I'm taking an informal survey: Does your office pay for you to take the LEED AP exam? If so what are its policies? It would also be nice if you could describe your office briefly as well. Thanks!
I was reimbursed for the testing fee's after i passed the test, i work at a fairly small 10-12 person Boutique type firm doing mixed use residential and a few public projects.
I dont think this will be the norm in the future though. I was fortunate enough to find myslef working a a small firm where there was no leed ap on staff and having on was helpfull on RFQ's because it was a hot topic.
now it seems like every new intern is leed AP, some larger firms i have heard of even use it as a required mile marker for employment. this means there are alot of young interns that usually leave the larger firms after a year or two and are now entering the market with leed AP. being a LEED AP is now common and i would expect firms to have less desire to pay for it because it is so common.
Firm #1 - paid for "selected" people to geet LEED AP. Had to make formal request to management, often denied, but senior PA's & PM's were required to take exam...many failing.
Firm #2 - pays for "passed" exam. Show accounting your pass certificate and you get a reimbursement.
My firm paid for my test, after I passed it, because they had no LEED AP in the office.
Now the policy is not to pay for any more employees to take the test. The firm feels that one is enough. Also it raises the firm's E&O insurance rates to have more people with additional accreditations.
I assume that if I were to leave the firm they would pay for another single person within the firm to get the credential.
Really?!? For LEED AP??? I have a hard time understanding why. A LEED AP cannot sign drawings and take on liability. It's more or less an education credential. Does your E&O rates go up for having MArch's on staff vs. BArch's???
It's because the "standard of care" to which the firm can be expected to be held is higher. The more licenses, registrations, accreditations, etc. that you have on staff the more you're paying for insurance.
and no, having more M.Archs on staff wouldn't raise your rates, because first of all, as far as NAAB is concerned, the minimum curriculum requirements are identical for both degrees. But more importantly, degrees are different from licenses and accreditations that have standardized tests with a passing threshold. Neither a B.Arch or M.Arch is a recognized indicator of fitness to design a building, whereas an architecture license or registration is an indication that the holder is minimally qualified to independently design a building that protects the safety and welfare of the public.
Being LEED accredited indicates that you're minimally qualified to design a building that meets numerous identified thresholds in multiple areas that are more rigorous and/or outside of the scope of the life-safety requirements alone that are expected of a licensed/registered architect. That's what the insurance company is worried about.
"Being LEED accredited indicates that you're minimally qualified to design a building that meets numerous identified thresholds in multiple areas that are more rigorous and/or outside of the scope of the life-safety requirements alone that are expected of a licensed/registered architect. That's what the insurance company is worried about."
thats funny because its not really true, since you cant independently do anything with just a LEED AP
but that is also what i have heard about how the insurance companies view it
the question i always have is how does the insurance company know how many LEED AP is on your staff?
it can change rather frequently
The firm owner has to do an update of project types and sizes and budgets, names and qualifications of staff, etc. at least once each year. If the firm doesn't provide these updates or doesn't give complete information then any claims can be denied on that basis.
and you're right, I shouldn't have said that LEED AP indicates that you're qualified to DESIGN anything. It means that you're supposed to be qualified to do the administrative paperwork for such a project, identify whether various goals are met, do some minor calculations, etc. But nonetheless, if the firm has 20 LEED AP employees (whether the secretary is one or not) the insurance company just sees the potential for 20 times as many failures to meet the expected minimum standard of care for a LEED AP...
yeah, it's a weird situation. Like with the architecture license: many interns think they'll suddenly be "worth more" to their employer when they get licensed - and that may be true if the firm can bill more for a licensed architect, or if potential clients feel that licensing status should be a factor in choosing a firm, etc. - but initially a newly-licensed person may actually cost the firm more now than he cost them yesterday, because of the insurance issue (not to mention the license fees, NCARB fees, etc. if the firm is picking those up...)
