“Eleven Must-Read Tips”: A Free & Complimentary Guide for Completing BREEAM Assessments This free and complimentary guide outlines eleven must-read tips for completing BREEAM assessments. The guide has been produced to provide you with an insight into some of the most common issues arising during assessments, including BREEAM strategies, targeting of essential credits, minimum evidence requirements, risk management procedures, and much more. Each tip is based on the author’s views, knowledge, and experience of delivering BREEAM assessments, and how the pitfalls associated with credit validation can be avoided. It assumed the reader has a basic understanding of the BREEAM process and the sequence of certification. It is emphasised that no distinction has been made between any of the construction procurement routes, although this will have some bearing on the overarching BREEAM strategy.

We hope you find the guide of interest, and beneficial in the pursuit of your BREEAM projects. If you require further assistance and/or guidance on any of the BREEAM issues listed, TWC Consulting will always be willing to help.

TWC Consulting’s BREEAM Accredited Professionals are actively involved in the day-to-day assessment and validation of all types of buildings, including retail units, education buildings, healthcare facilities, multi-residential, industrial buildings, fire stations, and bespoke units.

TWC Consulting [Property Services] Ltd

Chartered Surveyors, Project Managers, Employer’s Agent, BREEAM Assessors, Energy Assessors

Tel: 0844 252 1710 Email: info@twcconsulting.com Web: www.twcconsulting.com

Tip 1: Project Teams should liaise closely & communicate with BREEAM Assessors on a regular basis BREEAM is an environmental standard that recognises buildings for the mitigation and/or removal of any adverse impacts that may occur on the local and wider environment. The assessment adopts a sliding scale approach [credit-based system] of which several credits have minimum requirements, with the remaining credits tradable. Upon validation of each targeted credit, these are converted into points, which in turn are converted into an overall BREEAM rating for the building at either Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent, or Outstanding. When completing BREEAM assessments, it is often assumed the BREEAM assessor will provide all the answers to all the questions that arise during the development, and this is understandable, given it is the assessor who is deemed to be the expert in the subject. However, project teams should be aware that a BREEAM assessor’s input will differ on many aspects depending their experience, background and scope of appointment.

Depending on the type of development being assessed and the criteria associated with each of the targeted credits, it is very likely a BREEAM assessment will have an impact on every aspect of the design, construction, and occupation of a building. This means that action needs to be taken at the early stages of a development in order to avoid losing any valuable and available credits. But, who is responsible for taking the lead on this issue? It is essential that clear instructions are given to the project team as to who is responsible for supplying, gathering, and issuing the relevant evidence needed for compliance, and at what date this is to be submitted to the assessor for review and validation. Many BREEAM projects fall short of this advice, only to find out that completing an assessment based on the assumption that someone else will provide the evidence often ends up in difficulties for the team. To overcome this problem some organisations appoint internal BREEAM co-ordinators who liaise directly with the appointed BREEAM assessor. This is a good approach and is highly recommended, as it is an effective way of lessening the burden of complying with the BREEAM criteria, both at the design and post-construction stages.

Tip 2: Identify which version of BREEAM is being assessed The BREEAM standard has changed on several occasions since its original launch in 1990, and at present there are numerous versions of the scheme in operation, covering BREEAM 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2014. As each different version of BREEAM was introduced, the way of complying with the credit[s] criteria has also changed, which is a factor that has challenged many project teams on many occasions, and one that continues to this day.

The following sections outline a number of credits that appear to be similar in context; however, they are assessed and validated in different ways under the different versions of BREEAM.

