Keygen Design Review 2006 Portable
Alke Stilwell
My project pursued a split review. Some of the deisgn review comments indicated they want proof the items we indicated in a narrative were completed, this proof can't be given until it is built and we can take photographs. Is it best to get an extension on my 25 day window (how does one do this?) or hit the "skip review" button and submit everything as a construction review? I am assuming the credits that were looked at once during the design review will only be looked at one more time? I am a bit confused on how to proceed and am quickly running out of time. I am leaning towards the "skip review" option and having it all reviewed at the end of substantial completion in the winter of 2013...any help / advice would be greatly appreciated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
We would like to answer as soon as possible, but for some credits, some information might be available later on. So the idea would be to postpone the reply for 1 or 2 credits to be able to gather all proper informations before sending a reply.
We worked on a project in Richland, and honestly we wasted millions of dollars in meetings and red tape trying to get stuff approved from DOE and DOD. We could have completed the project in about 1/3 or the time and money... except. Good luck.
No idea, but you might use Process Monitor to watch file/registry activity, that may help you find a bottleneck.
Here is an overview of how to do that: Tracking down why that application is slow
I set the "Locked" to zero and the "InitialCheck" to zero. I have a bit faster response time when starting. I have no idea what the "Locked" key is for??? Maybe someone from Autodesk could answer that?
Thank you for that. I'll keep that for future use. What I've done is have everyone in our department uninstall DR2018 and reinstall DR2013. Works like a champ! There's nothing new in DR2018 that makes it desirable over 2013, so there's no reason to live with whatever is making it so slow. I think we're good for now.
You seem knowledgeable; do you have any idea why it takes five minutes to open a dwf document in DR2018 while in 2013 it opens immediately? Even with the Hotfix, a dwf file opens right when it is invoked. In 2018 it takes five minutes to simply open. Once opened it works fine. But in our engineering department, things would grind to a halt if people had to wait that long to simply open a file.
Hotfix 3 is all of them. I put a ticket in with Autodesk to see if there is a better solution for 2018 then the one I came up with. It usually take few days. I'll get back to this with their response.
What I have found if you disconnect from all networks by unplugging network cable or by logging out of all wifi connections Design Review 2018 opens as fast as Design Review 2013. What ports is design review trying to use now that Design Review 2013 did not.
That does not necessarily mean there is something different or broken. Applications look for things, and do this via the operating system. If an application asks for a network resource, and there IS one or more valid network connections, the O/S will pause while it searches for whatever resource it is looking for.
I've seen this on many systems and many applications over the years, hence the suggestion above to use Process Monitor to watch file/registry activity. It can point to a place where the O/S hangs, waiting on a search.
7fc3f7cf58