Search

FORUM DISCUSSION
NC-v4 EAc1: Enhanced commissioning (/credit/NC-v4/EAc1)

See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-v4 EAc1 »

(/credit/NC-v4/EAc1)

Building Envelope Commissioning

February 16, 2018

(/users/chris-bennett)

Chris Bennett (/users/chris-bennett)

LEEDuser Basic Member

Hello All,

Has anyone gone through the process of building envelope commissioning

(/glossary#commissioning) under LEED V4? I have been trying to nail down a more concrete
definition of what is required of the CxA (/glossary#CxA) in order to satisfy Option 2 of the
Enhanced Commissioning credit. Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

(/vote/node/50110/1/vote/thumbs/_o9S_DjwTuskgx_m_KERUWbrnZ1vCicNC5eyyAWCHkQ/nojs)

Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
 Go premium for $12.95 » (/pricing?utm_source=forum_promo)

(/users/elizabeth-cassin)
Elizabeth Cassin (/users/elizabeth-cassin)

Associate Principal and Unit Manager

Wiss, Janney, Elstner

 LEEDuser Expert
10 thumbs up
February 20, 2018 - 11:03 pm

The language used for BECx does make it pretty confusing. To get the 2 points for BECx requires
that requirements in the EA Prerequisite for Fundamental Commissioning and Verification (as they
apply to the building’s thermal envelope) be met, that the requirements of EA Credit for Enhanced
Commissioning - Option 2 Envelope Commissioning be met, and that the commissioning process
be performed in relation to energy, water, indoor environmental quality, and durability in
accordance with NIBS Guideline 3 (Building Enclosure Commissioning Process). NIBS GL 3 is just
that...a guideline, so I go by what LEED notes in the document and the reference guide and then
perform those tasks in accordance with the Guideline. But where it gets confusing is that some of
the tasks stem from Cx and aren't relevant to BECx. So this is my interpretation:

• OPR and BOD review

• Peer review (1 required but GL 3 recommends 3 reviews)
• Cx or BECx plan
• BECx specification
• construction checklists
• submittal review
• site visits to observe construction and testing
• Final report
• Warranty review
• Training
• Lessons learned workshop
Other items not listed by LEED but recommended include mockup construction and testing review
and participation in preinstallation meetings.

(/vote/comment/51235/1/vote/thumbs/JmX97WK9-
8mV5Ql6eeEQkXvJbrujkSFJExuISVK2VpE/nojs)

Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)

(/users/lyle-axelarris)
Lyle Axelarris (/users/lyle-axelarris)

Civil/Structural Engineer, LEED AP BD+C, O+M

Design Alaska Inc.

LEEDuser Basic Member

44 thumbs up
September 6, 2018 - 8:40 pm

I've also been wondering what people's experience has been with actual LEED reviews of BECx.
My thought is that you should only do the tests that are appropriate for your climate (eg. no spray
rack test in a desert), but sometimes I get nervous about LEED reviewer's ability to make common
sense judgement calls about situations that stray from the standard application.

(/vote/comment/54546/1/vote/thumbs/Zaqn4WhoA2-
F58MpBlLhKhPFweAMEHdz4H4iF3bbeAM/nojs)
Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)
(/users/elizabeth-cassin)
Elizabeth Cassin (/users/elizabeth-cassin)

Associate Principal and Unit Manager

Wiss, Janney, Elstner

 LEEDuser Expert
10 thumbs up
September 10, 2018 - 10:49 am

Agree- the intent of testing is not to just do another test but to verify that the installation meets
the OPR. So if the owner doesn't care about water tightness (which could be the case in a desert
climate), then water infiltration testing would not be required. The BECxP should use his/her
professional judgement about what kinds of tests and how many tests should be performed to
verify that the construction meets the performance requirements. He/she must also be able to
weigh in on (with the owner) which performance requirements are beneficial/appropriate, and
which ones might not be, in his/her review of the OPR.

(/vote/comment/54596/1/vote/thumbs/ibciPAzqXYeQCkJTJoyARZt51RojfbEOrPinDt0X1oA/nojs)
Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)

(/users/lyle-axelarris)
Lyle Axelarris (/users/lyle-axelarris)

Civil/Structural Engineer, LEED AP BD+C, O+M

Design Alaska Inc.

LEEDuser Basic Member

44 thumbs up
September 10, 2018 - 4:38 pm

Thank you, Elizabeth.

(/vote/comment/54604/1/vote/thumbs/8qeYkeEjv0O2KTarUvxJtrPpZNceA2XN1yApPgx79og/nojs)

Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)

(/users/ameet-aa)

Ameet AA (/users/ameet-aa)

LEEDuser Premium Member

41 thumbs up
September 3, 2019 - 6:14 am

1. Does anyone have RFP/brief to appoint the CxA for BECx?

2. I am working on a LEED V4 BD+C for Data Center, unfortunately Client has appointed a
Commissioning authority who has no capability for additional 2 points BECx and now client wants
Main contractor to appoint another CxA just for BECx. Will this be accepted by USGBC? please
advise.

