CS-2009 EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Required

Our client is a non-profit trade association which has leased space in a commercial office building in Washington, DC for 35 years. As part of an additional 10-year lease renewal and expansion, their interior space has been undergoing renovation. Upgrades to 124,000 of the 141, 000 square feet that the tenant occupies were completed in 2006 using a green approach. 10,000 square feet is currently being constructed, and 7,000 square feet is currently in design. The tenant occupies approximately 55% of the building in which they are located. Since the renovation began, the association has come to recognize LEED as an important performance benchmark of green building quality. The association is pursuing certification for its space in order to demonstrate the value of LEED CI certification to its employees and to educate its approximately 8000 corporate member organizations nationwide about LEED. The association\'s hope is to certify all 141,000 square feet of the space that they occupy. The association could limit the LEED CI site boundary to the 10,000 square feet that is currently under construction and the 7,000 square feet in which construction has not yet begun, and meet all LEED CI prerequisites and sufficient credit points to certify that portion of their space at a Silver or Gold level. They are interested, however, to undergo the additional effort and expense associated with including the 124,000 square feet of space that was renovated in earlier phase of renovation. We have confirmed that sufficient credit points could be documented for the whole space to be eligible for certification, however, the issue of how the EAp1 Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning prerequisite would need to be addressed. Alternatively we considered working with the association to pursue LEED OM for their entire space, however, LEED OM presents its own set of challenging issues given its current whole building approach and the fact that the association does not have direct control over the base building components or the activities of other building tenants. In order to include the previous phase of interior renovation in the LEED CI site boundary, we propose adapting LEED OM EAc1 requirements for commissioning the energy related systems in the tenant\'s scope whereby we would: 1. Develop a retro-commissioning, recommissioning or ongoing commissioning plan for the tenant\'s scope energy related systems, including the heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVAC&R) systems and associated controls, lighting controls, including daylighting, domestic hot water systems, and renewable energy systems. 2. Conduct the investigation and analysis phase. Document the breakdown of energy use in the tenant space. 3. List the operating problems that affect occupants\' comfort and energy use, and develop potential operational changes that will solve them. 4. List the identified capital improvements that will provide cost-effective energy savings and document the cost-benefit analysis associated with each. Please let us know if this would be an acceptable alternate approach to meeting the LEED CI EAp1 Fundamental Commissioning prerequisite for the phases of the renovation already completed. The current and future phases of the project would follow the standard LEED CI EAp1 requirements.

The owner is utilizing design/ build firms for the mechanical and electrical systems on this project. The mechanical firm has in-house design, construction, automation and commissioning services. The mechanical firm has a very clear separation of these four functions with separate management over each, so our clarification is to confirm that the mechanical firm can provide commissioning services for this prerequisite (we are NOT asking for EA3, Enhanced Commissioning). Each of these four functions have indepenent managers within the firm who answer directly to the president. The CxA for the mechanical firm will not be the Engineer-of-Record, nor will he have any construction or design responsibilities, other than as required in the CxA role (to review and verify design and construction processes, submittals and installations). His sole role and responsibility will be the proper commissioning of the project such that it meets the Owner\'s Project Requirements, the Basis of Design and the overall intent and expectation of the Owner. Our CxA meets all of the requirements for this prerequisite and has been approved by the Owner and Architect to provide this service. As described in the prerequisite\'s section, our CxA: 1. has experience on multiple projects of similar managerial and technical complexity. 2. will be independent of the design and construction teams as described above. 3. will not have responsibility for design (not the Engineer-of-Record) or for construction. 4. will report his results, findings and recommendations directly to the Owner Is this structure and our selected CxA acceptable to meet the requirement as defined in the prerequisite?

This CIR is seeking clarification on the scope of Systems Performance Testing required for Commissioning. The project is a 300,000 square foot residential building located in New York City. As part of commissioning, the project intends to commission the HVAC and refrigeration systems, lighting and daylighting controls and domestic hot water systems as per the credit requirements of EA prerequisite 1 and EA credit 3. All major equipment in the building will be commissioned such as boilers, hot water pumps, roof top units (DX), supply and exhaust fans. However, for cooling, the residences use Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC). The Project is seeking guidance on the representative sampling of PTAC for the systems performance testing. The project is intending to test 10% (industry standard) of the PTACs in the building for each size (7500 Btu, 9000 Btu, 12000 Btu etc.) subject to a minimum count of 10. For example, if there are 27 units of Type A, and 120 units of Type B and 400 units of Type C, the functional testing will be done for: 10 qty - Type A 12 qty - Type B 40 qty - Type C If failures are found in a group, in addition to the faulty units, an additional sample is tested. Is this approach of a 1 in 10 representative sampling acceptable to USGBC?

