We would like to request a CIR for a completed university building to see if the process we undertook met this prerequisite's intent. The building's systems were thoroughly commissioned, including: Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Process Piping, PVs, Lighting and HVAC Controls, and Building Envelope. Much of LEED's fundamental commissioning is encompassed in the university's standard construction practice, documented in its internal Project Delivery Process (PDP) Manual (website provided upon request) which outlines required steps for each project phase, from scoping to closeout, before the next phase can begin. In addition to the exhaustive commissioning expected by the university, the project utilized design-build contractors to exert greater control and ensure successful implementation of its sustainability goals. The Commissioning Authority (CA) led the Commissioning Team (CT) of users, architect, contractor, O&M staff, field inspector, and commissioning agents. The owner's requirements were developed and communicated and the basis of design discussed and modified (and a report drafted) through weekly meetings between the owner, architect, and contractor. These meetings, videotaped and documented through meeting notes, began during pre-design and continued through construction. A third-party commissioning agent evaluated the design of the mechanical systems, and David Gottfried and his sub-consultants performed a preliminary LEED assessment after design completion. The architect reviewed all construction documents to ensure they met the design intent. Though a specific commissioning plan was not drafted, the contractor was familiar with the PDP's strict commissioning requirements through previous university work. The contractor's contract addressed their responsibility to inspect and repair deficiencies, for building systems training and compilation of O&M manuals. Installation verification: the user representative visited the construction site daily, and the CA visited 1-3 times per week. Both communicated regularly with the contractor and documented their comments through emails and meeting notes. A university staff field inspector wrote reports on each system. A university facilities operations (FacOps) staff member reviewed maintainability and submitted written comments. Start-up and checkout: Under contract, the contractor provided a punch list of items to be corrected, corrected them, and then requested inspection by the Architect and CA. Sampling and functional testing of all systems were performed by the contractor and the CT. The Contractor was required to submit testing protocol details. Results were documented in start-up reports, field reports, and notices of deficiencies. Commissioning agents (mechanical, structural) helped with specific follow-up. All start-up checklists are archived. Deferred seasonal testing was scheduled, and adjustments continue to be made since the building's completion. A commissioning agent wrote a post-occupancy evaluation report for the solar hot water system's performance. The CA tracked each punch item separately, evaluated all reports and ensured appropriate corrective action was taken. The Contractor and Subs created O&M manuals and provided training for FacOps staff in accordance with LEED requirements. Since the Contractor was not ready to turn over the project at the initial training, additional training and follow-up controls software training were held. An 11-month comprehensive warranty review site visit was held among the owner, user, contractor, and subs. The CA also coordinated a warranty equipment review with the maintenance crew and architect. Corrections were made and lessons learned were documented. Though a final commissioning report has not yet been developed (commissioning with the mechanical subcontractor continues), the components have been addressed among the CT through email and meeting minutes.
It is not possible to completely determine compliance from the information in your narrative, although it appears that the intent of the prerequisite has been met. The following guidance addresses each EAp1 requirement in light of the information you provided, so that you can determine compliance and best prepare for your LEED application. 1) It is not clear from your narrative that commissioning tasks required by EAp1 were NOT performed by individuals directly responsible for project design or construction management. You will have to confirm that this is the case in order to meet the requirement as written. Note that non-design team employees of design team firms can still qualify; and it is permissible for design personnel to be PART of a commissioning team effort as long as they do not perform any EAp1 required tasks. If you did not meet the requirement as written, then you may still achieve it by having an appropriate entity review the LEED-required commissioning work (as per the LEED Reference Guide) to determine whether or not the work was performed correctly, and to account for anything that is found to be insufficient or in need of reconciliation. 2) The narrative indicates that the basis of design was addressed and updated by the architect, owner and contractor regularly throughout design and construction phases. Thus, the requirement is fulfilled. 3) Were the commissioning requirements included in the construction contract documents? EAp1 requires that they are. 4) It is clear from the narrative that installation verification, functional testing, training, and O&M documentation tasks were completed (or will be completed). 5) A commissioning report will have to be completed (although it is not necessary to submit it with the LEED application).
Related Addenda (Corrections & Interpretations)