Green Building Rating Systems and the Role of the Project Manager

Green Building Rating Systems and the Role of
the Project Manager
DT117/4
B.Sc. in Construction Management
Davis Ciprikis
Supervisor: Sean McCarthy
April 2016

I
Declaration
I hereby certify that this Thesis which I now submit, for assessment on the program of study
leading to the award of Bachelor of Science in Construction Management, is entirely my own
work and has not been taken from the work of others, to the extent that such work has been
cited and acknowledged within the text of my work.
This Thesis was prepared according to the regulations of the Dublin Institute of Technology
and has not been submitted in whole or in part thereof, for an award in any other Institution.
I agree that the Library may lend or copy this Thesis on request.
X
Davis Ciprikis
22/04/2016

II
Abstract
Sustainable development has increased significantly over the last 10 years. Construction firms
are adopting sustainable practices that come from both, internal and external drivers of the
construction industry. In order to assess how sustainable a building is, a green building rating
systems have been developed to provide a documented and systematic approach to sustainable
construction practices. Amongst these rating systems are the Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Methods (BREEAM) introduced in the UK and the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) created in the USA.
It has been noted that the project manager will have an important role to play when
implementing green assessment requirements due to his/her significant involvement in project
procurement. This research aims to identify the evolving role of project manager and to obtain
an understanding of how the project manager deals with current green certifications systems.
In order to achieve the main purpose of this study, literature review and qualitative methods
were used to provide findings of the research. Data was collected from eight industry
professionals in the field of BREEAM and LEED. Members of the industry highlighted the
practical challenges faced while carrying out green building assessment and presented
suggestions on how to improve the management process on green projects.
The analysis has developed a recognition of four main reoccurring themes in carrying out green
building assessment. They include the importance of early introduction of BREEAM and
LEED in the procurement process; the need for project participants to fully understand the
assessment process; the need for training on how to deliver sustainable indicators; and the
submittal of right information to green building governing bodies.
Finally, the research concludes with recommendations on how management can be improved
on green building rating systems. These recommendations include the development of
systematic procedures that can reduce contractual risks and improve efficiency on future
projects.

III
Acknowledgements
It would never have become a reality without the help, suggestions and support of so many of
my lecturers at the D.I.T. Construction Management Department where I experienced a very
inspiring, and friendly work environment.
I would particularly like to thank my supervisor Sean McCarthy who has accompanied and
guided the whole process, starting from the first brainstorming to the final thesis. Without his
guidance and advice I would be lost in the complex and fascinating topic of green building
assessment.
I would like to show my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my grandparents Gunta and
Karlis for their wisdom and roots.
Many thanks go to my partner Elisa for her support, patience and encouragement during this
research.
I would also like to thank my brother Klavs, my friend Neil Ward and the greatest motivator
Eric Thomas for answering all my questions in the field of research and helping me experience
this journey of discovery.
But at the end it was the two most important people in the world who inspired me to achieve
the impossible. To my mom Vineta, and my dad Vilnis without their patience, support and
understanding these past four years would not have been possible.
Thank you.

IV
Table of Contents
Declaration I
Abstract II
Acknowledgements III
Table of Contents IV
Table of Figures VII
Abbreviations VIII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Section 1.0: Introduction 2
Section 1.1: Background 2
Section 1.2: Research Aim 3
Section 1.3: Research Objective 3
Section 1.4: Scope of Research 3
Section 1.5: Dissertation Content 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
Section 2.1: An Overview of the Green Building Rating Systems 7
Section 2.1.1: LEED Rating System 8
Section 2.1.2: BREEAM Rating System 12
Section 2.2: Project Management Process 13
Section 2.3: Providing Effective Communication 16
Section 2.4: Planning and Scheduling 18
Section 2.5: Training and Subsequent Meetings 20
Section 2.6: Project Management and Sustainable Construction 22
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 25
Section 3.1: Research Design and Strategy 27
Section: 3.1.1: Secondary Research 27
Section 3.1.2: Primary Research 28
Section 3.2: Qualitative research 29
Section 3.3 Quantitative research 30
Section 3.4: Chosen Research Method 30
Section 3.5: Qualitative research – Semi structured interviews 31
Section 3.6: Research Limitations 32

V
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS 33
Section 4.1: Interviewee Profile 35
Section 4.2: Participant Background to GBRS 36
Section 4.3: Challenges on Carrying out GBRS 38
Section 4.4: GBRS On-Site Measure 39
Section 4.5: Identify Unique Project Issues 40
Section 4.6: Communication and Information Exchange 42
Section 4.7: Training 43
Section 4.8: Management Review 45
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH FINDINGS 46
Section 5.1: Project Management Responsibilities on GBRS 47
Section 5.2: Green Specifications and Documentation 48
Section 5.3: Management Structure and Responsibility 48
Section 5.4: Training Opportunities 49
Section 5.5: Sustainable Construction Site Management 49
Section 5.6: Summary of Research Findings 50
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51
Section 6.1: Aim of the Research 52
Section 6.2: Research Objectives 52
Section 6.3: Conclusion 54
Section 6.4: Research Limitations 55
Section 6.5: Recommendation 56
Section 6.6: Further Research 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY 58
References 59
APPENDICES 65
Appendix 1 – Participant A - Project Manager 66
Appendix 2 – Participant B – Project Manager 69
Appendix 3 – Participant C – Project Quantity Surveyor 74
Appendix 4 – Participant D – Mechanical & Electrical Engineer, LEED AP 79
Appendix 5 – Participant E – Sustainability Manager, BREEAM/LEED AP 88

