Re-commisioning

John, USGBC would only be involved if the project were pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings certification or wanted to get a LEED dynamic plaque. And there is no impact relative to the status of the existing certification. If anything USGBC would encourage an honest assessment at this stage of how a project is doing.

Right Tristan. Re-commissioning should be part off the plan for every building, and is a great way to ensure proper operation AND improve operation over time. This sets up the owner for EBOM and Dynamic Plaque as well.

John, as Tristan points out since nothing is being submitted, there will be no direct involvement with the USGBC. I am curious as to what the LEED red tape includes. I commission using ASHRAE, NIBS, BCA and the ACG for documentation guidance and have not had to modify my reports for LEED purposes.

Great point Jack, documentation is the foundational to commissioning, providing that trail to be used for operations going forward. If anything, I have found that USGBC requires much less documentation than what I feel is the standard of care in the industry.

Also, to comment on "rescinding certification". LEED for New Construction is a design standard and is intended to be the first stop for a building. The expectation is that within a couple of years of being certified, an owner would pursue EBOM to measure the operation of the building as well as the design. Then EBOM is re-certified on a regular basis.

There is a process for challenging the certification, and USGBC has a means of removing certification, but the process is complex and has built in reviews and appeals...and to my knowledge has been instigated once, and the project kept its certification. If anyone knows different, I would like to learn it. This is built into the agreement owners commit to when registering a project, and when submitting for certification. It is not specific to one version or an other, but has been refined as time goes on.