I have a question regarding the commissioned systems. If you put in your initial scope the standard energy related systems for commissioning, but during functional testing you notice a flaw in another piece of equipment or component of the building design (outside the commissioning scope), is it our duty as a CxA to include this deficiency in our issues log, even though it is outside of our responsibility contractually?
I would want to include this regardless...would this be correct? Our main goal here is to ensure the building matches the OPR for energy related systems, but if we notice something I feel we have the responsibility to report it.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11474 thumbs up
November 17, 2011 - 11:38 am
Andy, I don't think there are LEED implications to your question—as long as you are following the required scope for LEED, I don't think it is important one way or the other.More broadly, it seems like you have a duty to your client to bring to their attention this issue. If there is a concern about taking responsibility for something that is not in your offiical scope, perhaps there is a way to check with the owner about whether and how they'd like to receive the information.
Chris Ladner
PartnerViridian
261 thumbs up
November 18, 2011 - 9:55 am
Agreed. To satisfy the credit you need to ensure you cover your LEED-required scope. There is nothing to keep you from identifying issues you see outside of your scope while you are performing your services. I would make sure you note that these items are outside your scope to keep the client from thinking you’re are supposed to do a complete review of these systems.