This project is a 53,444 sf college building, located on an existing university campus, seeking LEED NC version 2.2 certification by the USGBC. The intent of this Credit Interpretation Request is to seek clarification on the acceptability of using two parties as CxA and also of dividing the Enhanced Commissioning tasks. The project is unique in that it has a Cx consultant (Advanced Building Performance, Inc.) on the A/E team as well as a Commissioning agent (Facility Dynamics Engineering) under the CM contract. This setup was stipulated by the owner\'s procurement procedures with ABP assisting the design team during the design phase and a separate firm performing commissioning tasks during construction. While ABP, the independent third party commissioning agent will do EAc3 tasks 2,3 and 6, FDE has been assigned EAc3 tasks 4 and 5. Enhanced Cx Credit requirements summary per USGBC\'s document \' Who can be commissioning authority\' (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1262) 1. Prior to construction documents phase designate an independent commissioning authority to oversee "all commissioning activities." 2. CxA to perform review of OPR, BOD and design documents prior to mid-construction documents phase and perform a back-check. (ABP task) 3. CxA to review contractor submittals. (ABP task) 4. Develop a systems manual. (FDE task) 5. Verify operator and occupant training. (FDE task) 6. CxA to perform a post-occupancy review. (ABP task) FDE was selected by the owner based on competitive pricing provided by the GC along with other selection factors and assigned to the GC for contracting purpose. FDE is not directly selected by the GC and has no project management or oversight responsibilities other than commissioning. They will be allowed unfettered communication directly with the owner. The CIR seeks to clarify if this contracting arrangement will be allowed for the purposes of performing EAc3 tasks 4 & 5 by a separate commissioning agent, under contract with the project\'s Construction Manager.
The applicant is seeking clarification on two separate items. The first question is whether or not two parties may split the commissioning tasks of a project. Per the USGBC document "Who Can Be the Commissioning Authority", and as clarified in LEED-NC v2.2 EAc3 CIR ruling dated 9/10/2007, one party (the independent Commissioning Authority) must lead and oversee all commissioning efforts relating to both fundamental and enhanced commissioning. While this does allow for some limited division of the tasks required by this credit, there must be one independent Commissioning Authority leading and overseeing all LEED commissioning efforts. It is not clear from the description above if there is a single independent Commissioning Authority leading and overseeing all commissioning efforts. The second question is whether the indicated delineation of tasks is acceptable. It is not clear from the inquiry if ABP, while identified as part of the A/E team, will hold any responsibility for design or construction management. If ABP, as a firm, holds any responsibility for design or construction management, they may not serve as the independent Commissioning Authority. Further, it is required that the independent Commissioning Authority perform EA Credit 3 tasks 2, 3, and 6. Beyond these restrictions, it is the responsibility of the independent Commissioning Authority to determine who shall perform each of the remaining tasks under both fundamental and enhanced commissioning. The indicated delineation of tasks will only be acceptable if ABP is eligible to serve as the independent Commissioning Authority, and if they provide leadership and oversight relating to the remaining tasks under this credit and under EA Prerequisite 1. Applicable Internationally.