Example No.1: Under BREEAM 2006, the method of demonstrating compliance with the credit criteria was for project teams to provide a design stage commitment [only] that a specific material specification[s] and/or a design option would be included within the development’s specifications. This was a relatively straightforward condition to achieve, and it did not pose significant challenges to the developments. However, when BREEAM 2008 was launched, it brought in some significant changes, in particular, the need for BREEAM assessors to validate post construction evidence, as well as complete a post construction site visit and report. At the same time, a rating of Excellent was established. Example No.2: Under BREEAM 2008, the view out and glare control credits were assessed separately using separate criteria, however under BREEAM 2011 these credits were coupled together, which meant project teams had to demonstrate compliance with both issues in order to gain a single credit. This was considered difficult to achieve, and under BREEAM 2014 these credits were once again decoupled. Example No.3: Under BREEAM 2008, 2011, 2014, the recycled aggregates credits are assessed in differing ways. Under 2008, the basic requirement is for 25% of the total aggregate to come from recyclable sources, i.e. if a development uses 1000m3 of aggregate then 250m3 needs to come from recyclable sources to be deemed compliant. Under BREEAM 2011, the 25% total target remains, however there is also a requirement for individual building elements that use an aggregate to have their own percentage targets. For example, a concrete structural frame would require 25%, pipe bedding 50%, gravel landscaping 100%, etc. Under 2014, the percentage targets for each element have once again changed. The message here is, be aware which version of BREEAM is being assessed as the credit criteria can differ widely from what appear to be the same credits.

Tip 3: Be aware of the BREEAM Assessor’s scope of appointment There are several ways of appointing a BREEAM assessor, and as with any other construction consultant, the scope of their services can vary. This is an important issue to consider as it influences who is responsible for determining the BREEAM strategy, who is responsible for identifying the credits at risk, and who is responsible for coordinating and submitting the documentary evidence needed at both design and post-construction stages.

BREEAM assessors [usually] offer consultancy services that can range from an assess-and-validate-only basis to a fully engaged “BREEAM consultancy service”, with each type of service bringing its own advantages and disadvantages. Project teams need to be aware what the BREEAM assessor has been appointed to do, and even more so what the assessor has not been appointed to do. Many project teams can overlook this issue and quickly run into complications, in particular, at the post-construction stage, when the assessor will request, gather, and validate the evidence necessary to support final certification. In some situations, projects can progress towards the later stages of construction with no individual picking up the need for checks and balances. It is assumed the assessor will be able to endorse the targeted credits regardless of any lack in quality and/or substance of evidence. This scenario can quickly lead to problems, and in certain circumstances almost impossible to rectify. For example, where an Excellent rating has been specified the ecology credits are crucial, this means a BREEAM compliant ecologist MUST BE appointed at the right time to complete a site visit prior to the main contractor starting on site. All too often this prerequisite is missed and the targeted credits are compromised. Another example, is the targeting of energy credits. In this situation credits deemed available are based on assumption that the SBEM will return favourable results. When the SBEM is completed it has either been reduced in specification and/or the targeted credits have been over-estimated. This is exacerbated as energy credits have higher weighting than many other credits within the assessment. For example, under 2011 a Management credit is worth half a point, whereas an ecology credit is worth a full point i.e. one ecology credit is worth approximately two management credits. The above issues can be avoided by establishing at the very outset of a project the scope of the BREEAM assessor’s appointment.

Tip 4: Avoid assuming pre-assessments issued at tender stage are accurate Pre-assessments issued at the tender stage are generally completed by assessors based on experience gained on previous projects, and basic assumptions as to what credits may/or may not be available. In many cases, the pre-assessments are issued within tender documents in order to provide the tenderees with an indication [only] as to what the client is anticipating from the BREEAM strategy. Overall, the majority of assumptions are correct and the credits are validated; however, there are a few credits that are difficult to validate, and in some instances, unachievable. This is an issue that can cause difficulties for the project team as the development progresses.

