Comment #1Amendment: Proposed Amendment of Chapter 9 to Revise Onsite QA Field ReviewsPage Number: 1Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 904.4.2.4Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I support this proposed amendment. Proposed Change: No proposed changes and no response from the Committee needed.
I support this proposed amendment.
No proposed changes and no response from the Committee needed.
Comment #2Amendment: Proposed Amendment of Chapter 9 to Revise Onsite QA Field ReviewsPage Number: 1Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I have an objection to the added quarterly QA field visits. The added visits will increase the costs for providing rating services to builders and homeowners. The current custom home market is still very price conscious and is not willing to pay for any price increases related to processing and quality assurance. Proposed Change: Leave the QA requirements as they currently are.
I have an objection to the added quarterly QA field visits. The added visits will increase the costs for providing rating services to builders and homeowners. The current custom home market is still very price conscious and is not willing to pay for any price increases related to processing and quality assurance.
Leave the QA requirements as they currently are.
Comment #3Amendment: Proposed Amendment of Chapter 9 to Revise Onsite QA Field ReviewsPage Number: 131Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 904.4.2.4Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: TechnicalComment: September 5, 2014 I have a few brief comments that address the Proposed QA field review (904.4.2.43) A recent technology that is quickly being adopted by police departments and our military is the use of body camera's in order to video record events. Justification: My recommendation would be to require all field ratings, as well as other field work to be recorded using a body camera to record all field work and preserving these recordings for the record. Consistency in the reported results and the opportunity for corrective action, if necessary, would be achieved. Current pricing of body cameras have decreased to the point where a good one may be purchased for $100-$150, with some much lower. The recorded field work would preclude the expense of QA field audits as well as having a permanent digital record. Of course not all recording's need be reviewed by the QA but the record would exist. Overall, this change would enhance the public confidence in the rating process and increase stakeholder trust in the reported results. What comes to mind is the BPI field exam vs. RESNET avatar testing. Avatar testing provides consistancy in evaluating the abilty and knowledge of a person . The proposed video recording method is in line with ANSI standards when considering consistency of results related to field work as well as the QA process. Comment: An additional thought related to ratings concerns the appraisal industry and other stakeholders. In order to have an accurate picture of a home’s energy consumption, we should consider including all energy consumed on the property being evaluated. That should include the total energy consumed and metered for electrical, gas and other fuels and sources of energy. The appraiser must have an accurate picture of a homeowner's utility expenses in order to assess expenses associated with energy consumption. I hope these thoughts help. The QA designee position would still be required in order to review the recordings and provide guidance and mentorship when needed. Expenses associated with field audits would be minimized. Outside stakeholders could have a reasonable assurance the rating process including QA procedures have followed. Thank you. Bob Chomko bob@buildingscience.pro Proposed Change: Proposed Change: 904.4.2.4 QA field reviews shall be conducted on an ongoing basis as appropriate for the volume of ratings being completed, and at a minimum annually. The provider shall complete a minimum of 1% quarterly field rating video recording reviews of the Providers ratings, based on the total number of ratings registered the previous quarter, until all annual QA requirements for the Provider have been met for each Rater. QA field video recording reviews are not required on every Rater every quarter.
September 5, 2014
I have a few brief comments that address the Proposed QA field review (904.4.2.43)
A recent technology that is quickly being adopted by police departments and our military is the use of body camera's in order to video record events.
Justification: My recommendation would be to require all field ratings, as well as other field work to be recorded using a body camera to record all field work and preserving these recordings for the record. Consistency in the reported results and the opportunity for corrective action, if necessary, would be achieved. Current pricing of body cameras have decreased to the point where a good one may be purchased for $100-$150, with some much lower. The recorded field work would preclude the expense of QA field audits as well as having a permanent digital record. Of course not all recording's need be reviewed by the QA but the record would exist. Overall, this change would enhance the public confidence in the rating process and increase stakeholder trust in the reported results.
What comes to mind is the BPI field exam vs. RESNET avatar testing. Avatar testing provides consistancy in evaluating the abilty and knowledge of a person . The proposed video recording method is in line with ANSI standards when considering consistency of results related to field work as well as the QA process.
Comment: An additional thought related to ratings concerns the appraisal industry and other stakeholders. In order to have an accurate picture of a home’s energy consumption, we should consider including all energy consumed on the property being evaluated. That should include the total energy consumed and metered for electrical, gas and other fuels and sources of energy. The appraiser must have an accurate picture of a homeowner's utility expenses in order to assess expenses associated with energy consumption.
I hope these thoughts help. The QA designee position would still be required in order to review the recordings and provide guidance and mentorship when needed. Expenses associated with field audits would be minimized. Outside stakeholders could have a reasonable assurance the rating process including QA procedures have followed.
Thank you.
Bob Chomko bob@buildingscience.pro
Proposed Change: 904.4.2.4 QA field reviews shall be conducted on an ongoing basis as appropriate for the volume of ratings being completed, and at a minimum annually. The provider shall complete a minimum of 1% quarterly field rating video recording reviews of the Providers ratings, based on the total number of ratings registered the previous quarter, until all annual QA requirements for the Provider have been met for each Rater. QA field video recording reviews are not required on every Rater every quarter.
Comment #4Amendment: Proposed Amendment of Chapter 9 to Revise Onsite QA Field ReviewsPage Number: 1Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: EditorialComment: This change does a good job of clarifying the intent of the proposed amendment and is much more in line with the way Field QA works in the real world. However, it is the QAD who performs the QA field reviews so I suggest the following change. Proposed Change: The Provider QAD shall complete a minimum of 1% quarterly onsite QA field reviews of the Provider’s ratings, based on the total number of ratings registered the previous quarter, until all annual QA requirements for the Provider have been met for each Rater. QA field reviews are not required on every Rater every quarter.
This change does a good job of clarifying the intent of the proposed amendment and is much more in line with the way Field QA works in the real world. However, it is the QAD who performs the QA field reviews so I suggest the following change.
The Provider QAD shall complete a minimum of 1% quarterly onsite QA field reviews of the Provider’s ratings, based on the total number of ratings registered the previous quarter, until all annual QA requirements for the Provider have been met for each Rater. QA field reviews are not required on every Rater every quarter.
Return to Proposed Amendment of Chapter 9 to Revise Onsite QA Field Reviews