interest policy that would have forced me to close down my personal consulting business, and have to immediately drop all of my clients that are currently relying on me to provide them with simulation support and LEED modeling services. Although the benefits pkg was IMPRESSIVE due to the amount of money that LEED programs bring into the Non-profit USGBC organization; professionally I felt more of an obligation to keep my clients for the services they are needing from me in today's industry and demands for whole building energy simulations and compliance models for ALL of thier projects.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lastly--it makes more sense to me that as a NON-EAc1 reviewer I will be able to educate more simulators on how to correctly model sustainable buildings and systems and provide more education to support the need to develop more skilled simulators within our industry...which could hopefully bring things full circle in the future and maybe one of the future modelers I can help train will have more than enough experience to be hired as an EAc1 reviewer and then would be able to offer qualified, skilled reviews of my LEED models and all the other ones that are coming in to GBCI now. My logic was supported on this when one of my clients actually "thanked" me for not choosing another Professional path and closing down my business. This client is in need of on-going simulation training and support for thier business and the LEED and other utility compliance models they are producing for thier clients.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ms Hampsmire agreed in our discussions that there is a significant gap in skilled simulators (i.e 7+ yrs experience vs. -3 yrs experience with simulations.) The entire industry is feeling this pressure and gap with the need to hire already skilled simulators (not just entry positions.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'd also LOVE to hire a skilled simulator that could support my work load---there is just not many available simulators with more than 5years exposure to simulations...this is the criteria I would have to require to make it an effective position for me to invest into to help support my business and the industry demands that my clients are asking me to fulfill for them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As always I am always happy to recieve anyone professional commentary and opinion on my comments and experience with these issue. I am only one simulator in the industry so take it as that only.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Pasha Korber</div>
<div>308-763-1593<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Paul Diglio <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net">paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<div>Pasha:<br><br>No problem, it is raping as far as I am concerned. GBCI is using incompetent reviewers and they expect us to train them. They take the application fees and offer nothing in return except ridiculous comments.<br>
<br>I have a similar problem with Northeast Utilities serving CT and MA. NU offers a modeling incentive of $6,000, an efficiency incentive up to $2.00 ft2 and a LEED incentive up to $15,000. They employ reviewers that have no modeling or eQuest experience. One reviewer expected that I would explain how custom performance curves are built for an eQuest VRV system.<br>
<br>I told them I wasn't in the business of training their employees at the client's expense. I would provide the manufacturer's performance tables and my eQuest curve coefficients, but I was not going to spend time to explain how to verify that my curves are accurate. They need to spend money to train their reviewers or hire experienced reviewers.<br>
<br>I feel that the comments that you received from the GBCI were indicative of a person who has no clue and is not qualified to review building simulations.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Paul Diglio <br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><br>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">
<hr size="1">
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <<a href="mailto:pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com" target="_blank">pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com</a>><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> Paul Diglio <<a href="mailto:paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net" target="_blank">paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net</a>>
<div class="im"><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</span></b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br></div><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Fri, June 17, 2011 3:45:23 PM
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans<br></div></div></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<div>Hi Paul-- thanks for receiving my comment in the most professional sense of the term as it relates to the economics of the LEED simulation & Compliance markets. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I didn't really feel it was unprofessional, but I didn't desire to offend anyone with the terms that i chose. I was pretty sure that I wasn't completely alone with the 'feeling' or sense I was getting from others comments I've seen with the forum (past & present).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I offer a sincere professional apology if my chosen adjectives offended anyone. (were they adjectives? I don't know I'm not an english major...) :)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Pasha<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Paul Diglio <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Pasha:<br><br>I agree with your 'raping' verb and do not think it is inappropriate for the forum. Dan is out of sync.<br><br>Paul Diglio<br>
<div><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><br>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman,new york,times,serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">
<hr size="1">
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Daniel Knapp <<a href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a>><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <<a href="mailto:pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</span></b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Fri, June 17, 2011 3:32:24 PM<br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br>Dear Pasha,
<div><br></div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><span>
<div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">client has already paid them. DEAR USGBC---please stop raping the industry for the money monopoly that you have created. The sense of GREED is oozing from everything that comes out of USGBC/GBCI with a price tag on it or a cost associated with it.</font></span></div>
</span></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<div>I hear that you are very frustrated with the review process, however, I find this kind of language inappropriate for a public forum and would ask that you take more care in the future.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>With all best wishes,</div>
<div>Dan</div><br><br>
<div><span style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium Verdana; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px">—<br>Daniel Knapp, PhD, LEED® AP O+M<br>
<a href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a><br><br>Arborus Consulting<br>Energy Strategies for the Built Environment<br><a href="http://www.arborus.ca/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.arborus.ca</a><br>
76 Chamberlain Avenue <br>Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9 <br>Phone: <a rel="nofollow">(613) 234-7178 ext. 113</a><br>Fax: <a rel="nofollow">(613) 234-0740</a><br><span></span><br><br></span></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>