Intent:
- To begin commissioning process early during design process
- Execute additional activities after systems performance verification is completed
Implementation:
- In addition to prerequisite commissioning (EAp1):
- designate CxA (commissioning authority) to lead/review/oversee completion of all commissioning process activities
- CxA must REVIEW OPR (Owner’s Project’s Requirements), BOD (Basis of Design), and Design Documents prior to 50% CD.
- CxA shall REVIEW SUBMITTALS for compliance with OPR and BOD.
- Develop a SYSTEMS MANUAL for operating staff
- Verify that requirements for TRAINING STAFF & OCCUPANTS are completed
- REVIEW BUILDING OPERATION 8-10 months AFTER SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
Code:
- none
Submittal Phase:
- construction
Extra Credit:
- none
More Energy & Atmosphere Credits
- EA P1 – Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems (prerequisite)
- EA P2 – Minimum Energy Performance (prerequisite)
- EA P3 – Fundamental Refrigerant Management (prerequisite)
- EA 1 – Optimize Energy Performance
- EA 2 – On-Site Renewable Energy
- EA 3 – Enhanced Commissioning
- EA 4 – Enhanced Refrigerant Management
- EA 5 – Measurement & Verification
- EA 6 – Green Power
16 Comments On This Post
According to CIRs dated 8/23/05 and 6/28/02, the independent Cx authority can be obtained anytime (even during construction), as long as the owner/design/construction team is willing to make changes based on the independent Cx authority’s review.
Three Tasks that the Commissioning Agent must perform:
-Conduct at a minimum one commissionig design review of the Owner’s Project Requirements, (OPR) the Basis of Design, (BOD)and the design documents prior to the Mid Construction document phase
-Review contractor submittals for compliance with OPR and BOD. this review is concurrent withA/E reviews and submitted to design team and the Owner. ( the review facilitates, and work out issues resulting change orders etc, does NOT change scope or in the role of accepting or rejecting submittals)
-review building operation within 10 months after substantial completion with O&M staff and occupants. Includes plan for resolution of any outstanding issues.
The other team members can perform
-developing a systems manual( the as built docs are under this breakdown of tasks, plus more…)
-verify that the requirements for training operating personnel and occupants are completed.
ALL MUST BE IN CONSTRUCTION DOCS!
–
Can anyone clarify if the Enhanced CxA must be the same company that is doing the Fundamental Cx? The requirements says that the independent CxA must lead, review and oversee the completion of all commissiong process activities. It does not use the word perform, so to me that means we can have two different engineering firms perfom the fundamental and enhanced Cx.
how important is the submittal documentation?, do we have to memorize submittal documentation in each credit?
Hi May,
I think it’s “somewhat” important. As you can probably tell, I’ve left it out of most of the credits. Check out this post for more information and explanation about it:
http://www.intheleed.com/submittal-documentation/
Thanks and good luck!
Pat,
In your notes (LEED AP Walkthrough) you mentioned that the CxA could be part of the Design or Construction team if the project size is under 50,000 sf… but the LEED Reference guide seems to indicate otherwise for EA credit 3, and that the CxA MUST BE independent of the project design and construction.
Can we clarify this?
Adam
CxA can be on design or const. team in EA prereq. 1: Fundamental CxA
BUT needs to be independent for EA 3: Enhanced CxA
Anyone else, correct me if Im wrong!
Steve,
That’s how I read it too… but Pat’s “Walkthrough” contradicts this. It’s probably just a typo, and he should be aware of it.
What qualifies as “independent” for EA3?
Can the CxA be from the same company as the project design team so long as Commissioning is a separate department within that company?
Mike,
The CxA for EAc3 can be from the same firm, as long as the person is not involved with the design/construction. This is clearly stated in the LEED Reference Manual.
David,
Do you have a page reference? The only thing I could find stated the exact opposite (1.b.ii on Page 211, from LEED-NC 2.2 10/07), yet other folks have told me the same thing as you – hence my confusion.
Have a read through the NC 2.2 Ref. Guide 3rd Ed., page 156, first column, last paragraph. While this is referring to EAp1 the project area limitations also apply to EAc3.
Franco,
My concern is that what you cited is fine for EAp1 because EAp1 only requires a “Commissioning Authority”, while EAc3 requires an “Independent Commissioning Authority” and then goes on to state the requirements I cited under 1.b.ii within EAc3.
The two sections appear to have different requirements, but a lot of professionals I talk to are using the EAp1 definition for both sections and I’m not sure if that is correct.
It’s not an issue as I prepare for the test, but more an implementation issue because I head up the commissioning effort for a design firm and we may not be able to offer enhanced LEED commissioning on projects we did the design for if what I’m reading is correct.
Mike,
For the exam, I don’t think it’s a show-stopper. Or maybe I just got lucky with the pool of questions I got.
I think your concern about implementation is correct. Have you had a look at the CIR’s? Look under CIR EAc3 ruling dated 11/27/2007.
“A consultant may perform both tasks IF the following requirements are met:
[1] Their contract is exclusively with the owner and not as a sub-consultant with the A/E team.
[2] LEED consulting activities exclusively entail documentation gathering and submittal. Consultant can not provide design services, sustainability consulting, etc. such that they would be put in the position of commissioning a component of the building they had influence over. Design input should be limited to what is required for EAp1 and EAc3 compliance.”
The way I interpret this is that the really want to separate the tasks of design and commissioning to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.
Mike,
Regarding your entry, two positions up from this entry: I have concluded that the definition is vague, and that you need to develop your own interpretation, unfortunately. The EAp1 requirement that the CxA must “lead, review, and oversee the commissioning activities” leaves a significant amount of room for interpretation. Various interpretations of that heavily loaded phrase could impact the final Cx product (not to mention budgets!) in huge ways.
It is probably of little surprise to you that the quote I provided above is worded differently in the EAc3 section: “lead, review, and oversee ALL the commissioning activities”
I also headed up and developed the commissioning department in the firm I worked with last, and I discussed this ambiguity with management in order to come to a conclusion on our interpretation and develop a policy for handling future work. I can share more of my experiences with you if you are interested.
Only one question on my test having to do with EA3, regarding who can the Cx be: The USGBC must have been in a light mood for responses and most of them were like “the architect’ brother-in-law”, “the LEED AP”, “the contractor flushing out the building.”
The only reasonable answer was “an employee of the owner,” which was the easiest correct answer the could give.