Guide to Arc Re-Entry
version 1.2

October 2020

Arc Re-Entry Guide
Summary
Arc Re-Entry supports a safe, confident return to work, school, and play. Re-Entry builds
on Arc’s long-standing performance categories with new capabilities to assess facility
management, evaluate occupant experience, and measure indoor quality. Critically,
Arc Re-Entry is not a certification, stamp, or similar affirmation. Rather, Arc Re-Entry
powers an iterative management process and provides scores that can be tracked,
benchmarked, and communicated to stakeholders.
Arc Re-Entry enables:●●

Any project ​to collect, manage, and score infectious disease-related information
about facility management, occupant experience, and indoor air quality.
Arc Essentials s​ ubscribers to analyze performance and create customized reports
for projects and portfolios.

Consistent with Arc’s broader mission, Re-Entry works best as a repeated performanceassessment. Arc allows anyone to get started collecting and managing information. The
resulting scores can inform management and, over time, improve real world outcomes.
As always, Arc Re-Entry scores, reports, and communication products help recognize
leadership and celebrate projects that deliver superior performance.
Arc Re-Entry:● Supports the iterative assessment of facility management and occupant
experience -- ​not the health of individual occupants or infection risk.
● Aggregates and interprets information reported by facility managers andoccupants -- ​the information provided is only as useful as the quality of theincoming data and the underlying scientific literature used to interpret it​.
● Data are subject to automated quality tests -- ​not document review.
Recommended citation:​ Pyke, C.R. (2020) Guide to Arc Re-Entry v1.2. ArcSkoru, LLC, Washington, DC, 24
pages. URL: ​https://www.arcskoru.com/sites/default/files/Arc%20Guide%20to%20Re-Entry.pdf

2

Contents
Summary

2

Quick Start

4

Changes from Re-Entry v1.1

4

Introduction

5

From Performance to Re-Entry (and Back)

6

Re-Entry Comprehensiveness Score

9

Facility Management

11

Referencing LEED, WELL, and RESET

15

Sample Facility Management Response

16

Examples of Relevant Public Health Authorities

17

Facility Management Comprehensiveness Score

19

Occupant Observations

20

Sample Occupant Observation Responses

21

Occupant Observations Comprehensiveness Score

22

Indoor Air Quality

24

Sample IAQ Measurements

25

IAQ Comprehensiveness Score

26

Tips for Entering Spatial Data Coverage

27

Tips for Entering Temporal Data Coverage

28

Analysis31

Safety First Pilot Credit

35

LEED Requirements

35

Conclusion

36

Contact

36

About Arc36

3

Quick Start
Getting started with ​Arc Re-Entry​ is easy:
1. Login to Arc​, access an existing project or create a new one. Users must have a
LEED Online or USGBC.org site user account. New users can ​create one for free​.
2. After logging in, select a project and find the Leadership tab on the left side.
Select the Re-Entry category. The tab provides three options:○

Send Facility Manager survey○

Send Occupant Observation survey○

Add Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) data

3. After sending surveys or adding data, users can review information about eachcategory in the Performance section. This includes a total ComprehensivenessScore and sub-scores for facility management, occupant observations, and IAQ.
Arc Essentials subscribers will see additional charts to benchmark and compare
performance.
If you need support, please reach out to the ​Arc team​ for help.

Changes from Re-Entry v1.1
This document describes Arc Re-Entry version 1.2. This is a modest, incremental
development from v1.1. Notable changes include new:●●●Facility management indicators for leadership and accountability, personal
protective equipment (PPE), and air system assessment.
Occupant observations for facility management contacts and PPE compliance.
Indoor air quality weights and interpretations, including a greater priority on
measured CO​2​ and wider bands of “acceptable” performance for CO​2​, RH,
TVOC, and PM.

Current projects will not see an immediate change in their Facility Management or
Occupant Observations scores. Effectively, these new criteria will be considered “notapplicable”. These changes will apply immediately to the interpretation of IAQ data.

4

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a sweeping impact on the global property industry.
Many authorities and academic researchers predicted a global pandemic anddescribed its potential consequences. However, it remained difficult to fully envision thescope of its impact on our everyday lives. It has changed almost every aspect of how
we live, work, and play. After months of disruption, many communities are ready to try
to establish a new normal. This means supporting a safe, confident return to workplaces,
schools, and places of recreation, public assembly, and worship.
We have learned a lot about how to keep ourselves safe from COVID-19, enough toknow that it will require a thoughtful, coordinated, and sustained effort. Short of a highly
effective vaccine, there is no magic bullet or technology that will keep everyone safe.
Rather, we must create layered “​defense in depth​” to break the chain of infection:social distance, personal protective equipment, cleaning and disinfection, and,critically, ventilation.
The good news is that we only need one break in the chain of infection to stop the
spread of disease. The bad news is that we need to break the chain everywhere all thetime. This is a challenge of professionals who design, build, and operate our built
environment. We are very good at creating exceptional projects that, at times, deliver
exceptional performance. However, we are not so good at delivering consistent
performance everywhere, all the time. This reflects the reality of managing buildings
and places. These are complex engineered systems, often unique in design, andsubject to all manner of operating conditions and occupant behavior.
While we cannot expect to be perfect, we can create systems that provide: situationalawareness, offer transparency for stakeholders, and use information to improve
performance over time. This is our aspiration for Arc Re-Entry: a set of tools that help
facility and portfolio managers organize and communicate their infection control plans
and learn from occupant observations and measured indoor air quality. We envisionthat these tools will be used repeatedly to improve performance over time as we learn
more about what works to control the spread of infectious disease.
Arc Re-Entry provides tools for a marathon, not a sprint. To that end, we have worked toget started quickly with simple, practical features that we believe can provide value
over time. We are also committed to improving these tools in the months ahead tomeet this important moment and help us safely and confidently re-enter the places
where we live, work, and play.
5

From Performance to Re-Entry (and Back)
Arc measures and scores the operational performance of spaces, buildings and places.
Arc scores distinguish leaders and help make real world performance measurement aubiquitous part of green building practice.
The ​Arc Performance Score​ provides a weighted combination of information about five
performance categories:
●
●
●
●
●

Energy and Emissions
Water
Waste
Transportation
Human Experience

The Arc Performance Score powers ​LEED for Operations and Maintenance v4.1​ and
LEED Recertification​.
The ​Arc​ ​Human Experience ​category collects and scores information on two equallyweighted sub-categories:●●

Perceived occupant satisfaction
Measured indoor air quality, including CO2 and TVOC

Figure 1. I​ llustration of Arc Re-Entry support components, including data collection for facility
management policies and procedures, occupant observations, and measured indoor air
quality.

