designation of CXA as required by LEED

The requirement is the the owner designate the CxA. I don't think there is any way to get around that. The owner could choose to designate the person already contracted by the contractor, but it would be up to them.If you find out during the project that the CxA is ineligible according to LEED, my advice would probably be to immediately switch to another CxA if possible.

So the CXA must be directly contracted with the owner as the owner's consultant? The contract cannot be through the Architect? I am currently working on a project where a CxA for Fundamental Commissioning only is being selected. However, the owner advised the CxA be contracted through the Architectural firm. Am I correct in my understanding that the owner must enter into direct contract with the CxA in order to comply with this credit?

This is a great question. I'm in the middle of an enhanced commissioning project and we've been contracted through the architect as the CxA. We've been chosen and verified to have the experience by the owner, but they chose to include our costs in with the architect. I'd love to know if this is ok as well.

Fundamental Cx allows for the CxA to be independent from influence by the design or construction groups but can be an employee of the design or construction firms. For projects less than 50K square feet they can be on the design or construction teams. Enhanced Cx requires that the CxA be independent from influence by the design or construction teams and can be subcontracted through the architect but not a contractor.

Appointing an independent CxA seems to be a difficult task. Im facing a situation where the owner has appointed the CxA and is subcontracted through the architect. This should be allowed also foe EAc3. However, the CxA is employed by the same company that is responsible for electrical design but from another team within the company and therefor not involved in design work. How does this situation fit in the requirements for EAc3? Thankful for your advice.

The short answer is I do not think so. Again, this one aspect of commissioning…who holds the contract…has so many different arrangements it is quite amazing! Clearly, the intent of EAc3 is to ensure independence of the CxA. This appears to be two contracts, one through owner to the CxA, and another through the Architect for the electrical design. That does not pass the “independent” test in my opinion. The design review would not be appropriate, basically one person in the firm reviewing another? This would work for EAp1 of course.