VI
Appendix 6 – Participant F – Sustainability consultant, BREEAM AP 92
Appendix 7 – Participant G - Architect 94
Appendix 8 – Participant H – Sustainability coordinator LEED AP 99

VII
Table of Figures
Figure 2.0.0: Comparative Overview of BREEAM and LEED 8
Figure 2.0.1: LEED Credit Rating Category 9
Figure 2.0.2: LEED Credit Rating Category 10
Figure 2.0.3: LEED Certificate Accreditation Weighting 10
Figure 2.0.4: LEED implementation guide 11
Figure 2.0.5: BREEAM scoring category 12
Figure 2.0.6: Green Project Management system 14
Figure 2.0.7: Representation of communications methods in construction 16
Figure 2.0.8: Impact categories of LEED credits on PM 19
Figure 2.0.9: The framework for implementing environmental environment 21
Figure 2.10: Proposed outline of SWMP 24
Figure 3.1: Various stages in composition of dissertation 26
Figure 3.2: Stages of research process 28
Figure 3.3: Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative research 29

VIII
Abbreviations
AP - Accredited Professional
BER - Building Energy Rating
BIM – Building Information Technology
BoQ – Bill of Quantities
BRE - Building Research Establishment
BREEAM - Building Research Establishment Environment Assessment Method
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
COP - United Nations Conference of Parties
DGNB - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen -German Sustainable Building Council
DMS – Document Management Software
EDP – Environmental Product Declaration
EU - European Union
GBRS – Green Building Rating System
GGBS - Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag
IGBC – Irish Green Building Council
ISO- International Organization for Standardization
JIT – Just In Time
LCA - Life Cycle Assessment
LEED - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
m2
- Meter Squared
PM – Project Manager
QA – Quality Assurance
SWMP- Site Waste Management Plan
UK - United Kingdom
US – United States
USGBC - United States Green Building Council

Chapter 1- Introduction
1
Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter - Introduction
2
Section 1.0: Introduction
The focus of this chapter is to provide a background to the chosen research topic. The author
will highlight the aims and objectives of the dissertation and to offer a brief overview of the
scope of the research. The chapter will conclude with an outline of subsequent chapters of this
thesis.
Section 1.1: Background
Today, the global society is facing a huge challenge – its course and progress has caused the
destruction of its one and only home: the Biosphere of planet Earth (Brundtland, 1987). It can
be seen that company’s actions on environmental practice get different forms of media
attention. As a result, the global society has become conscious of the climate change and are
starting to think and act sustainably. This latest trend offers a new competitive advantages to
businesses. Sustainability issues are becoming a way of marketing for a company to show their
contribution to environment.
The high level of carbon emissions has increased demands for solutions on the current energy
crises. As a result, more sustainable practices can be implemented through government
legislation or a market driven tools. The most evident definition of sustainable development is
by Brundtland (1987) who defines sustainable development as ‘meeting the needs of present
withouth compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. This
definition indicates that there is a greater needs for more sustainable construction in order to
reduce the consumption of the natural resources.
A way of achieving a more sustainable construction is through implementation of a green
building rating systems (Taylor, 2015). A green building rating system is a method of assessing
the environmental goals of a project through the planning and design processes, which are
based on a systematic point scoring for all the sustainable tasks that are presented in a project.
As a result, great deal of knowledge and coordination skills are placed on project managers for
implementing these systems. This dissertation will study the role of project manager on green
building rating systems, and the challenges faced by industry professionals on delivering a
sustainable project.

3
Section 1.2: Research Aim
The overall aim of this research is to investigate the evolving role of the project manager and
the challenges of delivering Green Building Rating Systems (GBRS).
Section 1.3: Research Objective
 To examine the role of a project manager on green building rating systems.
 To examine the challenges of meeting a complete set of sustainable indicators.
 To determine on-site management challenges in relation to delivering BREEAM and
LEED projects.
 To investigate the forms of communication on sustainable project.
Section 1.4: Scope of Research
This study aims to address the main benefits and challenges in the form of examining the
relationship between various contractual parties on green building rating systems. Primary and
secondary data will be used to gather information and evaluate challenges of BREEAM/LEED
and their effectiveness when used on green construction projects. BREEAM and LEED are
also known as Green Building Rating Systems (GBRS), which will be used interchangeably
during this study. The research begins with the collection of secondary data in the form of
literature review with the aim of presenting a comprehensive understanding of green building
rating systems. The literature review will aim to investigate project management practices on
green building rating systems with the focus on site management challenges. The study will
then investigate the forms of communication between the project manager and the project team.
The primary research follows in the form of semi-structured interviews, which will allow the
author to gain insight into participant’s experiences of undertaking BREEAM and LEED
projects. The data gathered from interviews will then be compared and analysed in order to
draw research conclusions and further recommendations.