As for how much "worth" there is in LEED accreditation: could be a lot, or little, depending on what the firm's doing with it, how much it's worth form a marketing standpoint, etc. But any other widely recognized credential is a similar risk in the eyes of the insurance company: the various CSI certifications are other examples - and those are open-book tests with very high pass rates...
my firm pays for a passed LEED exam and allows you to take as many different exams as you like... NC, EB, CI... there are a few people in the firm that have passed them all... more as a marketing tool than anything else...
the firm wants everyone to be LEED accredited b/c they feel that its becoming so common there is really no reason for people not to be accredited if it makes sense for them to be...
i think right now we are at about 20% accredited for a 1000+ person firm...
as for the question of insurance rates- i find that extremely hard to believe unless it has to do with the scale of the firm and the legal structure of the firm as well...
in many states the only people allowed to stamp drawings at all are those who have some level of ownership or responsibility within the corporation if in fact the firm is incorporated...so it doesn't matter how many registered architects you have b/c only a select number can stamp drawings and be legally responsible for them and protected by the corporate structure in the first place...
i'll find out tomorrow about the LEED e&o question...b/c i've never heard of such a thing... of course i might never have heard of it b/c its just a cultural thing... the firm i work for wants everyone to attain as high a level of professional accomplishment as they can and is willing to pay for it so long as its applicable to architecture and engineering...
in fact in order to eligible for ownership opportunities one typically has to be a registered architecture or PE depending on their discipline
We've had this issue in our office with insurance vs. how many licensed architects, how many LEED people, etc. We pay our employees' LEED exam fees, license fees, and NCARB dues.
Insurance premiums, licensing fees, etc. are just part of the cost of doing business, so your employers may not bring up the issue with you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the firm's premiums don't rise as the firm grows and as more licenses are obtained, LEED tests are passed, etc.
In a suit against an architect/firm, the architect who sealed the drawings - or the firm - is of course going to be who is found accountable if there's a successful judgement. They're the ones with the liability (and usually the assets, and hopefully the insurance!)
But that's a separate issue from what makes the judgement successful in the first place - which often hinges less on who stamped the drawings and more on the procedures that were followed during the course of the project, and the actions and qualifications of the employee(s) who worked on the project - i.e. performed construction administration, wrote the specs, etc.
That's where the qualifications of the employees come into play. But those qualifications can work for or against you. If you sent an unlicensed person to do CA (a definite no-no as far as insurers are concerned) and mistakes are made or something is overlooked, then you'll be accused of not properly staffing and supervising the project. But if you send a licensed person to do CA and he makes the same mistake or the same oversight then it still comes back to bite you in the form of "your licensed employee didn't meet the minimum standard of care expected of a licensed architect." The insurance guys see unlicensed employees as safer because they're never supposed to be unsupervised. The more licensed employees the firm has running around out there the more opportunities for slip ups and for the firm to suffer claims based on not meeting the standard of care. Same thing with LEED or most other letters anybody puts after their name.
As for ownership status: some states allow ownership of architecture firms to be 100% unlicensed as long as there are licensed architects on staff (Massachusetts, for example), while others require 50%, 67%, or even 100% of owners to be licensed. This varies widely by state, and in some cases by size of firm (in some states a firm with 2 owners can be owned 50% by unlicensed partners, while a larger firm must be 67% licensed partners...)
the articles are interesting but their biggest weakness is they are all tied tightly to the LEED program... which at the end of the day is a private organization very different from being a licensed architect... with all its legal baggage in tow...
obviously when professionals go out and make guaruntees that they can't fulfill that is a big problem no matter what the issue is...
i think the issue of trying to hold non-leed professionals to the standards of leed when a project is not explicitly pursuing leed is very questionable... especially given the fact that the USGBC is a private organization who can change their requirements on a whim if they deem so fit
it seems like the insurance companies are trying to equate leed standards with building codes and they are not the same thing
i still dont quite understand the insurance companies relationship with leed standards
as architorture just said, leed and building codes are not the same thing
i dont see what the big deal is to an insurance company if a building doesnt quite meet leed standards as long as it meets the building code
as to the being supervised part, that makes sense for unlicensed workers, but i still dont think it applies to LEED
though i do suppose you could say that since someone is a LEED AP, they will be filling out the paperwork and have the responsibility for that documentation and submission stuff for a project
so if this person messed something up, maybe insurance might come into play?
i guess its like with LEED in general, its still so new, all the kinks are being worked out still
The insurance company doesn't care if the building meets LEED standards - UNLESS the client cares, and the building doesn't meet those standards, and the client can make a case that he reasonably expected the building to meet those standards and that the firm implied (whether explicitly or implicitly) that it would meet those standards.
