Fundamental and Enhanced Commissioning

Hi Scott- thanks for posting your comments. Below is an updated response to your comments based on the most current version of the language. The original responses to your comments made during 3rd and 4th public comment can be found here: https://new.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-3rd-public-comment-responses and here: https://new.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-4th-pc-responses COMMENT: The design review should not be moved into the Prerequisite, as it needs to be completed by a third party, while retaining the ability for a lower scope Cx process for the prerequisite. RESPONSE: Commissioning has become more widely accepted and undertaken in the industry and LEED has been critical to this. USGBC continues to support the benefits of commissioning and the technical volunteers ultimately recommended early engagement of the commissioning authority to better ensure commissioning benefits. Per the prerequisite requirements, the CxA will be involved in the project early enough to be able to perform the design review. COMMENT: Requiring envelope information in both the OPR and BOD are very good steps as a requirement in fundamental, but the design review of same should be moved to Enhanced. RESPONSE: Understanding the complexity and expense of envelope Cx, USGBC has come to a good compromise on the envelope requirements retained for the prerequisite. The review of the envelope design is intended to alert teams to potential issues prior to construction. However, it will not have the same efficacy as full commissioning. The review does not have to be completed by a third party, as one may not have been retained with the proper expertise if the project is only complying with the prerequisite. COMMENT: Please make sure that a more complete description of who can be the CxA is developed for the reference guide. The language of Fundamental appears to exclude hiring an Enhanced CxA that might use portions of the design team to do field testing, something that does happen as long as the independent CxA direct the whole process. RESPONSE: The design team and contractors are in no way prohibited from assisting with the Cx process, and are in fact encouraged to do so, so long as there is an independent third party overseeing the process and reporting to the owner. The reference guide will have more details regarding the role of the CxA. COMMENT: The document titled Current Facilities Requirements and Operations and Maintenance Plan appears reasonably defined, and I assume replaces the old Systems Manual required in Enhanced Cx. RESPONSE: The CRF and O&M Manual will become part of the Systems Manual. Enhanced Commissioning: COMMENT: The design review for both energy using systems and envelope should be moved to Enhanced. REPONSE: See response above regarding scope of envelope commissioning design review in Fundamental Commissioning prerequisite. COMMENT: Why would the Systems Manual still be required under Enhanced while it is described under Fundamental? This seems to be a duplication of the Fundamental document, and makes it unclear who does this work. RESPONSE: Addressed above. Please let us know if any of this is still unclear.