Must-See FREE Resource: Building Commissioning (Cx) Blog

A few days ago Mark Walter of Virtual Cx dropped me a link to his blog, appropriately called Building Commissioning. Billed as "the largest Building Commissioning blog in the United States", there is an even mix of system profiles, commissioning (Cx) guidance, Cx cost/benefit info, and standard/code development commentary in it's 100+ posts and articles. Though a corporate blog, he doesn't seem to be too concerned about pitching his service (which is an interesting concept on its own), but instead sticks to creating a resource that reads like it was actually written by a commissioning agent (CxA) and not some intern 'specialized in web 2.0'...

I wish I knew enough about Cx to write this stuff!

The posts constantly link to things like the "Practical Guide for Commissioning Existing Buildings" (from an 1999 ORNL report), the IT Handbook for Energy Efficient Cooling (in a post about Cx guidance to limit hot spots in data centers), and a sample Cx kickoff meeting agenda (in a post about... sample kickoff meeting agendas. Let's see you top that, web 2.0 intern!).

Is there another Cx blog I've missed? Let us know by leaving a comment!

Greenbuild Session Review: Cx & EM – Value, Cost and Project Integration

This session featured quite a few notable minds (the term “dauntingly prestigious” was used at one point) and featured some telling audience surveys, with a packed crowd (somewhere above 1,000) mostly but not exclusively composed of designers and engineers (many owners/facility managers included in the audience as well).

Energy Modeling

• “Is energy modeling a necessary cost or mandate of LEED?” 70Y 20M 10N
• “Is energy modeling too expensive for the outcome delivered?” 10Y 45M 45N
• “Is the scope of energy modeling commonly understood?” 10Y 30M 60N
• “There aren't enough energy modelers.” 70Y 20M 10N
• “Energy modeling is not predictive of building performance.” 60Y 30M 10N
• “There is no passive thermal modeling available.” 85Y 10M 5N
• “Energy modeling increases standard of care for the design professional.” 50Y 30M 20N
• “Energy modeling helps justify investments and convince clients.” 95Y 5M 0N
• “Energy modeling supports integrated project delivery.” 75Y 20M 5N
• “Energy modeling supports informed choices.” 90Y 5M 5N
• “Most tools do not reflect the most innovative system designs.” 80Y 20M 0N

The end result of these survey questions was a discussion loosely focused around the following quote: ”Energy models are not particularly good at determining absolute energy use, but do a good job of comparing scheme A to scheme B.” This comment was quickly followed with a discussion about how we need tools to foster energy prediction. There is a strong need to get a detailed and ACCURATE understanding of the schedule of occupancy and how the building will be operated. Ultimately we have to model human nature (How far into Fall are you going to just leave the windows open instead of using a heater/AC? Is that typical?), and there aren't very good metrics or processes for getting this done.

When asked what the USGBC should due to respond to these issues, there was an excellent comment from the panel that right now all of the training is taking place in practice, and as a result there's no time for people to really explore and understand the software. There needs to be an emphasis on getting this training into the college degree programs where there aren't time (read: money) constraints. How the USGBC can foster this is up in the air. ”All of these comments have a common theme: a lack of consistent methodology.”

Commissioning (Cx)

• “Cx is a necessary component/mandate of LEED.” 99Y .5M .5N
• “Is Cx too expensive for the outcome delivered?” 0Y 30M 70N
• “Is Enhanced Cx too expensive for for the outcome delivered?” 0Y 45M 55N
• “Is Cx too poorly defined in scope to be properly implemented?” 50Y 0M 50N
• “Are there too few qualified CxA?” 50Y 30M 20N
• “There is no uniform certification program” 70Y 20M 10N
• “Contractors don't understand Cx and as a result overcharge.” 60Y 25M 15N
• “Costs are not standardized (all over the map).” 80Y 15M 5N
• “Cx is the only way to ensure HVAC, lighting and other energy systems' installation are operating properly.” 70Y 20M 10N
• “Cx improves project quality.” 95Y 4M 1N
• “Cx reduces the liability of the design/construction team.” 50Y 30M 20N
• “Cx saves the client more money than it costs to perform.” 70Y 25M 5N

”The M&V point is the most important LEED credit with regard to reducing the carbon footprint of a facility. The second most important point is enhanced commissioning.” The justification for this is that you can't improve what you don't track (M&V), and that the enhanced Cx credit requires that the CxA train the owner about how the building is to function. Comments from a CxA on the panel indicated he has found hundreds of overrides in retrocommissioning projects that are the result of a facility manager not understanding how their systems operate.

The other major discussion on this topic revolved around the fact that there's wide variability in the scope when all this is asked for in the RFP is to provide LEED fundamental/enhanced Cx services. Fundamental Cx was seen by commenters to be insufficient, as you're really only asking the CxA to provide the 'middle' of the services. They're brought in too late (no substantial design review) and leave too early (insufficient training and verification).

