That depends on whether the Test and Balance firm is considered a company holding construction contracts. I would typically say yes as they will slow motors, change CFMs or GPMs through balancing dampers/valves etc... The CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. needs to review that work and verify that it is correct. therefore I do not believe a T&B company can act as Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. Authority.

Two points I would make. First, Peter, I did not take that view immediately, but focused on the contractual. I know for a fact that there are T&B firms that have been accepted by GBCI as commissioning agents, so my guess is they have made the decision to accept them as CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements.. Also, we regularly are asked by our clients to hire the T&B for our MEP work, which we do, and our insurers view this as professional services. So, my guess is this is not what would hold this up.

However, I would be concerned about the dual contractual role, having a firm contracted to both the owner and the contractor. This would be an inherent conflict of interest that USGBC would want to ovoid. I would recommend that the owner contract with the firm for both the T&B and Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. if that is their wish and intention. We have many owners that always hold the contract for T&B for some very good reasons.

Chris, you should make sure that the T&B firm has the required experience as required for commissioning.

Why wouldn't you commission these systems? Or are you posting in the wrong forum?

For EAc3: commission your special lab/research systems especially fume hoods, critical power systems and safety systems.

For EAc1: my limited understanding is that all the power systems would need to be accounted for in the baseline and the design case. For these systems, the design and baseline cases would be equal and effectively zero out. They still must be accounted for however. Go to the EAc1 forum and read everything Marcus Schaeffer writes.

No this is the forum I intended to post to. I was simply looking for clarification. In my mind it seems that if an energy load is demanded by an organization in order to operate in the capacity they need to run their business it should not be considered in a whole building performance (clearly I'm mistaken). I just don't understand how a company that creates electrical transformers can be asked to save energy when the basis of their company is using that energy to find energy saving switches of the future? I'll read Marcus' post.

I am going to assume you that I&O would be similar to Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manuals. LEED does not require that the O&M be reviewed per say, but much of that information has to be included in the Systems Manual. The CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. should make sure they are developed and appear complete, that would be good practice.

As for record drawings, they would not be reviewed, and taking that scope on could be fairly risky. When we are the EOR on a project, we require the contractors to maintain As-Built’s and then when contracted by the owner, we will take that information and develop Record Drawings, but do not do any review or other confirmation. That is the responsibility of the contractors. Taking on any review would open a firm of any kind to liability since it would be nearly impossible to ensure that all as-built conditions were addressed. Now, when we are the CxA we tend to make sure that the Record Drawings or As-Built’s have been turned over to the owner, and we definitely like to include the As-Built control drawings in our Systems Manual.

Simon, I think the owner can always perform the commissioning if qualified. We designed our own addition a few years ago, and I served as the Fundamental and Enhanced CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements.. I was not involved in the project, in fact I am in a different office from the one getting the addition, and we did not have a problem.

There was a thread on another product that would seem to apply to your question.

Ward Miller provided the results of a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide related to the engineer that did bridging documents to be the EAc3 Enhanced CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. in a thread under CS-2009 EAp1 (and I am not smart enough to provide an easy link). While not exactly your situation, and while this has so far has not been moved to LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. status, it does give a view into how the GBCI is seeing this issue.

"The project in question is a greater than 500,000 square feet, multi-building “design and build” project and is asking whether the A&E firm, who is only responsible for the conceptual design of the project, qualifies for the commissioning authority (CxA) for EAp1 (Fundamental Commissioning) and EAc3 (Enhance Commissioning).

Please note, since the A&E firm has schematic design responsibilities for this project, for example, the drawings and written specifications required for RFP documentation and for the issuance of the building permit ["they are NOT the engineer of record" that will be shown on the "as built"] as described does not qualify for a “disinterested” party. “Disinterested” means the party has no project responsibilities other than commissioning. For projects larger than 50,000 square feet, the individual serving as the CxA on a LEED project must be independent of the project’s design and construction teams.

Note that the LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction, 2009 Edition (Updated June 2010), EAp1 Section 5 Table 2, Commissioning Authority Qualifications, has clearly defined the requirements for the CxA qualifications. The employee of the A&E firm who are responsible for the conceptual design of the project do not qualify for the CxA for both fundamental commissioning and enhanced commissioning tasks. If the commissioning tasks will be completed by “disinterested” employee of the firm, who do not have design responsibilities for this project, the individuals qualify for the CxA for fundamental commissioning tasks. Therefore, in this case, the project is eligible for EAp1 but not for EAc3."