6

Arc Re-Entry ​expands and adapts Arc’s Human Experience tools and metrics to support
the management of infectious disease transmission1. Arc Re-Entry can complement
existing building rating systems or be used as a stand-alone tool. Many early-adopting
users view Re-Entry as a starting point for a long-term sustainability strategy -- an
opportunity to get projects started measuring and tracking operational performance.
Figure 2. A
​ rc Re-Entry can provide a starting point for health and green building rating systems,
including the WELL Health-Safety Rating and LEED v4.1 O+M.

Figure 3. A
​ rc Re-Entry data are entered in a new
category under the Meters & Surveys tab.

Arc Re-Entry leverages existing capabilities,
including Arc’s long-standing occupantsatisfaction survey and requirements forindoor air quality measurement. These aresupplemented by new surveys and an
expanded set of indoor air quality metrics
with new interpretations. With two
exceptions, Re-Entry metrics and scores are
independent from LEED.

Arc Re-Entry is focused on the management of infectious disease, specifically COVID-19.
Management recommendation would be significantly different for other aspects of health andwell-being. Relevant resources for other issues include the ​International WELL Building Institute​,
the ​Green Health Partnership​, and peer reviewed literature (e.g., ​Worden et al. 2020​).
1

7

Consequently, Re-Entry performance does not change a project’s standing withrespect to LEED certification.
The two exceptions to this general rule are:
1. The Occupant Satisfaction indicator is shared between Human Experience and
Re-Entry. Re-Entry surveys contribute directly to survey responses for Human
Experience.
2. The Arc Re-Entry Pilot Credit for LEED O+M. More information about the LEED Pilot
Credit is provided below.
Arc Re-Entry includes three core components:●

Facility management survey:​ The facility manager survey requests information
about infection control policies and procedures and alignment with relevant
authorities (e.g., the World Health Organization, etc.).
NEW in v1.2: Facility management indicators for leadership, accountability,
personal protective equipment (PPE), and air system assessment (a.k.a., IAQ
commissioning).

●

Occupant observation survey: ​The occupant observation survey includes thelong-standing question about occupant satisfaction, as well as new opportunities
to share experiences about disease control-related features, such as signage oraccess to disinfecting products.
NEW in v1.2: Occupant observation indicators for facility contacts and PPEcompliance.

●

Indoor air quality metrics: ​The indoor air quality metrics expand on Arc’s existing
set of measurements and change interpretations to align with disease control
objectives. This means that CO​2​ and TVOC are found in both the long-standing
Human Experience category, as well as Re-Entry. However, the metrics havechanged from concentrations of pollutants to the fraction of time above athreshold. Additionally, the new section requests information about relative
humidity and particulate matter; aspects of air quality linked to diseasetransmission or susceptibility. All of these IAQ factors can be measured with either
portable instruments or sensor networks (e.g., ​Arc partners​ ​arbnco​ and ​QLEAR​).
NEW in v1.2: Increased weight on CO2 performance and measurements.
Removed PM1 and PM10 indicators. The PM metrics are still available for data
entry, but they are not included in the Comprehensiveness Score.

8

Acceptable and Good performance levels now count equally toward theComprehensiveness Score.
All together, the Re-Entry v1.2 has more than 150 data elements, including simple binary
responses, measurements, and supporting documentation. Information about eachvariable is available through ​Arc Re-Entry Meters spreadsheet​.
Figure 4. ​Arc Re-Entry supports therepeated evaluation of infection control
strategies. The bold elements are
explicitly addressed in the tool. The grayelements, Implementation and Analysis,
are taken outside of the tool.

Continuous Improvement
Arc Re-Entry is not a “one time”
assessment. Arc Re-Entry is designed
as an iterative evaluation of thecomprehensiveness of infection
control practices. It is designed toprovide transparency about management intent and support a comparison between
intentions and occupant experiences and measured outcomes. Fundamentally, thepower of the tool is in its repeated use. This means that it does not have a clearly
defined stopping or end-point. Rather, it should be used as long as it is needed to
improve management and build confidence for re-entry and on-going operations.

Re-Entry Comprehensiveness Score
Arc uses scores to interpret and integrate performance measurements​. ​Arc scores forenergy, water, and waste are benchmarked using a Reference Set. Arc scores fortransportation and human experience are based on mathematical functions. Neither ofthese approaches is appropriate to interpret re-entry-related information. Benchmarks
do not exist. Research to establish quantitative guidelines is still preliminary and, in somecases, conflicting. However, there is still a need to aggregate and interpret information
for facility managers and stakeholders. Consequently, Arc calculates a Re-Entry
Comprehensiveness Score (“Comp Score”).
The Comp Score is a 0 to 100% measure of the fraction of positive responses comparedto the total number of potential positive responses. The Comp Score is average of threecomponents: facility management, occupant observations, and indoor air quality.
9The Comp Score should be interpreted as a composite index of the number ofself-reported actions implemented by the facility and scope of occupant or measured
indoor quality data describing conditions in a facility:●

Comp Score = 0: ​The facility reports no disease control practices andprocedures, occupants uniformly observe no disease control activities, and noindoor air quality data are collected.

●

Comp Score = 100: ​The facility reports on all requested disease control practices
and procedures. Facility managers provide supporting documentation for eachelement. Occupants uniformly observe disease control activities. Indoor air
quality information is consistently collected throughout the facility.

Comp Scores between 0 and 100 indicate a simple proportion of potential affirmative
responses, occupant agreement, and IAQ performance. Facility management,
occupant observations, and indoor air quality sub-scores contribute equally to the total
Comp Score.
Re-Entry version 1.2 introduces modest changes to weights ​within​ the IAQ category,including:●●●

CO2 now contributes 50% of the IAQ sub-score -- an increase from 20% in version
1.1.
The other metrics -- relative humidity, particulate matter, TVOC -- eachcontribute approximately 17% to the IAQ sub-score.
The interpretation of each metric has changed modestly. In version 1.2,
Acceptable and Good levels both contribute to the Comp Score. “Investigate”
does not.

These changes directly reflect new ​research and policy guidance​ about theimportance of airborne transmission and the opportunity to mitigate risk throughenhanced ventilation. CO​2​ concentration is the best, practical proxy for crowding andventilation (​Peng and Jimenez 2020​). Research has affirmed the need to enhancecleaning practices, control relative humidity, and, when possible, improve filtration.
Recent research also suggests a role for air temperature in viral transmission. However, it
is not yet clear to what degree temperatures capable of significantly modifying
transmission overlap with the range of actual temperatures experienced occupants incommercial property. We will monitor this research.