Thanks

(/vote/comment/58778/1/vote/thumbs/WBVuibYDdkJTW8-
ccl-rB-Y743y0wsrw8MgD1Ziu2h8/nojs)
Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)
(/users/scott-bowman)
Scott Bowman (/users/scott-bowman)

LEED Fellow

Integrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC

 LEEDuser Expert
519 thumbs up
September 11, 2019 - 8:25 pm

It is standard practice for the BECx to be a different company than for the MEP systems. However,
the same rules apply to their qualifications and independence. You give very little detail, but I
would not think anyone working for the contractor would be acceptable or prudent. Why not have
the BECx work as a sub to the CxA currently in place? My old firm did not have envelope skills, but
we were able to team with some great companies over the years.

0
(/vote/comment/58941/1/vote/thumbs/-
NdThk9JY9uxG1k36FyfQYurFl_Xpa55GKRKLL24J1A/nojs)

Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)

(/users/ken-hercenberg)

Ken Hercenberg (/users/ken-hercenberg)

ZGF

LEEDuser Premium Member

November 4, 2019 - 3:22 pm

Thanks Elizabeth. You noted "Other items not listed by LEED but recommended include mockup
construction and testing review and participation in preinstallation meetings."

This testing can have huge cost implications and the credit information is unclear as to what is
required. NIBS Guideline 3 is a bit jumbled and, while it has a lot of potential information, is
neither clear nor helpful the way it is currently written.

How do we get 'bottom line' input regarding what is required? Based on NIBS G3 it sounds like
either mockup or in-place testing is acceptable. What testing is required? Dynamic and static air
and water infiltration? Thermal continuity? Air barrier continuity? Glazed systems? Opaque
systems? Doors and entrances? The list can go on. The BECx folks I've spoken with often aren't
sure what will or will not comply with the LEED credit. They have a laundry list of items that can be
tested and are willing to do whatever the building owner is willing to pay for.

Any clarity would be greatly appreciated.

(/vote/comment/59803/1/vote/thumbs/BjWTOCZnG7G2O2tORAufkU7SVbJ0YuiPlXvcudQJDe4/nojs)

Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)

(/users/joyce-kelly)
Joyce Kelly (/users/joyce-kelly)

GLHN Architects & Engineers

LEEDuser Premium Member

9 thumbs up
December 27, 2019 - 1:21 pm

It depends on your project's needs whether mock-up or on-site testing takes place. We are
frequently involved in both - testing systems extensively in mockup before accessibility becomes
an issue and mistakes are repeated. As a matter of fact, we witness spray rack tests in the Arizona
desert. Tucson, AZ has monsoons with wind-driven rains as well as Winter rains. Makes for a pretty
lush desert.
Note: v4.1 references ASTM (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/glossary#ASTM) E2947-16:
Standard Guide for Building Enclosure Commissioning, rather than NIBS.

(/vote/comment/60362/1/vote/thumbs/VEV7VwoSJQ-
9W7ShdmT0JAZh9pyxFTewuwuLSAqVZp8/nojs)

Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)

(/users/joyce-kelly)
Joyce Kelly (/users/joyce-kelly)

GLHN Architects & Engineers

LEEDuser Premium Member

9 thumbs up
December 30, 2019 - 12:04 pm

...and ASTM E2947-16 says: "While both levels of BECx require first installation mock-ups as a
minimum requirement, enhanced BECx requires either a preconstruction laboratory mock-up or
on-site free standing building mock-up to be tested."

(/vote/comment/60371/1/vote/thumbs/iKS1fnxU44HcQHjqQAFTH0vAxmswUf7PoRMZcfyJVLI/nojs)
Post a comment (https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/forum/building-envelope-commissioning-1#post-comment)

Post a reply
Your name Deepak kumar U (/users/deepak-kumar-u)
Response *
 Post comment

 See all forum discussions about NC-v4 EAc1

(/forums?f%5B0%5D=im_field_credits%3A1597)

Subscribe to new posts about NC-v4 EAc1

(/subscriptions/tid/1597/subscribe?destination=node/50110)

Post a new question about NC-v4 EAc1

(/node/add/forum?forum_id=4412&credit_id=1597&destination=node/50110)

See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-v4 EAc1 »

(/credit/NC-v4/EAc1)

FAQs about EAc1:

Can non-design consultants on the project provide enhanced commissioning services? (/credit/NC-v4/EAc1#tab-faq)

Can the same commissioning authority complete both Option 1 (enhanced commissioning) and Option 2 (envelope
commissioning)? (/credit/NC-v4/EAc1#tab-faq)

View answers (/credit/NC-v4/EAc1#tab-faq) »

(https://bcorporation.net/directory/building-green-inc)
Contact us (/contact) BuildingGreen (https://www.buildinggreen.com)
Jobs at BuildingGreen (https://www.buildinggreen.com/jobs)
Terms & Conditions (/terms-and-conditions) Privacy Policy (/privacy)

© 2020 BuildingGreen, Inc. All rights reserved except where noted.