NC 2009 EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning

Based on Table 2 shown under the "Checklists" tab above, under the "Design Development" heading, in the item that begins "An Independent Consultant" (sorry I can't just give you a link), an owner's employee is permitted to be 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., assuming that person meets the requirement. I think that direct relationship is the most important factor, beyond the specific business of the owner.

Thanks Ante!

Nevertheless, based on this table, a disinterested employee of the arquitect can not 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..

This question is not clear based only on this table. I hope someone has a similar experience and can help us.

It is my experience that GBCI permitted this relationship under LEED v2.2 as stated in several CIR’s on this topic. However, those CIR’s do not apply to LEED 2009 and GBCI is enforcing the contractual separation between D/B Contractor 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.. The RFP may still require Enhanced Commissioning services, and the D/B team must provide them, however those activities are not applicable toward EAc3. There still appears to be confusion on LEED requirements on the part of individuals responsible for preparation of the RFP; some are better than others.

However, I have seen one RFP recently that stated specifically that the Government would provide the CxA for Enhanced Commissioning only, creating that separation required by LEED. I have also seen contracting positions for CxA’s posted to the FedBizOpps website. The Government ship turns sloooowly, but it is turning.

The goal of the 10 month review is to identify any comfort problems as well as determine if there are any issues related to the efficient operation of the facility. This is best determined by a review of the comfort complaints from the occupants and an analysis of the building energy use. Depending on the findings of these efforts, additional work may be required and should be identified in an issues log. The log should define the issue, source of the problem (if known) and the party responsible for resolving the issue.

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 not necessarily responsible for resolving the issue unless that was part of their original contract.

My suggestion is introduce the owner to the commissioning contractor and see if they can work out a direct contract. Many owners don't know anything about commissioning and end up getting some type of help from either the contractors involved or architect on the project. The key is the contract itself has to be with the owner so 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. can be an independant advocate for the owner.

You will have to include the upstream equipmentUpstream equipment consists of all heating or cooling systems, equipment, and controls that are associated with a district energy system but are not part of the project building's thermal connection or do not interface with the district energy system. It includes the central energy plant and all transmission and distribution equipment associated with transporting the thermal energy to the project building and site. also for a District Energy system owned by a utility company or the government. We just submitted a project for design review and had this particular issue for EAc3. We actually talked this through with the GBCI to clarify the requirements and documentation. The only exception would be to have less than 20% of the buildings energy supplied by the DES. This is also noted in the DES guideline. Otherwise there is always an alternative compliance approach, which probably should be clarified with an 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.

It would be helpful to know for your situation if you will only be doing fundamental commissioning or if you will also be doing enhanced commissioning for you LEED project.

Sorry about that. I filled it out under Enhanced, so I guess I took it for granted that the question was about that.

We are trying to get the Enhanced points as well. Are there any difference?

Niels the requirements are for 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. to be a qualified member of the owner's staff or an outside consultant. I'd say you meet that requirement.  My only question is whether it's a good idea for the duties to be split in this way? Will they be working as a team, or have distinct duties? If the latter, I am not sure that would pass muster.

Hi Tristan. Thank you for your answer.

The reason this is relevant is that the owners organisation within this area have be reduced during the project time, and they at present don't have personnel enough to do this correctly during the final phase of the construction. They would rather do this correct with an external consultant to help them. It would be in a teamwork, where the owners 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. will coordinate the work.

Matt, TBC is the concept of commissioning more than just the LEED-required systems. It does not necessarily change the commissioning process beyond the 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. requirements, it looks at additional scope of systems (envelope, life safety, emergency power systems, etc.). As with many things, the scope of TBC is defined differently by different organizations.

It has been established that within the context of a Federal Gov't Design-Build project, the contractor 'can' sub-contract 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. to act as the 'disinterested 3rd Party'.
The 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 was authored and appeared on the last version of the CIR database. However, under the new 'beta' database I am unable to locate the exact CIR.
I am currently involved with 'many' such projects where the contractor has sub-contracted a CxA or CxA firm.

It means both, the contractor cannot hire an individual or a company. The intent is for there to be no influence by the construction team on 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..

There is specific guidance on 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. of central energy plants in the updated "Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction". Section 2.3.2 gives specific guidance but, in general, if your building is bigger than 50,000 sf, your district system supplies more than 20% of the buildings annual energy cost, and you are doing an energy model for EA C1, then all upstream (district plant) equipment is included in EA C3.

Note that you only have to Cx the equipment associated with the utility you are using. If you are only using steam from the plant, you only need to Cx the steam producing equipment.