So, based on the above, I think that someone doing the energy model would be part of the design process, and would not be able to provide Enhanced Commissioning. Now, that is my opinion, and you could get a CIR on the topic. There are LIs from v2.2 that have said that the LEED Consultant on a project could be the CxA, so I would assume that is valid for v2009 as well.

My interpretation is that the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. should not be contracted TO anyone holding construction contracts. That would include a design/build team.

That does not mean the design/build team can't find a CxA and have them contract to the owner... Since the language in most proposals signifies that the CxA will simply be reporting directly to the consultant, I don't think they will need to worry about their legal department looking it over. The solution that you described sounds really complicated. Most of our proposals are 4 pages that the owner signs, they take 5 minutes to write us a PO and we're done.

Another idea, can you set up the contract through the architect?

Pete

There is a documented pathway to providing Enhanced Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. work in design build contracts with the DB contractor holding all the contracts (architects, engineers and CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements.). This largely came about due to US government contracts and the way they are set up. Check the LID database or older LEED User discussions. This may be an exception for only US DoD type projects but I do not think so. The architect can not hold the Enhance CxA contract in my opinion. I also doubt they would contracturally want to do this with the DB contract set up.

Susan,

Can you send us a link to that document? I have bid on, and commissioned a couple DoD jobs and from my understanding, while they all followed LEED, they didn't submit for the certification. It was for good practices only.

I would be really disappointed if the USGBC watered this requirement down after promoting the independent CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. for so many years.

Where's my friend Scott Bowman at KJWW? He always has good advice on these matters.

Well, I have been traveling Peter!

Susan, I too would like to see that LI, as I cannot find it.

My first opinion would concur with Peter…as a DB contract, the AE is working for the contractor, so in just about any contracting situation, the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. would be under the DB Contractor…so would not comply. Since I like to check these things out, I just used the new LEED Credit Library on the New USGBC website and looked. There is a new LI#10244 issued on 10/01/2012 that seems to specifically address this issue related and it says pretty clearly that this situation would not be allowed. The interpretations in this library extend back to 2007, and I do not see any exemption for federal work, but under our new system, CIRs are not necessarily turned into LIs, so maybe it was a project specific exemption?

So, in this case, the CxA must be contracted directly with the Owner. Now, I could see the bridging design team (if used in this case) that would have had a separate contract direct with the owner would be able to hire an independent CxA to perform enhanced commissioning.

Now, this arrangement would work for Fundamental, EAp1, scope, but I do not think it is allowed for Enhanced, and I agree with you Peter, I would be disappointed if they did allow it.

Dear all,

Thank you for the quick replies. Reading them, I see we are not in an obviously simple situation. I would also like to see the link to the documented pathway Susan referred to.
In addition, do everybody think that a Change Of Order cannot be written properly enough to prevent conflict of interest and give the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. a clear separate scope and staff to meet credit requirement and the intent supported by USGBC?
In the case of this project, there is anyway a scope of commissioning which is not included in the LEED scope since the project has very industry-specific requirements. This means that anyway, the DB company hires a commissioning agent for industry-related work under its global contract. That also means that the LEED CxA must interviene on top of this first commissioning agent and this creates redundancy for the on-site management of commissioning activities. We also wanted to avoid such a situation.
Knowing this, can we consider that even the configuration where the same company receives a DB CxA contract for the industry specific scope and a contract from the owner for the LEED scope is tricky from USGBC point of view?

Thank you for your help,

I hate to be so negative Valentin, but I do not think there is a way that you could structure this based on the LI and other feedback I am seeing from LEEDuser and other sources that would be acceptable for EAc3 without a direct contract between the Owner and the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements.. You can always ask a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide and see what they say (and share with us if you would).

Susan, I found a thread started on January 19th, 2012 from Hsin Yi Hsieh (scroll down) that you might be referring to, and there was only one reply from Jason Schneider saying that this might have been allowed under v2.2, but they do not apply to v2009, and that GBCI is enforcing the contractual separation between the DB Contractor and the CxA, but I see no further information on how he forms that opinion.

