Independent 3rd Party CxA and Technology Design

Yes you can since you are not one of the designers of the systems being Cx. We do LEED consulting and energy modleing on many project where we also provided the Cx.

I recently received the opposite answer from USGBC - asked if it was acceptable for a different division of the Civil engineering firm to provide Cx and was told that was still a conflict of interest. 

Marcus, I have been given the same answer as Emily.  Can you point us in the direction of some sort of guidance from USGBC so we can educate our clients that it is acceptable?  Thx!

Maybe in our case since we were not technically one of the designers, even though we often have a big influence over the design, we don't have such a conflict. Let me do some digging.

this thread has intigued me...I agree with Marcus' initial post, and it is odd that GBCI would be in conflict.

My understanding is that non-MEP engineering roles would not preclude an entity from performing MEP CxA duties.  

I'll do some digging as well. 

Thanks so much for doing some digging.  I have found that clients excluded us from performing the MEP Cx duties since we were also the civil engineer on the project, which does not make any sense to me aside from the same company name on both scopes of work.  Let us know what you can find.  Thx!!

just for reference, this was the LEED Interpretation i was quoted in the response I got: https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/5197 

It's a longstanding one but I don't remember it being applied as stringently in v2 and 2009. I do have another project (v2009) where the CxA is also providing energy modeling and that was accepted, so can corroborate Marcus's suggestion that that might not be considered a "design" service and therefore not a conflict. 

Emily, I think it is consistent that a different division of the same company would be excluded. Even though the two may not overlap in service there is still some common management, shared reputation, and potentially common ownership of the two. 

We do also provide Cx, energy modeling, and LEED consulting as a package of services succesfully. Or LEED consulting, modeling, and MEP/FP design and haven't had any issue with approval in those combinations.

David, I don't think it's a question of service but rather the ownership, management, and shared reputation that provides an appearance of conflict of interest.

my digging within GBCI also pointed me back to LI 5197....the same one that Emily posted. 

I'll chat with GBCI further next week and offer solutions that may provide other avenues in such situations. I'll post the results of my correspondence on this forum discussion. 

Technically the reviewer appears to be correct. Not all reviewers would review it this strict however. We would tend to let this go for the reason I noted above. Makes no sense to me that this is a conflict and having the Cx hired by the GC is not.

On past projects we have been hired by the GC to provide CxA services and wrote our Cx scope to comply with LI 10244. My suspicion is that after I chat with GBCI / USGBC there may be a similar update (reversal) to LI 5197. One that aligns with the language and requirements of LI 10244.

That makes perfect sense David!

I spoke with GBCI this week. Their guidance was to submit a CIR and request that it be elevated to a LI.

They hinted that they would not be surprised if LI 5197 was revised to better address MEP design team members versus non-MEP design team members. If a the revision occurs, companies that provide non-MEP design services could provide MEP Cx services. 

I understand that this is not the 'silver bullet' answer that some my have been hoping for, but at least it provides some direction. 

Good Luck!

Thanks David!  I gues the next question is, who is familiar with this process and can help submit a CIR to an LI, etc?  

here is a link that outlines how to submit a CIR:

https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/How%20to%20Submit%20a%20Credit...

Hi all, it looks like this recent addenda addressed this issue, in the v4.1 version of the credit: https://www.usgbc.org/leedaddenda/5000127 

1. Under "Commissioning Authority" section, delete the following note: "If pursuing EAc Enhanced Commissioning, the CxA may not be an employee of the design or construction firm nor a subcontractor to the construction firm."

add the following sentence: "If the CxA is an employee of the design or construction firm, upload documentation confirming: that the CxA has no responsibilities related to project design or construction; the CxA is reporting all findings to and communicating directly with the building owner; and the owner has signed off on this arrangement."

Note that this addenda may be specific to v4.1. Review carefully before assuming it applies to v4. You could also look to see if you can use the v4.1 credit on v4. Sorry to be vague, but I have not had time to research this myself right now, so this is simply cautionary, not fully informed.