A BREEAM pre-assessment is a live and working document that will fluctuate over the course of a development. The document is often used to highlight what credits are considered to be achievable at a given time, what credits have been targeted and the predicted score. Pre-assessments issued at the tender stage are the earliest attempt at establishing a BREEAM compliant strategy, and therefore the credits should remain at risk until fully validated. It is very unlikely a tender pre-assessment will contain all the information needed to validate the targeted credits due to the amount of work involved for the assessor, and the level of unknowns during the tender stage. For example, to validate the transport credits the assessor would have to establish the rail and bus links to and from the site, confirm compliance with the travel plan, assess the number of car parking spaces against the number of building users/visitors and confirm local amenities within a set distance to/from the site. To validate the energy credits the assessor would need to be in possession of the M&E design, have confirmation of the SBEM/DSM results, calculate lighting data, and so on. Where a project is using a design and build procurement route, this information is often unavailable; therefore, the credits cannot be fully validated [at best]; an educated guess is all that is available to the assessor at this stage. A further issue to be aware of is the risks associated with credits that have been tagged as “further potential”, i.e. used to increase the BREEAM score and/or offset credits dropped during the development. These credits are usually on the proviso that the project team completes a certain action and/or includes a certain specification at a predefined time. This approach can cause problems, as when the time comes to validate these credits it is found they are not available as the team did not complete the action and/or include the specification at the appropriate time.

Tip 5: Appoint the right consultants at the right time BREEAM assessments cover all aspects of design, construction, and occupation of a building, and will [on most occasions] require the services of additional consultant[s]; depending on the scope of the assessment, the BREEAM rating is specified, i.e. Good, Very Good, Excellent and the number of available credits at a particular site. One of the main issues to consider is that some consultant credits are time-barred, which means that if they are not validated at the correct time they become unavailable. This oversight can generate expensive uplifts in specifications and materials to make up for the shortfalls, and in some circumstances can lead to an outright failure to reach the target rating [in particular on Excellent buildings].

An example of consultant time-barred credits, and the various stages at which they should be appointed, are outlined as follows: BREEAM 2014: Accredited Professional, RIBA Stage 1; Life Cycle Analysis, RIBA Stage 2; Security Specialists, RIBA Stage 2; Low Carbon Feasibility Studies, RIBA Stage 2; Passive Design Analysis, RIBA Stage 2; Climate Change Adaption Analysis, RIBA Stage 2; Functional Adaptability, RIBA Stage 2; Le4 Qualified Ecologist, RIBA Stage 1. The above list relates only to BREEAM 2014; therefore, where different versions of BREEAM are being assessed, timings should be checked for certainty. In addition, there are several other consultant-related credits that are not time-barred, which may be required depending on the BREEAM strategy, i.e. Acousticians, Thermal Modellers, Air Quality Testing, Lift Analysis, etc. The message here is, if additional consultants are going to be included and/or they are targeted as part of the BREEAM strategy and if they are time-barred, they need to be appointed at the correct RIBA Stage; otherwise, they cannot be validated as compliant during the post-construction stage.

Tip 6: Avoid confusing CIBSE Commissioning Codes & BISRA Guides with post-construction M&E Sign-off Certification Confusing CIBSE Commissioning Codes and BISRA Guides with post-construction M&E sign-off certification is a common problem that can be easily avoided. M&E sub-contractors will often submit NICEIC documentation, gas safety certificates, chlorination documentation, etc. as a means of demonstrating compliance with the BREEAM criteria; however, the requirements for compliance go way beyond post-construction certification, and include a wider range of requirements that M&E teams must comply with.

The BREEAM criteria for commissioning includes design of M&E systems, installation procedures, operational function under full load conditions, and much more. To achieve compliance, commissioning of energy systems must be completed in line with CIBSE Commissioning Codes, BISRA Guides, Building Regulations, and any other relevant standard applicable to the building. This means that where a building has mechanical and/or electrical systems installed, there will be a relevant CIBSE Commissioning Code and/or BISRA Guide that must be adhered to, in order to validate the targeted credit[s].

