Assessor Cannot Verify a BREEAM Credit Because the Evidence Is Ambiguous
An assessor is reviewing evidence for a materials credit on a new-build school. The contractor has submitted a responsible sourcing certificate for a timber supplier. The certificate covers a different legal entity from the one named on the purchase invoices, and the certificate's scope refers to a 'group scheme' without listing the specific production site. The invoice names a trading name that does not appear on the certificate. The contractor says 'it's the same company, they just trade under a different name'. The assessor has 10 working days before the assessment submission deadline.
1. Is the certificate sufficient evidence to award the credit? Explain your reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Not on its own. The evidence must be traceable from the certificate to the product actually supplied and installed. Here there are three gaps: the legal entity differs, the production site is not identified, and the trading name on the invoice does not match the certificate. The contractor's verbal assurance is not verifiable evidence.
The assessor should:
- Check the scheme's specific evidence requirements for responsible sourcing - typically a certificate or declaration that identifies the supplier, the scope of certification and the products covered.
- Ask for a written statement from the certificate holder or supplier that links the trading name and legal entity, and identifies the production site within the group scheme.
- Request a chain-of-custody document or delivery note that connects the certified product to the site.
- If the link cannot be evidenced, do not award the credit and record the reason.
The assessor must be able to demonstrate the connection, not assume it. 'Same company, different name' may be true, but it needs documentary support.
2. What should the assessor do if the contractor cannot provide the linking documentation before the deadline?
Read the worked answer
The assessor should not award the credit on the basis of an unverified claim. Options:
- Record the credit as not achieved, with a note explaining the evidence gap and what would have been needed.
- Inform the client promptly, in writing, so they understand the impact on the score and any consequences for the certification outcome.
- If the scheme allows evidence to be submitted after the assessment but before certificate issue, check the rules and advise accordingly; otherwise the position stands for this assessment.
- Keep the door open for a future assessment or a re-submission if the documentation is later produced, but do not pre-award the credit.
The deadline is a reason to communicate early, not a reason to lower the evidence standard. The assessor's signature confirms that the credit is evidenced; accepting ambiguous documentation undermines that assurance.
3. How should the assessor document this decision for QA purposes?
Read the worked answer
The record should be sufficient for a reviewer to understand what was submitted, what was missing and why the decision was made. It should include:
- A description of the evidence received (certificate, invoice, contractor statement) with dates.
- The specific discrepancies identified: legal entity, production site, trading name.
- The additional evidence requested and the contractor's response.
- The scheme requirement relied on and how the evidence fell short.
- The decision (credit not awarded) and the client communication.
This documentation protects the assessor if the decision is challenged and supports consistency across the assessment. It also gives the client a clear basis for remedying the gap in future. QA records should be retained in line with the scheme operator's requirements.