My clients have prepared six-sigma projects for improvement that have a timeline of 5 years (since 2006). The building is 20 yrs old and even back then, facilities management had been re-assessing and implementing investigation and analysis for upgrades/maintenace to ensure system performance. The building is sizeable and since it is occupied, all upgrades and maintenance activities need to be scheduled so as not to disrupt normal operations.
My queries:
1) Is it necessary that the investigation and analysis be done within the performance period, or would it be acceptable to have it even earlier (2006) with some projects being implemented within the performance period, and some after?
2) There are other improvements that were part of an audit done more recently, but the scope and documentation is not as substantial as the six-sigma projects. Should we include these projects or will including these just make it more confusing for the reviewer?
Hoping to hear from you. We intend to submit very soon.
Pablo Fortunato Suarez
Principal ESD Consultant/ArchitectGreenArc Sustainable Building & Architecture
253 thumbs up
May 9, 2011 - 5:38 am
...just to add, the guidebook mentions that a Level II Audit conducted within a 5 year period is acceptable. There is no mention of this flexibility for commissioning plans - "retrocommissioing of the building must be conducted during the performance period" (p171 LEED EBOM Reference Guide)
My other query:
3) If option 1 is chosen, will the commissioning plan be accepted if this was done within the past 5 years - as is the case for Level II Audit?
Shane Mason
Commissioning Services Project DirectorEnvironmental Building Strategies
18 thumbs up
December 5, 2011 - 7:46 am
Pablo,
we've seen some interesting feedback on this credit in reference to exactly the issue you struggle with. Here is my recommendation: Whaterver you do be very clear and follow the ref guide to a T.
We assumed that a mix of auidts and RCx activities should count as well as an updated Audit report but they came back saying that consistency needed to be taken. They essentially said we couldn't flip flop between strategies for 2.1 and 2.2 as well as between 5 and 2 year periods.
What does that mean for you...? Don't flip between RCx and Audits for what you did 5 years ago and what you are going to "update" for the purposes of LEED.
The scope and documentation will need to be very strong for 2.2 but 2.1 is relatively easy in comparison from a proof perspective so don't worry if you don't have the strongest evidence of robust PM strategies. You WILL however need to follow the ASHRAE Audit requests from the Ref Guide as letter of the law.
Audits from 5 years ago work but RCx reports from that long ago don't fly and therefore you'll need a full RCx again if you choose that route.
Follow up with any subsequent questions you may have and I'll do my best to answer them - hope this helps in the meantime.
Shane
Shane Mason
Commissioning Services Project DirectorEnvironmental Building Strategies
18 thumbs up
December 5, 2011 - 7:49 am
One more thing I forgot to mention - see the comment thread below from my colleague Matt Macko and Dan Ackerstein - should provide a clear example of the difference between LEED intent and what we've been hearing from GBCI.