I don't agree with some of the concerns in those articles. I posted them because there seemed to be some question as to whether LEED status matters to insurance companies, and whether it really is the case that having LEED AP employees can make firms' premiums rise.
Yes it's counterintuitive, it's not entirely sensible, but nevertheless it is the case that having many LEED APs on staff can raise E&O premiums.
i agree with that and i think the articles are instructive...
like i said though- the thing that jumps out is the concept of apply the standard of care expected of a LEED professional to a non-LEED professional on a non-LEED project which seems to be implied by the article...
also just the very LEED-centric view of the issue is questionable on the basis that LEED is a private rating system for buildings...
obviously if you contractually agree to pursue LEED you need to be held responsible to those standards...and in that case if you are negligent in meeting standards that you are intending to meet it could become an insurance issue...
whatever those LEED features may be i don't think they should recieve some kind of special treatment...
if a project is supposed to have sound attenuation blankets in all the partitions and i forget to pick that up in my schedules and specs that is an E&O issue that my insurance should be able to cover me for to pay for the addition of those materials to the project...
in the same way if i don't check a paint spec to make sure it doesn't exceed VOC requirements for a LEED point on my LEED project my E&O should cover me...
in both situations the blanket or the paint is a requirement of the program and the standard of care is the same...
listening to this entire conversation, it kind of does make sense for insurance to be effected by LEED AP's, but it still leads to the potential issue of a firm not promoting or accepting a LEED AP because of higher insurance premiums
what happens to the firm that doesnt get to do many LEED projects, for whatever reason
would they ever turn away a potential employee because he is a LEED AP and, since they dont do any LEED projects, he would actually be a detriment to the firm
ah well
it is what it is for now until this all gets coordinated into the building codes and LEED AP is a bit more fleshed out
I don't think that too many firms would turn away a potential employee specifically because he is LEED accredited. But it doesn't surprise me that firms might seek to limit the number of LEED tests that they pay for among their existing employees, and that some firms might feel no particular need to increase the number of people in their firm holding that particular credential.
As has already been mentioned in this thread, LEED AP has become near ubiquitous among intern-level applicants and new grads. But very few of these accredited people have any real experience with a LEED project or similar. So as a credential alone I don't think that seeing it on a resume is always a big plus. For instance I wouldn't think that in the consideration of two more or less equally qualified intern candidates that LEED status would typically be much of a deciding factor one way or the other - unless perhaps one of the candidates had LEED after his name AND he had actual professional experience with a LEED project.
okay i talked to someone in the know today regarding this issue...
they felt that yes there is an issue with E&O insurance for smaller firms when there are additional registered architects on staff... with medium to large firms the difference would be barely registered in the premiums...
as for LEED the person i spoke with could not believe that having LEED accredited professionals could possibly increase your premiums no matter the size of the firm just b/c of the nature of the LEED accreditation as compared to being a registered architect...
the person also made that state- at least with our firm which is large- that the more registered professionals you have there is actually a reduction in the premium because the insurance underwriters feel that more positions are filled with individuals with the appropriate skills and knowledge to fully carry out those tasks without the need of additional supervision from an upper level person....apparently the insurers feel that having only one 'responsible' person with many others reporting to them is a more risky situation...
There are many different insurers, insurance plans, types and sizes of firms, and probably other factors.
I have first-person experience with this issue in a smallish firm - our insurance has been affected both by adding licensed staff, and by adding LEED accredited staff. No matter how hard it is to believe or what your LEED person says, it's an issue for us.