4
Section 1.5: Dissertation Content
 Chapter 1: Introduction
The dissertation begins by introducing the topic of climate change and how the introduction of
green building rating systems can reduce the carbon emissions, as well as potential role of
project manager in sustainable construction. This chapter also includes the research aim and
objectives that are going to be carried throughout this dissertation.
 Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter consists of comprehensive review and analysis of the green building rating
systems, the role of project manager and the planning involved in carrying out such systems.
The literature review then proceeds to examine the forms of training and communication
techniques essential for completing the green targets and on-site management. By doing so,
this study seeks to offer the reader an insight into sustainable construction and challenges of
delivering sustainable indicators.
 Chapter 3: Research Methodology
In this chapter the author presents the reader with an insight into research methods that are
available when conducting a study of this kind. The chapter further outlines methodology used
during the primary and secondary data collection and the reasons for selecting these research
methods.
 Chapter 4: Data Analysis
In this chapter the author aims to analyse the data gathered through primary research. The
interviews of professionals are analysed and the interviewee responses are recorded in
Appendices.
 Chapter 5: Findings
This chapter will summarise findings from interviews and will compare them to the literature
review.
 Chapter 6: Conclusion
The final chapter summarises the research by illustrating how the aims and objectives have
been met. The aims and objectives are then merged allowing the author to draw conclusions on
the role of project manager on green building rating systems. Recommendations are also given
to limitation upon the research and areas of further study

Chapter 2- Literature Review
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review

6
Davies et al. (2010) report that 40% of total 𝐶𝑂2 emissions arise due to construction activities.
BREEAM developed a pledge, made in the COP 21 climate intervention in Paris 2015 that
9,000 new buildings with BREEAM certification will be built by 2020, which would reduce
the 𝐶𝑂2 emission by 900,000 tonnes (Taylor, 2015).
In Ireland, contractors currently depend on the client requirements to implement the green
building assessments as there is no obligation by the Irish law to have an environmental
assessments on a structure. However, there is a compulsory measure to have a Building Energy
Rating (BER), which only measures the energy performance of operating the building (Stewart
and Corless, 2007). Under the current 2011 Part L of the technical guidance documents, a
building is to be planned and constructed as to guarantee the energy performance “in such as
to limit the amount of energy required for the operation of the building as is reasonably
practicable”. This does not take into account the embodied energy produced during the
construction stage (TGD L, 2011, pp. 5).
Research has presented numerous building rating systems that have been developed
internationally, however the researcher will focus on the United Kingdom’s ‘Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Methods and the United Stated of America’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (Roderick et al., 2009). BREEAM and LEED
buildings are not constructed any differently to a building with no certification, but require
specified materials and building design with greater attention to the use of the building. The
first stage is to appoint a project team that will select an experienced green building Project
Manager (PM) during the project’s feasibility period (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011).
As a result, Liyin et al. (2006) argue that acreditation will increase the cost of construction,
time and resources, and therefore discourages management from tendering for
BREEAM/LEED specified projects. In response, Bogenstätter (2000) states that without early
involvement of the PM the contractor and architect are at a disadvantage, especially when it
comes to incorporating client’s goals into the project’s design, preliminary budget and
scheduling.

7
Section 2.1: An Overview of the Green Building Rating Systems
The main basis of the Green Building Rating Systems (GBRS) is to offer an overall evaluation
of the environmental performance of a building by meeting the requirements set out in the
documentation (Zhang et al., 2014). Jamie and Mohamed (2013) state that the responsibility
of implementing green procurement will lie in project management. Furthermore, Tam et al.
(2004) described that project management on a green developments will have to involve further
training, extensive document management, communication, early team collaboration and
environmental planning. Andrea et al. (2012) argues that the delivery of a construction projects
comprises of efficient recourse allocation, monitoring of embodied energy and to reuse and
recycle resources through any other means by which natural resources are sustained.
As GBRS is not mandatory, it rests in client to specify the implementation of GBRS, and the
level of certification will depend on time and resources available (Schweber, 2013). Further,
clients have to know that GBRS will account for increased costs of up to 5 percent on the
overall project. Most of the GBRS will take place in design stage as the assessment criteria will
have an effect on the points that can or can’t be achieved (Zhang et al.,2014).
Starrs (2010) compares the two rating systems and finds that the main aim of BREEAM is to
decrease 𝐶𝑂2 emissions caused by energy use in buildings, whereas LEED focuses on reducing
annual expenses on energy. Saunders (2008) argues that LEED is suited to climates where
mechanical ventilation is commonly used and places where the driving culture prevails. On the
other hand, BREEAM is thought to encourage cycling and walking-based transport, as well as
more resourceful water consumption. Furthermore, Schwarts and Raslan (2013) presents that
BREEAM and LEED are both subdivided into specific environmental categories and sub-
categories where each system gives a certain number of credits towards achieving a specific
sustainable requirement. Figure 2.0.0 summarizes and compares the main features of each
system.

8
Figure 2.0.0: Comparative Overview of BREEAM and LEED1(Schwarts and Raslan, 2013)
Section 2.1.1: LEED Rating System
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design was developed by the United States Green
Building Council (USGBC) in 1998 (Glavinich, 2008). LEED is a voluntary certification
programme, which serves as a guideline and assessment method that clients or organisations
can choose to implement. LEED building rating systems encompass a collection of
sustainability indicators to assess how the green building is operating (USGBC, 2015). LEED
is assessed under 8 different categories which are location and transport, sustainable sites, water
efficiency, energy and atmosphere, material resources, indoor environmental quality,
innovation, and regional priority (Glavinich, 2008). In order to gain LEED certification the
owner has to demonstrate the ability to reduce the building’s ecological footprint and to lower
the operation costs using a checklist method which consists of specific criteria. Additionally
Glavinich (2008) distinguishes LEED as a documentation planned for improving the way
people work in construction, design and operate the building. Multiple design submittals have
to be presented during planning and construction to the USGBC, which is the governing body
of LEED certification. Wu et al. (2016) explains that LEED is based on 110 credit rating system
with certain prerequisites spread over eight categories as can be seen in figure 2.0.1 and 2.0.2.

