Option 1 Path 2 – monitoring-based Cx – how far to go?

Long question...long answer (which I am known for). You are not going to find the kind of concrete answers that you are seeking. This is a new option under v4 and therefore will need some time to fully understand what they may or may not accept. The concept is very good and while there is additional cost, I see no way it will be $2/sf! Before I get too deep, one point should be discussed. If the owner pursues this option, they should have someone on staff who has a direct responsibility to monitor and improve energy performance or hire a third party to do so. That is the only way you would get the value out of this action to justify the investment. If this is not feasible or possible, I would strongly recommend putting project budget into other efficiency opportunities. Based on many discussions with various people at USGBC, the goal of this options was to provide a design alternative to Measurement and Verification. This was a very seldom used, but extremely effective, credit under v2009. The concept is to create a system of evaluation and analysis that allows an owner to know when a building drifts outside its performance goals...before it costs too much money! Under v4 it has been revised and spread out a little too, so there are more than 1 points available. You have to consider EAc1 option WITH EAc3 Advanced Energy Metering and WEc4 Water Metering. There are really 3 points possible. So, I would use the two metering credits to evaluate the cost for adding meters to the project, and how many are required. There is super value in metering IF someone monitors them AND acts on the results. Then you would have cost to program trends and in my opinion, creating an as constructed energy model that can be used to identify trends that may be outside the energy use goals of the project. I do not think it has to be a model that uses real weather data (although that is a great way to do it). Having even a well done as-constructed, as-used model will give operators great trends to compare to. You would then construct a plan that on at least a quarterly basis looks at historical operations against the ideal and plan interventions or actions. When used well this kind of monitoring can lead to additional savings and performance. Also, alarms should be designed into the monitoring for key aspects that are identified during commissioning and notifying operators that there may be an immediate need. If the normal design was for lighting to be on for a given schedule, but exceeds that schedule by a certain %, flag the operators. There may be more school events that week, or a control has been changed or manually turned on. The last part of your question deserves some attention too. For sure I would create the outline of a plan that you feel brings value to the client and meets your understanding of the general requirements and intent. That is key, you must believe there is value in the scope you are proposing. Then ask for a conference call to discuss that plan and get any feedback the reviewing team may have. Always approach reviews with the attitude of "this is what we are planning and feel meets the criteria, what do you think?" You will get useful feedback that way. Now my lecture...LEED is a measure of the sustainability of the project, it brings no value in itself. I never talk about the cost of a point. I talk about the value of the action and how it can help increase performance THEN mention that there are points that reward that. Good luck and please feel free to contact me directly at scottb@ideabuildworks.com if you have more questions.