Designing Buildings - The Construction Wiki

Search

Subjects

Tools / info

Edit this article

Last edited 15 Jan 2021

See full history

Main author

Multiple Author Article

Common pitfalls relating to BREEAM assessments

1 Assigning responsibilities
2 BRE QA
3 Changes
4 Communication
5 Criteria details
6 Planning
7 Scope
8 Timing
9 Tracker tools
10 Unrealistic commitments
11 Value engineering

[edit] Assigning responsibilities

Lack of commitment from site team as they have more important concerns
For any BREEAM project, there should be a Project Manager/Lead who will clearly explain the purpose and necessity in achieving the targeted BREEAM rating for the project. It is very difficult for BREEAM assessors to undertake the assessment without any support from the PM/Lead as the assessors do not usually have the authority to push the project team to work towards to meeting the BREEAM criteria. This should be agreed from the beginning between the assessor and the client/project team.

[edit] BRE QA

Not taking into account time taken to complete BRE QA
BRE QA feedback may require a resubmission thus delaying certification
Misunderstandings from the BRE QA team concerning some provided evidence. Solution: the newly created QA chat for assessors helps a lot to avoid these misunderstandings.

[edit] Changes

Developer starts new project with same contractor and specifications as previous project but the BREEAM scheme has changed…difficult to reach the same target !
Design changes - or changes on site that are not communicated properly. So subcontractors and designers not being fully aware of BREEAM requirements and how a specification meets those.
We are still having Clients telling us as Contractors “don’t worry, the design will just move and change throughout the project delivery.” If they have employed BREEAM AP’s this really should not be something they are saying…...
Changes in scope of work or building types as project progresses on speculative projects.

[edit] Communication

Client’s not understanding what a Contractor can actually deliver means that the scope of works are either too wishy washy leaving the requirements unclear and Contractors confused. At the other extreme, Clients just put all of the risk of BREEAM delivery onto the Contractor but then either don’t feed that into the contractual requirements or don’t check that other contractual requirements contradict BREEAM.
With traditional projects, with contractors prelims, project teams try to maximise Wst 01 credits by moving them over to the contractor, which sometime gets too onerous for the contractor - forcing them to cut corners (VE) in other areas.
Client handing an Interim Stage Assessment to a Contractor and saying go deliver this and expecting the Contractor to be able to price and re-design within an extremely tight timescales.
Have sent a WeTransfer link which expires after a week that was not opened in time - delay on getting feedback
Achievement of credits at the design stage not always carried over into PCR achievement - break down in communication between design and construction teams
Assuming future building occupiers will create compliant finishing / fit-out works.
If a client/contractor sells a project as BREEAM to the future building occupier too cheaply without having any expertise nor motivation.
Change over points in responsibility for different team members to take the lead with a credit area. This can include, for example, from design team members to Contractor but also between Design Team managers and their site staff- communication is key.
Contractors who have a pre construction team and forget to advise the construction team of the BREEAM requirements and the commitments that have been made.
Discuss with the client and the design team about possible cost of each credit

[edit] Criteria details

Level of overly prescriptive requirements in some criteria compared to others (eg transparency of blinds - doesn’t make a building more sustainable so possible not appropriate to include)
Criteria that suits some projects better than others, e.g. Wst 01 waste targets are easily achieved on Industrial units (and all shell only, shell and core projects) but for a fitted out building it’s very onerous.
Some credits such as Waste storage and cycle storage credits are difficult to get on small office/ retial units, when no site wide provisions are available. At design stage, credits were achieved as these were shown on drawings but at PC, there wasn’t anything provided physically as this meant reduction in net lettable space.
Mandatory LE03 credit missed because there is not the space or resources in place to mitigate the ecological impact.
Site records not being kept as confirmed at design stage even though a meeting has been held with the site team to discuss and run through their requirements.
Specification not carrying specific enough requirements to fulfill BREEAM targets (eg Sustainable sourcing of timber. I found it quite common that architects are writing in their specification that all timber should be responsibly sourced but if not available then …. - this second part after “but” should not appear if you want to achieve BREEAM)

[edit] Planning

On some of these projects the Planning requirement/ contract agreements require BREEAM Excellent, which is nearly impossible.

[edit] Scope

Pre Assessment tracker does not align with actual contract terms of agreement for scope - not picked up until later stages

[edit] Timing

Clients can miss the early RIBA credits, including the AP ones which can make achieving ‘Excellent’ very difficult
Late engagement (e.g. client expecting contractor to take the risk of compliance)
In most of our current RFO projects, our appointment has been at late stage 2 or early RIBA stage 3, due to which early credits are lost.
Appointing consultants at the correct stage to help inform the design is often an issue.
Client only considers BREEAM when it comes up as a planning or funding requirement - misses early stage credits, this will be more critical for BREEAM 2018 which has far more early stage requirements e.g. Ene 01, Mat 01.