9
Figure 2.0.1 LEED Credit Rating Category 1 (USGBC, 2015)

10
Figure 2.0.2: LEED Credit Rating Category 1 (USGBC, 2015)
There are four LEED accreditation levels which are measured in points (Andrea et al., 2012).
These are represented in figure 2.0.3 which list the ratings that can be gained in LEED.
Figure 2.0.3: LEED Certificate Accreditation Weighting (LEED, 2016)

11
As LEED is evolving in todays global market, Andrea et al. (2012) expresses the need for
advanced management practices to improve the construction, design and operation of LEED
buildings that follow a systematic management approach. This has led to increasing demand
for PMs to have a greater understanding of LEED requirements as they play a critical role in
the success of the LEED projects. According to Silva and Ruwanpura (2009) PM’s have to
involve contractors early on, as introduction, documentation, and LEED systems have to be
implemented or adjusted to the existing construction practices. The LEED implementation
guide, as shown in Figure 2.0.4 is sequentially structured and contains the following hierarchy:
Figure 2.0.4: LEED implementation guide (Bayraktar and Owens, 2010)
Throughout the design and construction phases, an external LEED consultant known as LEED
Accredited Professional (AP) will be employed to gather LEED credit documentation and to
inspect how the project is complying with the specific guidelines set out by USGBC. This
documentation will then be submitted for a review to the USGBC. Not every credit within the
rating system will apply to the project as external factors such as public transport may not be
in certain proximity of the site, therefore no credits can be earned on that factor. The number
of credits earned by the project will however determine the level of LEED certification (Zezhou
et al., 2016).

12
Section 2.1.2: BREEAM Rating System
Increasing demand for ‘green’ construction emerged from Kyoto Protocol, due to their
commitment to reduce the 𝐶𝑂2 emissions, building sector started to look at existing and new
development and how they can be improved (Li et al., 2013). As a result of the Kyoto protocol
legislative and fiscals requirements were introduced in the UK. One such requirement emerged
through growth of BREEAM, which is a non-government organisation tool established in 1990.
Furthermore, Schweber (2013) states that BREEAM was adopted by the UK as a mandatory
requirement in 2000 for all public procurement through tender requirement (Archives, 2008).
Figure 2.0.5: BREEAM scoring category (BREEAM, 2015)
The primary aim of BREEAM is to measure the embodied energy of the building and to reduce
the energy consumption while improving the wellbeing of the occupants (Ding, 2008). The
evaluations on buildings are carried out by licensed BREEAM assessors who assesses the
building with similar procedures as LEED rating system (Cole and Valdebenito, 2013).
BREEAM measures the sustainability through 10 categories extending from energy to water
usage this is further represented in figure 2.0.5 (Schweber, 2013). These categories focus on
the most important ecological factors, combining low impact design performance and carbon
emissions reduction. Within every category certain amount of credits are targeted to reach the
overall BREEAM certificate (BREEAM, 2015). As a result, Schweber (2013) states that
BREEAM allows the client to evaluate, reflect and measure the performance of their building

13
on sustainability, and BREEAM certification will promote added market value. Furthermore
BREEAM aims to provide recognition of the buildings’ sustainability and acts as a driver to
stimulate demand for sustainable buildings.
Section 2.2: Project Management Process
The PM’s objective is to understand LEED/BREEAM requirements in order to achieve the
assessment criteria and to deliver the project within budget and on time. PMs are generally first
to meet the project brief and information regarding specifications, therefore their level of
familiarity with the assessment criteria will influence certain aspects of the traditional
management approaches (Robichaud and Anantatmula., 2011). Furthermore Andrea et al.
(2012) states that PMs will have to adjust their management role in order to adapt to the GBRS
criteria. As a result, Wu and Low (2010) finds that project manager is responsible for earning
20 percent of the credits on GBRS projects. PM’s failure to achieve necessary credits could
result in litigation, conflict, delays, financial losses and reduced competitive advantage (Andrea
et al., 2012).
Schweber (2013) emphasizes that the credits most visible are the ones which seem to create
additional work. PM’s involvement on GBRS project can be summarised in extensive
documentation, communication and reporting. As a result, Robichaud and Anantatmula (2011)
identifies that the PM’s early involvement is essential on GBRS project otherwise contractors
and architects will be at a disadvantage particularly when it comes to integrating the client’s
goals into the early design, preliminary budget and schedule estimates. At the design stage, PM
can contribute their knowledge by advising on environmentally responsible construction
activities, performance goals and build ability.
Furthermore, Robichaud and Anantatmula (2011) explain that the PM’s responsibility lies in
the planning of meetings for the construction team to ensure they have a clear awareness of the
project’s objectives and programmes, along with other inputs that will help to generate the
credits in other sections. These opening meetings will lay basis for launching a shared team
environment (Robichaud and Anantatmula 2011). In addition to facilitate the meetings, the PM
is responsible for the maintenance of GBRS documents, ensuring that GBRS requirements are
achieved and monitoring the implemented measures of assessment criteria (Bayraktar and
Owens, 2010). Figure 2.0.6 represents PM’s involvement in the project from feasibility stage.

