You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forForum discussion
NC-2009 EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forTo post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
Shriram Bhide
3 thumbs up
March 4, 2010 - 9:32 pm
Kath,
Thanks a lot for your response.
I don't think I was clear of our problem. J R Loring's Washington offfice is our MEP engineer. The CxA for Fundamental commissioning is the engineer from their NewYork office since this is a building less than 50,000 SF area. We like to use the same for enhanced commissioning as well. Is this okay do you think?
Kath Williams
LEED Fellow 2011, PrincipalKath Williams + Associates
147 thumbs up
March 5, 2010 - 11:28 am
I'm not sure. Here's why...In one of our recent LEED reviews, we were told we had used an inappropriate CxA. The reviewer wrote every project must use a "Disinterested party; subcontractor to the A/E; Construction Manager not holding constructor contracts; Independent consultant contracted to Owner; or Owner employee or staff" for Enhanced Cx. I can see how they might question Loring NYC office as being part of D.C. office. I'm sure this has been resolved as an issue but I can't find a direct reference. Sorry. Can anyone help here?