Due to an elongated project and construction schedule we'd like to use an alternative compliance path for EAp1 Fundamental Commissioning under LEED NC v2.2. Essentially we're stating that the fundamental commissioning contract is in place and the commissioning report is pending completion. We are also providing the following:
- An executive summary of the Cx plan with a list of systems commissioned
- A signed contract with defined scope and timing of commissioning services
- Sample prefunctional checklists and functional checklists for at least two of the commissioned systems.
Has anyone had success in using a similar approach? I've looked for examples but not found fully relevant CIRs or examples.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
December 28, 2017 - 9:53 pm
Tiffany, I thought that v2.2 was totally sunset by now and that projects couldn't be certified?
I'm skeptical of this approach. I've definitely heard projects with extended timeframes rail against some of the LEED timelines as unworkable, but I haven't heard of a specific case like this where a project was able to get such a significant ACP on a basic prerequisite.
I would suggest contacting GBCI and likely needing a CIR to move this forward in some fashion.
December 29, 2017 - 1:20 pm
Thanks Tristan. That's what I thought. We've reached the end of our 2.2 extension but the Cx isn't quite complete. I'll speak with GBCI.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
December 31, 2017 - 3:23 pm
I agree with Tristan. While it is rare that the Cx is completely done when submitted, it has to be mostly done. Some limited seasonal tests or a system that cannot be tested yet due to other constraints (a small system) and maybe a couple of open action items that are waiting on parts but are easily addressed.