14
Figure 2.0.6: Green Project Management system (Schweber, 2013)
Construction projects generally contain large design teams and each person has their own
function to perform in the GBRS process. The challenge with this is to ensure that each person
knows exactly what is expected from them and when their work is required. Furthermore, this
will ensure the project is on track to achieve the required rating (Miles, 2014). Robichaud and
Anantatmula (2011) suggest that the PM will have to provide for more advanced
communication systems than for traditional projects, as improved communication will be
required for specified documentation, prerequisites and other requirements. These
communication systems will have to be discussed in early planning meetings as it is of major
importance to the success of the project. Tam et al. (2004) suggest the use of collaborative
management software in order to assist the PM on keeping credit scores and schedules.
Zezhou et al. (2016) indicate that cost is one of the most important factors affecting PM
decisions on green projects. Furthermore, Robichaud and Anantatmula (2011) supports that
most of attention in GBRS projects focuses on its ‘positive environmental impacts’, but costs
are the greatest restraint to building green. As a result, the PM finds it challenging to balance
between environmental performance and cost. In order to earn higher profits environmental
management is often forgotten (McCoskey and Maddock,1994). According to Zhang et al.
(2014) a PM can incur an increase of 1-5 percent to the projects total cost depending on the
size of the project and the PM’s previous experience on GBRS. The additional costs required
are for investment on sustainable construction technology and staff training (Shen and Tam,

15
2002). Conventional procurement practices in construction emphasise that organisations tend
to focus more on short-term profitability (Walker and Brammer, 2007). Even though initial
costs of GBRS are greater than conventional projects, USGBC (2015) shows that long term
cost in maintenance and operation can recover those expenses and open new market
opportunities. BREEAM/LEED buildings are expected to reduce operational costs by 8-9
percent annually (USGBC, 2015). Schwarts and Raslan (2013) state that certified buildings
increase in value of 11 percent compared to buildings with no certification.

16
Section 2.3: Providing Effective Communication
The key challenge to deliver a financially successful project lies in communication and
coordination across all parties involved (Nitithamyong and Skibniewski, 2004). Projects
seeking GBRS certification can be more complicated than conventional projects, consequently
communication can be improved if all trades work together under one system as opposed to
the traditional primary communication methods (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). The
primary means of communication include meetings, e-mails, web sites and letters and are
proven to be limited. Furthermore, they can delay collaboration between different parties
involved (Andrea et al., 2012). Figure 2.0.7 represents traditional communication approach
compared to one DMS or BIM can offer.
In order to achieve effective communication on GBRS project, Andrea et al. (2012)
recommend adopting a Document Management Software (DMS) system to record the projects
progress and to provide an online platform where documentation can be uploaded for the
certification process. The DMS system aims to aid all team members to collaborate on an online
software package where file sharing, messaging and up-to-date information is managed
(Cabeza et al., 2014). Zhanga’s et al. (2015) report shows that adopting DMS can improve the
coordination of works by insuring an open evidence of who has accessed the system and who
has met on-time document delivery and other information.
Figure 2.0.7: Representation of communications methods in construction (Hore, 2006)

17
However, implementing an effective DMS system requires training sessions on how to operate
the system, which costs time and resources. Nitithamyong and Skibniewski et al. (2006) state
that by implementing DMS on projects can:
 Save time by reducing errors occurring under paperwork.
 Add and store submitted documents from all parties for reference and review by
BREEAM/LEED assessors.
 Scan paper forms and store invoices.
 Share live up-to-date documents.
 Create accessibility and editing of files from tablet or mobile devices.
 Add comments to receive information required.
As shown previously, the PM is responsible for the organisation of kick-off meetings, which
benefits the communication among the project parties (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011).
Bayraktar and Owens (2010) further recommend the following strategies to consider during
kick-off meetings:
 Make sure that all parties involved with the construction process have recognised all
construction related credits in the action plan.
 Discuss training of subcontractors if necessary.
 Identify the function and standards expected from subcontractors.
 Review the construction-waste management plan.
 Manage site visit with all subcontractors to discuss BREEAM/LEED as a team.
Subsequently Bayraktar an Owens (2010) concluded that the PM will have to dedicate a
minimum of four hours a week to manage GBRS documents. As a result, contractors tend to
employ external LEED consultants who are responsible for collecting, analysing and
processing LEED documentation.

18
Section 2.4: Planning and Scheduling
During the planning and scheduling process PMs must consider the impact of green criteria on
the overall schedule of construction works (Glavinich, 2008). Wu and Low (2010) stated that
most of PM time involves planning and organising the schedule of works. Furthermore, Riley
and Cotsgrave (2013) state, that PM will usually develop a work breakdown structure to see
what part of GBRS will impact the project. Work breakdown structure aims to separate the
project into sequential stages, an example being the ‘RIBA Plan of work’ (Royal Institute of
British Architects, 2013). When the plan of work is complete, the PM must further develop a
specific BREEAM/LEED action plan that is to be implemented in scheduling of works and
document submittal to the green building councils (Bayraktar and Owens, 2010). The plan of
works must be explained to all parties, this can be done at pre-commencement meetings where
all parties have to work together during projects feasibility and programming stage in order for
PM to accomplish smooth construction schedule (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011).
Furthermore, these meetings will allow the actors to have an understanding of what aspects of
GBRS are their responsibility (Andrea et al., 2012).
Liyin et al. (2006) explain that planning for BREEAM and LEED will effect existing
performance levels. Therefore, PMs has to identify the credits to be achieved early in the
planning stage as failure to meet these requirements can set back the project schedule and
increase the costs of construction (Bayraktar and Owens, 2010). In order to achieve the
BREEAM/LEED requirements on a project PM will have to meet objectives set on site
development, energy efficiency and water efficiency (Bayraktar and Owens, 2010).
Furthermore, Liyin et al. (2006) state that the PM will have to develop key environmental
performance indicators in order to establish objectives and targets for the assessment criteria.
According to Bayraktar and Owens (2010) the following factors need to be identified prior to
developing an action plan in relation to BREEAM/LEED:
1. The availability of environmentally friendly material.
2. The development of construction waste management plan.
3. The amount of experienced green subcontractors and their training.
4. Local restrictions on water, energy and other requirement criteria.
5. Minimization of embodied energy.
6. Cross team interaction and Communication.

