Commissioning has changed more than is being discussed...

Scott Bowman

LEED Fellow

Integrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC

LEEDuser Expert

377 thumbs up

May 31, 2012

I do not fully agree with Nadav’s analysis above that Envelope Cx was moved to the credit. There are still some serious issues with the v2012 commissioning that I have commented on at every opportunity, including this one. First, they are requiring that the envelope be included in the OPR and BOD, which I agree with. Kind of like reporting chemicals as a start, making sure that design teams fully outline and narrate the envelope is great. However, it continues to require a “design review” of the envelope to be included in the fundamental commissioning, but it can be by the design team. I just do not agree that the “design review” should be part of fundamental commissioning…that should always be third party, and it should be part of enhanced. So I continue to assert that the design review should be part of enhanced for all systems, not part of fundamental. Also, the design review as currently mentioned in the standard is not well defined, of course it was not well defined in v2009 either, and means different things to different people. You only have to look to LinkedIn conversations on the topic to know that. This is where a well written Reference Guide will be helpful. Lastly, there is a weird typo (hopefully) that could be read that the CxA should develop the OPR and BOD…and that is just plain wrong.

Post a reply

Marcus Sheffer

LEED Fellow

7group / Energy Opportunities

LEEDuser Expert

4454 thumbs up

Fri, 06/01/2012 - 00:04

As you well know there are many different approaches to commissioning. The folks who do this in our shop will not commission a project without doing a design review. So within the current requirements we do not separate the credit requirements from the prerequisite requirements. We will do it the way we think is right or we just won't do it. Where does the prerequisite language say that the CxA should develop the OPR and BOD? The language indicates that the OPR and BOD must be developed but the CxA scope of work includes review of the OPR and BOD, not development. Perhaps it would be clearer if it said: The owner and project design team must do the following: - Develop the OPR - Develop a BOD Fun writing credit language isn't it? :-)

Scott Bowman

LEED Fellow

Integrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC

LEEDuser Expert

377 thumbs up

Fri, 06/01/2012 - 13:51

I agree that it must be a typo Marcus, there are so many edits, I know your suggestion is the intent. I also agree that a design review is valuable…but we have to compete with very low scope, low cost providers. And I have seen little enforcement from GBCI on Cx (although I just read in another part of LEEDuser someone being denied the Enhanced credit due to an inadequate Systems Manual). So we also work to provide high value to our clients. There are other places to debate scope and definition of commissioning, and if you look on LinkedIn and other places on LEEDuser you will find that I am not just a whiner on this topic. A well written Reference Guide would help our clients and the market to stabilize on the level of service deserved. For a long time I have advocated for a separate Cx TAG, as EA is so focused on energy efficiency and simulation (as it should) that I do not feel Cx is getting the attention it should. I would love to volunteer for that TAG, as I have been turned down for the EA TAG several times now (ok, now I am whining).

Marcus Sheffer

LEED Fellow

7group / Energy Opportunities

LEEDuser Expert

4454 thumbs up

Fri, 06/01/2012 - 14:11

I understand your having to compete with low scope, low cost providers. We just choose not to and are small enough to have that luxury. So that being the case if the design review comes into the prerequisite than the scope remains the same for all providers, somewhat evening the playing field. The issue with endorsement is a lack of documentation required in the submission. Generally not much to look at or comment on. There is a separate working group on Cx issues full of CxAs under the EA TAG who primarily worked on the 2012 credit language.