- The CxA may be a qualified employee of the owner, an independent consultant, or an employee of the design or construction firm who is not part of the project’s design or construction team, or a disinterested subcontractor of the design or construction team.
- Project teams that intend to pursue EA Credit Enhanced Commissioning should note a difference in the CxA qualifications: for the credit, the CxA may not be an employee of the design or construction firm nor a subcontractor to the construction firm.
From the above mentioned LEED BD+C: New Construction | v4 - LEED v4 Fundamental commissioning and verification section:
It sounds like the individual chosen to be the fundamental CxA can also be an employee of the mechanical design firm contracted to complete MEP CD's, but not part of the design team itself, which is true most of the time. I was just clarifying that this is a true statement?
Also I understand that the same person mentioned above cannot be the Enhanced CxA on this project, and must be contracted separately of the design team. This leads my next statement of to exactly what level of involvement does the enhanced CxA have to be on the project? It seems like the designated ECxa (enhanced) simply needs to review the fundamental CxA work and submit this to the owner and to LEED online separately at the end of the project. Otherwise it would seem that there are two separate agents being paid to almost to the same things in essence and it is costing the owner twice as much. The review of the fundamental CxA work by the enhanced ECxA individual would seem like the most cost effective method. Could you shed some light onto this question as well, as some clients ask these exact questions?
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
November 13, 2017 - 12:19 pm
First, you are correct that for fundamental Cx, the CxA can be from the MEP firm but not part of the design team. Frankly, I disagreed with this because the peer review moved to fundamental, and for a peer review to be worth something, it has to be independent. But that is that, and this is now.
You seem to see this as two services, where LEED sees that the Enhanced CxA becomes the CxA and does the total scope for both fundamental and enhanced. This is the best way and brings great value as long as you select a firm that is more interested in making the project a success than in scoring points against the design team. While in v2009 there were times that using the MEP firm to do fundamental and have them overseen and amplified by a separate enhanced CxA made some sense, in v4 just go for the fully independent enhanced firm and benefit from the significant advantages of this arrangement.
marc myers
November 13, 2017 - 4:13 pm
Thank you Scott for taking the time to address my questions!
Ok just to reconfirm, for the fundamental Cx, the CxA can be an employee of the MEP firm, but not part of the design team, and all would agree on that.
The second part about the enhanced Cx was a little unclear. I am asking if the Fundamental Cx can perform all the Fundamental and the Enhanced paperwork since the "lead Cx" is usually the Fundamental Cx. The Enhanced Cx will then simply review the documentation and turn it into the owner and LEED online.
In this case the CxA is also an employee of the MEP design firm, but not part of the design team and is the most vested Cx agent.
The Enhanced is a third party agent and only reports to owner about their review of the documentation.
This seems to make the most sense as related to cost and having only the one person attending all necessary meetings. Otherwise, there are two people doing almost the same tasks throughout the project and the costs will be too large and this might be why the client chooses not to do LEED in the first place?
So in recap, the Enhanced Cx would just review all of the "Lead CxA documents, who in this scenario is also a employee of the same MEP firm or EOR on the porject" and only reports to the owner and to LEED online.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
November 14, 2017 - 11:38 am
First, I will apologize, I am a bit grumpy this morning. That being said, the role of the MEP and the CxA deserve more than one person at a meeting. From what I am reading, you want the CxA to represent the MEP throughout the project...I strongly feel that makes them part of the design team. This is not a duplication of effort. The CxA is ultimately a quality assurance program that has to be separate from the design.
My background is a large MEP firm with a significant background in Cx (a service that I started for the firm so many years ago). We indeed commissioned our own work, but it was always arm's length and independent within the firm and even reporting structure. We commissioned other firms work and were commissioned by them and always had a great relationship to work for the benefit of the owner. There is significant value in having the two roles separate in the enhanced process. Also, under v4 so much of the enhanced as moved into fundamental that I am now of the opinion that the Cx should always be an independent firm hopefully contracted to the owner directly. Ok, will get off my soapbox now.
I have participated in several projects where there were separate firms doing fundamental and enhanced under v2009. There is some synergy in the MEP firm working under the observation and control of a third party CxA since the MEP does know the design and sequences and can formulate high-quality performance testing plans, especially if that firm has significant Cx expertise and experience. Then the actual CxA (the independent firm) is in control and observation of all the fundamental work and then does the peer review, shop drawing review, and all the tasks that are best done by an independent entity. But the Enhanced CxA is in control and is ultimately responsible for the overall commissioning plan and efforts. This was supported by several LEED Interpretations under v2009.
The changes to v4 pushed the peer review and other enhanced requirements down to fundamental. There was still questions related to the arrangement that you are suggesting, so it was addressed in LI#10447. This is available in the Credit Library and I made a hyperlink as well. Basically, it states "The use of the phrase “oversee and coordinate” defines a high level of participation while providing some flexibility for fitting the process to the project." It then goes on to provide guidance on the scope split. I will respectfully disagree with their inclusion of the peer review in the fundamental tasks...for it to be of true value, it should be independent.
Again, sorry for being grumpy (I am old by the way), but I am passionate about commissioning and the incredible value it has to owners, designers, and contractors...if done correctly and not just "to get the points".
marc myers
November 15, 2017 - 7:21 pm
Hi Scott,
I am not saying I want the MEP and the CxA to be the same person at all, but can work for the same company. This should not be an issue in my opinion at all, as I am part of a large company that does both MEP, Cx and everything else under the sun. I am about the most meticulous and ethical person I know and my first duty is always to the owner to deliver the highest degree of service, and assurance possible. I am saying that the lead CxA who is usually the fundamental, that is the person who does “oversee and coordinate” most activities. I definitely agree that in this case the enhanced and the fundamental are two different people, but the enhanced can simply do the peer or document review of the fundamental who is basically the lead of all activities. The enhanced review goes directly to the owner and submitted online to LEED. If there are any issues or dificiencies, the fundamental should be made aware early and these can be corrected as to continue to make the Cx process the best it can be for the project and the owner. I am just saying that two just break it off and say it has to be a completely separate company totally independent of the mother company does not make sense to me as I am in a whole different area and dont talk with the MEP folks unless I have to venture over there. It does make it easier to ask questions and get info quickly to help solve an issue though versus the email game of never getting an answer.
Well I hope that was more clear and I take no offense to being grumpy, like they always say if you have made friends with every contractor on site, chances are you are not doing your job as a good CxA :) The best answers are always raw and served cold.
Thank you sir and I hope we can continue to talk about this and I am still looking for that golden answer.
Scott Bowman
LEED FellowIntegrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
December 15, 2017 - 12:48 pm
Marcus, I am in a better mood now. Your arguments are valid and in the past (as a Principal in a large engineering firm that did Cx with an independent team) I agree with them. Really, I do not "disagree" now - I have come to a point where to me the value of a quality independent CxA is more than some of the obvious benefits of the common firm doing both design and Cx, and there are benefits. Please do ask for a conference call with the reviewers and state your case. Based on my discussions with members of the TAG, the goal of v4 was to strengthen the requirement for independent CxA for enhanced. My problem with v4 was how they moved some of the tasks of Enhanced into Fundamental that really were most appropriate when you had an independent CxA, primarily the peer review. I am serious...have the conference call and make your case (and you are talking to the intent with your post) and see what they say and report back. Best of luck!