Exterior Envelope Commissioning

While I have no direct experience with this, I would not think that meeting a future standard prerequisite would gain an ID credit. I would think the v4 Enhanced Commissioning language for envelope commissioning would be an acceptable guide. We have several projects where the ECx is a subcontractor to our firm doing the Cx, but they are still in construction, so we do not had direct experience getting the ID credit for exemplary performance of EAc3 under v2009. However, these projects are getting plenty of ID and EA points, and are really doing the work based on prior problems, and getting a point is just a bonus for them.

As you may know (and if others have read any of my comments on the v4 section), I am a bit critical of USGBC on the v4 language and changes to Fundamental and Enhanced commissioning. We are confident that our partners doing the ECx are doing it in very rigorous manner so we see no issues in gaining GBCI acceptance once we get to submittal.

Scott: I was under the impression that the envelope commissioning was removed from the latest drafts of V4. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Eric: We recently achieved the building envelope commissioning ID credit on a project using the criteria in ID catalog:
Building Shell commissioning shall incorporate building envelope review during design. Attention will be paid to Vapor Barrier, Wind Barrier, Thermal Performance, Building positive pressure, Air Leakage, Exhaust Re-Entrainment Reviews during design. Cx will develop construction checklists for the QC to use during construction to verify these systems are
being properly installed
Building Envelope:
a. Vapor Barrier
b. Wind Barrier
c. Thermal Performance
d. Positive Pressure
e. Air leakage
f. Exhaust Re-entrainment

Why would you look to a future, unballoted version of LEED for ECx when LEED HC has this credit approach outlined for v3?

Susan; because I did not think of that! Of course, that would be a much better option, and indeed the ECx is integrated into HC v2009 EAc3. A much better option, thank you.

Valerie; Because you asked, I did another check of the 6th Public Comment Draft, and envelope requirements are included in the EA Prerequisite for Fundamental Commissioning and Verification, and an option remains in EA Credit for Enhanced Commissioning (worth 2 points either in addition to the typical energy systems, or on its own). There are no numbers in the drafts at this point.

Note in this draft, the commissioning was not available to comment on, and only had minor changes in the 5th public comment version.

Hi Scott and Valerie,I was also under the impression that envelope Cx had been removed from the Prereq in v4, so your comment, Scott, was a surprise. I took a closer look at the Prereq language, and I see that it IS still in there, but not as an actual Cx requirement after construction. It says:"Requirements for exterior enclosures are limited to inclusion in the owner’s project requirements (OPR) and basis of design (BOD), as well as the review of the OPR, BOD and project design."So there is no requirement to do any actual post-construction inspection or testing of the envelope for the Prereq.Nadav

Nadav, that is how I read it. For fundamental, it is just in the design portion. But note that the review of the project design is part of this. I made comment after comment on this whenever I had a chance. I disagree with the inclusion of these in the fundamental, and wanted all of the ECx to be part of the Enhanced credit option.

I even got a personal response (does “squeaky” wheel come to mind). Here is the reply from Chrissy Macken.

http://www.leeduser.com/blogs/leed-v4-public-comment-forum-leed-takes-ne...

They heard me, considered it, and did not agree.

Please do not take any of this wrong, as I am a huge promoter of ECx on projects, and often am able to get one of our partner firms to the table to sell their services. The lack of definition is worrying me in the Prereq and Enhanced portions.