Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register

Log in

Interpretations Request Input

Original Request

  • Request ID: 8504
  • Requested By: Dominique Flickinger
  • Requester E-Mail: dominiquef@ecbcx.com
  • Code Version: 2021
  • Code: ENERGY
  • Code Description:
  • Chapter:
  • Section: C408.2.1
  • Topic: Commissioning Plan
  • Question: Should the wording for who is to develop the commissioning plan, and therefore conduct the commissioning process, include that the person or approved agency be a 3rd party not affiliated with the design firm or mechanical/electrical engineering firm?
  • Comment: The CxP (Commissioning Provider) should be an objective, independent advocate of the Owner. If the CxP's firm has other project responsibilities, or is not under direct contract to the Owner, a conflict of interest will exist. Per USGBC LEED requirements, the CxP should be an independent consultant or a disinterested subcontractor of the design team. The Building Commissioning Association (BCxA) also advocates this; see attached.
  • Attachment 1: Download

Existing Interpretations and/or Declaratory Statements Related to this request

Input Received:

No comments.

Answer:

If the LEED documents are a reference for the project, those rules would apply. The building code does not have the same requirement. While there should be professionalism in the industry, the building code does not specify and assumes a qualified and competent firm and/or person will be assigned the task. The Building Official is generally tasked with approving the person or firm

Commentary:

None.

Comments on Draft:

looks good
I believe the sentence that says Qualifies should read Qualified, other than that looks good
Agree with Andrew.
The commissioning for compliance with Energy Conservation Code requirements is intended for the benefit of the owner. It is my opinion that the B.O. does not need to be involved anymore than he gets involved picking a project manager.