10

Finally, version 1.2 does not change or add guidance related to active disinfection
technology, such as UV or bipolar ionization. Research clearly indicates that thesetechnologies can play a role in risk mitigation. They can be reported in part of policies,
plans, and procedures in Facility Management.
In some cases, a response may not be applicable to a given facility. When a user
selects “not applicable”, the question is removed from both the numerator and thedenominator of the Comp Score equation. For example, a question about increasing
outdoor air supply might be not applicable for an open air venue. The absence of this
response does not “count against” the Comp Score.
Note: There is no way for Arc to independently verify the applicability of responses atthis time, and users should consider this when evaluating Comp Scores. Third-parties,
including the​ ​International WELL Building Institute​ ​and​ ​RESET​ ​may provide third-party
verification, such as on-site or data audits.
It is also important to note that Comp Scores are ​not a​ direct indicator of health or therisk of disease transmission. They are exactly what the name implies, an indicator of therelative comprehensiveness of management practices, occupant observations, andindoor air quality measurements.
Over time, it may be possible to use Comp Scores to evaluate the effectiveness ofdifferent combinations of facility management to disease transmission. However, this will
necessarily be a retrospective analysis, possible only after re-entry has taken place(e.g., does a higher Comp Score result in a lower risk of infection). It is not possible toconduct this type of analysis until people have returned to different types of spaces,
and we have a distribution of responses (i.e., some have or have not gotten sick). Until
then, we can attempt to consistently implement Best Practices and measure results.

Facility Management
Facility managers cannot stop the spread of infectious disease on their own. They doplay an important role in creating conditions that may reduce the rate or likelihood of
disease transmission. They can use management interventions to break the chain of
infection. This means limiting the introduction of virus-carrying occupants, reducing the
likelihood of spread through the air and on surfaces, and facilitating the use of barriers
and personal protective equipment to prevent exposure.

11Arc Re-Entry uses a survey to ask facility managers about:
1. Infection control policies and procedures.
2. Public health authorities used to inform or align the facility’s policies andprocedures.
3. Specific elements included in the facility’s policies and procedures.
Each element includes a yes or no question and the opportunity to provide supporting
information as a hyperlink or file. The facility managers survey asks facility managers to
identify a number of specific strategies recommended by some authorities, including:●

Infection control policy or procedure:​ This is a written plan applicable to thefacility guiding effort to reduce the spread of infectious disease (e.g., the ​Hines
Return to Occupancy Plan​, B​ XP Health Security Plan​, or ​US CDC workplace
health and safety plan​).

●Alignment with public health authorities: ​This question documents references oralignment with published guidance from government, academic, or non-profit
sources, such as U.S. Centers for Disease Control ​Interim Guidance for Businesses
and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019​, ASHRAE ​Guidance for
Building Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic​, BOMA ​Getting Back to
Work: Preparing Buildings for Re-Entry​, USGBC ​LEED Safety First: Re-Enter Your
Workspace Pilot Credit​, or ​IWBI’s WELL Health-Safety Rating​. Alignment isinterpreted as the intent for building management to substantially reflectmaterial aspects of the referenced authority.

●

NEW​ Leadership and accountability: ​These questions request information about
infection control leadership and processes to provide accountability foroutcomes. The idea is simple: Who is in charge? What are their qualifications?
What processes are in place to ensure accountability over time? The ​World
Health Organization​ and ​US CDC​ both offer free training for non-healthcare
professionals. ​PwC and other consultancies​ have also provided guidance forsupervision by Boards of Directors and similar oversight bodies. This question isaligned with new guidance, such as the ​State of California’s General Checklist
for Office Workplaces​.

●NEW​ Management team or group: ​This question requests information about any
team or group supporting the implementation of COVID-19 management
practices. This reflects guidance to create and maintain a dedicated ​“return towork” team​.
12●Communications and signage:​ This question addresses signage and othercommunications intended to reduce disease transmission, such as advice
regarding hand washing or social distancing. The US CDC provides sample
informational signage available for ​free download from its webpage​. The City of
Los Angeles, California also provides free resources, including ​signage designed
for offices, retail, grocery stores, and restaurants​. The design and architecture
firm HOK has also shared examples of ​clear, high-quality signage​.

●

Cleaning and disinfection: ​This question addresses action to clean and disinfectspaces to reduce disease transmission. Project teams can get more information
about IAQ risks associated with cleaning products from the ​US EPA​, and get
recommendations for action from sources such as the​ ​LEED ​Safety First: Clean
and Disinfect Your Space​ and Global Biorisk Advisory Council ​STAR standard​.

●

NEW​ Personal protective equipment (PPE): ​This question addresses policies andprocedures that require or encourage the use of personal protective equipment,such as masks, gloves, and face shields. The US CDC provides extensive
guidance on PPE, including ​instructions for use​ and ​recommendations for
non-healthcare facilities​.

●

Occupant screening: ​This question addresses policies, procedures, or practices
intended to prevent disease carrying people from entering the facility. This may
take the form of health checks, temperature screening, or other measures, suchas recommendations in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control ​COVID-19 Employer
Information for Office Buildings​.

●

Sick leave:​ This question addresses potential incentives or disincentives for facility
management staff and contractors to work while sick. Paid sick leave has beenshown to reduce the likelihood of working while sick and, in turn, spreading
disease (e.g., ​Castrucci and Auerbach (2002) in Health Affairs​)​.

●Social distancing: ​This question addresses interventions to promote social
distancing, including physical barriers, seating, workstation design, and otherstrategies. Relevant guidance varies by facility type, such as the United Kingdom
Department of Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport, ​Guidance for providers of
outdoor facilities on the phased return of sport and recreation in England​ (June2020) and the US Occupation Health and Safety Administration ​Guidance on
Social Distancing at Work​.

13

●Ventilation and outdoor air supply: ​Some authorities have recommended
increasing ventilation rates and the supply of outdoor air. Strategies to increase
outdoor air supply vary, and they could be interpreted as increasing daily supply
through 24/7 operations or increasing average air flow.
Some facilities may also increase fresh air supply by encouraging the use ofoperable windows. If selected, supporting documentation should explain
specific strategies applied to this facility. Relevant research includes findings suchas ​Li et al. (2020)​ and guidance such as ASHRAE’s ​Position Document on
Infectious Aerosols​, the R​ ESET standard​ (e.g., requirements for real time tracking),
and new LEED Safety First Pilot Credits (e.g., ​Managing Air Quality during
COVID-19​).

