Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "LEED Interpretation" "2335" "2008-09-11" "Existing Buildings" "We propose use of an alternate reference standard - Performance Assessment & Improvement System (PAIS) - as equivalent, or even superior, to APPA Custodial Staffing Guidelines, and therefore a suitable substitute methodology to utilize in rigorously assessing facility cleanliness, and achieving the associated LEED-EB credits. PAIS is a third-party performance measurement system developed by a national leader in performance-based management. It has been utilized (and continuously developed) across the United States for 32 years, at many facilities, including Fortune-500 companies and Ivy-League universities. We maintain that PAIS is more robust, objective and results in superior cleaning performance and operational effectiveness than APPA, for the following reasons: - APPA entails a one-time inspection whereas PAIS involves ongoing (quarterly) audits of cleanliness. - APPA targets educational facilities whereas PAIS is applicable to all building types. - APPA assesses facilities from a custodial service perspective whereas PAIS audits from an owner\'s perspective. PAIS surveys are necessarily done by independent, trained, third-party inspectors, acting in the sole interest of the owner/customer. - APPA is more subjective, with many variables dependent on inspectors whereas PAIS standards are consistent regardless of where, when or who inspects, making them objective, reliable and accurate. - APPA requires \'space inventory\' exercises and detailed knowledge of facilities to determine the number of room-types inspected whereas PAIS is implemented randomly, without requiring such knowledge, with sample sizes assuring statistical accuracy. - APPA assessments vary per room type and focus on \'common\' areas only. PAIS assessments do not change and address all room types, with a special focus on priority room-types such as restrooms. - APPA entails grouping items (horizontal surfaces) and assigning group appearance level ratings (orderly spotlessness). PAIS inspections go one step further in looking all items individually, from ceilings, walls, furniture, toilets, floors, and everything in-between. - APPA requires custodial staff knowledge to assign item group weights whereas PAIS measures results, not cleaning systems and procedures. It is clean, or it is dirty - period. - APPA audits adjust inspections, looking more closely at certain items and distinguishing between \'old\' and \'new\' dirt. PAIS seeks to assess each room without judgment, to first collect all relevant information. Careful data interpretation occurs after the audit itself. - With APPA, if cleanliness is found to vary for items in groups, assessors make judgments per level assignments. With PAIS, each item is rated \'satisfactory\' or unsatisfactory.\' A definition of \'clean\' is established by defining conditions customers DON\'T want to see (dust, streaks, etc.). If these conditions are not found on an item, it is \'satisfactory.\' Each \'un-satisfactory\' condition is recorded to provide data about cleaning problems. - PAIS generates detailed reports with prioritized information about specific cleaning problems, to facilitate continuous process improvement. These reports present data relative to targets and trends over time for items, room-types, etc., to enable process improvement opportunities for cleaning systems. Inspection and reporting standards compel custodial service providers to address not only appearance concerns, but also health and sustainability issues. How do PAIS scores equate to APPA levels? APPA Level LEED Credit PAIS Target 5 - Unkempt Neglect 0 0 - 49% 4 - Moderate Dinginess 0 50-59% 3 - Casual Inattention 1 60-69% 2 - Ordinary Tidiness 2 70-75% 1 - Orderly Spotlessness 2 75-85% n/a 2 85-100% World-class" "It is acceptable to use an auditing procedure other than APPA, provided that the project demonstrate equivalence or superiority to the APPA procedures in regards to the following key areas in the LEED application materials. a) Area of spaces included in the audit (i.e., must be at least 10% of total area cleaned) b) Diversity of spaces included in the audit (i.e., must include some level of auditing for each type of regularly occupied space in the project building) c) Items assessed (e.g., floors, horizontal surfaces, vertical surfaces, etc. d) Definition of clean (i.e., for dichotomous rating system that use a pass/fail methodology, pass must at least be equivalent to APPA\'s definition of ""Casual Inattention"" The conversion of APPA level to PAIS Target presented above should be included in the application materials, along with an explanation as to how this conversion was derived. Please note that this ruling is not validating the accuracy of the claims made in the Credit Interpretation Request regarding equivalency/superiority to APPA, but is rather establishing a path by which all third-party auditors can demonstrate equivalency to the APPA procedures. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2460" "2009-04-06" "Existing Buildings" "The project building proposes to earn credit toward EQ 3.4-3.6 by purchasing high density plastic trash can liners that contain less than 10% recycled content but also have a thickness of no more than 0.70 mils. This proposed exclusion to the EPA\'s procurement guidelines for plastic trash can liners is based on the principal of source reduction and the desire to minimize the project building\'s purchase of virgin plastic. The proposed guideline of 0.70 mils is based on the California Recycled Content Trash Bag Program outlined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 4, Article 5. While the EPA\'s procurement guidelines call for plastic trash can liners that contain a minimum 10% recycled content, it is impractical for liner manufacturers to produce a functional plastic trash liner which contains at least 10% recycled content but is also 0.77 mils thick or less. Major manufacturer\'s Heritage Bag, Pitt Plastics and Berry Plastics each produce bags with 10% recycled content, but the minimum thickness of these bags is 1.0 mil. These manufacturers have informed the project team that it is impractical to manufacture a thinner bag with 10% recycled content without compromising the tensile strength of the bag and consequently requiring ""double bagging"" in the field. From a source reduction standpoint, a 0.70 mil virgin bag contains 24% less virgin plastic than a 1.0 mil bag that contains 10% recycled content. The California Recycled Content Trash Bag Program requires trash liners to contain at least 10% recycled content, but the Board also provides an exclusion for liners with a thickness of 0.70 mils or below. Please clarify whether the US Green Building Council would allow the project building to earn credit toward EQ 3.4-3.6 for the purchase of high density plastic trash can liners that contain less than 10% recycled content but also have a thickness of no more than 0.70 mils." "In order to count towards EQ Credit 3.4-3.6, disposable plastic trash liners must contain at least 10% post-consumer recycled content. However, liners less than 0.70 mil in thickness can be excluded from the calculations (not being counted as a compliant or non-compliant purchase) . To exercise this exclusion, include information about the excluded product, including manufacturer documentation demonstrating thickness. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"