Your Cx agent should provide you with a CHPCombined heat and power (CHP), or cogeneration, generates both electrical power and thermal energy from a single fuel source. commissioning protocol.

There is no minimum percentage for sampling. The percentage should reflect a reasonable sampling of the equipment based on complexity, impact on energy use, impact on building operations, etc. We have seen rates from 10% -100%. Most large critical systems are 100% and terminal equipment (VAVVariable Air Volume (VAV) is an HVAC conservation feature that supplies varying quantities of conditioned (heated or cooled) air to different parts of a building according to the heating and cooling needs of those specific areas. boxes) can be from 10%-25%. Note that if problems are found with the sampled units you should expand your sampling to include more units to determine if you have a chronic issue.

Are you considering enhanced commissioning for a NC project that is already complete? If the commissioning would be for systems that have already been constructed, the credit is not achievable. The commissioning design review of 50% CDs has to be completed by the party providing enhanced commissioning at that point in the schedule - so there is time for comments and changes to be incorporated into the final construction documents.

If you're considering enhanced commissioning for a tenant improvement pursuing LEED CI in a building that is already built, well, that's a different story....

Agreed. 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. should (must) be engaged during the design phase of the project (hopefully during schematic design). Commissioning of a completed building does not comply with the intent of the credit.

I have never run across this issue, but you would want to be careful and make sure that the 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. not be "employee of design firm" applies to the MEP only, and not to the whole design team.

A quick 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 would be important to make sure you do not expend a lot of effort, and then only get credit for fundamental (which would definately not be a problem).

We recently researched this issue as well. There is a LEED Interpretation on this, #5348, that states that an enhanced commissioning agent cannot be an employee of an A|E firm that is doing the architectural design of the project, even if the A|E firm is not the engineer of record for the mechanical and electrical design. Go to https://www.usgbc.org/LeedInterpretations/LILanding.aspx and do a search for inquiry number 5348 to read the entire question, ruling and applicable LEED rating systems.

A UPS would not be required to be commissioned under LEED 2009. There are only four systems required to be commissioned, HVAC, Domestic Hot water, Lighting Controls and On-site Renewable Energy.
A UPS system does not fall under any of these categories.

As you stated, refrigeration systems must be commissioned as part of the fundamental and enhanced requirements. I would assume the ice rink equipment will need to be commissioned as part of the enhanced requirements and 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. agent will need to meet the requirements of the LEED rating system.

I am not sure I totally agree that the DES must always be commissioned if pursuing EAc3. There is list of criteria in the Version 3 application guide that the project must meet in order for the DES to need 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., otherwise upstream equipmentUpstream equipment consists of all heating or cooling systems, equipment, and controls that are associated with a district energy system but are not part of the project building's thermal connection or do not interface with the district energy system. It includes the central energy plant and all transmission and distribution equipment associated with transporting the thermal energy to the project building and site. is excluded.

There are certainly many instances where the DES would have to be commissioning, but thinking of the several projects we have done related to this, only a couple would apply, those where the "central plant" is in an adjacent building, but that plant only serves one or two more buildings. In a campus situation, the building is normally a very small part of the overall output of the DES, so would rarely required additional Cx.

The new DES guide for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. however is encoraging Cx of these services by offering a IO if the DES was commissioned in the last three years. So maybe a NC project that has a DES which has been fully commissioned in the last three years might apply for an ID?

Regardless of that, I read nothing in the application guide that would indicate that the Cx of the DES must be or cannot be the same one for the building. I think you could have a different company do the DES than the building, or the same one as long as you meet the other criteria of EAc3 requirements.

In this particular project, the project meets the criteria where the upstream equipmentUpstream equipment consists of all heating or cooling systems, equipment, and controls that are associated with a district energy system but are not part of the project building's thermal connection or do not interface with the district energy system. It includes the central energy plant and all transmission and distribution equipment associated with transporting the thermal energy to the project building and site. needs to be commissioned. However, the DES has their own in-house CxS to conduct the commissioning whereas for the building that is undergoing LEED certification, we have a third party CxS. Is this sufficient to meet EAc3 under the new application guide for LEED?

Interesting. I am guessing you may have a unique situation that needs to be clarified in 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. If the in-house 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 the DES is the owner of the building, then I think it would work, since the owner if qualified can do enhanced commissioning, but then I would guess they would be doing the building then.

If the DES is not associated with the building or owner, then I am guessing that you would not be able to get EAc3 without a third party CxA for the DES, but it would not have to be the same firm doing the building.

Again, this is my guess without knowing all the particulars.