●

Air filtration:​ Some authorities have recommended enhancing HVAC filtration toremove smaller particles. Under some circumstances, this may reduce diseasetransmission. Guidance varies for the type and level of filtration recommended. If
selected, supporting documentation should explain the type of filtration used by
the facility and relative contextual information about HVAC design or operations.
Relevant research includes ​Bolashikov and Melikov (2009)​ and guidance
includes CIBSE ​Guidance on Ventilation during COVID-19​ and the ​National Air
Filtration Association​. Projects may consider ​RESET​ Core & Shell or Commercial
Interior guidance for the measurement and management of indoor and outdoor
airborne particulates.
Note: Project teams using active IAQ technologies, such as UV disinfection andbipolar ionization are encouraged to document these strategies in this indicator.
More information about these technologies is available from ​ASHRAE Epidemic
Task Force​.

●

Elevator operations: ​Some authorities have identified elevators as a potential
high risk area. Consequently, they have provided guidance for rider density,
waiting, and cleaning. Relevant research includes ​Kandel et al (2014)​ and
COVID-19 Precautions for Multi-unit Residential Buildings (2020)​ published by the
Canadian National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health.

●

Potable water systems: ​Some authorities have emphasized the need to address
waterborne illnesses associated with stagnant water during re-entry of facilities
after unoccupied periods (e.g., Legionella). This potential scope of this problem
reflects facility-specific operating conditions and mechanical system design.

14

If selected, documentation should describe specific practices in the context offacility systems or circumstances. Relevant guidance includes U.S. Centers for
Disease Control ​Guidance for Reopening Buildings After Prolonged Shutdown or
Reduced Operation​, the Washington State Department of Health ​COVID-19
Guidance for Legionella and Building Water System Closures​, and the LEED
Safety First Pilot Credit: Building Water System Recommissioning​.
●

NEW​ Air system assessment (i.e., IAQ commissioning):​ Recent research provides
strong evidence that COVID-19 can spread through the air in droplets andaerosols. As a result, public health authorities have ​revised and strengthened
recommendations​ to enhance ventilation and ensure the supply of fresh air.
Facility management professionals can address this in two ways: (1) ensuring thatexisting air handling systems are operating as effectively as possible and (2)measuring real world conditions. The new question focuses on the first action.
Managers should describe how they physically assess the condition and functionof air handling systems, including fans, motors, filters, ductwork, diffusions,dampers, and other components. They should verify the operation of controls
and check for common failures, such as air bypass around filtration systems.
Guidance, training, and professional services are available from many providers,such as ASHRAE’s ​Indoor Air Quality Guide​, the ​US EPA​, and ​Building
Reoccupancy Indoor Environmental Quality Inspections​ from Underwriters
Laboratories.

Referencing LEED, WELL, and RESET
Facility and venue managers may elect to use elements of the LEED or WELL rating
systems to inform their policies and procedures. They can reference rating systems orindividual credits as authorities. This reflects that these credits are based on a specificinterpretation of underlying research and guidance. These and other rating systems
are providing timely, best practice-based guidance for facility managers andoccupants. Examples of relevant authorities include:●●●

U.S. Green Building Council: ​LEED credits, including S​ afety First: Re-Enter Your
Workspace​ and ​Safety First: Cleaning and Disinfecting Your SpaceInternational WELL Building Institute: ​Strategies referenced in the forthcoming
WELL Health-Safety Rating
RESET:​ Strategies related to indoor and outdoor air quality measurement andmanagement in the ​RESET Air Standard 2.0​.

15

Sample Facility Management Response
A facility management might respond to the survey with the following:●

Does the facility have a ​specific individual responsible ​for the development andimplementation of infectious disease control policies, plans, and procedures forthis facility?
○ Yes, file upload including name, contact, information AND hyperlink toJohn.Smith@linked.com●

Are there processes or mechanisms used by the individual or group to ensureaccountability​ for implementation and ​effectiveness​ of infection control
strategies?
○ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_QA_Process.pdf●

Does the facility have an infection control ​policy or procedure​?
○ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_Infection_Control_Plan_Section2.pdf●

Is the policy or procedure aligned with one or more ​authorities​?
○ Yes, file uploads: U.S. Centers for Disease Control Guidelines, LEED ​Safety
First: Re-Enter Your Workspace Pilot Credit●

Does the policy or procedures include ​specific strategies​ for:
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○

Disease control ​communication and signage■ Yes, file upload: 23_Main_St_signage_photo.jpg
Clean and disinfection ​to address disease transmission■ Yes, hyperlink: LEED ​Safety First: Clean and Disinfect Your SpacePPE use by facility management staff and contractors■ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_Infection_Control_Plan_Section1.pdf
Occupant screening■ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_occupant_screening_policy.pdf
Sick leave ​for staff and contractors■ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_employee_policy.pdf
Social distancing (​e.g., floor markers, barriers)?
■ Yes, file upload: Photos_of_common_areas.jpeg
Outdoor air supply■ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_Infection_Control_Plan_Section2.pdf
Ventilation rates■ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_Infection_Control_Plan_Section3.pdf
16

○
○
○

○

HVAC filtration■ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_Infection_Control_Plan_Section4.pdf
Elevator management​ (e.g., limiting occupancy, targeted cleaning)■ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_Infection_Control_Plan_Section5.pdf
Potable water management systems ​to reduce waterborne diseasetransmission, such as legionella?
■ Yes, file upload: 123_Main_St_Infection_Control_Plan_Section6.pdf
Air system assessment ​to ensure fresh air supply?
■ Yes, file upload: Inspection_Report_ACME_Contractor.pdf

Examples of Relevant Public Health Authorities
Facility managers may be required or elect to align their infection control practices
with any number of authorities. This may include government agencies, academic
institutions, or non-governmental organizations. At this time, the specific combinationof applicable authorities is likely to vary by location, type of facility, and special
designations (e.g., essential vs. non-essential activities). This means that Arc cannot
recommend a specific set of authorities for any given facility. It will maintain examples
of authorities, and, when possible, it will share lists of authorities reported by Re-Entry
users.
Examples of authorities that may be referenced by facility managers include:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●