As for a large firm situation: it makes sense that when the firm gets to a size where it's not reasonable that all projects could be directly managed by a principal, the insurer would certainly prefer that they be managed by licensed personnel. Our insurer forbids us from using any title with the word "manager" in it for anyone unlicensed, and also does not allow unlicensed personnel to do any unsupervised CA. They are especially concerned with unaccompanied site visits, and with unlicensed personnel interacting with bidders. The insurance company has given us stickers to put on every phone instructing staff on what to say and not say to callers during bidding.
An insurance company's dream scenario is a small office with all management, coordination, bidding procedures, contract administration, and field observation done by principals. That's the situation with the least risk, but is obviously impractical in a large firm.
If your firm is committed to encouraging that - and preferably also committed to paying test fees and providing paid time off to take the test - then I don't see why 100% LEED accreditation isn't a reasonable goal. There are large companies and government offices that have had hundreds of employees take and pass the LEED exam within a short timeframe. It's not an extremely easy test, but anybody who reads the 400-page reference manual through a couple times and thoroughly explores the usgbc site should be well prepared. The current test doesn't have the >85% pass rate that the previous version had, but it's still something that's not too tough to tackle with reasonable preparation.
this wasn't just a LEED person... this is an old-line principal in the firm who manages one of our domestic offices of about 60-70 staff.
i agree that its going to be a different situation for every firm and region but what you have described sounds extremely restrictive in terms of an insurance policy. perhaps its time to shop around or just try to figure out what their understanding of LEED is b/c it sounds like its not correct.
i'll say the way that my firm is structured is that all projects have a 'principal in charge' who is also an owner of X number of shares in the company. in order for a project and project team members to be protected by the corporate structure the drawings need to be stamped by this individual or another principal with whatever state registration that is necessary. they are supposed to have a reasonably good understanding of the project and the issues at hand as well.
so ultimately there is only so many people who have the ability to stamp drawings in the firm even though there are dozens of registered architects and probably a 20% ownership rate in the firm by the staff.
ultimately though it probably comes down to size... when you are doing billions of square feet of design work internationally you can probably bend the insurance company's rules a bit more in your favor...
Architorture: your friend is speaking as a principal of a 70 person firm. I'm writing as a principal of a 7 person firm. Clearly these are very different scenarios in terms of the ability for principals to directly manage staff. I have previous experience in one of the largest firms in the US and your description of the way that your firm operates matches my large-firm experience. It's worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of US architecture firms are small firms - so I would imagine that many others out there have had similar experiences to ours with insurance companies and small firms.
We have had insurance with a couple different companies in the past few years. The first was one of the major insurers of architecture firms nationwide. They have a lot of publications geared toward minimizing risk, training staff in safe wording of correspondence, specifications, drawing set notes, what to say and not say on the phone, etc. They required that we administer and open-book test on liability and risk management to each new hire, that we not call anybody "manager" who did not hold a license, that nobody unlicensed or with less than 10 years experience be sent alone on field visits or to conduct any business related to bidding or prebidding, etc. Our rates were affected both by adding licensed architects and by adding LEED APs. More recently we switched to a smaller regionally based specialty insurer because they offered lower rates. Their products are also better tailored to small firms. They've been a little less officious - for instance there are no required tests for employees - but many of the policies are identical - including the rate increases for additional credentials. We've done a good amount of comparison shopping of insurers and while the rules by which they want firms to operate vary some from company to company, they're by and large pretty similar.
Jun 14, 08 1:21 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Does your office pay for the LEED AP exam?
I'm taking an informal survey: Does your office pay for you to take the LEED AP exam? If so what are its policies? It would also be nice if you could describe your office briefly as well. Thanks!
They pay for the test once. If you fail, you are on your own.
i can get reimbursed fully for a passed exam. but i have to front the money for the test until i pass
same with the ARE's if i remember correctly
I was reimbursed for the testing fee's after i passed the test, i work at a fairly small 10-12 person Boutique type firm doing mixed use residential and a few public projects.
I dont think this will be the norm in the future though. I was fortunate enough to find myslef working a a small firm where there was no leed ap on staff and having on was helpfull on RFQ's because it was a hot topic.
now it seems like every new intern is leed AP, some larger firms i have heard of even use it as a required mile marker for employment. this means there are alot of young interns that usually leave the larger firms after a year or two and are now entering the market with leed AP. being a LEED AP is now common and i would expect firms to have less desire to pay for it because it is so common.
