Erratum
Signatures on Policies/Plans and Programme Model
Erratum Number
GEN-1-E-EBP1-2151
Guidance
2018-02-14
All Policies/Plans/Programme model or documentation that require signature(s) must have at least the Facilities/Building Manager/Duly authorised person and/or the responsible Contractor(s) signature(s) with the date of signature on it confirming implementation.
If all necessary signature(s) are not on the documentation to indicate implementation thereof during the Round 1 assessment, the project team have the following options:
1. Adapt and resubmit the performance period of the Energy and Water Benchmarking Tool (Energy and Water credits) to include the implementation month of when the document has been signed as proof of implementation by the responsible party (the outstanding signature and consumption data for the EWP Tool can not be earlier than the Round 1 comments date).
2. In the absence of the signature; it will be understood by the GBCSA that the Facilities/Building Manager or responsible Contractor has not seen or implemented the specific document and the project team updates the performance period (as per point 1 above) to reflect the date that the document has been signed in the Round 2 submission.
It is understood that all documentation must be implemented prior or during the performance period and that it is acceptable for the performance period to be shifted. Please note that the data for the last month is not older than 3 months which includes the month where the documents from Round 1 comments have been signed by the responsible party.
__________________________________________
Erratum
Performance Period for the credits
Erratum Number
GEN-1-T-EBP1-2027
Guidance
2017-09-21
The performance period guidelines for EBP v1. updated IEQ -1.
Scroll to the bottom to see attached PDF EBP v1 Performance Period 09-2017 document
---------------------------------------------
Technical Clarification
Compliance Paths (ENE & WAT) for Recertification of PILOT projects to V1
Erratum Number
GEN-1-T-EBP1-1353
Guidance
2016-03-16
Energy and Water Compliance Paths used by EBP PILOT Projects in the first submission are able to use the same Compliance Path for their first V1 submission only.
The GBCSA confirms that for recertification or any future certification of the same building that the Compliance Path route set out in the latest Technical Manual will need to be followed.
The GBCSA recognises that projects that go straight to V1 and therefore don’t have historical data have an advantage over projects that are ‘already on the journey’ is a reality and not one that the Tool addresses.
PILOT Project Teams using the same Compliance Path for their first V1 submission are to submit a CIR via Zendesk with their motivation, clearly explaining why the other Compliance Paths may disadvantage the project.
-----------------
Erratum
Policy and Plan/ Programme Model
Erratum Number
GEN-1-E-EBP1-1139
Guidance
2015-11-16
This Policy/Programme Model sets out the framework which Policies, Programmes & Plans are to follow for Green Star SA - Existing Building Performance Certification. See the specific credits in the Technical Manual for further details.
Scroll to the bottom to see attached PDF document.
-----------------
Technical Clarification
Performance Period for the credits
Erratum Number
GEN-1-T-EBP1-1170
Guidance
2015-11-16
Superceded by TCE: GEN-1-T-EBP1-2027
---------------
Technical Clarification
As Built drawings
TC Number
GEN-1-T-EBP1-1189
Guidance
2015-11-25
Only As Built drawings will be accepted for the Existing Building Performance rating tool.
Comments