Schools for Health: Risk Reduction Strategies for Reopening Schools, June 2020
(Harvard School of Public Health) [​Link​]
Resources to prevent COVID-19 in the workplace (Ministry of Labour, Training
and Skills Development, Ontario, Canada) [​Link​]
COVID-19: Guidance for Businesses and Schools (New York City Department of
Public Health) [​Link​]
Safer LA: Toolkits for Businesses (City of Los Angeles, California) [​Link​]
Scientific Brief: SARS-CoV-2 and Potential Airborne Transmission (U.S. Centers for
Disease Control) [​Link​]
5 Ways to Optimize Buildings for COVID-19 Prevention (Center for Active
Design) [​Link​]
COVID-19 Disinfectant List (US Environmental Protection Agency) [​Link​]
Position Paper on Airborne Infectious Disease (ASHRAE) [​Link​]
Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers to Plan and Respond to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (U.S. Centers for Disease Control) [​Link​]
Getting your workplace ready for COVID-19 (World Health Organization) [​Link​]

17

●
●
●
●

Coronavirus Resource Center (BOMA International) [​Link​]
Coronavirus Resources (BOMA Canada) [​Link​]
REHVA COVID-19 guidance document, updated on August 3, 2020 (Federal of
European Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Associations) [​Link​]
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Advice (CIBSE) [​Link​]

Note: ​Guidance is under development from many sources, including academic
institutions, trade associations, and government. At the moment, these resources may
be incomplete and, at times, contradictory. These references will necessarily evolve
quickly in the month ahead.

Arc can deliver these surveys and track responses within a specified time period. Users
may select the interval that surveys are repeated. The default recommendation ismonthly or upon a significant change in operations​. All new meters are available as API
end-points for Arc partners. Review the ​Arc Integration Guide​ for more information.
Time
Arc does not have a “native” time step. In other words, it can and does accept dataon any interval. For LEED applications, this typically means a 365-day reporting period
and monthly measurements for energy and water, annual surveys for transportation,
human experience, and waste.
Re-Entry is different. Infection-control requires more frequent data collection andfaster feedback loops. Consequently, Re-Entry is based on a 90-day reporting period.
Specific time limits include:●●●

Facility management:​ no expiration, recommendation to review plans andpolicies every 90-days
Occupant observations: s​ urvey results expire after 90-days
Indoor air quality:​ data expire after 90-days

Data remain on the platform after they expire. However, they no longer count toward
the Comp Score or sub-scores.

18

Facility Management Comprehensiveness Score
Arc will generate a Facility Management Comprehensiveness Score (“Comp Score”).
The Comp Score will reflect a 0 to 100% measure of the fraction of positive responses
compared to the total number of potential positive responses.
The Facility Management component has 41 data elements, including boolean
responses (i.e., yes, no) and opportunities to provide a supporting link or file.
A Facility Management Comp Score of 100% indicates that a facility manager provided
a “yes” answer for each question, along with a supporting link or file. Multiple file
uploads or links are allowed, but they do not increase the Comp Score.
By default, the Facility Management Comp Score is based on the most recent responseto the Facility Management Survey. The most recent response supersedes all previous
responses for the purposes of the Comp Score. Arc maintains a record of previous
responses to each applicable question.
In contrast to other components, responses to the Facility Management Survey are
considered valid for an indefinite period of time (i.e., no time limit or moving window isapplied to these data).
Table 1. ​Comparison of the existing Arc survey with the Re-Entry Facility Manager Survey.

Existing Arc Facility
Management Survey
None

Re-Entry Facility
Manager Survey
Leadership and accountability
Operating plans, policies, and procedures
Alignment with public health authorities
Plan or policies includes strategies for:● Occupant communication and signage● Personal protection equipment● Cleaning and disinfection● Occupant screening● Social distancing● HVAC management● Elevator management● Potable water management● Air system assessment

19

Occupant Observations
Arc has long-standing tools to understand occupant satisfaction. This includes anemail-based survey asking occupants about their experience. The survey dynamically
expands to ask for more information about reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This
simple occupant satisfaction instrument provides the foundation for an expanded set ofoccupant observations to support re-entry.
The goal is to support an iterative feedback loop between the intentions of facility
management and the experience of occupants. To this end, occupant observations
become a source of “ground truth” to confirm expectations or identify needs for
management action.
Re-entry-specific elements include:● Observations about the presence of disease control signage● Observations about occupant screening, such as temperature checks● Perceived access to disinfecting products● Perception of social distance
Users are asked to evaluate each on a 5-point Likert scale:
●
●
●
●
●

Never
RarelySometimes
Usually
AlwaysEach element is associated with a free text box which provides opportunities to suggest
opportunities for improvement if the response is less than “always”.
Users can select one of three types of surveys to fit their situation:●●●

Common areas (“base building” only)
Tenant space only
Whole building

20

Note, these categories can be interpreted to meet the needs of specificcircumstances. They are not explicitly used in benchmarking between users or acrossportfolios. Consequently, users could, say, use “tenant space” to indicate “vendor
space” in a sporting venue or other permutations.
This selection changes the introduction to the survey to request observations from theselected scope. Each option asks the respondent to reflect on a different area, such as
only common areas (base building) or their organization’s workspace (tenant space).
The selected survey can be targeted at specific groups, including:●●●

Facility management team or crew
Tenants or other habitual occupants
Visitors

Again, users can adapt the interpretation of these categories to fit their needs. They
simply designate different groups of respondents.
Information about scope and groups is stored with responses to support follow up
analysis. Individual survey responses are anonymous with no identifiable information(i.e., an Arc user can see the scope and group, but not the identity of individuals).
Arc will deliver these occupant observation surveys and track responses within a
specified time period. Users may select the interval that surveys are repeated. The
default recommendation is ​weekly​. Arc can also provide project-specific links that canbe distributed through other email or social media platforms.
The occupant survey end-points can also be directly populated by Arc’s integration
partners during the ​Arc API​.

Sample Occupant Observation Responses
The project manager makes two selections to control the framing and distribution of theoccupant survey. First, the manager selects the scope of the response (base building,tenant space, or whole building). Second, the manager selects the group (facility
management team/crew, tenants/vendors, or visitors).

