Today BPI announced a new certification renewal policy that recognizes the work experience of BPI certified professionals. The new policy eliminates field exam requirements in certain circumstances according to verified work experience. This change will benefit those professionals who maintain continuous certification and remain active in home performance roles.

Click here to read more.

Tags: BPI, Certification, Policy, Renewal

Views: 206

Replies to This Discussion

Is this proactive or reactive?

I suspect reactive (anecdotal evidence indicated lots of people abandoning Accreditation and Certification renewal)?

There seem no evidence anybody at the helm understands the concept of strategic thinking.  So this seems confirmation that mass exodus has begun and they're hoping to staunch the bleeding.  

Bit like closing the barn door after the horses have left.  

Definitely lowering the bar in HP contracting. Too bad money matters more than quaility in the HP business. It looks like my training/testing center may be the only one left standing in NY State after these changes.  As I 've said in other posts, "third party verification of technical competence is the best means to raise quality standards within our industry". Shame on you BPI for lowering your standards !!!

Hmmm.  

Maybe instead of attempting to regulate quality we should incentivize it?  How?  Create a quantitative, competitive metric for contractors to compete around that reflects ability to deliver on promises: 

For the whole letter/story, click here: http://bit.ly/febcontractorupdate

On behalf of BPI, we realize our new recertification policy will be an adjustment for the industry, and especially for BPI Test Centers. In making this change, BPI’s top priority was to keep the standards for work performed high, while also ensuring that the recertification process is accessible and not overly onerous for experienced home performance professionals.

BPI’s Certification Management Board (CMB) made this policy change in response to overwhelming calls from the industry for BPI to recognize work experience, and bring our recertification policy in line with building industry norms.  The CMB is made up of volunteers representing industry contractors, program managers and manufacturers.

Accepting continuing education in lieu of re-testing is a common method of verifying competency by certifying bodies throughout the technical trades. For example, RESNET, NATE and NABCEP accept continuing education in lieu of re-testing. None of these organizations require field exams to recertify. Indeed, BPI is one of the only certifying bodies in the building trades to require a field exam for a candidate’s initial certification. We will keep this bar high by continuing to require field exams for initial certification and for recertification if work experience cannot be verified.

In addition, BPI recently completed a survey of BPI certified professionals who choose not to renew their certifications. Sixty percent of those surveyed gave the cost and time involved with field testing as their reason not to recertify.

To all of our proctors and test centers:

We owe you an apology for our poor communications. We should have provided you with more details about BPI’s new recertification policy prior to Monday’s announcement. While we discussed the policy on our monthly webinar calls with test centers in January and February, we recognize that this may not be enough information for you to adequately plan for the transition.

We realize this policy may decrease revenue from BPI exams in the short term. However, we expect our new policy to increase demand for BPI CEUs in local markets, and we encourage all test centers to take advantage of this by developing training and curricula that qualify for BPI CEUs. BPI Test Centers do not pay application fees for BPI approval of CEU qualified training.

In addition, there is potential to attract new students to your training centers by providing entry level training to prepare candidates for BPI’s new Building Science Principles (BSP) Certificate of Knowledge exam. BPI has received strong interest in the BSP certification from many parties: manufacturers on behalf of their dealers and distributors, from home inspectors, realtors, appraisers, program administrators and from students interested in green buildings. For more information go to www.bpi.org/certificate.

BPI recognizes the vital role proctors and test centers play in keeping the bar high. We regret the confusion this has caused, and we are committed to working with you to increase training and exam opportunities for BPI Test Centers.

Leslie, your apology is not good enough. I thought that BPI and the approved testing centers had a partnership. Why was there no detailed explanation of these changes in advance? Your board of directors were even left out of the loop on this change. These  are shoddy business practices on the part of your organization.I know of at least two testing centers that are not renewing their agreement with BPI in NY State alone. From my position I expect for BPI to see a significant loss of testing centers shortly. My center will lose considerable revenue due to these changes. I and many others see this as a lowering of the bar in HP contracting. Why were we not consulted? A graduated system of testing would have kept quality standards high and ensure that health and safety protocols were maintained.

Good job BPI...... 

Thanks for your response Leslie, but the truth be told, as any, if not all the proctors will tell you, there are too many out there with improper knowledge that will easily meet the new criteria for a "pass" on re-certification. There have been some reasonable solutions posted here, whereas what BPI has done, has been so without consultation with it's representatives ..those of us who have worked hard raising the bar as proctors and Test Centers. It's only a guess, but I would think that BPI certifications will lose all value within "programs" requiring them. If taking this change, I sure hope you (BPI) also change the test sheets for new certifications. Since people will be able to sit on webinars and have letters written for their re-certs, I sure hope the initial tests get harder. I see this as nothing but problems for the industry, credibility of BPI, and disastrous for homeowners. Do you know how many people I know who will qualify by meeting the new requirements, while having done nothing but improper CHA's for "programs" just in CT alone? The answer is hundreds! Now multiply that by 50 states, and those are some staggeringly disturbing numbers...God help the homeowner! 

RSS

Home Energy Pros

Home Energy Pros was founded by the developers of Home Energy Saver Pro (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,) and brought to you in partnership with Home Energy magazine.

Latest Activity

Dennis Heidner replied to Christopher Talarico's discussion Heating with Tankless Water Heater & Hydronic Air Handler vs. Gas Furnace
"Rinnai has application note on how to use their tankless hot water heater with a Rinnai water to…"
3 hours ago
Hal Skinner replied to Hal Skinner's discussion How much heat energy is lost through the floor of a house?
"I found the buildingscience article interesting.  Interesting that they noted the wet bottom…"
14 hours ago
Bud Poll replied to Hal Skinner's discussion How much heat energy is lost through the floor of a house?
"With conduction that ends at the bottom of the joists and convection that is naturally suppressed…"
15 hours ago
Hal Skinner replied to Hal Skinner's discussion How much heat energy is lost through the floor of a house?
"Good morning Bud, Took a quick look at the site and a couple others listed on the Yahoo…"
17 hours ago
Bud Poll replied to Hal Skinner's discussion How much heat energy is lost through the floor of a house?
"Hi Hal, Search "Basecalc basement heat loss".  From memory Canada (nrcan) has/had a…"
18 hours ago
Michael Dunseith posted photos
yesterday
Hal Skinner replied to Hal Skinner's discussion How much heat energy is lost through the floor of a house?
"II just remembered seeing a report by a federal adency, many years ago, that basically said …"
yesterday
Don Fitchett commented on Tom White's video
Thumbnail

Alliant Energy's PowerHouse TV: Sealing Leaky Ductwork

"Very educational. thanks for sharing Tom."
yesterday

© 2014   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service