19
Furthermore, almost all the innovation credits will require PM’s involvement (Li et al., 2013).
Glavinich (2008) indicates that most of the PM’s time on BREEAM/LEED projects is spent in
BREEAM/LEED credit documentation and submittals. As a result, (Andrea et al., 2012) states
that an inexperienced PM who is new to BREEAM/LEED generally presents incomplete
contract documentation that makes the process long and time consuming. Therefore, Glavinich
(2008, pp. 58) states that it is important for all parties to recognise “which submittals are
required, when they are due, what their format should be, and their review and approval
processes”. Ding (2008) expressed that most of the documentation required to produce by PM
is in relation to materials and waste. Figure 2.0.8 represents all the credits that can be achieved
by PM.
Documents that are a required and that need to be submitted will be issued by the Building
Research Establishment (BRE) and United States Green Building Council (USGBC). The
documentation will be specific and precise. Such documentation can show how much carbon
is embedded in concrete and the carbon emissions released while delivering the materials to
the site. IF the PM is unable to gather the documentation required, an external consultant
Accredited Professional (AP) can be hired to facilitate the documentation process who provides
templates and other equivalent tools to make the process easier (Andrea et al., 2012).
Figure 2.0.8: Impact categories of LEED credits on PM (Li et al., 2013)

20
Section 2.5: Training and Subsequent Meetings
Two recurring themes of the literature on GBRS focus on the project manager’s knowledge on
the assessment criteria and training required for all of the actors involved in the project
(Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). Wu and Low (2010) record that often not enough training
is given to staff on what the overall project is trying to achieve, which may produce potential
difficulties to motivate contractors in achieving GBRS objectives. Robichaud and Anantatmula
(2011) state that workers have lower level of motivation when the employees are not fully
aware of the green project process.
Both BREEAM and LEED offer training courses on becoming an AP that aims to train
construction professionals to understand the GBRS process (Bruce et al., 2009). As a result,
USGBC (2016) states that AP demonstrates an understanding of the accreditation process. The
AP’s role is to provide the design team with professional advice on the environmental
assessment methods (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). Furthermore the AP will schedule
activities, set priorities, determine the credits that can be accomplished and communicate the
issues with the project team (Bruce et al., 2009). It becomes the AP’s duty to gather GBRS
credit documentation and to submit assessment reports to the BER and USGBC governing
bodies. In most projects the tender documents specify that the PM will have to provide their
own AP consultant in order to carry out all of the accreditation process (IGBC, 2016).
Additionally Andrea et al. (2012) state that AP consultant is not there to carry out all of the
tasks for PM but to advise and help with the GBRS process.
Wu and Low (2010) state, that instead of relying solely on GBRS for individual projects, PM’s
should be able to adapt to an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) where
technical and nontechnical aspects of project management are balanced. As a result, the ISO
14,000 was developed as a system for organizations to promote environmental performance
(Liyin et al., 2006). The main components of ISO 14’000 management system cover ‘waste
recycling, increasing employee involvement and communication throughout the organisation,
increasing communication between project parties, constantly reviewing programmes and
motivating continual improvements’ with other principals that are represented in figure 2.0.9
giving a framework for implementing environmental management system (Zhang et al., 2014).
Furthermore, Liyin et al. (2006) states that BREEAM shares the standards of ISO 14’000 and
can make the process more cost effective as both are similar. Yates (2014) criticised ISO
14’000 as it is a long certification process that takes years to become certified.

21
Figure 2.0.9: The framework for implementing environmental management system (Liyin et al., 2006)

22
Section 2.6: Project Management and Sustainable Construction
Ofori (2000, pp. 196) defines sustainable construction as “creating constructed items using
best-practice clean and resource efficient techniques from the extraction of the raw materials
to the demolition and disposal of its components”. Once the construction begins the PM will
have to implement the BREEAM and LEED requirements on contractors and subcontractors
(Faratti et al., 2012)
According to Li et al. (2013) subcontractors do most of the procurement and are the key for
earning or loosing points on the project. Glavinich (2008) defines subcontracting as a party that
is engaged by a contractor to provide workforce, equipment, services and materials necessary
to carry out a particular section of the work. Sarkisa et al. (2012) state that contractors favour
to employ the same subcontractors, regardless of the construction project and will depend on
subcontractor’s performance in achieving credits. As a result, the PM can also accept the
liability for the work of subcontractors (Sarkisa et al., 2012).
Li et al. (2013) established that subcontractor training, communication and tendering
documents are the key considerations for a successful project. These communication issues can
be magnified when combined with the unique functions associated with green project delivery
(Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). Glavinich (2008) argues that the PM must inform
subcontractors about their responsibilities on a BREEAM or LEED project pre-commencement
meetings in order for them to know what is expected.
Riley and Cotsgrave (2013) list strategies associated with the tender process as:
- Contract administration.
- Procurement.
- Materials delivery and storage.
- Construction process and procedures.
- Start up and commissioning.
- Material, equipment and system documentation.
Furthermore, Syal et al. (2007) states that the PM will require implementation of training
sessions in order to provide guidance towards employee contribution on BREEAM or LEED
credits. Riley and Cotsgrave (2013) recommend that the training can be delivered in
conjunction with toolbox safety talks, weekly meetings or employ a GBRS consultant for
training workshops.