21

An occupant might respond to the survey with (bold, highlighted items selected fromthe lists):
1. Occupant satisfaction
a. Extremely dissatisfied, very unsatisfied, unsatisfied, neither satisfied nor
unsatisfied, satisfied, ​very satisfied​, extremely satisfied
b. If satisfied, select the options that significant enhance your satisfaction:
thermal comfort​, cleanliness, views, sound, light, ​daylight​, ​air quality​,
privacyc. If dissatisfied, select the options that significant reduce your satisfaction:
dirty, smelly, stuffy, acoustics, hot, cold, dark, glare, privacy, humid, drafty,
bright, views, sound
2. Occupants know who to contact for information or to provide feedback about
infection control practices.
a. Select​ yes ​or no.
3. Observations about the presence of disease control signage
a. Select never, rarely, sometimes, ​usually​, always■ If not always, where is disease control signage missing?
● 7th floor kitchen
4. Observations about PPE compliance ​by staff.
a. Select never, rarely, sometimes, usually, ​always
5. Observations about occupant screening, such as temperature checks
a. Select never, rarely, sometimes, usually, ​always
6. Do you have access to handwashing and disinfection?
a. Select never, rarely, sometimes, usually, ​always
7. Does the facility support social distancing?
a. Select never, rarely, ​sometimes​, usually, always
8. Do people maintain social distance?
a. Select never, rarely, sometimes, usually, always■ If not always, where is social distance not maintained?
a. Elevator lobby

Occupant Observations Comprehensiveness Score
Arc will generate an Occupant Observations Comprehensiveness Score (“CompScore”). The Comp Score will reflect a 0 to 100 measure of the fraction of positive
responses compared to the total number of responses.
For Facility Management, this means that there are six scored data elements(questions), each with a maximum value of 4 on a 5-point 0-to-4 scale.
22This means that the most comprehensive possible is an average of “always” (a value of4) for all six items -- a total potential value of 28. As a default, survey responses areaggregated over a rolling 31-day window and compared to this maximum value on ascale of 0 to 100%.
This means that a facility with uniformly positive responses for all six indicators will receive
a score of 100% for a 30 day period. Data older than 90 days are retained in the system;
however, they do not contribute to the Occupant Observations Comp Score.
Note: The occupant observation survey also contains a seventh question, “Do you feel
protected from infectious disease in this facility?”. Responses to this high level question
can inform management. However, they are not directly related tocomprehensiveness, and they are not scored.
Table 2. ​Comparison of the existing Arc occupant survey with the Re-entry occupant
observation survey.

Existing Arc
Occupant Survey

Re-Entry
Occupant Survey

Occupant satisfaction plus:● If satisfied, source of satisfaction● If dissatisfied, source of dissatisfaction

Existing Arc occupant survey plus additional criteria:
Facility management● Aware of contact information/process
Disease control signage● Present in the common areas● Present in my workspace
Presence of occupant screening● Present in the common areas● Present in my workspace
Access to handwashing and disinfection● Access in common areas● Access in my workspace
PPE use● Appropriate, consistent use by staff

23

Indoor Air Quality
Measurements of indoor air quality provide proxy measures for factors believed to be
associated with disease transmission. It is important to note that none of themeasurements identified below provide direct information about infectious agents.
Rather, they describe proxies for conditions identified by scientific literature ​(​Rastogi etal. 2020​)​.
Measurements and interpretations include:●●CO​2​:​ High indoor CO​2​ concentrations indicate inadequate ventilation or
crowding. Building standards (e.g., ASHRAE 62, EN 16798-1) have consistently
sought to encourage greater ventilation to dilute indoor pollutants andpathogens. High CO​2​ concentration levels have also been correlated with
reduced cognitive performance and alertness. Recent reviews such as ​Azuma etal. (2018)​ summarize the literature. ​CO​2​ contributes 50% of the IAQ sub-score.
Relative humidity: ​Relative humidity between approximately 40 and 60% has
been correlated with reduced disease transmission. Recent reviews such as
Lowen and Steel (2014)​ and ​Marr et al. (2019)​ summarize the literature. ​Relative
humidity contributes approximately 17% of the IAQ sub-score.

●

TVOC concentration: ​TVOC concentrations are not directly related to diseasetransmission. They are included here, because they may provide information
about excessive applications of cleaning products and/or inadequate
ventilation. Reviews by the ​US Environmental Protection Agency​ and ​Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory​ provide more information. ​TVOC contributes
approximately 17% of the IAQ sub-score.

●

Particulate matter concentration: ​The presence of relatively high concentrationsof particulates may indicate inadequate ventilation or filtration. There is limited
evidence that particulate matter concentrations may be related to the rate ofviral spread under specific circumstances (e.g., ​Setti et al. 2020​) based on datafrom Northern Italy). High ambient particulate concentrations have been linked
to greater incidence of chronic respiratory diseases such as COPD and asthma,
and a host of other health issues. The respiratory conditions may in turnexacerbate the susceptibility to, and impact of, COVID-19 on individuals. ​PM​2.5
contributes approximately 17% of the IAQ sub-score.

24Each metric will be assessed to determine the fraction of occupied space and timecovered by measurements. In turn, these data are interpreted to estimate the fractionof occupied hours when conditions are in the good, acceptable, or investigate range.
Values in the good ​or ​acceptable ranges count toward the Comp Score and IAQ
sub-score.

Sample IAQ Measurements
Projects may have any combination of IAQ measurements. The following example
illustrates information that may be provided for a project with relative humidity (RH) andtotal volatile organic compounds (TVOC).
Relative humidity
Spatial coverage● RH is measured by stationary, in situ sensors for each HVAC zone.
● The spatial coverage is estimated at 100% for the period.
Temporal coverage● RH is measured by in situ sensors for each HVAC zone at 5 min intervals.
● The facility HVAC service operates 60 hours.
● There is at least one RH measurement per zone for all 60 hours.
● The temporal coverage is estimated at 100% for the period.
Performance● RH data ranged from 41% to 58% across all zones and all measurements during
operating hours.
● The performance value is 100% in “good” status, 0% in “warning”, and 0% in“investigate.”
Carbon dioxide
Spatial coverage● CO​2​ is measured by hand-held sensors in 10 out of 100 rooms or enclosed spaces.
● The spatial coverage is estimated at 10%.
Temporal coverage● CO​2​ measurements occurred over 2 hours during the period.
● The facility operates 60 hours.
● The temporal coverage is estimated at 3% for the period.
25

Performance● CO​2​ measurements ranged from 500 ppm to 1,300 pm.
● The performance value is 50% “good” (≲750 ppm), 30% in “warning” (750-1000ppm), and 20% in “investigate” (>1,000 ppm).
The other variables follow a similar pattern.

