Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "LEED Interpretation" "10037" "2011-05-09" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "Is it acceptable for an employee of the Owner, who will also be acting as the project\'s LEED AP and Team Administrator for LEED Online, to serve as the project\'s Commissioning Authority, provided that the individual has served as the CxA on at least two projects previously?" "As the project has already indicated the CxA has previously worked as a commissioning authority on at least two other projects, provided all other applicable criteria and documentation is provided and satisfied at the time of the project\'s submittal for LEED certification, this strategy should fulfill the prerequisite and credit pursuit requirements. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10090" "2011-08-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Healthcare, Data centers - New Construction, Retail - Commercial Interiors" "Can a consultant perform both LEED consulting and act as an independent commissioning agent for the enhanced commissioning credit (EAc3)?" "Yes, a consultant and/or consulting firm can perform both LEED consulting and independent commissioning (both Fundamental and Enhanced) as long as all requirements outlined in the Reference Guide Table 2."" Commissioning Authority Qualifications"" are met. Applicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10244" "2012-10-01" "New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction, Retail - New Construction, Healthcare, Data centers - New Construction, Hospitality - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Retail - Commercial Interiors" "This request is in regards to LEED Version 2009, EA Credit 3, Enhanced Commissioning, credit requirements. In particular, this is in regards to contracting situations such as Design Build and the hiring of the CxA for enhanced commissioning. In a design-build scenario, the A-E firm is hired by the contractor. With this in mind, can the CxA for enhanced commissioning (an independent 3rd party firm), be hired by the A-E firm who is in turn hired by the contractor? In this same scenario, the design-build contractor is providing services contracted to the Federal Government, who is the owner. Can a Federal employee, serve as the CxA for enhanced commissioning for the project? " "In this design build scenario for a LEED NCv2009 project pursuing EAc3 Enhanced Commissioning, the A/E Firm is a subcontractor to the Contractor, forming a single Design Build Team. The A/E firm wishes to hire the CxA, but, as a result, the commissioning authority in this design build scenario would be considered a ""disinterested employee or subcontractor of the contractor"" and therefore not an acceptable commissioning authority for the project. Concerning whether the commissioning authority can be hired by the Architecture and Engineering (A/E) Firm, the document titled ""Who Can be the Commissioning Authority"" (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1262) outlines the acceptable parties to act as the commissioning authority for various project scenarios.\n\n Concerning whether it is acceptable for a federal employee to be the commissioning authority for a government project, the 2009 edition LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction EA Prerequisite 1 Table 2. ""Who Can be the Commissioning Authority"" (Page 221) states that ""independent consultants contracted by the owner"" and ""owner employees and staff"" are allowed to be the commissioning authority when pursuing enhanced commissioning. Therefore, if the commissioning authority is hired by the owner, it is acceptable for a federal employee to be the commissioning authority for a government project.\n\n **Update 07/01/2014: Ruling has been reversed and revised to allow the CxA to be contracted to the general contractor or a subcontractor of the general contractor in limited circumstances.\n\n In the design build scenario, a ˜disinterested independent third party firm may be hired by the design build contractor or a subcontractor to the design build contractor under the following constraints:\n\n 1. The commissioning firm may not be a subsidiary or partner of the general contractor or of any other firm that has been contracted to the general contractor to provide design and construction services for the project.\n\n 2. Though the commissioning firm is not contracted directly to the owner, the owner or an owner's representative must approve of the selection of the commissioning firm, and of the commissioning scope of work within the commissioning contract.\n\n 3. The CxA must directly report to the owner or owner's representative (or simultaneously report to the owner or owner's representative and other parties) throughout the commissioning process.\n\n As noted above, the CxA must lead, manage and oversee all commissioning processes, including both fundamental and enhanced commissioning, consistent with the requirements for EA Credit 3: Enhanced Commissioning.\n\n" "2641, 2508, 5023" "Who can be the commissioning authority?" "X" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1664" "2007-01-08" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "We seek clarification on the meaning of the use in the context of EAc3 of the word ""oversee"" in the Reference Guide and other published USGBC material. Possible different interpretations of the use of that word may lead to starkly different conclusions regarding the requirements of the credit. In at least two places, the LEED-NC 2.2 Reference Guide and other USGBC material state directly that the independent Commissioning Authority (iCx) must oversee all comissioning activity, including tasks not required to be performed by the iCx. First the Requirements section of the credit itself states, ""[p]rior to the start of the construction documents phase, designates an independent Commissioning Authority (CxA) to lead, review, and oversee all commissioning process activities."" [emphasis added for clarity] Second, in the USGBC document ""Who Can Be The Commissioning Authority"" published on USGBC\'s web site (https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1262 for readers of this CIR not familiar with the document.), item number 4 states, ""[t]he \'all\' in the Enhanced Cx Requirement 1 means if one is seeking the Enhanced Cx credit, the same CxA overseeing the Enhanced Cx tasks must also oversee the Fundamental