As to your last point, I personally would be nervous with the two contracts to same firm approach. Now, I could see an instance where you have a contract under the DB team for doing Fundamental commissioning, then the Owner could have a contract with someone to perform the Enhanced portion as long as that Enhanced CxA has overall authority and direction (like quality assurance) over the Fundamental tasks. There can definitely be two commissioning firms on a project, and there may well be some overlap and increase in costs.

I will look up that job. It has been archived so it may take me some time.

Thank you Scott,

Your feedback confirms what I have been looking at everywhere. there seems to be no way around the direct contracting to the Owner. In this case, it looks like the only possible way is that the Owner himself gets some of his staff doing it, provided they have the sufficient experience right? Since the architects and M&E designers are all under the global DB contract, the credit language saying that the "disinterested subcontractor to designer or engineer" would not work either, right?
The DB contractor was asking me if he got a change of order from the owner to give the M&E designers the enhanced commissioning scope since they have no interest in the construction phase (their original contract stops at the end of design phase), but since it goes through the DB contractor, whatever the way I write the change of order, it would not work too.

I also got the feeling looking at archives that the V2.2 was a bit more flexible and that it became stricter under V3, and it looks even more for future V4. All in all it is very good, but we need owners who are willing to go beyond the global DB contracting. Maybe it's just I did not see that warning before but, I would say that the problem we are facing now is very typical of D/B projects don't you think? There must be lots of DB projects which cannot earn EAc3 for similar reasons, isn't there a trend or do I just have a reluctant owner?

Thank you for your precious insights,

This LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. (10/1/2012 ID#10244: https://www.usgbc.org/leedinterpretations/LIDetails.aspx?liaccessid=10244 ) states: "...the A/E Firm is a subcontractor to the Contractor, forming a single Design Build Team. The A/E firm wishes to hire the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements., but, as a result, the commissioning authority in this design build scenario would be considered a "disinterested employee or subcontractor of the contractor" and therefore not an acceptable commissioning authority for the project."

Valentin: I don’t think the actual regulations changed much between the V2.2 and V2009 in regards to contractual relationships; however, V2009 now requires the team to upload a copy of the Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. contract to LEED Online for review. In V2.2, this was not required. I venture to guess that many project teams earned EAc3 under V2.2 without actually having the proper contractual relationships (inadvertently or not). I think this LEED Interpretation is the result of teams getting this credit denied in V2009.

I agree with the trend that you are referring in your last post (above). In the DoD arena, this credit is essentially impossible to earn because the Gov’t will not hire the CxA directly. This makes it much more difficult for the contractor in a Design Build contract to develop an overall strategy to earn LEED certification. There are numerous other LEED items that the Gov’t will not agree to (post occupancy activities required under EAc5 M&V and EQc7.2 Thermal Comfort Verification). And there are numerous other LEED items that simply cannot be incorporated into the DoD program (SSc5.1 Protect & Restore Habitat and WEc1 Water Efficient Landscaping (no irrigation) because turf grass and irrigation is always RFP required as opposed to ground cover and no irrigation); making it progressively more difficult to earn LEED certification, which is counterintuitive since the Fed is trying to set the example by mandating LEED.

Did you find any guidance on this?

Building Enclosure Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. is not yet required by LEED. It can still be included in your plan regardless. Are you attempting to earn an Innovation Credit by including the envelope? This has been done with mixed results. Ultimately, LEED does not specify testing requirements for any piece of equipment or system, just that the Commissioning Process as outlined in the Reference Guide be applied. The specific tests can be determined by the Owner and design team. ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services's recommended tests are good practice though.

Lesley, I don't see any reason why your reviewer can't also perform Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included.. Do you? You can reference the other requirements in the DD section of the Checklists tab above on LEEDuser. Sounds like they meet the requirements.

I agree with Tristan. As long as they meet the other requirements, then they would be the logical CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements.. They can be contracted through the design team as long as they have first reporting responsibility to the Owner.

Fabiano, I'm not aware of a specific requirement that the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. be the same for Fundamental and Enhanced, although it seems like there will be unnecessary duplication, and perhaps some confusion. Yes, to your second question.