Commissioning Agent Guarantees LEED Certification

or

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Blow Up My Market Share

Yesterday afternoon I received a newsletter from Energy Ace, a commissioning and LEED services firm out of Atlanta, with the headline "LEED Certification, or Your Money Back". Unnecessary comma's aside I found this to be a rather startling claim. Reading further into the release you can actually see the word "guarantee" (gasp!)... Full press release available here. How it works:

"clients must allow Energy Ace to oversee LEED administration, fundamental commissioning and energy modeling for each project -- services that the company provides in-house. After signing a standard service contract, Energy Ace would conduct LEED charettes -- the project phase where sustainability measures are mapped out -- and at that point, if everything looks good and team members are cooperative, the contract would be amended to guarantee certification. If a project misses its LEED target level (like Silver or Gold) or fails to earn certification altogether, Energy Ace would refund its LEED administration fee, which is between 30 percent and 45 percent of its total fees..."

First Take: Pros and Cons

On the pro side, theoretically their market share will increase (probably as much for being the first to offer it as for the peace of mind it will give owners... BD&C already scooped this, and you're reading it here). In addition to new clients, one of the clauses is that their firm must perform what is essentially their full suite of LEED related services instead of just CxA, LEED coordination, or modeling. This additional control helps both their bottom line and their ability to ensure that the project is moving along the right track. Also, by ensuring that at least the first phase of design and analysis has taken place, they have the ability to walk away from the promise if things don't look so good. Figuring out where to draw the line is likely going to be an interesting exercise!

Speculation

Not having seen the contract itself, I suspect (but can't confirm) that there is a clause in this guarantee that limits possible compensation for a missed target to the "LEED adminstration fee, which is between 30 percent and 45 percent of total fees" ONLY. In other words, this guarantee could potentially limit the owner's maximum compensation for a botched certification to the portion of the fee agreed upon. In a situation where missing certification could mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost incentives and countless other damages, does this contract actually serve to insulate Energy Ace from paying for these damages? Will owners see the "guarantee" and sign away their rights, or will they recognize it and demand no such clause be included? Again I should point out that I'm only working from a press release here and have no idea about the specifics of the contract. I certainly don't mean to imply that Energy Ace is actively gaming their clients!

The other big issue here is what does this mean for the other parties involved? Does a guarantee from one party, specifically an administrator who is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the LEED documentation process overall, in any way reduce the liability of the architect, engineers, or contractors involved in the project? I suspect not... Due to the fact that the owner may have signed away his right to collect damages beyond the fee from Energy Ace (again... speculation) they may pursue the other parties with additional vigor.

Obviously Energy Ace would not have the ability to really guarantee the certification unless they agreed to offer true design-build service with complete control over every aspect of design, engineering, and construction. No matter their efforts, a mistake from the contractor on SSp1, Construction Activity Pollution Prevention would mean that regardless of the efforts of the LEED administrator, the project would not achieve certification. This firm has worked on nearly 100 LEED projects to date, and I suspect that they're banking on the fact that as an industry we're over-concerned with missing LEED certification targets, an opinion that I'm increasingly leaning towards. Though there will doubtless be projects that miss their mark, my guess is that over the next few years the volume of these projects will be much smaller than many suspect.

If a project doesn't achieve the certification levels the owner desires they're liable to sue everyone anyway, regardless of what the contract says about guarantees. On the other hand claims that would normally be defended by an insurer may now be void, and the company may have to defend itself. I think it goes without saying that such a claim raises the standard of care, probably beyond what an insurance company is willing to tolerate.

Is This Wise?

My guess is that the long term result of this for the company will be that yes, they may have to pay back a few fees over the years, but the marketing benefit and requirement for full services will more than offset the loss. At the end of the day I'm still on the fence about whether or not this is a good idea overall. I'm very interested to hear reader comments on this... please don't disappoint!

LEED Commissioning Comparisons

When helping a client prepare packages for a grant they are pursuing, they needed to know how LEED-EB and LEED-CI differed with respect to commissioning (Cx) requirements. A quick search yielded a helpful, plain spoken article, with even more helpful comparison charts (1, 2, 3, 4), in a February edition of Heating, Piping, and Air Conditioning (HPAC) Engineering magazine. The charts show fundamental Cx requirements, enhanced Cx requirements, and scope by system, comparing all major LEEDv2 systems and even pulling requirements from the pilot versions of LEED-CI for Retail and LEED-Healthcare. I'm not aware of any major changes among Cx requirements for LEED 2009 editions of these systems, so everything should still largely apply.

A completely legible comparison of the scope of Cx for each system

I haven't had much opportunity to peruse their website in too much detail, but their Popular Articles section seems to be filled with practical info that I'm going to refer to in the future. Well done!