Anyone have a defined scope here?
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
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 EAc3 »
Full Envelope Commisioning Scope
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
December 20, 2013 - 5:55 pm
Jean, please clarify what you're looking for?
Jean Marais
b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert832 thumbs up
December 21, 2013 - 7:34 am
Depth of scope example:
Level 0: check the as built componant quality matches the construction documents.
Level 1: checking locking, opening and closing functions of all doors and windows.
Level 2: Level 1 + blowerdoor test results review or visual inspection of all seals and weather strippings including shafts and permutations.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
December 23, 2013 - 2:38 pm
Jean, I think if you start BECx (building enclosure commissioning) during or after construction, you are too late. Read Verifying Performance with Building Enclosure Commissioning for an introduction to considerations and key standards.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
December 26, 2013 - 5:02 pm
There are many levels of envelope commissioning as there are systems commissioning. We do not provide this service in-house, but we partner with several very competent firms that do this. Typically this service needs building scientists. I must agree with Tristan, that if you are starting the process after design, then it is too late. A blower door test is great to confirm the overall performance, but if the foundational issues were not addressed in design, submittal review, AND installation, corrections are going to be difficult to impossible, and will probably involve lawyers.
While this is a massive simplification of the scope, here is a very short version of what was included as scope on a recent project where we are the prime CxA with a subconsultant doing envelope commissioning (and I am not listing all the normal process management and documentation).
Pre-Design Phase:
Assist in Establishing OPR
Assist in overall Cx Plan
Verify criteria of OPR against BOD
Preliminary review of Construction Documents
Design Phase:
Conduct envelope Cx kickoff
Verify criteria of OPR against revised BODs
Perform peer review at 35%, 65%, and 95% design completion
Assist in finalized Cx Plan
Coordinate mock-up requirements
Construction Phase:
Review shop drawings and submittals
Perform Job Site Observations during installation (in this case every two weeks for 5 months)
Prepare installation checklists and functional performance tests
Verify contractor completion of installation checklists
Witness performance tests
It has been my experience that the design and submittal services are critical to the success of envelope commissioning. This even more than MEP commissioning is where the benefit is accrued…before something is installed. In MEP, a lot depends on the programming, so must wait until a lot of work is done. In the case of the envelope, once installed it can be too late, so the work is pushed much earlier and is more important. I need to encourage one of my colleagues in these building science firms to help on this forum!
Jean Marais
b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert832 thumbs up
January 6, 2014 - 6:05 am
Thanks guys. You see, in Germany, I reckon we are doing much of this already...for example, we have to constantly check the envelope is meeting the manditory requirements of ASHRAE 90.1 and that means right from the get-go. It's just not been documented in the QA CxA way, and I reckon that with minimal extra effort, we could include this as envelope commissioning.
Our CxA QA process is in place...it just needs a few extra items to be captured in the documentation.
Jean Marais
b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert832 thumbs up
January 7, 2014 - 10:18 am
Add these resources to the links tab:
ASHRAE-Guideline-0-The-Commissioning-Process
http://unmsrmc.org/rfp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ASHRAE-Guideline-0-The...
NIBS Guideline 3-2012 http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NIBS/nibs_gl3.pdf
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
January 21, 2014 - 9:19 am
Jean, we have been working with several highly qualified envelope commissioning firms, and they tend to come from building science world. There is some specialized education and experience they have that we depend on when they are partners of ours. So I would caution you to evaluate the service you provide and the staff you assign to this kind of work. One other aspect that I do for my firm is risk management. In general, we do not feel that there is high risk in commissioning. You still have to meet the standard of care, no doubt, but in general the EOR is liable for design and the contractor for construction. We could be held liability if there was negligence in not finding something, but ultimately the underlying issue is still the design and construction.
I am not so sure about envelope commissioning. There has been major litigation over envelopes, and often for extremely high dollars, with some really spectacular failures. Again, we do not provide this service, but most of our partners are also providing forensic engineering. So with this kind of exposure, I think an envelope CxA could be dragged in if there was an issue.
Jean Marais
b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert832 thumbs up
January 22, 2014 - 2:23 am
Thank you for the caution. It is well noted. You make a good point about the experience of the building science guys. It would be good to hire in the expert to do the work whilst we prepare documentation with him.
The US is such a different animal. The Germans love their rules...that's why so much of this stuff is already a legal requirement (instead of CxAs they have 3rd party auditors, typically from TÜV-Rheinland, but these guys just check by the letter of the law...which in turn often sites industry norms like DIN). The converse is that if it's not legally required, then they tend not to do it. So a lot can still go wrong, and does. And in the few projects where I was on the Cx team, we always found issues to mittigate...some quite major ones including life safety issues. So over the years, I've become a big fan of the Cx process.
Thanks for sharing.