Has anybody seen any more clarity on what level of design review is expected / required for the building envelope? We can't find much in the way of explanation or detailed guidance on this. There is a big difference between a member of the same arch firm or GC looking over some things vs. a specialist envelope firm, and the range in reviews could be from a few hours to dozens of hours of high level engineering work.
Anybody seen or have an example that has been approved by USGBC? It appears you are not even required to actually submit the review, but just check the box that you did the review.
Joyce Kelly
Architect - Cx Provider - Building Performance SpecialistGLHN Architects & Engineers
27 thumbs up
December 18, 2019 - 5:43 pm
Based on a recent Reviewer's rqmts for an old LEED job, they want evidence of Training & Preventive Maint. for BE.
However, rqmts for v4.1 BE Cx appear less stringent and more practical for this aspect. I'm likely to upgrade my v4 to 4.1 because of this pending further investigation.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
February 28, 2020 - 3:36 pm
The lack of scope for this fundamental review of the envelope has also vexed me. At this point, I would have little to give guidance to a client on what this should include. I know what I feel would be valuable, so that is what I am planning on saying...if asked.
Robert Towell
1 thumbs up
February 28, 2020 - 3:48 pm
We have to keep in mind that LEED provides a basic framework, but relies on other standards to fully establish requirements. One standard referenced is ASTM E2813-18 Standard Practice for Building Enclosure Commissioning for example.