Yes. The DES is owned by another private company that is supplying the chilled water to the building undergoing LEED certification. In this case, i guess it would be the best to submit 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 because it is impossible to get the DES to get a third party CxS since the DES does not belong to the owner of the building. I don't think the DES is willing to let a third party CxS to commission their systems even if it is paid by the owner of the building undergoing LEED certification. The reason being that if the commissioning results meant that the DES has to change certain system, the DES is unwilling to bear the costs of doing so since they have no obligation to help the building meet LEED EAc3 unless it had been stipulated in the contract.

Good discussion on this item. A qualified employee of the owner or consultant to the owner can perform the 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.. The intent behind this requirement is to ensure that no inherent conflict of interest affects the quality of the Cx efforts. The assumption is that the owner or their consultant has no conflict and indeed wants their system to be commissioned as effectively as possible. In this case I would assume that the "owner" of the upstream equipmentUpstream equipment consists of all heating or cooling systems, equipment, and controls that are associated with a district energy system but are not part of the project building's thermal connection or do not interface with the district energy system. It includes the central energy plant and all transmission and distribution equipment associated with transporting the thermal energy to the project building and site. is the DES company. Following that assumption, they, or a consultant working for them, can meet the requirements as long as the consultant is not part of the design and construction team for the LEED project. The key here is to verify that the "owner" would indeed be the DES company.

Our policy is to submit the whole 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. Report and Systems Manual, but while we have had large files, nothing as large at you mention. Large parts of a Systems Manual can be manufacturers information or repetative. You might try including some information for each heading in the manual, then indicate that some content has been deleted to conserve size.

At most, they might ask a question, but I would not expect an immediate rejection. On projects where we have been commissioned, we have seen much less submitted and accepted, but don't feel that is good practice.

I don't think they mean just MEP. Due to the fact 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. could commission a variety of items (not just the LEED-required items), I would expect that the civil firm would still be under the "disinterested" category and not be eligible to act as the CxA.

Remember there has been a fair amount of variability in the responses from the LEED reviewers so predicting their response can be tricky.

Thanks Chris. Another question on this subject for a different situation that has come up. If an MEP firm provides early design but is not the engineer of record (another firm takes over at CD phase), can they then 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. as they are not signing/sealing drawings?

Keith my two cents would be that this situation wouldn't comply. The credit language seems pretty clear: the individual should be independent of the work of design and construction.

I agree with Tristan. The fact that they were involved with any portion of the design would put them in a conflict position. I would assume that the reviewers would decline this credit.

Hello,

Was hoping someone might have some advise on this one. Also, I should mention that my project is a LEED-NCv2.2 project so probably should have been filed under that category on LEEDuser.

Regardless, I'm wondering if anyone has been able to submit their LEED documentation for EAp1 stating that their renewable energy systems would be commissioned at a later date. I was thinking that I could provide a contract from the solar sub as well as a contract from the commissioning agent guaranteeing that it would be commissioned.

It's the one prerequisite holding us up from our LEED Platinum certification.

Thank you,
Lauren

The Reference Guide language states:

"the summary commissioning report should include the following:
executive summary of the process and the results of the commissioning program --including observations, conclusions and any outstanding items."
No where can I find language that says all aspects have to be completed before LEED is awarded. Further, I found a couple of CIRs that, while not directly related (it is related to Tenant buildoutThe time at which all habitable buildings on the project are complete and ready for occupancy.), talk about the "use of a binding contract" as proof of compliance.

What do folks think about using a binding contract as proof of compliance? Has anyone tried this?

Sorry Lauren, I personally haven't had this situation, but it's a very valid topic. There are some projects (not in my house) that are going to have similar problems soon, but I'll only be able to report back in January on those. Keeping an eye on your thread though. Best of luck.

Lauren, sorry for the late reply (out of town,again).

This is the first time I have seen this response from a review. There are many, if not most, projects where 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. may not be complete at the time of LEED submission. As you state, per the requirements of enhanced commissioning 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. will not have completed the seasonal review until 6-10 months after occupancy. We are often closing the loop on post-commissioning items when the LEED docs are submitted.

A signed contract has been the assurance that the CxA will complete the required commissioning scope and services. Is the PV system specifically stated in the uploaded documents? If so, I would question the reviewers on this issue.

Say "Hi" to Elaine Shea for me.

Chris,

Thanks so much for your response. I'll make sure to tell Elaine Hsieh you say hello.

I'm wondering my best approach moving forward with this reviewer and all others really. I don't really want to just provide a clarification because I want zero chance that it'll go to appeal because I feel that this will be unfair.

I've also heard of many projects being able to move forward with obtaining the commissioning point without the PV being fully installed yet.