23
At the beginning of the construction stage the PM must implement a waste audit for all of the
subcontractors. This audit can allow recording and documenting of all the construction
activities that will serve as GBRS documentation and credit attainment (Bayraktar and Ownes,
2010). In addition Riley and Cotsgrave (2013) state that subcontractors must accept their
responsibilities regarding record keeping and documentation of the materials and equipment
that they install.
Literature from Zhang et al. (2014) state that as much as 80 percent of waste generated from
construction is reusable or recyclable, which generates responsibility on the PM as GBRS offer
credits on waste reduction. According to Wu et al. (2016) the project can gain up to 10 percent
of LEED and 8 percent BREEAM credits towards reducing waste on construction. To minimise
waste the PM will have to plan and schedule with greater efficiency, therefore taking up more
of the PM’s time (Wu and Low, 2010). Furthermore, BREEAM and LEED have developed a
checklist system to assist on what material standards can be used on the building (Wu et al.,
2016).
Both BREEAM and LEED promote the implementation of the four R’s, ‘Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle and Repair’ (Wu et al., 2016). In order to achieve the four R’s the PM must develop a
Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) before the construction begins. The SWMP provides a
structured planning process, which can assist in forecasting the type and amount of waste that
will be generated in the project and provide guidelines for improved recourse efficiency
(Glavinich, 2008). Additionally, Preece et al. (2011) states that monitoring and reporting must
be in place for BREEAM and LEED documentation. A reference to SWMP can be seen in
figure 2.10 which outlines the main project stages and actions in order to achieve an effective
SWMP.

24
Figure 2.10: Proposed outline of SWMP
Another restriction on green scheduling is site disturbance and storage of materials, therefore
just-in-time (JIT) deliveries concept allows for less storage space on site and accident
prevention (Wu and Low, 2010). Glavinich (2008) argues that JIT deliveries can affect the
scheduling and can restrict certain activities. As a result, offsite construction is promoted as it
allows for quality control and improved speed of construction (Yates, 2014).

Chapter 3- Research Design and Methodology
25
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology

26
This chapter presents an evaluation of the different types of research strategies that exist, with
the intention to select a strategy that is suited to the aims and objectives of this dissertation.
Naoum (2007, pp. 2) defines research as a “careful search or inquiry; endeavour to discover
new or collate old facts etc. by scientific study of a subject; course of critical investigation”.
The author aims to attain adequate knowledge in the area of the project management and other
industry professional roles that have worked on GBRS projects in order to establish the main
challenges of delivering complete set of sustainable indicators. In order to achieve the research
aim the following research topics have to be taken into account in order to establish the method
of use in this research, namely communication, training, documentation, planning and
scheduling, and project management and improvements. Naoum lists the different stages of
research in figure 3.1.
Naoum (2007 pp. 37) notes that there are three different categories of research methods;
Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods. The author will examine these categories and
explain the methods chosen and the rationale behind choosing them.
Figure 3.1: Various stages in composition of dissertation

27
Section 3.1: Research Design and Strategy
In order to carry out an investigation into BREEAM and LEED, a research problem had to be
identified to give a direction and to achieve the aims and objectives of this research. A relatively
small amount of literature has been published on the project management practices on GBRS
projects. This has led to an investigation of the difficulties project management is faced while
delivering a BREEAM/LEED project.
Once the research problem is defined and full investigation in literature is completed, then
research limits can be developed and research design conducted. Research design provides
structure on how the aims are going to be accomplished and how the objectives are going to be
achieved (Naoum, 2007 pp.63). This study uses qualitative research method as to validate the
data based on secondary research (Greetham, 2009 pp. 180). The qualitative research method
allows the author to look for patterns of relationships among groups and to analyse the
construction industry as a whole, whilst quantitative research looks at one strand in the
organization (Farrell, 2011 pp. 103). The Following sections will discuss secondary research
and primary research.
Section: 3.1.1: Secondary Research
Naoum (2007pp. 23) describes secondary research as gathering reports of previous authors and
critically analysing contributions and similarities made by the writers. Secondary research was
gathered by reviewing literature regarding BREEAM and LEED using relevant electronic
journals, academic reports, published books, websites, government publications and
conference papers. The literature review was constructed in a structured sequence to allow each
element to be evaluated and analysed in order to focus on the most appropriate points regarding
the research objectives.
Secondary research helped to identify the planning methods that can be adopted in order to
carry out projects with BREEAM and LEED requirements. The Information gathered from
literature review focused on various actors in GBRS projects with a primary focus on PM.
Furthermore, the literature review highlighted the potential difficulties in relation to
understanding the assessment criteria and the challenges in gathering the correct information
in order to gain GBRS certification.

