The project in question is a design and build project for which the general contractor will be assigned the project's design and construction activities; however, there is an architectural and engineering firm creating the conceptual design for the project. These concept designers are contracted directly by the project owner, are completely independent of the design and build contractor, and following the completion of their work during the conceptual design phase, they will have no role in the detailed/technical/structural or any other design or construction related to the project.
Requirements for EAp1 & EAc3- Fundamental & Enhanced Commissioning specifically state that the commissioning authority (CxA) may not be the same as the design team. As this project is a design and build and the concept designers will be 100% independent of the project's design beyond the concept phase, it appears as though there should be no issues/conflicts if the concept designer were to fulfill the role of CxA, but when I asked GBCI, they essentially said they have never come across the issue (how is this possible?) and to submit a formal inquiry. I thought I would try here first... Can the concept designer (independent of detailed project design and construction) contracted directly by the owner of a design and build project fulfill the role of the commissioning authority for EAp1 and EAc3 provided they have the required experience?
Chris Ladner
PartnerViridian
261 thumbs up
June 17, 2012 - 8:20 am
The intent of the 100% independent requirement is to ensure that the CxA will have not have a conflict of interest with the design and construction of the project that would compromise their support of the owner. The conceptual design support provided by the CxA is a critical step in the complete commissioning process. I would think that any involvement of the CxA in the architectural or engineering design, conceptual or detailed, would not be approved by the GBCI.
Douglas Ross
Project ManagerGray Construction
9 thumbs up
June 18, 2012 - 2:34 pm
Ward:
Is the owner contracted A&E firm only preparing the RFP drawings? If so, I wouldn't see any conflict. It might be a different story if the A&E firm was still involved in the "concept" design process after the Design/Build contract is awarded.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
June 18, 2012 - 5:46 pm
Well…we have done just this and it was approved for EAc3 by GBCI. We helped the owner develop a very detailed scoping document (with the architect as well) which was really an OPR, it just had more criteria than you would typically see. We worked directly for the owner through the whole process, completing all the Cx requirements AND some other services related to LEED, such as investigating some renewable credit for a part of the company that developed wind power, Measurement & Verifications, etc.
I think it all depends on how far you go in “design”. In our case, we were setting very specific criteria and metrics they needed to meet, and as an MEP firm, we could evaluate their ability to meet that with their design. The owner was quite pleased with the whole process, and in fact we exceeded the original intention to be Silver and got to Gold (and actually close to Platinum).
So, I am going to respectfully disagree with you Chris…and say “it depends”. If we had flushed out the sizing and all the systems, and dictated number of units, etc, I could see your point. The D/B contractors were clearly and definitely the EOR and fulfilled all those roles.
Chris Ladner
PartnerViridian
261 thumbs up
June 18, 2012 - 6:12 pm
Determining the system type, basis of design, sizing criteria, etc. is "design". I think it is a conflict to design the system and provide commissioning services. Just because the GBCI reviewer approved it does not mean it meets the intent of the credit.
In your example I can't tell if you were the engineering firm of record. If so, I would not think that meets the intent of an "independent, uninterested, third-party.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
June 19, 2012 - 9:56 am
Chris, the Design/Build Contractors were the Engineer of Record (see last sentence in my post). I do not think setting specific criteria is “design”. We were helping the owner develop a very detailed OPR, which included things like specific power requirements for the open office, maximum power per circuit, specific occupancy levels, requirements for daylight control…things that made sure that all the D/B contractors were all proposing the same “performance” level. Then as the CxA we were both confirming they met the performance criteria and doing a peer review.
Ward Miller
Chief Environmental OfficerAlpenglow Advisory
64 thumbs up
July 26, 2012 - 3:54 pm
Thanks for all the input guys. As I didn't come away with a consensus from the above discussion, so we submitted a CIR, which I got back earlier today. The answer provided is: "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."
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
October 18, 2012 - 5:26 pm
Ward, I tried to find this CIR to answer another post under NC, but could not. Was this a private response? This establishes and important definition that we all need to incorporate into our practice. As indicated above, we did this once, so do not want to do again if this has been clarified.
Ward Miller
Chief Environmental OfficerAlpenglow Advisory
64 thumbs up
October 19, 2012 - 3:27 am
I just took a look myself and it is indeed not in the database. The only way I can seem to access it is via LEED Online. Does a project have to be certified prior to putting related CIRs in the database? Under "Project CIR Status:" it is written "Completed July 26, 2012". I submitted it on June 28 with Inquiry #000400009065. I agree it has important implications and I am actually surprised it has never come up before. This is the first CIR I have submitted, does one have to do something for USGBC to include the ruling in the database?
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
October 19, 2012 - 7:46 am
Yes, CIRs are project-specific, LEED Interpretations, which cost extra, or require USGBC staff or committees to pull from CIRs, are general and published in the database. See our announcement about LEED Interpretations from a while back.If this is a useful CIR for others, someone should lobby USGBC staff to elevate it, or pay a fee for that review.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
October 19, 2012 - 8:45 am
I indeed feel this is an important and useful CIR. We need more clear definitions on who can be the CxA because we have many more ways projects are delivered than the current chart can address. We are beginning to work more in the middle east, and the delivery model is so different, that it is challenging to define traditional roles like in the US.
So please take note all you USGBC people lurking round LEEDuser, you have now been lobbied!
Ward Miller
Chief Environmental OfficerAlpenglow Advisory
64 thumbs up
October 19, 2012 - 9:08 am
Thanks for the article Tristan, my only question dives into another issue. Without project teams agreeing to pay the fees they do, many of us would not have much work and the USGBC/GBCI would not be the successful organizations they have become: Sure, CIRs should be paid by the project team, as they arise as project specific issues, BUT should the project teams really also be the ones responsible for paying to further clarify LEED through Interpretations? My understanding is that USGBC does continue to publish project specific CIRs on occasion, does anyone know the process it uses to determine which ones are shown in the database and which ones are not? I shared the answer above simply because as others have agreed, I strongly believe it has important implications, especially for international projects where some countries' languages do not even have a native word for commissioning!
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
October 19, 2012 - 11:33 am
Ward, my understanding is that USGBC does choose CIRs that they think have useful implications to share more broadly, as LEED Interpretations. They also wanted to give project teams an option to push CIRs up to that level, hence the fee for that level of review. In some cases a project team could have a reason for wanting a precedent setting ruling they could apply to another project, but the issue might not be a priority for USGBC. The move away from all CIRs being published and applicable was to encourage consistency and quality in rating system requirements.Is it a perfect system? No, but hopefully the background and reasons for it are understood so that you can work with it better and suggest improvements.