Rating System

LEED BD+C: New Construction

Rating System Version

v2 - LEED 2.2

Inquiry

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.