Hi everyone! Before trying our luck at getting a hold of GBCI, we figured we would post a couple thoughts here for those of you brave enough to engage in a v4 commissioning discussion with us!
At this point our team at GHT has spent quite a bit of time reviewing v4 commissioning requirements, specifically for interiors, and how it will impact our scope going forward. We have a few thoughts/ questions that we'd like to get everyone's opinion on, so please don't be shy!
- We have noted an uptick in the presence of preventative maintenance plan/schedule verbiage in the v4 fundamental commissioning requirements language (ID+C guide: pg. 114, 118). Not only has the O&M plan been shifted to FCx and expanded upon from the Enhanced Commissioning scope in v3, but a preventative maintenance plan has the potential to balloon into a massive additional service. Does anybody have any thoughts on what level of detail GBCI will be expecting in a preventative maintenance plan as part of the fundamental commissioning scope? An example would be terrific.
- Another potentially huge additional service is the expansion of the electrical and plumbing scopes, but most notably, electrical. We don't necessarily have a question here, but more just a point of reflection. Will clients be prepared for fees that may include not just a CxA, but in some cases 1-2 additional engineers capable of commissioning the new electrical and plumbing items added to the FCx scope?
And now one with a more Enhanced Commissioning bend:
- There seems to have been a shift in the type of language used in v3 to v4 with regards to training O&M staff. Where v3 makes reference to the VERIFICATION of training for operating personnel, v4 makes reference to the DEVELOPMENT or CREATION of training requirements. This is a scope shift in our eyes. It is one thing to confirm that training took place, it's another entirely to have to develop and implement that training. We see this as another potentially large scope add. Typically we see this in the commissioning specs under Part 3: Execution, and training protocol is typically provided by MEP designers. To us it doesn’t seem to be in the best interest of a project to have a CxA verify (Step 5, pg. 162) training he/she created (Step 2, pg. 162).
Encourage any and all thoughts, even if it’s to correct something we have misinterpreted! Thanks, and looking forward to some discussion!
GHT Green Team
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
January 19, 2017 - 5:01 pm
Sorry it took so long to respond! I thought I had subscribed to all Cx threads. Thank you Tristan for bringing this to my attention.
Ok, lots of questions and just as long an answer...ish.
Yes, the language of what used to be the Systems Manual in v3 has changed as it moved from Enhanced to Fundamental in v4. I agree with your review and do think that the CxA will need to spend more time describing the O&M plan. However, I think careful specification of the requirements of the contractor in developing their manual will be key to keeping this scope as a review mode versus a development mode.
As an engineer, I hope you hire more for Cx! Fundamental Cx scope has definitely increased in v4, but the only real expansion of systems is electrical. In my mind, this change is to increase the attention paid to lighting and controls and other electrical systems that would affect energy use. Looking at the typical scope for CI, I think the costs should be modest for adding this scope.
Will clients be ready for increased fees? They will be if we educate them on the difference between v3 and v4. There is tremendous value in commissioning and this additional scope just needs to be explained in that vain.
Your training questions is interesting and I understand where you are coming from but am not quite as concerned. Again, specification of the training required by the contractors could be described as DEVELOPMENT. I have not heard that this is substantially different than under v3, but we still have a fairly small set of certified projects.