Hi,
Does the GBCI accept the Cx Agent for the Enhanced Commissioning credit to now be hired by the Contractor in a design-build scenario?
In reading Interpretation #10244, it seems this is now allowed. Am I missing something? Please advise on your experience with this approach.
ID#10244 MADE ON 10/01/2012
Prerequisite/Credit: Eac3 - Additional Commissioning
Rating System Family: Building Design + Construction, Interior Design + Construction
Inquiry
This request is in regards to LEED Version 2009, EA Credit 3, Enhanced Commissioning, credit requirements. In particular, this is in regards to contracting situations such as Design Build and the hiring of the CxA for enhanced commissioning. In a design-build scenario, the A-E firm is hired by the contractor. With this in mind, can the CxA for enhanced commissioning (an independent 3rd party firm), be hired by the A-E firm who is in turn hired by the contractor? In this same scenario, the design-build contractor is providing services contracted to the Federal Government, who is the owner. Can a Federal employee, serve as the CxA for enhanced commissioning for the project?
Ruling
**Update 07/01/2014: Ruling has been reversed and revised to allow the CxA to be contracted to the general contractor or a subcontractor of the general contractor in limited circumstances.
In the design build scenario, a ˜disinterested independent third party firm may be hired by the design build contractor or a subcontractor to the design build contractor under the following constraints:
1. The commissioning firm may not be a subsidiary or partner of the general contractor or of any other firm that has been contracted to the general contractor to provide design and construction services for the project.
2. Though the commissioning firm is not contracted directly to the owner, the owner or an owner's representative must approve of the selection of the commissioning firm, and of the commissioning scope of work within the commissioning contract.
3. The CxA must directly report to the owner or owner's representative (or simultaneously report to the owner or owner's representative and other parties) throughout the commissioning process.
As noted above, the CxA must lead, manage and oversee all commissioning processes, including both fundamental and enhanced commissioning, consistent with the requirements for EA Credit 3: Enhanced Commissioning.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
520 thumbs up
December 15, 2016 - 2:01 pm
Lucy, my initial thought was that yes, 10244 would apply. But when answering such a specific question, I always like to go to my source information to confirm. First of all, I cannot independently confirm this, but at some point, I thought that 10244 did apply to v4. However, right now it does show that, and only apply to most products up to v3.
Short answer...no, I do not think you can have enhanced commissioning provided under a DB delivery (at least related to the typical MEP systems).
My reasoning comes from LI 10477 and the v4 Reference guide. In the reference guide, there is a special circumstance listed - "If an owner requires a single contract through one entity (such as a government agency contracting through a general contractor), the CxA may be a qualified employee of the design or construction team for this prerequisite. If the project team is also attempting the enhanced commissioning credit, however, the CxA must be independent of the design or construction firm." So this really shuts down enhanced as an option.
10447 amplifies this special condition and goes on to describe what Oversee and Coordinate means. This would allow two CxAs on a project. Conceptually there could be a Lead CxA working for the Owner, and a second CxA subcontracted to the contractor.
While not part of your question, this interpretation is not super clear on the envelope CxA. It definitely allows a totally different firm to do this work, and the work does not have to be overseen by the MEP CxA but is a little vague on if it can be a subconsultant to the construction team. It says they can be a "disinterested subcontractor" of the design team...but under a DB contract, the design team is a subconsultant to the contractor! Guess this will need to be addressed by a LI request at some point.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
520 thumbs up
December 15, 2016 - 2:07 pm
Lucy, and am sorry! My head is so into v4 that my answer was in relation to that, not v2009 which is really your question, right? Under v2009, 10244 does apply, and you are fine with having the enhanced CxA under the DB contract, as long as you comply with the requirements. Interestingly, there is a 10466 that applies to v2009 that defines "lead, review, and oversee" language.
Again, sorry about my first response.