The project is pursuing v4. A 3rd party Cx provider has been engaged for MEPs. What are opinions of having the BECx provider be from the A/E design firm if independent and not part of the design or CA? The LEED templates and documentation is focused on the MEP CxP. I understand there will be some coordination required between the MEP CxP and BECxP for documentation. It would be my recommendation to USGBC/GBCI that in the next revision that MEP and enclosure Cx get separated to clearly delineate quals and responsibilities.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
May 12, 2017 - 12:45 pm
I have answered this, but in a different thread, so it will be good to get it posted here. An interpretation from 2016 gives guidance on this issue, look for ID10447. Besides defining the role of a Prime CxA. For those instances where fundamental and enhanced may be done by different firms with different contractual relationships. Toward the end of the ruling (which was not in the question by the way) it clarifies the envelope CxA. It is not too long, so here you go.
---
For projects pursuing Option 2, envelope commissioning, the building envelope commissioning agent (BeCxA) may be completely independent of the lead CxA, and oversight of envelope commissioning activities by the lead CxA is not required. However, in this case, the BeCxA must meet all credit requirements for the Commissioning authority. Specifically:
• The BeCxA must have documented envelope commissioning process experience on at least two building projects with a similar scope of work.
• The BeCxA may be a qualified employee of the owner, an independent consultant, or a disinterested subcontractor of the design team.
---
Now your question. The two commissioning firms can be separate for sure. But, unless the project is small, I do not think it can be someone from the design team.