I and my project design, drafting and coordination team are very much concerned about loosing the major EAc criteria for the ECx scope and hoping to establish a path to succeed on this credit category, this is our first LEED project and it's been quite the learning curve.
Question:
Due to our concerns on an administrative delay at hiring a CxA representative, we had to approach the USGBC Certification Team for clarification on how to proceed, as the Cx is a capital-intensive inclusion to the LEED process but can’t be excluded as the EAp – FCx is a compulsory item.
We had hoped our preferred lead CxA representative as presented would be approved to double as our EAp – FCx & EAc – Ecx (MBCx); lead CxA but being tagged as the *Engineer of Record crosses that out. Project size under 20,000 ft^2 and fall within eligibility criteria for EAp - FCx
On the other hand, a few more CxA organizations whom were contacted much later, are clear cut 3rd party representative but only joined the fray at our 100% design development phase. Now our challenge is how do we fuse these two firms to work on both the EAp – FCx & EAc – Ecx Option 1, Path 2 (MBCx) respectively.
Although it is clearly outlined the roles to be played by the lead CxA but there must be a way to get this approved, as we had banked on applying for this credit with the 4 points potential but it seems all we are left with is the EAc – Ecx Option 2 (EBCx) for a maximum of only 2 points for the EAc – Ecx scope.
*Engineer of Record -
Though most of the consulting assignments of this firm, had their scope aligned with providing OPR reviews, validating our BOD development and analyzing code compliant issues and providing suggestive inputs on issues of LEED design implications and/ or upgrades (Energy & Daylight Analysis) has been their major role but in no instance did they participate in the Design development, drafting or Coordination duties of the Architectural & MEP processes.
Although I must add, they also provided stamping approval services once the final review and requirements were met before submitting the IFP's for approval.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
July 9, 2018 - 2:51 pm
This is a very complex situation that is difficult to give simple or clear advice in this forum. There are so many parts that I can only give some general comments. First, I am a bit concerned about the EOR not being involved in the design and coordination services! To "stamp" a project is incredibly serious stuff (at least in the US) and significant liability comes with that stamp. Most professional liability insurers would not like to see this kind of activity from one of their clients and could even lead to a loss of coverage depending on how the policy is written.
The concept of two firms doing the Cx is not that uncommon but must be carefully crafted contractually and operationally to make sure there is true independence and direction/supervision coming from the 3rd party CxA. Most often you see this with a high-quality design firm who is the EOR doing the fundamental performance testing and a 3rd party CxA that has expertise in the particular building type to be a value-added during the design review and submittal review tasks. This can provide an extremely good service with the right two teams.
Just based on your current description, you are not proposing an arrangement that would fulfill the intent or the wording of the enhanced commissioning credit.
Olawale Taiwo
2 thumbs up
July 9, 2018 - 3:29 pm
Thank you for your insightful response; with regards the EoR... The organization was not involved in the Design, Drafting and Coordination as a design team but reviewed and ensured all that was done was in line with state wide code and regulatory requirements. Maybe my wording was a little off but the reviewed every detail before appending their stamp or signature and requested amendments or upgrades where necessary.
As per their responsibility and overview as the EoR, all i's & t's were taken care of; It's just been concerning to know that with this much level of involvement, they become in-eligible to perform the EAc - ECx Option 1 path 2 (MBCx). In the End we would have to settle for the EAc - EBCx losing half the total score for this credit initially anticipated.
The most important aspect in all of this for myself and the team is the very valuable lesson-learnt and experience attained; we are definitely very clear about this issue and a whole lot more.