Can someone with the GBCI/USGBC help inform this discussion? I'd like to get this resolved and clarified for projects moving forward. Thanks!

Lauren

I just saw this post as well. While not specific to PV, we have had several projects where the commissioning has not been complete at the time of submittal. Sometimes it has to do with project phasing, sometimes with seasonal testing reqiurements. We have always just noted this, and added a letter indicating we were under contract to do this work when appropriate (much like the warranty review).

We have never been questioned doing this.

Also, we recommend commissioning all energy using (or producing in this case) systems that are related to LEED, which would include on-site renewables. We also do any rainwater capture systems that might be part of the WE credits.

Scott...

Lauren and others, I had an exchange with a LEED technical staff contact at USGBC. The following clarification questions came up:

Was 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. documentation for the PV system that could have been created
at that point was included in the submission? Was there any explanation
in the submission as to why full PV documentation was not included?  In
other words, was it fully apparent that the PV system was going to be
commissioned but it just hadn’t occurred yet?

Hi Tristan,

The PV wasn't installed at the time of submission. Our commissioning report included the PV. Hwever, we should have been more clear that the PV was going to be installled at a later date and that we could guarantee that it would be commissioned at that later date.

I think I'm learning that it is most likely acceptable with reviewers for you to commission your renewable energy systems at a later date so long as you provide assurance that it's under the same scope of work (not attributed to a later project), that it's being commissioned by the same person, and some form of a guarantee that the renewable energy system will be installed.

Clarity and transparency is generally good with submissions. :)

Thanks for everyone's help. We just yesterday submitted our final clarifications for EAc3 by providing the items noted above. I'll keep you posted as to if our credit is granted.

Lauren

I haven't gone down this path but I want to make sure you saw the post above about resources supporting BE Cx.

Just did; thanks. I'm also asking the guys at the Building Enclosure Council if they know of any such successful projects.

In Canada, we have a Regional Priority credit (used to be MRc8 in LEED Canada-NC) for a "Durable Building". The primary focus of the credit is on envelope durability but it also addresses structural components. I have provided durable building consulting for a number of projects but I'm not aware of anyone in the US achieving an ID point for a similar approach. For references, see CSA S478, NIBS Guildeline 3, and ASHRAE Guideline 0.

I have since heard of a project that did achieve the Innovation credit for EECx. Stay tuned for more details.

I am having a conversaiton with my commissioning agent about envelope commissioning and which standards/references to follow. This is helpful.

Deborah - is there an update to the project that you mentioned above?

Nothing specific. We know of 2 projects that did achieve this exemplary point, and a couple more pursuing it. The 2 biggest challenges are
1. the expense involved in skin commissioning
2. the party best qualified to undertake the commissioning is usually the exterior envelope consultant, who would typically already be on your team.

Thanks. Do you know which guildelines they followed? I've obtained the NIBC guildline and it is massive 337 pages. Do USGBC really want us to implement such guildline? I wish they are more specific on they are looking for.

Right now we are thinking to perform pressurization/depressurization testing based on ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services 1827-96 with calibrated blower door assemblies on the entire building. Do you think this is enough for LEED's sake?

The most applicable ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services standard relating to building air tightness testing is ASTM E 779. Unfortunately, this standard was developed primarily for residential applications. The US Army Corps of Engineers has developed a test protocol (based on ammendments to ASTM E 779) for use on their facilities. We have applied this test to military facilities and we use it for testing of private commercial buildings. It is the best I have seen for air tightness testing. Note that this may not be considered a comprehensive "building envelope test" but it is a good comparative measure that can serve as an indicator for the quility of the envelope, in general. Vapor transmission and water transmission is not specifically addressed by this test but if you don't have air leaks it is a good bet you have minimized related vapor and water leaks. Let me know if you need additional information. We may have to take this conversation off-line.

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 be reviewing, not developing, 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./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. for content and scope. It is not unreasonable for the CxA to provide a template for the owner and/or designer to use as a guide when completing the OPR/BOD. We use a template that includes suggested scope and associated questions to help the owner/designer contemplate the kinds of issues that should be defined in the OPR and BOD. This template can be very usefull during OPR development meetings. All that being said, the final document must be confirmed and approved by the owner(OPR) or designer(BOD).

Fabio,

The intent of the commissioning submittal review is to verify that the equipment and controls that are provided are in line with 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. that was developed for the project. Traditionally this involves review of the equipment and controls submittals. Depending on the scope and detail of the OPR, you may need to review the shop drawings to confirm compliance with access and maintenance requirements of the OPR.