Firm #1 - paid for "selected" people to geet LEED AP. Had to make formal request to management, often denied, but senior PA's & PM's were required to take exam...many failing.
Firm #2 - pays for "passed" exam. Show accounting your pass certificate and you get a reimbursement.
My firm paid for my test, after I passed it, because they had no LEED AP in the office.
Now the policy is not to pay for any more employees to take the test. The firm feels that one is enough. Also it raises the firm's E&O insurance rates to have more people with additional accreditations.
I assume that if I were to leave the firm they would pay for another single person within the firm to get the credential.
Really?!? For LEED AP??? I have a hard time understanding why. A LEED AP cannot sign drawings and take on liability. It's more or less an education credential. Does your E&O rates go up for having MArch's on staff vs. BArch's???
i heard this in another thread also
so something like it must happen
i find it hard to believe too
it makes no sense, since the secretary could become a LEED AP if she wanted to
It's because the "standard of care" to which the firm can be expected to be held is higher. The more licenses, registrations, accreditations, etc. that you have on staff the more you're paying for insurance.
and no, having more M.Archs on staff wouldn't raise your rates, because first of all, as far as NAAB is concerned, the minimum curriculum requirements are identical for both degrees. But more importantly, degrees are different from licenses and accreditations that have standardized tests with a passing threshold. Neither a B.Arch or M.Arch is a recognized indicator of fitness to design a building, whereas an architecture license or registration is an indication that the holder is minimally qualified to independently design a building that protects the safety and welfare of the public.
Being LEED accredited indicates that you're minimally qualified to design a building that meets numerous identified thresholds in multiple areas that are more rigorous and/or outside of the scope of the life-safety requirements alone that are expected of a licensed/registered architect. That's what the insurance company is worried about.
"Being LEED accredited indicates that you're minimally qualified to design a building that meets numerous identified thresholds in multiple areas that are more rigorous and/or outside of the scope of the life-safety requirements alone that are expected of a licensed/registered architect. That's what the insurance company is worried about."
thats funny because its not really true, since you cant independently do anything with just a LEED AP
but that is also what i have heard about how the insurance companies view it
the question i always have is how does the insurance company know how many LEED AP is on your staff?
it can change rather frequently
The firm owner has to do an update of project types and sizes and budgets, names and qualifications of staff, etc. at least once each year. If the firm doesn't provide these updates or doesn't give complete information then any claims can be denied on that basis.
and you're right, I shouldn't have said that LEED AP indicates that you're qualified to DESIGN anything. It means that you're supposed to be qualified to do the administrative paperwork for such a project, identify whether various goals are met, do some minor calculations, etc. But nonetheless, if the firm has 20 LEED AP employees (whether the secretary is one or not) the insurance company just sees the potential for 20 times as many failures to meet the expected minimum standard of care for a LEED AP...
once a year, that makes sense
its funny because it gives the LEED AP title a lot more worth than it really has, as far as titles go
not saying its not worthwhile by any means, i am currently studying to take it
but this puts it on a level much higher than it should be in my opinion
in the industry, you really dont get too much more authority because you are a LEED AP, and you cant do anything on your own because of it
interesting
thanks for the info, Needle, the last thread this came up no one had a definite answer to the insurance question of it
i didnt mean you were indicating any of that quote needle, i was assuming that was the view of the insurance company
yeah, it's a weird situation. Like with the architecture license: many interns think they'll suddenly be "worth more" to their employer when they get licensed - and that may be true if the firm can bill more for a licensed architect, or if potential clients feel that licensing status should be a factor in choosing a firm, etc. - but initially a newly-licensed person may actually cost the firm more now than he cost them yesterday, because of the insurance issue (not to mention the license fees, NCARB fees, etc. if the firm is picking those up...)
