Comment #1Amendment: Proposed MINHERS Addendum 30, Quality Assurance, Draft PDS-03Page Number: 9-5Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: Access, cost, and time restraints are the leading deterrents to conducting QA’s. Remote QA permits and promotes a higher level of quality and consistency by making field audits more accessible to both field raters and QAD’s. One argument against field QA is connectivity issues, and it’s a valid concern, but the implementation of remote QA has already been adopted by other programs, like LEED for Homes, with an extremely high level of success. One critique I do have is of the language defining what a remote QA is in 904.3.3.2.5 which seems a bit vague. It might be beneficial to better define what RESNET has approved concerning the processes, protocols and procedures of remote QA. Proposed Change: No proposed change to the language available for public comment.
Access, cost, and time restraints are the leading deterrents to conducting QA’s. Remote QA permits and promotes a higher level of quality and consistency by making field audits more accessible to both field raters and QAD’s. One argument against field QA is connectivity issues, and it’s a valid concern, but the implementation of remote QA has already been adopted by other programs, like LEED for Homes, with an extremely high level of success. One critique I do have is of the language defining what a remote QA is in 904.3.3.2.5 which seems a bit vague. It might be beneficial to better define what RESNET has approved concerning the processes, protocols and procedures of remote QA.
No proposed change to the language available for public comment.
Comment #2Amendment: Proposed MINHERS Addendum 30, Quality Assurance, Draft PDS-03Page Number: 9-5Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 904.3.3.1.5Comment Intent: ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I was part of the group that helped develop the initial remote QA process for RESNET and for LEED……I see the benefits of the remote process… so full disclosure, I’m a big fan of remote QA. After seeing the proposed language in Addendum 30 , I have several thoughts on the requirement for an onsite QA to be performed before you can utilize Remote QA; - The language as proposed raises the question of “why ? “ an onsite QA is necessary before you can utilize the remote QA process? Is the onsite audit seen to have more value than a remote QA ? The language as proposed implies a remote QA audit is somehow less than an on site audit……implying a distinction between the 2 doesn’t make sense to me. A Field QA is a Field QA. If the QAD has seen what is necessary and is satisfied the Rater has met the requirements, how this is achieved shouldn’t be an issue. I have used the LEED remote audit process successfully many times and can say , once a system is established (the first few will feel a bit awkward ) , you can absolutely see all that you could on an on site audit. Granted there are times when a remote audit is frustrating due to connectivity problems and the process should be stopped, (this seems to have been resoveled by the introduction of video recording/photos documentation process however) . Alternatively, if a QAD is uncomfortable with the remote process, they should be able to choose that path, however the flexibility, savings in time and money may be enough to overcome any objection to a new process. - One thing to note regarding the LEED remote QA process ….. the QAD has to earn the right to perform remote QA ……maybe an alternative to the required in person review for QADs to qualify eg the QAD is in good standing and has go through a webinar training session Proposed Change: 904.3.3.1.5 “Remote” QA Field reviews. All HERS Raters must annually receive a minimum of one (1) on-site, in-person QA Field reviews on the total annual of completed confirmed or sampled ratings to be registered in the registry. All RFIs must annually receive a minimum of one (1) on-site, in person QA field review on the total annual pre-drywall or final field inspections completed. All other.QA Field reviews, for completed and pre-drywall homes, may be performed using onsite, in person or “remote” QA Field review methodology specified by RESNET.
I was part of the group that helped develop the initial remote QA process for RESNET and for LEED……I see the benefits of the remote process… so full disclosure, I’m a big fan of remote QA. After seeing the proposed language in Addendum 30 , I have several thoughts on the requirement for an onsite QA to be performed before you can utilize Remote QA; - The language as proposed raises the question of “why ? “ an onsite QA is necessary before you can utilize the remote QA process? Is the onsite audit seen to have more value than a remote QA ? The language as proposed implies a remote QA audit is somehow less than an on site audit……implying a distinction between the 2 doesn’t make sense to me. A Field QA is a Field QA. If the QAD has seen what is necessary and is satisfied the Rater has met the requirements, how this is achieved shouldn’t be an issue. I have used the LEED remote audit process successfully many times and can say , once a system is established (the first few will feel a bit awkward ) , you can absolutely see all that you could on an on site audit. Granted there are times when a remote audit is frustrating due to connectivity problems and the process should be stopped, (this seems to have been resoveled by the introduction of video recording/photos documentation process however) . Alternatively, if a QAD is uncomfortable with the remote process, they should be able to choose that path, however the flexibility, savings in time and money may be enough to overcome any objection to a new process. - One thing to note regarding the LEED remote QA process ….. the QAD has to earn the right to perform remote QA ……maybe an alternative to the required in person review for QADs to qualify eg the QAD is in good standing and has go through a webinar training session
904.3.3.1.5 “Remote” QA Field reviews. All HERS Raters must annually receive a minimum of one (1) on-site, in-person QA Field reviews on the total annual of completed confirmed or sampled ratings to be registered in the registry. All RFIs must annually receive a minimum of one (1) on-site, in person QA field review on the total annual pre-drywall or final field inspections completed. All other.QA Field reviews, for completed and pre-drywall homes, may be performed using onsite, in person or “remote” QA Field review methodology specified by RESNET.
Comment #3Amendment: Proposed MINHERS Addendum 30, Quality Assurance, Draft PDS-03Page Number: 9-5Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: 904.3.3.1.5Comment Intent: Not an ObjectionComment Type: GeneralComment: I see advantages in remote QA for providers working with both low and high-volume rating customers. I also see value in the requirement for one on-site visit annually since I expect that a QAD on site will get a more complete impression of the rater's work. Proposed Change: No changes suggested.
I see advantages in remote QA for providers working with both low and high-volume rating customers. I also see value in the requirement for one on-site visit annually since I expect that a QAD on site will get a more complete impression of the rater's work.
No changes suggested.
Return to Proposed MINHERS Addendum 30, Quality Assurance, Draft PDS-03