Tristan is correct of course. If there is already an independent CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. on the project, they would be logical to expand into the Enhanced role, if they have the qualifications you seek for the design review of course.

The owner can always be the CxA, again as long as they have the required experience the credit requires.

From the following extract it seems that CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. for EAp1 and EAc3 must be the same.

4.The Same CXA overseeing the enhanced commissioning tasks must also oversee the fundamental commissioning tasks
Source : Who Can be the Commissioning Authority http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1262)

You can have 2. The Enhanced person must oversee, lead and review all Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. efforts. The Enhance person must also be the only one to sign both LEED forms.

While looking to answer another thread, I noticed LI#2496 made on 04/14/2009 that addresses this issue as well, and I think illustrates the issue of multiple CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. firms. This particular LI has three firms involved in a very large project, and USGBC indicates the one hired by the Owner in this case must the ultimate CxA over the other two. Take a look at the new LEED Credit Library on the updated USGBC Website.

For EAc3, the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. must be independent; it must be a third party with no involvement in design tasks. They must also have a direct reporting path to owner. While it is best for the CxA to have a contract with the owner, USGBC allows alternative contracting arrangements. We have both performed as a sub to an architect, and we have had other firms as sub’s to us when we were the EOR. Typically the owner is still involved in the selection process, hopefully based on qualifications, for the CxA firm, and the contracting arrangement has more to do with the convenience of the owner and invoicing.

While you are right, there could be a conflict of interest, most quality CxA firms would be responsible and responsive to the owner first just from an ethical basis.

Please see this link from the USGBC,

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1262

For less than 50,000sf I think you are fine.

For over 50,000sf:

While I agree that you can be the one to find the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements., I would be careful about holding the direct contract with the CxA considering how much work you have performed on the project. Might as well be on the safe side and arrange an introduction between the CxA of your choice (and price) and the owner to work out a direct contract that you can upload to LEED online.

While the USGBC has allowed a lot of leeway on this, they have asked to see a contract for one of my jobs to see that we were 'direct to the owner'.

Pete

Peter, I am going to disagree with you a little. The guidance to who can be the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. is pretty clear that even Enhanced Commissioning can be a subcontractor to the A/E, but must be disinterested.

I have worked on several projects in just this role, and always include a clause in our agreement that we have first reporting responsibility to the owner, and where we were the EOR we granted the same to the CxA under our contract. Also, we typically upload our contract and scope of work for EAc3, with the fees redacted of course.

Now, I agree, working for the owner is best, for a whole lot of reasons, but many owners like having two checks to write, one to the design team, and one to the contractors.

Scott, I agree with your assessment that Ameet could indeed get this credit by holding the contract of the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements..

Having said that, it would be very difficult for a company who did the architectural, MEP Design and LEED Management to hire someone who is truly'disinterested' and is considered to have a direct line to the owner. I always advise companies who have done a lot of work in the design phase to remove themselves from the contract... Honestly, it just leads to a better commissioning experience for everyone.

LEED requires the energy-related systems to be commissioned, and the system related to plumbing is the domestic hot water system only, i,e. HW heater, HW circulating pumps, etc.

Personally, I do believe the lavatory fixtures such as, flushometerA device that utilizes pressure from the water supply system, rather than the force of gravity, to discharge water into the bowl of a toilet or urinal. It is designed to use less water than conventional flush toilets. should be part of the requirement as the defected senors do affect the overall building energy usage. But under current LEED requirement there is no language that mandates plumbing fixtures to be commissioned.

I would get a clarification from the reviewer.

You are right, this is not defined that I can find. I apply the term to the energy using systems, and how those systems integrate for operation. However, I write the Operating Instructions from the viewpoint of the users, not necessarily the facility manager. If they have a facility manager, then they would get training on how to work with the BAS and DDC systems. I try to document how they should typically interface with the building, and what things they should look out for.

As for what does “integrated building systems” mean, I would use the example of a chiller. There is a unit that has a complex computer control system that integrates with the building BAS system, which both receives and sends information to the chiller. But on a daily basis, the users would not integrate much with the chiller itself.

Since there is not a lot of guidance on what a Systems Manual should look like (some on what it should include), I am sure there are lots of different interpretations out there.

