EAc2.1 for new buildings

I think that may be true, as long as they initial Cx process takes care to reflect occupancy realities. Cx in EBOM has a large component that is about ensuring that space uses are consistent with their imagined uses during the design process - and if they are not, that conditions in the spaces are appropriate for actual uses. It's a subtle element, but we find it is extremely important in effective retrocommissioning.

Pg. 172-173 of the Reference Guide indicates that if you've conducted an ASHRAE Level II audit within the past 5 years, you don't need to redo the audit within the performance period if no relevant chances in operations have been observed. Those this 5-year allowance is linked to Option 2, ASHRAE Level II Audit, it stands to reason that it should also apply to Option 1, Commissioning Process.

I think this question reflects to the language mentioned in the first couple pages of the Ref Guide which states that the performance period is the most recent unbroken period of sustainable operations. Since most Cx work happens before occupancy I don't think it is reasonable to assume that initial building Cx work can fly for EBOM 2.1 (think Core and Shell construction). An audit probably wouldn't work for this credit either since again, the building was not technically "operating" when Testing & Balance (TAB) occurred and Cx rarely goes farther than equipment start-up.

Jen, All,

Here is the response I just received after taking your advice and what seems reasonable for pursuing the 5 year grace period under Option A...

Note: This was a submittal under EBOM not EBOM 2009 although the language is virtually identical.

"The proposed alternative compliance path outlined by the project team does not meet the credit requirements. As stated on page 211 of the LEED-EBOM Reference Guide, 2008 Edition, retro-commissioning of the building must be conducted during the performance period as specified in the LEED-Online Submittal Template. Also stated in the reference guide, the investigation and analysis phase of the commissioning process draws careful attention to all aspects of the current operations and maintenance program. Therefore, the retro-commissioning activities performed more than two years preceding the project submittal shall not be included for compliance of this credit."

I see their point...

Thoughts anyone???

Boy, I'd push back on that one Matt. The reviewer seems to be really adhering to the letter of the law in this instance, rather than the spirit of the law. The original idea behind the 5-year sunset provision was to ensure that projects that completed RCx before engaging with LEED weren't asked to perform it again just to earn the points. By allowing them to leverage their existing findings and update those findings appropriately, USGBC created a sensible solution that really has no downside. Furthermore, there is no logical reason that the path should exist for an ASHRAE Level II and not RCx - even if those processes are not identical, the credit language treats them as effectively interchangeable. So, assuming your RCx work was complete in all other respects, and that you've documented updates to that report and findings as directed by the Ref Guide, I'd encourage you to stick to your guns here and ask the reviewer to reconsider. Perhaps there is a compelling argument as to the difference between RCx and an ASHRAE Level 2 that led them to this conclusion - I'd be very interested in hearing it if that's the case.

Hope that helps,

Dan

Just wondered if Matt or anyone else had any further insight on GBCI's thinking about the situation described above (updating a RCx report which is less than 5 years old, as opposed to an ASHRAE Level 2 report). It's recently come up for a project and although I still feel OK about my reasoning here, I wonder if folks have learned more about this in the interim. Thanks for any help anyone can offer.

Dan