GC Responsible for Implementing Option B?

In a word - no.

First of all Option B is very, very rarely a viable option for new construction/major renovation projects.

Second, under Option D, M&V is typically delivered by a specialty consultant or a consultant working with the owner's facility staff. In either case the firm that did the original energy model needs to be involved to calibrate the model or someone else needs to get a copy and take over.

I suppose what you describe could work but it is very unusual and in general makes little logical sense to me.

Sounds like perhaps the designer is pushing something they do not fully understand on to the contractor. Timing does not make much sense either since the M&V period typically ends about 18 months to 2 years after occupancy and the contractor is usually gone by then.

It is not unusual that folks do not understand this credit and the guidelines within the IPMVP. In large part this is why it was removed from LEED v4.

Marcus -

Similar to the initial inquiry, I am involved on a project where the GC is contractually obligated to "meet the requirements" of this credit, among others, and there is some discussion [and tension] around what the "develop and implement" language within the LEED reference guide implies as it relates to IPMVP Option D and EAc5 requirements. In my experience, post-occupancy M+V activities, including energy model calibration, are additional services typically performed by the firm who developed the EAp2 / EAc1 energy model and the plan is merely a written set of intentions on behalf of the client, not legally binding nor legally obligating.

With that said, we developed a plan that that is consistent with IPMVP Option D and it describes who we intend to perform the calibration and how we intend to handle any corrective actions with the assumption that they were both additional services. However, the client is insisting that these services [both corrective actions and calibration] are included within the GC’s current contract because they are necessary to "meet the requirements” of EAc5. I'm curious if you could help me understand what is more typical in the industry beyond my own personal experience and if the IPMVP Disclaimer saying "the IPMVP does not create any legal rights or impose any legal obligations on any person or other legal entity” has any implications onto what is “required” by this credit.

I can see the case that the calibration may be included in what is “required” but am having a hard time with the corrective action. Thoughts?

Your experience aligns with my own.

You'll have to ask a lawyer about the disclaimer. I'm not stepping into that one.

The corrective action portion is really just using the M&V effort to identify and correct any operational issues and estimating any additional energy savings using the calibrated energy model.

To simply meet the "requirements of this credit" you can simply follow Option 3 which the owner has to do anyway under MPR #6.

Thanks Marcus --

We are in a tricky possition, to be sure so I don't blame you for saying away from the disclaimer. Believe me, I understand that we aren't lawyers.

And I should have clarified, the GC is obligated to achieve 3 points under EAc5 otherwise Option 3 would be a good point.

Thanks again.