My interpretation of "integrated building systems" would be multiple systems working together to achieve an operational goal. For example, an air handling unit airside economizerAn economizer is a device used to make building systems more energy efficient. Examples include HVAC enthalpy controls, which are based on humidity and temperature. system will allow a reduction of CHW or HW system production by controlling the air handling unit outdoor dampers, CHW/HW control valves, and CHW/HW equipment (chiller, boiler, etc.).

A system manual should include operational sequences of interconnecting system and sub-components so the operator can understand the correct equipment operation. This is especially important for systems that have manual seasonal changeover operation.

To date we have not had much push back on EAc3. You will most likely have to get a conference call with the reviewer before you appeal (which I assume you have to do at this point).

We write a Systems Manual that includes the following (this is from a recent project that was v2009 accepted, but is typical for our enhanced projects):

1. Basis of Design
2. Operating Instructions / System SetpointsSetpoints are normal operating ranges for building systems and indoor environmental quality. When the building systems are outside of their normal operating range, action is taken by the building operator or automation system.
3. System Diagram
4. Operations and Maintenance Information
5. Warranty Review
6. Recommended Schedule of Maintenance
7. Re-Commissioning
8. Calibration of Sensors

The Operating Instructions is a short document that we write from the viewpoint of the owner…in other words what is the normal interface with the HVAC and Lighting systems in the building. This can be very short for a system like you describe, but I normally go through some of the typical things displayed on the thermostat. Also, any alarms that could be seen and simple instructions when they do (which sometimes are “seek service personnel”).

The Systems Manual is often miss-understood, and is not as simple as it sounds. The project I lifted this outline from was small, but the geothermal heat pumpA type of heating and/or cooling equipment that draws heat into a building from outside and, during the cooling season, ejects heat from the building to the outside. Heat pumps are vapor-compression refrigeration systems whose indoor/outdoor coils are used reversibly as condensers or evaporators, depending on the need for heating or cooling. In the 2003 CBECS, specific information was collected on whether the heat pump system was a packaged unit, residential-type split system, or individual room heat pump, and whether the heat pump was air source, ground source, or water source. thermostats were actually quite capable and had several modes and alarms. This system manual was still over 60 pages long! Quite a bit was relevant information from the Operations and Maintenance Manuals. We get that information and then cull to just operating instructions, maintenance schedules, etc. using PDF notating software. Larger projects have System Manuals several hundreds of pages.

I am not sure if this helps, but this level of detail has been accepted many times now by GBCI.

Thanks Scott for your comments. I have requested a telecon with the LEED review team just to make sure the information I additionally collect is in the format acceptable to them.

Any third party entity can be a CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. as long as they meet the experience requirements. I would also ensure that their role as CxA does not conflict with any of their other responsibilities as Technical Controller. They should not be commissioning any systems that they are responsible for implementing.

It seems that all my comments start with “it depends!”

What did the original CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. due during the design period? I surprised there is not commissioning plan or specifications. Was a design review done and completed? Was the OPROwner's project requirements (OPR) is a written document that details the ideas, concepts, and criteria that are determined by the owner to be important to the success of the project. developed and BODBasis of design (BOD) includes design information necessary to accomplish the owner's project requirements, including system descriptions, indoor environmental quality criteria, design assumptions, and references to applicable codes, standards, regulations, and guidelines. reviewed? If these actions were done and documented, and you due to circumstances outside of your control must look to a new CxA, then I think in the narrative for the credit you can describe how this still meets the intent of the credit and you should have a good chance of gaining the Enhanced credit.

If this was not done, and you are really doing the design review now at 100% CDs, then things are less clear. We have just a couple of projects where we were brought in late, but we were very clear with our clients that we could not assure them we could get the credit. We did a design review after contract award, and in one case a change order was issued and accepted for an action item. In these cases our client saw the value of the enhanced activities was such that the credit was just a bonus. We are open and disclose this in our narrative and will see what they think. Since this is construction submittal, we do know how these will turn out yet.

Interestingly, these are v2.2 projects, and right now all our v2009 that are just getting to submittal state now (just in time for v2012!) we have been engaged early on all our enhanced projects. So I think the market is understanding this and making the LEED decision early in the process now.

From the language in v2012, even fundamental will have to be engaged early in the process.

The CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. did do design reviews of our drawings and specifications, and the design team developed the OPROwner's project requirements (OPR) is a written document that details the ideas, concepts, and criteria that are determined by the owner to be important to the success of the project. and the BODBasis of design (BOD) includes design information necessary to accomplish the owner's project requirements, including system descriptions, indoor environmental quality criteria, design assumptions, and references to applicable codes, standards, regulations, and guidelines. was basically handed to us by the client. We didn't get any feed back from them in regards to our OPR or BOD. The design reviews themselves were thorough and helpful to the team, but any questions we had about any of their comments basically went unanswered. The prelim Commissioning plan had some conflicts with our specifications and we have tried to contact them to resolve these issues but they haven't responded to us because of the ongoing contract dispute.
They aren't going to do any more work for us without more money even though the amount they were paid is the amount that an ENTIRE CxA contract should be and they haevn't even completed a third of their responsibilities. At this point everyone on the team would rather work with someone else. We can't have 2 different CxAs assigned to the template so I figured that since the new CxA would be doing most of the work they can upload the package with reference to the earlier design reviews.

That is too bad, but it does sound like you would be able to continue with a new CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. and document the tasks were completed.

Best of luck!

The key word in the DESystem guidance is "system". I feel that the intent of the additional guidance is to ensure that any system (not necessarily plant or utility) that provides more than 20% energy undergoes the same Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. activities as the base building. I would err on the side of commissioning both plants. Otherwise, this may be a good use of a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide.

Chris, I appreciate the feedback. We were thinking a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide might be best since there's really no clear direction available from the USGBC at this point. Erring on the side of commissioning both plants is a great idea, but there are cost implications with that approach.

I completely understand. You are in a grey area that we have not had to deal with on any of our projects. The DES usually provides more than 20%.

I do think that envelope commissioning could be an ID credit, you might review the ID library, which has many ID credits awarded to projects.

Under v2012, envelope commissioning is becoming an option to gain more points under the enhnaced credit. The scope required is not that well defined, and could lead to some confusion. Hopefully ECx firms are looking and making comments.

Enevelope Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. is an ID credit in v2009. I would reference you to NIBS Guideline 3-2006 for more direction. When we do enclosure Cx we recommend performance crtieria in addition to standard inspections.

LEED 2012 will have additional language supporting enclosure Cx.

The CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. cannot be a sub of the contractors involved in construction. If you have contracted the design firm (architect) and the CxA contracts to them, I believe the same 'conflict of interest' that the LEED book refers to remains. LEED is now requiring a copy of the contract to be uploaded, so be careful!

I think you need to go a little deeper, it would appear to depend on fundamental versus enhanced. Fundamental would be much more open on the contracting arrangement, since so many more people can do fundamental.

Enhanced could be tricky, and at a minimum a question should be asked. Obviously it would be best if the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. was direct to the owner if they would entertain that. I understand many owners want a one-stop shop, so could resist. Ultimately the CxA needs direct reporting ability to the Owner, in whatever form the contract.

I am not sure posting the contract would catch this, since the contract could be between the Architect and the CxA, and never mention who the Architect is contracted to.

My recommendation is to tell GBCI what the owner would like for contracting arrangement (perhaps the CxA to the Architect), and indicate how the reporting will be direct to the owner to prevent a conflict-of-interest.

The short answer is "Yes" as long as the FM is not part of the design team. Just make sure the provider complies with the experience requirements shown in the reference guide.

The key words here are "lead and oversee". You can have two different companies as long as one of them has full responsibility for the whole commissioning process and is leading and overseeing the Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. activities. You cannot have two firms that are operating independently from each other. The enhanced CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. must lead and oversee the process.

I did a project where I was working for an MEP Contractor that was involved with the installation and start-up of the mechanical systems. It was a small enough building that I was able to be the commissioning authority on the project for fundamental commissioning. The owner accepted our contract but decided to do enhanced commissioning during the design process. We were able to acheive this credit by having another firm do the design reviews on the project and do a review of all work that we performed during fundamental commissioning. (i.e., I became more of a commissioning engineer, while the other firm became the commissioning authority.) The project ended up receiving both Fundamental and Enhanced Commissioning.

Thanks to both Chris and Peter for your input. We are pressed for time and your timely responses have already helped us in our planning.