Commissioning Tasks."" Our question is, in the context of both of these statements, what is meant by the word ""oversee."" The term is ambiguous enough to be open to differing interpretations: does it mean that the independent third party CxA needs to lead and be involved in the entire commissioning process, even if they are only contracted to provide a design and submittal reviews and assure an appropriate post occupancy review occurs per EAc3 tasks 2, 3, and 6, or just be aware and stay appraised of any tasks for which they are not directly responsible? If the Independent Commissioning Authority is indeed charged with oversight for the entire commissioning process, even if they are not performing any additional tasks beyond 2,3, and 6 of EAc3, do they need to review and approve all commissioning deliverables for the remaining EAp1 and EAp3 requirements? Do they need to sign the LEED Letter Template for EAp1? Some project teams have moved forward with the presumption that qualified members of the design/construction teams were leading and conducting most commissioning activities, that this 3rd party oversight wasn\'t required for their activities, and that they (qualified members of the design/contruction team) would be the signatories of the EAp1. The independent CxA would only be scoped for and sign for the 3 minimum activities in EAp3. We request the USGBC provide guidance on this scenario and issue a clear addenda stating how these scoping and EAp1 LLT signatory issues should be handled. Please in doing so also clarify explicitly. In addition to the questions above, teams would also need to know: Does this apply to NC2.1 and NC2.2 projects equally, or only NC2.2? Does it apply to projects registered prior to the issuance of the addenda, i.e. at a time in which the requirements were not clear - which might require some project teams to go back and revisit and redefine the scope of work for team members, and might also disqualify some projects from EAc3 if they did this wrong - or only to projects registered after the ruling (or proposed new addenda, once published)? So, to summarize our questions (and make it easier for you to answer all of them): Does an independent Commissioning Authority (iCx) need to review and approve all commissioning deliverables for EAp1 and EAp3 requirements, even if they are only hired to perform the 3 minimum requirements of EAp3? Does the iCx have to sign the Letter Templates for both credits? Does this apply to NC2.1 and 2.2 projects? Does this apply to projects registered prior to this ruling?" "The project team is seeking clarification of the impact of the word ""oversee"" in the EAc3 requirements. The credit requirement states that the independent Commissioning Authority (CxA) must ""lead, review, and oversee"" all commissioning activities. While the level of oversight is subject to interpretation, we disagree that there is any ambiguity regarding the extent to which the independent CxA must be involved in the process. The use of the phrase ""lead, review, and oversee"" defines a high level of participation while providing some flexibility for fitting the process to the project. Thus, the answer to your first question is yes - the independent CxA must ""lead, review, and oversee"" all Cx activities, which includes EAp1 and EAc3. Whether the oversight role includes formal approval is subject to the process chosen by each individual project. Second, credit templates may be submitted/signed by a responsible party for each credit. The responsible party for EAc3 could be an owner, independent CxA, or other person in a position to confirm that all requirements have been met. Third, this language is unique to v2.2 and does not apply to v2.1 projects. Finally, since this ruling is confirming the stated requirements, no addendum is required, and all projects registered under v2.2 fall under this interpretation. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "1970" "2007-12-02" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "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. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2179" "2008-05-28" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "See below for treatment of District Thermal Energy systems in LEED-NCv2.2, LEED-CSv2.0, and LEED-CIv2.0." "USGBC has developed a document that clarifies how district or campus heating or cooling systems are to be treated in all Energy and Atmosphere prerequisites and credits for LEED-NC, LEED-CS, and SSc1, Options K & L under LEED-CI. That document is available for download from the LEED Reference Documents page, here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=4176. All LEED-NC, LEED-CS, and LEED-CI projects involving district or campus heating or cooling systems that registered for LEED after this posting date must follow that guidance, and such projects that registered before this date may optionally follow that guidance." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "10278" "2013-04-01" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "As the project owner, tenant, and end user, can our firm also be the Commissioning Authority even though we are also the architect and engineer? We are formatting our own office space that will be larger than 50K square feet in total. As the owner, tenant and end user for this commercial interior space, we will also be acting as the architect, engineer and construction manager as agent. We are contracting a 3rd party general contractor that will be providing all the constructor contracts (subcontractors). To ensure commissioning is disinterested, our Commissioning Authority personnel will not be involved in any manner with the architecture, engineering or construction management of the project." "The owner, who will also be the architect, engineer, and construction manger for a project larger than fifty thousand square feet, can have an employee who is not involved in design or construction decisions with the architecture, engineering, or construction management for the project, act as the commissioning authority. The CxA must report directly to the owner’s representative- either the person or board that makes the final decisions for the project. This employee, however, is required to have acted as the commissioning authority on at least 2 other projects, as required by the LEED Reference Guide for Green Interior Design and Construction, 2009 Edition. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"