IAQ Comprehensiveness Score
Arc will generate an IAQ Comprehensiveness Score (“Comp Score”). The Comp Score
will reflect a 0 to 100% measure based on spatial coverage (floor area, rooms, or HVAC
zones), temporal coverage (operating hours), and performance (time in “good”
range). Each of these factors has a maximum value of 100, so the maximum value permeasurement is 300. This is repeated across all six measurements (relative humidity,
CO2, TVOC, PM1, PM2.5, and PM10).
A few details about how this is computed:
Spatial coverage ​indicates the fraction of the project covered by each type of sensor.
Users should assume that an individual sensor covers approximately 500 square meters(5,280 square feet) (​RESET Air Standard for Commercial Interiors​) or following guidancefrom their vendor or product manufacturer (e.g., ​arbnco Best Practice Guide​).
While sensor coverage will differ based on building layouts and installation practicalities,
projects should aim for the smallest effective coverage area of a sensor, and thecoverage area of a single sensor should not exceed 500 m​2​. ​ For example, at least one
sensor in each HVAC zone or enclosed room could suffice for adequate coverage,
provided those zones or enclosed rooms are smaller than 500 m​2​ each. .
As examples:●●●

Measurements from one relative humidity sensor covering 500 m​2​ in a 5,000
square meter open space would be presumed and documented to provide acoverage of 10% (500 m​2​ / 5000 m​2​).
Estimate an effective radius around each sensor and derive the covered area
based on manufacturer or vendor guidance (e.g., arbnco ​Best Practice Guide​).
Follow and reference guidance from a third-party standard, such the RESET Air
Standard 2.0 for the design and operation of monitoring networks.

26

Another strategy would be to use in-duct or air distribution system-based
measurements. These may provide an efficient way to cover large fractions of a facility.
In this case, coverage is based on the floor area covered by the air distribution system:●

Air quality can be monitored within the mechanical system. communicating thequality of the air being delivered by landlords and operators to occupants. An
in-duct strategy should ensure that sensors are installed on supply air ducts andcover a combined floor area equivalent to no less than ​30%​ of the building area(​RESET Air Standard for Core & Shell​).

Arc assumes that coverage continues from the last reported value through the present
unless this value is changed due to reorganisation of space or sensor layouts. Arc
combines values as an average of daily values to provide an estimate for a given time
period.

Tips for Entering Spatial Data Coverage
Some users may not be able to provide a quantitative estimate of spatial data
coverage. We know that there are many potentially confounding factors andunknowns (e.g., the area covered by any given sensor). It is important to rememberthat the purpose is to provide a rough estimate of the fraction occupied spaceassociated with each measurement (i.e., are you covering a small fraction of thearea, most of the space, or all of the space).
If a quantitative estimate is not possible, users may estimate coverage and enter thefollowing values:●

Low Coverage:​ <25% of occupied space is associated with measurements○ Enter 25% for the applicable date range●

Medium Coverage: ​25%-75% of occupied space is associated withmeasurements○ Enter 50% for the applicable date range●

High Coverage:​ >75% of occupied space is associated with measurements○ Enter 100% for the applicable date range

Describe your estimate with a piece of document. This can be a simple note
explaining your rationale.

27

Temporal coverage​ indicates the fraction of time covered by IAQ measurements
during the last 30 days. For Arc, a time period is “covered” if at least one measurement
is taken during the period in a project. For the purpose of infection control, we areassuming 24/7 operations and 1 hour as a fundamental unit of temporal coverage(a.k.a., freshness period for measurements). Consequently, temporal coverage isdefined as the percentage of hours within a period that have one or more readings fora given parameter. Additional measurements during a given period do not increase
coverage (i.e., temporal coverage has a maximum value of 100% which is satisfied byat least one reading each hour). This means that 1 day has a maximum of 24 readingsthat will count towards temporal coverage.
As an example, one measurement taken during a 1-year period would provide acoverage of 0.01% (1/8760); presuming 24/7 operations. Considerations for the
calculation include measurement rate (interval between observations) and reportinginterval (period over which measurements are aggregated and sent to Arc).
A high measurement rate, e.g., those recommended by standards such as WELL and
RESET, are better for a richer, more representative characterisation of IEQ. To keep thismetric simple, Arc requires a report only every hour (i.e., the reporting interval). Arc
assumes that coverage continues from the last reported value through the present
unless this value is changed with new value. Arc combines values as an average ofdaily values to provide an estimate for a given time period.

Tips for Entering Temporal Data Coverage
Some users may not be able to provide a quantitative estimate of temporal data
coverage. We know that there are many potentially confounding factors andunknowns. It is important to remember that the purpose is to provide a rough estimateof the fraction occupied hours associated with each measurement (i.e., are you
covering a small fraction, most hours, or all of them).
If a quantitative estimate is not possible, users may estimate coverage and enter thefollowing values:●

Low Coverage:​ <25% of occupied hours are associated with a measurement○ Enter 25% for the applicable date range.

●

Medium Coverage: ​25%-75% of occupied hours are associated with ameasurement○ Enter 50% for the applicable date range.

28

●High Coverage:​ >75% of occupied hours are associated with a measurement○ Enter 100% for the applicable date range.

Describe your estimate in supporting documentation. This can be a simple note
explaining the rationale.
In providing these estimates, please note the intent: a good-faith estimate of thefraction of occupied hours covered by measurements. The purpose is to characterize
this aspect of data coverage within real world constraints on measurement andestimation.

Performance​ is divided by thresholds into three categories: good, acceptable, andinvestigate. Each period is assigned to one of the three categories.
Performance is typically integrated over some period of time, most often hours or days.
These periods may contain any number of sensor readings. The intent is tocommunicate the percentage of time in each category. For example:●●

If hourly (for sub-hourly) data are available, Performance would be calculated
as the average of hourly values. Missing values would be excluded from
Performance, because they are already accounted for in the preceding metrics.
If daily data are available, Performance would be calculated as the average ofdaily values. Again, missing values would be excluded.

The result would be the average fraction of periods in each of the three categories overthe last 30 days. Data older than 30 days do not contribute to the IAQ
Comprehensiveness Comp Score.
The IAQ Comp Score combines the three equal elements:●●●

Spatial Coverage
Temporal Coverage
Performance (as the fraction of time in the “good” condition)

The result is that a project has a maximum score of 300 reflecting thecomprehensiveness of data and measured performance. The same structure is used foreach of the sub-components (i.e., relative humidity, CO​2​, TVOC, and PM).

