For our project, a third party Commissioning Agent (Dome Tech) has been contracted to provide all services to meet the criteria of both EA Prerequisite 1: Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning and EA Credit 3: Additional Commissioning. This contract began back in 2001 during design phase. Construction phase did not begin until 2006. Our project includes high efficiency gas-fired micro-turbines combined with a double effect absorption chiller/heater to provide on-site power, heating and cooling. UTC Power, A United Technologies Company offers such a system and was submitted and approved for the project. Since the submittal review and approval as well as installation, UTC has acquired the Firm (Dome Tech) that was contracted to provide Commissioning Services. When we asked the Commissioning Agent if this posed a conflict of interest and pointed them to the existing Credit Interpretations the following is the response that we received: "Dome-Tech\'s recent acquisition by United Technologies doesn\'t present a conflict of interest due to our organization being maintained as a separate business with separate accounting and management. Unlike CIR dated 11/08/2004 where an energy service company was performing commissioning and potentially supplying the controls and automation, neither Dome-Tech nor UTC Power is operating under a performance contract model. Dome-Tech has nothing to gain by not disclosing any issues uncovered during the commissioning of the Microturbines, in addition in our experience most manufacturers and installers would rather know and fix a problem then let it become a warranty issue. Additionally, Dome-Tech is not affiliated with the design team in any way, so our suitability for EA 3 is in compliance." Our inquiry is whether or not the acquisition of Dome-Tech by UTC - the manufacturer of the Microturbine system - poses a conflict of interest and precludes us from being able to achieve either EA Prerequisite 1 or EA Credit 3? Please note that the project construction is near the end and the acquisition did not take place until October 1, 2007.
For this project it is acceptable to retain the previously hired commissioning agent despite the fact that an equipment supplier has since acquired the firm, provided that the commissioning agent will document that they retain independence in staffing, management, and finances. The commissioning agent has likely completed significant portions of the EAp1 and EAc3 requirements thus its acquisition by the equipment supplier should have minimal impact on the project. Applicable Internationally.