As for how much "worth" there is in LEED accreditation: could be a lot, or little, depending on what the firm's doing with it, how much it's worth form a marketing standpoint, etc. But any other widely recognized credential is a similar risk in the eyes of the insurance company: the various CSI certifications are other examples - and those are open-book tests with very high pass rates...
Thanks everyone for your comments, this is extremely helpful.
yes
my firm pays for a passed LEED exam and allows you to take as many different exams as you like... NC, EB, CI... there are a few people in the firm that have passed them all... more as a marketing tool than anything else...
the firm wants everyone to be LEED accredited b/c they feel that its becoming so common there is really no reason for people not to be accredited if it makes sense for them to be...
i think right now we are at about 20% accredited for a 1000+ person firm...
as for the question of insurance rates- i find that extremely hard to believe unless it has to do with the scale of the firm and the legal structure of the firm as well...
in many states the only people allowed to stamp drawings at all are those who have some level of ownership or responsibility within the corporation if in fact the firm is incorporated...so it doesn't matter how many registered architects you have b/c only a select number can stamp drawings and be legally responsible for them and protected by the corporate structure in the first place...
i'll find out tomorrow about the LEED e&o question...b/c i've never heard of such a thing... of course i might never have heard of it b/c its just a cultural thing... the firm i work for wants everyone to attain as high a level of professional accomplishment as they can and is willing to pay for it so long as its applicable to architecture and engineering...
in fact in order to eligible for ownership opportunities one typically has to be a registered architecture or PE depending on their discipline
We've had this issue in our office with insurance vs. how many licensed architects, how many LEED people, etc. We pay our employees' LEED exam fees, license fees, and NCARB dues.
Insurance premiums, licensing fees, etc. are just part of the cost of doing business, so your employers may not bring up the issue with you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the firm's premiums don't rise as the firm grows and as more licenses are obtained, LEED tests are passed, etc.
In a suit against an architect/firm, the architect who sealed the drawings - or the firm - is of course going to be who is found accountable if there's a successful judgement. They're the ones with the liability (and usually the assets, and hopefully the insurance!)
But that's a separate issue from what makes the judgement successful in the first place - which often hinges less on who stamped the drawings and more on the procedures that were followed during the course of the project, and the actions and qualifications of the employee(s) who worked on the project - i.e. performed construction administration, wrote the specs, etc.
That's where the qualifications of the employees come into play. But those qualifications can work for or against you. If you sent an unlicensed person to do CA (a definite no-no as far as insurers are concerned) and mistakes are made or something is overlooked, then you'll be accused of not properly staffing and supervising the project. But if you send a licensed person to do CA and he makes the same mistake or the same oversight then it still comes back to bite you in the form of "your licensed employee didn't meet the minimum standard of care expected of a licensed architect." The insurance guys see unlicensed employees as safer because they're never supposed to be unsupervised. The more licensed employees the firm has running around out there the more opportunities for slip ups and for the firm to suffer claims based on not meeting the standard of care. Same thing with LEED or most other letters anybody puts after their name.
As for ownership status: some states allow ownership of architecture firms to be 100% unlicensed as long as there are licensed architects on staff (Massachusetts, for example), while others require 50%, 67%, or even 100% of owners to be licensed. This varies widely by state, and in some cases by size of firm (in some states a firm with 2 owners can be owned 50% by unlicensed partners, while a larger firm must be 67% licensed partners...)
Here's a link to an insurance industry article about the issues involved with LEED and insuring design firms: http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2007/12/11/green-insurance-law-industry-thoughts-on-bim-and-leed-coverage-for-design-professionals/
Here's one about the types of suits that have revolved around "green buildings". http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2007/06/19/green-business-law-need-for-green-counsel-becoming-increasingly-salient-as-green-claims-are-brought-against-design-professionals/
Yes if you pass.
the articles are interesting but their biggest weakness is they are all tied tightly to the LEED program... which at the end of the day is a private organization very different from being a licensed architect... with all its legal baggage in tow...
obviously when professionals go out and make guaruntees that they can't fulfill that is a big problem no matter what the issue is...
