Can AE-1 be CxA?

Entities having the necessary experience can perform the Fundamental Commissioning on buildings less than 50,000 sqft - regardless of project responsibilities. Buildings greater than 50,000 sqft require the CxA performing Fundamental Commissioning to be "disinterested" or a construction manager "not holding constructor contracts" or "independent consultant to the owner" or "owner employee".

Enhanced Commissioning requires the CxA to be either subcontracted to the A/E firm, construction manager not holding costuctor contracts, independent consultant to the owner, or directly employed by the owner (i.e. owner staff).

So in answer to your questions, the entity who prepared the RFP could perform the Fundamental & Enhanced Commissioning as long as they do not have design responsibilities, have the necessary previous commissioning experience, and do not hold constructor contracts.

The "Design Team" refers to the A/E team on the project. Based on the information you have provided, it is kind of hard to understand your role in the overall scheme. I am assuming you are an architectural firm that is putting the RFP for your client. In this case you will be part of the Design Team and allow to perform Fundamental Commissioning within your firm, as long as the person is qualify and has no design responsibility. In reference to Enhanced Commissioning, both Fundamental & Enhanced Commissioning tasks have to be done by an outside firm (independent of the A/E and Construction team). But the independent firm CAN be a subcontractor of the A/E firm, as long as the A/E are not holding the construction contract. In your case, the Design-Build team can't be the one that perform the Enhanced Commissioning.

Hope this helps.

This issue was raised under CS in July, and apparently the person got a response to a CIR. Now, I tried to find this CIR, and it is not posted, but I do not know how fast the posting is after decisions, or if this was a private interpretation for the project, not for the product.

Here is the link that that part of LEEDuser:

http://www.leeduser.com/credit/CS-2009/EAp1?page=0#comment-28229

Here is the answer they got, for a very similar situation:

"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 this, I do not think that the firm doing the RFP or bridging documents can be the Enhanced CxA.