For example – “CIBSE Commissioning, Code C,” provides guidance on establishing a commissioning team, commissioning management, phased inspections, control strategy checking, lighting controls, witnessing, documentation handover, etc. M&E teams must comply with the guidance provided within this document at the post-construction stage. NICICE documents, gas safe certificates, chlorination certificates, etc. in isolation do not achieve the BREEAM criteria. Evidence must be presented to the assessor during the commissioning stage, which proves that the relevant CIBSE/BISRA Code/Guides have been followed.

Tip 7: Avoid confusing the Building User Guide with the O+M manual The Building User Guide and O+M manual are two different documents that are often confused with one another, which is understandable, as there is some level of overlap between the two. The confusion is usually created due to a misunderstanding as to what level of content should be included within the BUG, and this can lead to delays in validating the assessment at handover, and frustration within the project team. A BUG should be an easy-to-follow document that provides simple instructions to non-technical building users and visitors, enabling them to access the building as per the original design intent.

The Building User Guide is a regularly targeted credit that often falls between the gaps of responsibility, in particular, where no individual has been tasked at the outset of a project to draft and complete the document. It often becomes the task of the M&E team to produce the BUG, although this approach can create its own problems, as the BUG is not an O+M Manual, i.e. it includes basic M&E information only that refers to the O+M Manual, should greater clarity be required. A BUG should be an informative, non-technical document that includes the following content as a minimum; an overview of the environmental strategy, information on nearby transport links, water and energy efficiency systems, location of control switches, access to shared facilities, action on visitor arrivals, safety & emergency instructions, incident reporting, access to local amenities, training information/links, references and contact details, maintenance requirements, etc. It is recommended to produce a draft copy as early in the construction stage as possible; and thereafter update it as the development progresses, making the process of issuing the document at handover much easier to complete. A good approach is to appoint an individual who can direct, control, and prepare the BUG in line with the building’s design and construction specifications.

Tip 8: Ensure sub-meters can record space heating & domestic hot water separately, in particular on BREEAM [Very Good] buildings Sub-metering of energy systems, in particular, space heating and domestic hot water is an issue that often arises during post-construction site visits, whereby on inspection of the plant/plant-room, it is established that the sub-metering arrangements do not achieve the BREEAM criteria. This situation can become a real problem where an assessment has a specified rating of “Very Good”, or above as sub-metering of space heating and domestic hot water is a minimum requirement. Sub-metering not designed and installed in line with BREEAM can trigger expensive uplifts and/or disruptive retrospective action.

Sub-metering specifications should be confirmed at the earliest stages of a development to ensure they are BREEAM compliant. However, where a development is procured on a design-and-build basis, this can be difficult to achieve, as the detailed design of sub-meters is often not known until the later stages. In this scenario, and to avoid any doubt, M&E teams should be made aware of the obligations at each key meeting in order to safeguard the credits, and this will help avoid difficulties arising during the post-construction stage. Where a building has simple heating systems, such as combination boilers, micro CHP units or a mixture of energy systems, the possibility of non-compliance is further exacerbated. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the requirements; this could prevent retrospective installation measures at handover. Special Note: there is an additional obligation to sub-meter major fans, although under BREEAM 2011, there is no definition as to what constitutes a major fan. To address this issue, under BREEAM 2014, a major fan is defined as “fans within air handling units, including multiple fans contained within a single unit”. The requirement does not include small fans such as those found in single rooms”.

Tip 9: Be aware of Site Waste Management Plans & BREEAM targets Most contractors have robust policies put in place to deal with the removal of construction waste from site, and thereafter, the collection of data in order to confirm the amount of waste recycled. However, this issue primarily rewards for the reduction of waste before it is generated via good design measures, innovation, and sound construction practices. On many occasions, waste data sheets are produced during site meetings with the amount of recycled waste proudly highlighted, although three out of the four available credits are for waste reduction, and not for waste recycling.

