CFR and O&M Plan vs Systems Manual and OMM

Sorry, this took so long, lots of reasons, no excuses! There are several changes to documents and what is required for them. First, the Systems Manual is no longer exists in the v2009 sense. There is a good list of what the CFM and O&M Plan should include and it is now a more logical list for designers, and CxAs, in relation to what they are responsible for. This document should be a plan that references the O&M Manual that would have all the detailed system and equipment information. The O&M Manual should be developed by the contractors which would be more traditional and customary. In my opinion, this is an improvement in the process and makes this a much more valuable document that the Systems Manual. If there is any overlap, it would be with the OPR and BOD for the project. There are aspects that would be a duplicate from those two documents. In some cases, the information would be simplified and all should be updated to reflect the as-constructed condition.

I am coming across the same issue. When completing both Fundamental and Enhanced commissioning for LEED v4 there seems to be a lot of overlap between the CFR/O&M Plan, Systems Manual and the Ongoing Cx Plan. - Are the sequences of operation to be provided in both the CFR/O&M Plan and Systems Manual? - Is the "preventive maintenance plan" in the CFR/O&M the same as the "preventative maintenance schedules" in the Systems Manual? - Is the "commissioning program" in the CFR/O&M the same as the "recommended schedule for recommissioning" in the Systems Manual and the "recommended schedule for recommissioning" in the Ongoing Cx Plan?  

Troy, I agree, the language is not very well coordinated with the fundamental requirements. In my opinion, the Systems Manual of the Enhanced contains and incorporates the elements of the fundamental information. Duplication can lead to errors, so developing a Systems Manual that includes the CFR and O&M Plan would be a better document that will be more usable going forward. Again, in my opinion, the terms PM Plan and PM Schedule are the same. Both must coordinate with the much more detailed information the contractors develop. Related to the ongoing versus recommissioning, again they are using terms that are different from the fundamental to the enhanced that mean much the same. I always had provided a recommended schedule of recommissioning (pre-v4) in my Systems Manual that included electronic forms designed to be completed after the initial testing is complete. In general, my recommendation is to look at the intent of this credit with a focus on their desire to change the distribution of tasks between fundamental and enhanced that we were used to in v2009 to the new expanded scope of fundamental in v4.