i think the issue of trying to hold non-leed professionals to the standards of leed when a project is not explicitly pursuing leed is very questionable... especially given the fact that the USGBC is a private organization who can change their requirements on a whim if they deem so fit
it seems like the insurance companies are trying to equate leed standards with building codes and they are not the same thing
i still dont quite understand the insurance companies relationship with leed standards
as architorture just said, leed and building codes are not the same thing
i dont see what the big deal is to an insurance company if a building doesnt quite meet leed standards as long as it meets the building code
as to the being supervised part, that makes sense for unlicensed workers, but i still dont think it applies to LEED
though i do suppose you could say that since someone is a LEED AP, they will be filling out the paperwork and have the responsibility for that documentation and submission stuff for a project
so if this person messed something up, maybe insurance might come into play?
i guess its like with LEED in general, its still so new, all the kinks are being worked out still
The insurance company doesn't care if the building meets LEED standards - UNLESS the client cares, and the building doesn't meet those standards, and the client can make a case that he reasonably expected the building to meet those standards and that the firm implied (whether explicitly or implicitly) that it would meet those standards.
I don't agree with some of the concerns in those articles. I posted them because there seemed to be some question as to whether LEED status matters to insurance companies, and whether it really is the case that having LEED AP employees can make firms' premiums rise.
Yes it's counterintuitive, it's not entirely sensible, but nevertheless it is the case that having many LEED APs on staff can raise E&O premiums.
its a shame that that then causes some firms to not promote LEED certification for its employees, and maybe even discourages it
i agree with that and i think the articles are instructive...
like i said though- the thing that jumps out is the concept of apply the standard of care expected of a LEED professional to a non-LEED professional on a non-LEED project which seems to be implied by the article...
also just the very LEED-centric view of the issue is questionable on the basis that LEED is a private rating system for buildings...
obviously if you contractually agree to pursue LEED you need to be held responsible to those standards...and in that case if you are negligent in meeting standards that you are intending to meet it could become an insurance issue...
whatever those LEED features may be i don't think they should recieve some kind of special treatment...
if a project is supposed to have sound attenuation blankets in all the partitions and i forget to pick that up in my schedules and specs that is an E&O issue that my insurance should be able to cover me for to pay for the addition of those materials to the project...
in the same way if i don't check a paint spec to make sure it doesn't exceed VOC requirements for a LEED point on my LEED project my E&O should cover me...
in both situations the blanket or the paint is a requirement of the program and the standard of care is the same...
listening to this entire conversation, it kind of does make sense for insurance to be effected by LEED AP's, but it still leads to the potential issue of a firm not promoting or accepting a LEED AP because of higher insurance premiums
what happens to the firm that doesnt get to do many LEED projects, for whatever reason
would they ever turn away a potential employee because he is a LEED AP and, since they dont do any LEED projects, he would actually be a detriment to the firm
ah well
it is what it is for now until this all gets coordinated into the building codes and LEED AP is a bit more fleshed out
I don't think that too many firms would turn away a potential employee specifically because he is LEED accredited. But it doesn't surprise me that firms might seek to limit the number of LEED tests that they pay for among their existing employees, and that some firms might feel no particular need to increase the number of people in their firm holding that particular credential.
As has already been mentioned in this thread, LEED AP has become near ubiquitous among intern-level applicants and new grads. But very few of these accredited people have any real experience with a LEED project or similar. So as a credential alone I don't think that seeing it on a resume is always a big plus. For instance I wouldn't think that in the consideration of two more or less equally qualified intern candidates that LEED status would typically be much of a deciding factor one way or the other - unless perhaps one of the candidates had LEED after his name AND he had actual professional experience with a LEED project.
My firm pays for one LEED exam, pass or fail.
okay i talked to someone in the know today regarding this issue...
they felt that yes there is an issue with E&O insurance for smaller firms when there are additional registered architects on staff... with medium to large firms the difference would be barely registered in the premiums...
as for LEED the person i spoke with could not believe that having LEED accredited professionals could possibly increase your premiums no matter the size of the firm just b/c of the nature of the LEED accreditation as compared to being a registered architect...
the person also made that state- at least with our firm which is large- that the more registered professionals you have there is actually a reduction in the premium because the insurance underwriters feel that more positions are filled with individuals with the appropriate skills and knowledge to fully carry out those tasks without the need of additional supervision from an upper level person....apparently the insurers feel that having only one 'responsible' person with many others reporting to them is a more risky situation...