BREEAM waste credits are split into two main parts: the reduction of waste via the construction process, and the diversion of any unavoidable waste from landfill. Waste generated from the demolition and/or excavation process should not be included in the BREEAM figures. A further area of confusion is the amount of waste allowable under the different versions of BREEAM as the targets have been revised over time. For example, under BREEAM 2008, to achieve three credits, the amount of waste allowable is <4.7 tonnes per 100m2 of gross internal floor area [or less]; under BREEAM 2011 and 2014, this figure has been reduced to <3.2 tonnes, i.e. a tougher target, and one the site teams need to be aware of. Under BREEAM 2014, a demolition audit must be completed to determine the amount of materials recoverable for subsequent high grade/value applications. The audit must be referenced within the Resource Management Plan [RMP], and issued to the BREEAM assessor for validation during the early stages of construction. Special Note: On all versions of BREEAM, if 80%> of any unavoidable waste is recycled, one credit is achieved; if 90%> of waste is recycled, an innovation credit is achieved.

Tip 10: Identify fall back credits As described above, BREEAM pre-assessments are live documents that are subject to change, variation, and amendment with the progress of a development. On many occasions, an assessment will reach the post-construction stage only to find out that several credits have become non-compliant, for one reason or another, which can lead to delays at handover, contractual disputes, and financial problems. In the worst case scenario, this could result in a failure to achieve the specified BREEAM rating for the building.

The identification of fall back credits is an advanced risk management skill that should be adopted on all BREEAM assessments. The aim is to include backup credits that can be activated, should they become required without any significant uplift in costs. The main reasons for taking this approach is to counter the inevitability that some credits will be lost due to unknowns and/or unexpected results that arise during the construction stage. This includes issues, such as reduced SBEM scores [that can go down for a variety of reasons], reduced CCS scores [in particular on rural sites], bus and rail timetables changes, consultants are not appointed on time, appointment of non-compliant BREEAM consultants, etc. The most effective way to ensure assessments are risk managed effectively is to target fall back credits early on, during the pre-tender phase [this is difficult to achieve on BREEAM Excellent buildings as most credits will have already been targeted]. Fall back credits should not be confused with credits tagged as “further potential”, as they are not potential credits. Fall back credits are actual credits that can be validated at any time during a development. This can include credits such as Man1 [gathering of energy data], Man1 [seasonal commissioning], Ene1 [reduction of emissions, i.e. an uplift in scores via improved energy systems and/or renewables], Le4 [uplift in landscaping planting], and more.

Tip 11: Remember the aim and purpose of BREEAM: It is easy to lose sight of the purpose of BREEAM, especially when there are difficulties in achieving compliance at the post-construction stage. Therefore, a reemphasis on the value BREEAM is bringing to a development is encouraged at key stage meetings in order to maintain momentum and keep the team informed. In addition, it is important to note that BREEAM is a performance-based method of certification, with the main purpose of mitigating the life cycle impacts that arise from construction projects in a robust and cost-effective way. As with the communication of most construction projects, command and control, management skills and leadership should be the focus, as without these, there will be problems. It is hoped that the above tips have provided you with a greater insight into each of the topic areas and the potential pitfalls that can develop during an assessment. It is stressed, the points outlined are general issues only, and are by no means exhaustive as many other could have been included. For more information on how TWC Consulting can assist you with your BREEAM assessments, and how to obtain a quotation for our services, please contact a member of our team on 0844 272 8871 or email us on info@twcconsulting.com

Author Thomas Claffey is a well-known and respected Sustainable Building Designer and BREEAM Assessor providing advice and guidance on all types of developments across the UK. Currently, Thomas is working with main contractors, private and public sector clients, business owners, and managers on how to get the most from BREEAM assessment using advanced construction strategies, value-engineering workshops and credit offsetting. The distinct advantage Thomas brings comes from his full understanding of the construction process and knowledge of the legal and mandatory requirements that must be implemented on all construction projects.