The LEED Rating system requirements for Enhanced Commissioning establish that “an independent commissioning authority (CxA) must lead, review, and oversee the completion of all commissioning process activities.” What specific responsibilities does this entail in a case where more than one CxA from separate companies are engaged to complete commissioning tasks?

We are requesting a CIR for a commercial tenant build out in an existing space. The owner decided to go forward with LEED certification after original design drawings were in place. An independent Cx Authority was brought on board after construction documents were issued but before construction commenced, and was in contact with all necessary trades. A commissioning plan was generated prior to commissioning activities. The CxA worked with the project team throughout the construction process and generated a full Cx report. This project utilized existing mechanical equipment which serves the existing spaces. All information regarding this is outlined in the BOD. The Commissioning Agent reviewed all documents and incorporated these guidelines in their plan and final report. The built systems have had a thorough and unbiased review not just of how they were built, but of how they were designed. All prerequisite requirements have been met with the exception of the specifications being included in the original contract documents. All trades cooperated and worked with the Cx. Keeping with the intent of this prerequisite, all systems were adequately commissioned. The CxA has verified that the project\'s energy-related systems are installed, calibrated, and perform as intended, and has verified that all of the required systems are calibrated correctly and satisfy the owner\'s project requirements (OPR) and BOD.

In this CIR, we are asking for clarification on whether our selected Commissioning Agent (CxA) meets the technical requirements for compliance with the LEED prerequisite and optional point for commissioning. We believe that this arrangement is consistent with the definition of an independent consultant contracted to Owner (item #8 in the 1/3/2006 memo issued by the USGBC, "Who Can Be the Commissioning Authority"). The selected CxA\'s dual roles are as follows: Automation System Design: One of the CxA\'s roles is to assure that the automation system design for the project maintains the Owner\'s standards, which are complex and ever changing. The Owner has determined that it is far more expedient, and their deliverable more consistent, if the automation systems are designed by a small pool of engineers that remain current with the technologies and procedures that the Owner\'s Energy Management team uses (as opposed to trying to have individual A/Es be educated and brought up to speed on the ever changing requirements of the automation systems that this Owner employs). Among the duties of the automation system designer is the assurance in continuity of Owner standards for hardware, software, and communications. The selected CxA is retained directly by the Owner to perform these functions and is the Owner\'s agent for this building system; there is no contractual affiliation between the selected CxA and the project\'s A/E. The project\'s HVAC systems are designed by the A/E; the A/E bears responsibility for the design, construction, and performance of the HVAC systems. The A/E is responsible for the HVAC systems control sequences of operation and for assuring that their design can perform accordingly. The selected CxA takes the A/E\'s design and sequences and assures that control devices needed to fulfill the sequences are per Owner standards, that automation system architecture is per Owner standards, and that software routines are consistent with design intent and vice-versa. Achieving this element of the automation system design requires interaction and teamwork between the A/E and the selected CxA, but the separation remains of the selected CxA being directly responsible to the Owner for the automation system functionality and the A/E being responsible for system design and performance. Independent Commissioning: The selected CxA is retained directly by the Owner and is the Owner\'s independent agent for HVAC systems commissioning; there is no contractual affiliation with the A/E. That the selected CxA is also involved with the automation systems design enhances the effectiveness of both HVAC commissioning and automation system building management and provides and economy to the Owner in professional services fees. The selected CxA has been performing automation systems design for this Owner since 1986 and has been performing HVAC commissioning services for this Owner since 1992. The dual functions have been executed over this long standing relationship without conflict as the selected CxA is not responsible for HVAC systems design. The selected CxA has no design role in other building systems to be commissioned to satisfy LEED requirements (lighting controls, domestic hot water). Therefore, the basic argument is that the selected CxA\'s allegiance, and contractual relationship, is directly to the Owner for automation system design and commissioning services. There is no contractual affiliation between the selected CxA and the A/E design team; the selected CxA interacts with the A/E performing reviews and coordination. The Owner and design team does not perceive any conflict by the CxA performing automation system design that would exclude them from performing Fundamental or Enhanced (point credit) commissioning. We ask that the USGBC confirm that we properly interpreted the memo regarding who can be the commissioning agent as it applies to our unique situation described above.