29

Table 3. ​Draft thresholds used to assign time in each condition: good, warning, investigate. These
thresholds are subject to further review and adjustment based on sensor uncertainty. Source:
Parag Rastogi, arbnco.
Low
Parameter

Investigate

Warning

High
Good(Acceptable)

CO​2

350

n/a

Warning

Investigate

Units

Included inComp Score

>1000

ppm

Yes

Source(Acceptable)

350-750

1,000

CIBSE Guide
A 2018 (Table
4.1, 4.5)
LEED v4.1
O+M Beta
Guide

RH

30

30-40

40-60

60-70

>70

%

Yes

CIBSE Guide
A 2018

TVOC2

0

n/a

0-175

175-200>200µg/m​3Yes

RESET v2 2018

PM​1

0

n/a

0-12

12-15

>15

µg/m​3

No

TBD

PM​2.5

0

n/a

0-12

12-15

>15

µg/m​3Yes

RESET v2 2018
WELL v2 2020,
Optimization
1

PM​10

2

0

n/a

0-30

30-35

>35

µg/m​3

No

WELL v2 2020,
Optimization
1

TVOC measurements in ppb should be converted to µg/m​3​ using a conversion factor of 3.767.

30

Note on Data Quality
Objective measures of data quality are not currently part of the IAQ Comp Score.
However, the quality of IAQ measurements is a significant management issue, and it
varies significantly based on a variety of factors, including sampling design, sensor
placement, sensor capabilities, sensor maintenance, data processing, and more (​RESETStandard​)​. An extensive peer-review literature is emerging in this area with publications
such as ​Sunet al. 2019​ and ​Chojer et al. 2020​, and the ​U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Air Sensor Toolbox​. Arc Re-Entry users may consider the benefits of third-party
accredited hardware as one element of a comprehensive strategy to promote data
quality.
Table 4. ​Comparison of the existing Arc indoor air quality with the new re-entry enhanced indoor
air quality.

Existing Arc
Indoor Air Quality
Annual measurement of:● 95th percentile CO2 concentration● Maximum TVOC concentration

Re-Entry
Enhanced Indoor Air Quality
Existing Arc occupant survey plus additional criteria:
Data coverage● Fraction of occupied space and timecovered by sensing
Relative humidity● Fraction of occupied hours within optimal RH
range
Particulate matter● Fraction of occupied hours below threshold

Analysis
Arc provides all users information through the Re-Entry under the Performance tab. This
provides a summary of the overall Comp Score, along with sub-scores for Facility
Management, Occupant Observations, and Indoor Air Quality. This allows users to track
the comprehensiveness of re-entry efforts day-by-day. Note that this contrasts withother Arc reporting, which provides month-by-month trends. Users can view occupant
experiences for specific scopes and groups with the selection tool.

31

Figure 5. The Arc Re-Entry dashboard provides a day-by-day overview of the comprehensiveness of
infection control practices, along with sub-scores for facility management, occupant observations, andindoor air quality.

Arc Essential users can also create and customize a Re-Entry Report. This is available
through the Report tab. Users can select the default Arc logo or upload their own
image.
The project Re-Entry Report provides all the information in the Performance tab, plus a
comparison between the project and all other Re-Entry participants. Over time, Arc
expects to allow users to refine the comparison, such as comparing a project to a
specific portfolio or group. This capability will be more valuable as more data becomes
available.
The Re-Entry Report provides a one-page overview of activities, described as“scorecard”. The scorecard can be distributed separately from the report as an“at-a-glance” summary of infection-control efforts. The check marks indicate a positive
response, the presence of occupant feedback, and the availability of at least somemeasured IAQ data in each category. There are no minimums for these elements at thistime; the presence of any data is sufficient to receive a check mark.

32

Figure 6. T​ he Arc Re-Entry dashboard for Arc Essentials users provides histograms comparing
project performance to all other participants.

The following sections provide more detailed information about each category,including details about the relationship between management expectations (plans andpolicies) and occupant observations.

33

Figure 7. T​ he Arc Re-Entry Report (available to Arc Essentials subscribers) provides a one-page
overview of policy elements and the presence of data from occupants and IAQ measurements.

34

Safety First Pilot Credit
Projects pursuing LEED certification may be eligible to use Arc Re-Entry to achieve a
Safety First Pilot Credit. Projects can earn 1 point toward a new certification in thev2009, v4, and v4.1 rating systems​.

LEED Requirements
1) Use the Arc Re-Entry tool todescribe the facility’s infection
control process, including:a) Facility management plans, policies, and procedures;b) Connections between plans, policies, and procedures and relevantpublic health authorities;c) Collection and management of occupant feedback; andd) Measurement of key indoor air quality metrics.
Determine the Arc Re-Entry Comprehensiveness Score (“Comp Score”) from thetool, and associated sub-scores for Facility Management, Occupant
Observations, and Indoor Air Quality. The calculation of the Comp Score is
described in the Arc Guide to Re-Entry.
2. Create and submit an Arc Re-Entry report. Arc will provide free, temporary
access to Arc Re-Entry reports for LEED project teams registered for this pilot
credit. The project’s Arc Re-Entry report must show sub-scores equal to or greaterthan:a. 50 points for Facility Managementb. 25 points for Occupant Observations
c. 25 points for Indoor Air Quality
These minimums can be met with any combination of responses,
documentation, or measurements. There are no specific prerequisites in thesecategories.
In addition to this Pilot Credit, projects achieving these sub-scores are also
eligible for the “Managing for a Safer Re-Entry” designation. This is available fromthe Arc team by emailing ​contact@arcskoru.com​.
35

3. Establish a process for continuous improvement via the Arc Re-Entry tool. Outline
a plan for how frequently the project plans to continue to use the Arc Re-Entry
tool. Include when facility management survey information will be updated,when occupant survey data collections will be completed (“campaigns”), andwhen additional IAQ measurements may be collected. Recommended
frequencies are outlined in the Arc Guide to Re-Entry [this document] and thearticle, ​Managing for Re-Entry with Arc​, provides a practical example.

Conclusion
The Arc Re-Entry provides practical tools to collect, manage, and interpret information
about facility management, occupant experience, and indoor environmental
conditions. These tools can help inform and improve facility management and support
effectiveness communications with occupants.
Arc Re-Entry does not stand alone. Ideally, it should be deployed as part of acomprehensive infection control management system which includes input from publichealth and industrial hygiene specialists. This type of comprehensive system recognizes
that protection comes from the consistent, end-to-end operation of the management
process, not any single strategy or technology. Arc can support this process, but it
cannot guarantee outcomes.
As part of the right management system, Arc Re-Entry can help build the knowledge
and confidence needed to safely occupy the places where we live, work, and play.

Contact
Contact Chris Pyke (cpyke@arcskoru.com) to provide feedback or get more
information.

About Arc
ArcSkoru (Arc) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Green Business Certification, Inc.
Based in Washington, DC, Arc is dedicated to making real world performancemeasurement an integral and ubiquitous part of green building practice. Learn more atwww.arcskoru.com/about36