Getting the referencing right

When referencing evidence, it is the role of the Assessor to demonstrate how the credits for each issue have been awarded.

  • It must be clearly indicated where compliance with each applicable criterion can be found within the evidence provided (for example, providing section and page numbers).
  • This should include Assessor’s thought process and provide the Auditor with a clear locational reference (auditable trail) to the evidence that has been used to reach the Assessor’s decision.
  • Please also note that for assessments submitted via BREEAM Projects, the Assessor commentary should be provided in the “comments” box for each issue.
  • Do NOT provide commentary in the evidence upload section. This section is for document identification and small clarifications only.
  • Commentary from previous submissions should not be amended or removed and all new comments addressing QA commentary as well as new evidence should be clearly indicated.

Good examples:

”Criterion 1 – [Evidence reference 123], page 10, section 5.3 – Please provide further explanation of how compliance has been confirmed.”

”Criterion 2 – [Drawing reference 4], page 2 – As highlighted – Please provide further explanation of how compliance has been confirmed.”

Poor examples:

“Ref 46 shows compliance with Hea 04”

“Ref 46 shows compliance with Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8”

“Zip Folder [Ref 23] shows compliance with Criterion 1”

Where the “poor” referencing standard has been employed by the Assessor, BREEAM reserves the right to return the assessment without audit.

03.10.2023 - More detailed instruction on mandatory referencing provided along with clearer examples of good and bad referencing.