One important function of the NE-HERS Alliance is to promote consistency, quality, and accountability to the developing HERS industry in the Northeast. As a mechanism that allows small businesses and sole proprietors to become certified raters and operate under an accredited rating system provider, the Alliance can also provide a useful service by implementing a region-wide quality assurance program. This will promote the goal of professionalism and consistent quality as well as strengthening the credibility of the Alliance as a professional association and a vehicle for accredited HERS activity.

To this end, a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) program involving region-wide field checking and ratings review would likely provide the most robust system to meet the Alliance's goals. However, such a program would require a funding source that presently does not exist. A long-term objective might be to fund a larger-scale QA program from a combination of annual membership fees and/or per-rating fees. However, the current level of HERS activity cannot support that, particularly with the objective to minimize barriers to start-up for smaller contractors.

The system outlined here is "discretionary peer review." The intent is for this QA program to be a medium-term interim arrangement. At such a time that problems or issues necessitate a more aggressive approach, or the level of HERS activity increases to a point where such a program is both more important and more affordable, the Alliance will consider implementing a more centralized QA system.

One cornerstone of this interim approach is that every rater in the Alliance is either working for, or indirectly "under the wing" of an accredited provider; and the terms of accreditation include a requirement for a QA program. Any ratings that are conducted by Alliance members are thus subject to that provider's internal QA process, and the primary function of the NE HERS QA program is to supplement that process and provide a means for promoting high standards for business operations and a vehicle for conflict resolution. In addition, NE HERS reserves the right to review REM/Rate building files, conduct on-site inspections or telephone QC follow-up, and to request a review of member organizations' internal QC files, including QA designee documentation and rating files, as required by NASEO/RESNET guidelines.

Accredited HERS Organizations

• The responsibility for oversight of accredited providers falls to RESNET as the accrediting body; however, as a practical matter, RESNET currently has no real enforcement capability. The Alliance will attempt to serve as a mechanism to promote adherence to the national guidelines and standards within the northeast region.
• RESNET standards require that every accredited provider designate one or more qualified raters as a QA designee.
• Accredited providers are required to conduct random peer review of rating activity, as specified in the REM/Rate sub-license. Any associated costs of QA/QC are borne by the involved parties, typically within the accredited organization; there are no outside funds or NE HERS budget to support these efforts.
• If one or more accredited providers feel that another provider is operating outside the NASEO/RESNET accreditation or technical guidelines, a grievance process would be initiated. All accredited providers in the Alliance need to be available to come in and arbitrate if the need arises.
• A review panel to hear such a grievance would be made up of representatives of all the other accredited provider members of the Alliance, with a goal of serving the best interests of the HERS industry. There is an economic incentive by all rating organizations to participate in oversight of other accredited providers in the region, and to serve on the review panel, in order to help protect the integrity of the HERS industry.

Grievance Process

• A grievance may be initiated by any HERS provider or certified rater who feels that another HERS provider or rater is not meeting the standards of the Alliance and/or RESNET. The aggrieved would notify the Alliance (accredited provider members). However, no action would be taken until the aggrieved first attempts to resolve the issue directly with the "accused" party. The following steps outline the process for resolution:
   
  1. The aggrieved will attempt to reach consensus with the accused organization on changes/resolution that need to be implemented in order to assure compliance with Alliance and RESNET standards.
  2. If no consensus is reached or no corrective action is taken by the accused, the aggrieved will then take the issue to the review panel made up of all Alliance accredited provider members other than the accused member. The review panel will attempt to make a fair resolution to the satisfaction of both parties.
  3. If there is still no resolution, or if the agreed corrective action is not taken, the process for continued arbitration will follow the form of an independent, unbiased hearing officer, based on the process outlined in the NASEO/RESNET Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Systems Accreditation Standards, paragraphs 7.C.3 to 7.C.5. The aggrieved and accused parties will equally share in the cost of an arbitrator if necessary. RESNET will be asked to assist in facilitating this process.
  4. At that point, if the agreed corrective action is not taken (if the decision of the hearing officer is not abided by the parties) then the accused is terminated from any association with the NE HERS Alliance, the organization and any affiliated raters are removed from the NE HERS web site and the RESNET web site, the accused and the issue are displayed on the NE HERS web site for all to view, and the license to use REM/Rate software is revoked. In all likelihood, this will also result in the accused organization's accreditation also being revoked by RESNET.

Associated Certified Raters

The QA process would be similar for associated certified raters who are performing ratings under an accredited provider, but in this case the responsibility lies with the accredited provider member supervising organization. If a grievance is initiated, then the accredited provider works with the associated rater towards resolution. If resolution cannot be reached, then the grievance process would continue with steps 2 through 4 above.