Tech ForumFebruary 9, 2015 | The ICP Technical team continued discussions regarding the ICP Quality Assurance Credential on February 9th, 2015. The discussions involved finalizing the requirements of a credential ICP Quality Assurance Provider, review of the QA checklist, and discussion about the term "Quality Assurance" and if it is appropriate. The following are highlights from the conversation with the Technical Forum: |
- It was agreed by the group that the credential requirements are appropriate. The agreed-upon requirements are listed at the end of these notes.
- Use of the PE - the use of a signature or stamp is interchangeable. And, this signature or stamp on an IREE project reflects the following: "The seal is not, and should not be considered, a certification mark or warranty of correctness. According to the Supreme Court (Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. N. D. Lea & Associates Ltd.), the “seal attests that a qualified engineer prepared the document. It is not a guarantee of accuracy”. Instead, it should be considered a “mark of reliance”, an indication that others can rely on the fact that the opinions, judgments, or designs in the sealed documents were provided by a professional engineer held to high standards of knowledge, skill and ethical conduct."
- Essentially, the PE's signature ensures that the project was performed by or under the supervision of the PE, that it conforms to the ICP, and that all attempts have been made to prepare the project using appropriate best-practices and methodologies, and that the assumptions and results appear reasonable. "The seal is not, and should not be considered, a certification mark or warranty of correctness”.
- Checklist - it was agreed upon that the checklist draft is accurate and useful. The general sentiment is that it is thorough, and even "impressive," but not overbearing. That is, project developers typically perform all of these activities (or should do all of this, and this is agreed).
- Need to incorporate a statement at the bottom of the checklist that attests to what it means for the PE to sign off on the project.
- All participants agreed to the term "Quality Assurance Provider." As opposed to Quality Management or Quality Control, or something else. There are other terms for this service used in the industry, like Technical Reviewer," but in general, this term seems appropriate and applicable
Quality Assurance Provider Credential Requirements
- Can be an individual, an independent firm, or a program
- Must be a PE (if an individual) or have a PE on staff to oversee and approve all review efforts (if a firm)
- Minimum of five years of relevant energy efficiency project development experience, and three years quality assurance review experience, documented in the form of a CV outlining relevant project experiences
- Must provide three references demonstrating relevant project development and quality assurance review experience
- Must attend the ICP Credentialed Project Developer training
- Must complete the ICP Credentialed Quality Assurance Provider training
- Primary responsibilities include:
- Ensure that the project was developed according to the ICP Energy Performance Protocols leveraging the ICP Project Development Specification and QA Checklist
- Check that methodologies, assumptions and results follow best practices and are reasonable
RSS Feed