Forum discussion

Changes to Fundamental CX

There were some subtle changes to the prerequisite requirement for fundamental commissioning that can have some profound effects. As written, the commissioning agent must be on board during the design phase. The exact wording is:" Engage a Commissioning Authority (CxA) by the end of the design development phase. " This would mean that a project that decided to become LEED certified after the beginning of CDs would no longer be eligible for LEED since it does not meet the requirement of the prerequisite. I am assuming this is put in because of another change to the requirements which requires the commissioning agent to conduct a review of OPR, BOD and the design documents (drawings and specs). This is new on 2012, previously the CX agent had to ensure there was a BOD and OPR for Fundamental Cx. Additionally, Fundamental Cx now requires the CX agent to "Prepare and maintain a Current Facilities Requirements and Operations and Maintenance Plan documenting information necessary for efficient building operations." While I think this is a great document to be produced it might be better served in the enhanced CX credit since the inclusion of all of these items will significantly drive up the cost of LEED certification to meet this prerequisite. I believe this will force many owners, developers and government agencies to reevaluate what green building rating systems they will use and will result in a decrease in market share and impact.

5

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 19:28

The balance between market share, transformation and impact is a tough one to judge sometimes. I would gladly trade market share in the short run for market transformation in the long run. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive but if you are trying to drag the market in a direction sometimes you will have to give up some market share.

Fri, 03/23/2012 - 18:30

I agree with your review Robert. This appears to move peer review (without really saying that) and a reduced scope Systems Manual from Enhanced to Fundamental. I do not agree with this move, they should remain in Enhanced as part of a third party involvement. If it remains, much better definition of what is meant by “review” of the OPR, BOD, and Construction Documents is needed. The Cx industry is plagued by a lack of definition and enforcement leading to a lot of low cost, low scope providers. I would support improved definitions of scope with associated documentation requirements to show compliance. Followed by increased review. Also, while the bulk of the envelope commissioning has been removed in this draft, the requirement for “review” here will lead to great confusion.

Mon, 03/26/2012 - 20:59

If the definition of "lose market share" is "cut by 2/3 and kill it dead outside of the US" then I'd say go ahead and enjoy your tete a tete with the Green Building Challenge folks. The sad reality is that the market is changing less rapidly than some of us who have been in the game for awhile would like. However, once you de-couple the LEED engine from the market train as is being threatened here, it is profoundly dangerous to think that the train, with no other engine to drive it, will somehow magically catch up with LEED.

Mon, 03/26/2012 - 21:48

Hey Rob, I am not sure if your comment is directed toward the specific Cx issue being discussed (above your comments), the EA section in BD+C (this page), the LEED 2012 effort in general or my very general comment regarding market share above. I guess I am not sure specifically where you feel the de-coupling of the market and LEED is being proposed. I certainly agree that we can't go too far as LEED develops or we could leave the market behind. I was just suggesting that in order to affect market transformation over time LEED needs to change. How much and how fast are the difficult part to judge when evaluating LEED changes at both the individual credit and holistic impact levels. I agree that the level of market share loss you suggest would result if LEED went too far, too fast. However, as a market transformation tool I could see a period of time when new versions of LEED come out that the trajectory of projects levels off as the market adjusts. If we don't change we become the status quo and LEED loses all meaning.

Mon, 03/26/2012 - 21:58

Hi Marcus--It's a bit of both. I know from personal experience that we are often asked to bid on projects already out of the schematic design phase and often deep into CDs, if not out of the ground. As noted, though obvious to us, the IDP process is "radical" to 99% of the market. I'd be comfortable with a 15-20 % loss of current share, but when you add the Cx PR to the ASHRAE PR, I'd have to say 2/3 might even be conservative. The EAPR2 (apologies for cross-contaminating the thread) threshold is the 8-point level in 2009 and only about 30% of LEED projects that certified in 2011 went above that. Currently only one state—Maryland—has adopted the 2010 version, 5 states have energy codes that predate 2007 and 10 states have no commercial code at all. The fact is that 'just' meeting ASHRAE 2010 for all intents and purposes IS a leadership position and one that has been driven in large part by the influence of LEED, influence that I do not want squandered. I really don't want us to be looking backward saying 'coulda, woulda, shoulda'.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.