Rating System

LEED ID+C: Commercial Interiors

Rating System Version

v2 - LEED 2.0

Inquiry

We are pursuing LEED-CI certification on a project involving the remodel of an existing building for use in manufacturing. The existing building is not LEED certified. The new tenant will occupy 100% of the building. The scope of renovation involves the following building systems: 1. Modifications to the HVAC distribution ductwork to serve new and existing VAV boxes to accommodate the new floor plan. The existing roof-top HVAC units are to remain and be reused. 2. Modifications to the heating water distribution system to accommodate VAV box modifications. The existing steam boiler, heat exchanger and circulation pumps are to remain and be reused. 3. HVAC controls are to remain, with minor adjustments to accommodate the system modifications. 4. Addition of exhaust fans for new restrooms. Existing fans serving locker/restrooms are to remain and be reused. 5. Addition of a kitchen exhaust hood in the facility test kitchen. 6. Replacement of the domestic water heater with a new heater. The existing circulation pump will remain and be reused. 7. Addition of new lighting controls, including day lighting. We have appointed a Commissioning Authority (a member of the MEP design firm who has not been involved in the design effort) for the Fundamental Commissioning portion of the project. Our interpretation of LEED-CI prerequisite EA 1 is that all equipment associated with the tenant scope must be commissioned. Therefore the existing equipment to remain is not within the commissioning scope. We intend to perform a retro-commissioning of the existing equipment being reused. Is our interpretation of the scope of fundamental commissioning correct? Would the retro-commissioning of the existing systems qualify the project for an innovation and design process credit, provided that it meets the fundamental commissioning criteria? It does not seem to fall under Enhanced Commissioning credit EA 2. This retro-commissioning would greatly enhance the reliability, efficiency and performance of the building. Would it be acceptable that the Commissioning Authority for the fundamental commissioning also be the CA for the retro-commissioning, since this person had no part in the design of the original systems?