We have a core and shell warehouse project that has no tenant buildout, i.e., no conditioned space, and therefore no thermal envelope. We interpret the vague requirements for envelope commissioning to be that the Owner and BECx together determine what kind of testing is appropriate for the building type - in this case envelope inspections, window testing and roof adhesion testing. This scope is reflected in the OPR. However, there is significant concern that the minimal scope of this work no matter how appropriate to the project is not sufficient for LEED requirements. Are we correct in our interpretation that it is in fact the Owner who determines what constitutes envelope commissioning for his building? And that whatever the agreed upon scope of this work turns out to be, if performed per NIBS guidelines, will be sufficient for LEED compliance?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Elizabeth Cassin
Associate Principal and Unit ManagerWiss, Janney, Elstner
LEEDuser Expert
18 thumbs up
April 30, 2018 - 11:17 pm
Michelle, the Owner's Project Requirements really dictates the scope of the BECx work, so if enclosure is not insulated or does not need to be air tight, then the BECx scope would not consider these performance attributes. Presuming the owner wants an enclosure that doesn't leak would require a certain level of BECx scope, which likely includes many of the tasks outlined in NIBS GL3.