I do commissioning and I work at a design firm. When a customer pursues both Fundamental and Enhanced cx- my group would not be able to do the Cx of the project. However, we believe there is a lot of value in doing MBCx for our customers as well as for to confirm the performance of our design.
Is it possible to to have a independent third party perform the tasks for fundamental and enhanced cx, but have our team perform MBCx services? If so, what would be the proper mechanism to do that ie: owner has the contact for MBCx or we are sub to the cx agent?
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
520 thumbs up
February 28, 2020 - 3:20 pm
No, I do not feel this would be appropriate. This not give the intended independence that GBCI is looking for. Personally, I think there is value for a competent firm to do fundamental Cx and design, but never enhanced. LEED did not agree, and the movement of some enhanced tasks moving to fundamental has really made this moot.
David Eldridge
Energy Efficiency NinjaGrumman/Butkus Associates
68 thumbs up
May 6, 2020 - 7:05 pm
There seems to be some loophole that you could do the work - the credit language is all about the plan and that the owner intends to take some actions, but the language seems to prevent your firm from being the author of the MBCx plan, or listed in the Cx Plan as being contracted to do the work if GBCI checks for that status.
I'd be curious about the intent. Deploying an MBCx process I can see some chance for a perceived conflict with the design team but also that the MBCx process is looking to ensure design intent and to find faults - no conflict there, everyone wants those things. Only if the MBCx process might find any issue with the design then it could be a real issue on the order of magnitude of a third-party reviewing a design, IMO.
Did you send a CIR? I could see this one being clarified in favor of MBCx being allowable by the design team.
Karina Hanyzewski
ACCOctober 7, 2024 - 9:57 am
Hello! - Same subject but different scenario:
Owner (College) is developing a two new buildings to teach two technical programs. The College has a CxA in house that helps putting together the requirements of all the internal stakeholders and supports the Project Manager within College to carry over the technical scope and meet the requirements.
While the College has also hired a third party CxA to carry over the regular Cx process (design reviews, plan, and test, etc.) As an Owner there is an Ongoing/Monitoring Based Cx implementation that begins from turnover throughout the first year of Construction while we transfer the operation to Maintenance department.
Could the CxA (Owner) submit the OCx-MBCx program separate from the third party consultant documentation as the Monitoring Base Cx to achieve the additional point?
Thank you for any guidance!
Joyce Kelly
Architect - Cx Provider - Building Performance SpecialistGLHN Architects & Engineers
27 thumbs up
October 8, 2024 - 8:57 am
A good MBCx plan requires full involvement from the engineers to incorporate all the meters and control points. The Owner knows their requirements and priorities. The 3rd party CxP is uniquely positioned to pull it all together. I recommend the Owner includes the Engineer and CxP in developing or updating their plan for maximum success. They may have done that in prior years and their current MBCx plan may be the product of that successful collaboration. Seems like the history of the development of their Ongoing/Monitoring Based Cx implementation could be a significant factor in GBCI's review.