There are many different insurers, insurance plans, types and sizes of firms, and probably other factors.
I have first-person experience with this issue in a smallish firm - our insurance has been affected both by adding licensed staff, and by adding LEED accredited staff. No matter how hard it is to believe or what your LEED person says, it's an issue for us.
As for a large firm situation: it makes sense that when the firm gets to a size where it's not reasonable that all projects could be directly managed by a principal, the insurer would certainly prefer that they be managed by licensed personnel. Our insurer forbids us from using any title with the word "manager" in it for anyone unlicensed, and also does not allow unlicensed personnel to do any unsupervised CA. They are especially concerned with unaccompanied site visits, and with unlicensed personnel interacting with bidders. The insurance company has given us stickers to put on every phone instructing staff on what to say and not say to callers during bidding.
An insurance company's dream scenario is a small office with all management, coordination, bidding procedures, contract administration, and field observation done by principals. That's the situation with the least risk, but is obviously impractical in a large firm.
my office has a goal to get 100% LEED accreditation i doubt it will happen but it is the thought that counts.
If your firm is committed to encouraging that - and preferably also committed to paying test fees and providing paid time off to take the test - then I don't see why 100% LEED accreditation isn't a reasonable goal. There are large companies and government offices that have had hundreds of employees take and pass the LEED exam within a short timeframe. It's not an extremely easy test, but anybody who reads the 400-page reference manual through a couple times and thoroughly explores the usgbc site should be well prepared. The current test doesn't have the >85% pass rate that the previous version had, but it's still something that's not too tough to tackle with reasonable preparation.
this wasn't just a LEED person... this is an old-line principal in the firm who manages one of our domestic offices of about 60-70 staff.
i agree that its going to be a different situation for every firm and region but what you have described sounds extremely restrictive in terms of an insurance policy. perhaps its time to shop around or just try to figure out what their understanding of LEED is b/c it sounds like its not correct.
i'll say the way that my firm is structured is that all projects have a 'principal in charge' who is also an owner of X number of shares in the company. in order for a project and project team members to be protected by the corporate structure the drawings need to be stamped by this individual or another principal with whatever state registration that is necessary. they are supposed to have a reasonably good understanding of the project and the issues at hand as well.
so ultimately there is only so many people who have the ability to stamp drawings in the firm even though there are dozens of registered architects and probably a 20% ownership rate in the firm by the staff.
ultimately though it probably comes down to size... when you are doing billions of square feet of design work internationally you can probably bend the insurance company's rules a bit more in your favor...
Architorture: your friend is speaking as a principal of a 70 person firm. I'm writing as a principal of a 7 person firm. Clearly these are very different scenarios in terms of the ability for principals to directly manage staff. I have previous experience in one of the largest firms in the US and your description of the way that your firm operates matches my large-firm experience. It's worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of US architecture firms are small firms - so I would imagine that many others out there have had similar experiences to ours with insurance companies and small firms.
We have had insurance with a couple different companies in the past few years. The first was one of the major insurers of architecture firms nationwide. They have a lot of publications geared toward minimizing risk, training staff in safe wording of correspondence, specifications, drawing set notes, what to say and not say on the phone, etc. They required that we administer and open-book test on liability and risk management to each new hire, that we not call anybody "manager" who did not hold a license, that nobody unlicensed or with less than 10 years experience be sent alone on field visits or to conduct any business related to bidding or prebidding, etc. Our rates were affected both by adding licensed architects and by adding LEED APs. More recently we switched to a smaller regionally based specialty insurer because they offered lower rates. Their products are also better tailored to small firms. They've been a little less officious - for instance there are no required tests for employees - but many of the policies are identical - including the rate increases for additional credentials. We've done a good amount of comparison shopping of insurers and while the rules by which they want firms to operate vary some from company to company, they're by and large pretty similar.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.