Who is the Commissioning Authority?

Hi Heather, We have this situation also and are designating the Fundamental CxA. I'm interested though in how this will be perceived when only one form asks for experience and each form will have a different signator (at least if they still have signators by the time I submit this).

We have been in both positions, as the firm doing only Fundamental with another firm as Enhanced, and as the firm doing the Enhanced and the EOR doing the Fundamental. As I read EAc3, the firm doing the Enhanced commissioning must be the overall CxA, with some sort of oversight or review of the performance of the Fundamental. In many ways this is semantics, but the scope should be clearly defined that way, such that the Enhanced CxA has the ability and responsibility to confirm that the scope and results of the Fundamental are appropriate. So, what we did was the firm doing Fundamental fills out EAp1, with their experience and confirming results, with the required signatories. Then the firm doing Enhanced filled out EAc3 along with required signatories, provided the scope of work to show the overall responsibility AND we include something related to the experience for that firm. We have probably been over documenting the commissioning credits, but I sure try not to generate questions or comments from reviewers, and we have had pretty good results with our commissioning work and acceptance. Typically, the comment we get is the Owner has not completed their signatories on EAp1, which automatically bounces EAc3.

Thanks, Scott. That is helpful. I agree the Enhanced CxA reads like the oversight CxA. I was thrown by the experience only showing up on the Fundamental form, and the fact that our Fundamental is doing the commissioning plan and report, while the Enhanced is doing the OPR/BOD review. Sounds like your approach has worked. Thanks for the response.