28
Given that every construction project has its own characteristics, the author used findings from
the literature review to develop a research strategy in order to conduct primary research.
Figure 3.2: Stages of research process
Greetham (2009 pp. 205) states that primary research allows to investigate research questions
so that the answers can be personalised to the validation of research aims and objectives.
Section 3.1.2: Primary Research
Primary research is the most precise source of information as it is looking at original un-
published research (Noam, 2007 pp. 20). Primary research looks at real life events and how
data can be collected. Primary research can take the form of surveys, interviews and case
studies. It usually takes place after the secondary research has been gathered and analysed.
Farrell (2011) states that the key concept of primary research is to get out and investigate your
study. The primary research methods can take the form of personal interviews or case studies
that are aimed to obtain first-hand experiences in the GBRS field.
aims, objectives
&Literature
review
Problems,
arguments &
ideas
Questions?

29
Section 3.2: Qualitative research
Farrell (2011 pp. 101) described qualitative research as data that aims to get insight into how
respondents see and view the world. Furthermore, Naoum (2007 pp. 87) states that qualitative
research is subjective to the respondents with the attention towards descriptions, meanings and
experiences. By selecting qualitative method two categories are presented for the use in data
analysis, namely exploratory and attitudinal. The exploratory research method puts emphasis
on current situations, exploring alternatives and discovering new insights in the subject matter
(Zikmund, 1997). Whereas, attitudinal method are used to analyse the opinions, views and
perceptions of respondents towards particular point in their field of work (Naoum 2007 pp. 47).
However, relevant insight in the subject matter is concluded with the understandings of human
attitudes and behavior towards the research problem. The researcher selects the exploratory
research method to conduct analysis. Figure 3.3 compares quantitative and qualitative methods
to allow author to develop the basis for carrying out research.
Figure 3.3: Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative research (Nachmias, 1996)

30
Section 3.3 Quantitative research
Anderson and Poole (2009, pp. 78) define quantitative research as “typified by experimental
studies in science-based disciplines where findings are usually expressed in numerical form”.
Naoum (2007, pp. 57) presents two main arguments when quantitative research should be
adapted:
 When facts about a concept, question or attribute want to be discovered.
 When factual evidence is required to discover the relationship between these facts in
order to test a particular theory.
The author will not be using quantitative research to develop hypothesis, as the current study
involves in-depth personal experiences from where elaboration and the individuals unique
experience is essential for developing an opinion on the current green building practice. For
these reasons the author deemed that this approach would not achieve the dissertation’s
objectives and therefore quantitative research was not undertaken.
Section 3.4: Chosen Research Method
Having completed a thorough analysis of the research methodology, qualitative analysis was
chosen. The qualitative research method is conducted using semi-structured interviews aimed
at industry professionals who have experience of GBRS. The author aims to conduct interviews
with project managers, quantity surveyors, architects, mechanical and electrical engineers,
sustainability managers, and BREEAM and LEED accredited professionals.

31
Section 3.5: Qualitative research – Semi structured interviews
Nachmias and Nachmais (1996, pp. 83) define interviews as a face-to-face interpersonal role
situation in which an interviewer asks respondents questions designed to elicit answers
pertinent to the research hypotheses.
After deciding on the research design the author adapted semi-structured interview techniques
as part of the data collection. The purpose of the interviews is to collect industry perspective in
order to understand green systems in more detail. The target group would consist of industry
experts who have experience working on BREEAM and LEED projects. For this Thesis, semi-
structured interviews were carried out in order to further explore the dissertation aim. The
interviews were adapted to each respondent slightly in order to achieve a balanced view and
opinion. Merton and Kendal (1946) as cited in Naoum (2007) state that semi-structured
interviews have four distinguished characteristics:
1. The respondents are involved in the area of which is being researched.
2. No analysis are made prior to the interview.
3. The process is centred on an interview guide which specifies topics related to the
research.
4. It focuses on the experience of the respondents regarding the subject matter.
As stated previously, the first stage of research process was to conduct semi-structured
interviews with a project manager, project quantity surveyor, mechanical and electrical
engineer, project sustainability manager and BREEAM and LEED assessor. These interviews
consist of list of closed questions and open ended questions to allow the respondents to
elaborate on their experience. Such measures are taken to allow more in-depth interviews.
When designing the questions a four-step process was used:
- Determine the type of questions that correspond to literature review.
- Categorise the questions in line with the objectives.
- Pilot test the questions.
- Keep the questions in a logical order.
In order to limit the questions to the dissertation objectives, 8 questions were designed to be
both short and comprehensive. The questions are designed to allow the respondents to explain
their experiences with the potential challenges when working on GBRS specified project.

32
Section 3.6: Research Limitations
Limitations refers to restrictions in the study that the researcher has no control over, and
delimitations as the limits that have been imposed deliberately on the study (Rudestam and
Newton, 2001). The limitations imposed on this study are on the other green rating systems
such as DGNB, which is due to the fact that only BREEAM and LEED assessment systems
have been carried out in Ireland. Respondents selected for this study had to have worked on
BREEAM and LEED projects, therefore certain classes within the industry were not contacted.
The main limitations on research design are the industry panel that responded to e-mails.
Although the main body of thesis is focused on project management other professions had to
be included as not enough project managers responded. There were no books published solely
on project management role on BREEAM and LEED projects, therefore other sources such as
green project practices and guides had to be used in order to examine the main aspects of
sustainable construction. Also, limited articles have been published specifically focusing on
project management.
The author is aware that the findings of this research are limited to people who have carried
out GBRS in Ireland, especially project managers. The sample population is rather small in the
case of the semi-structured interviews. This was highlighted earlier but one feels it must be
acknowledged again. The small sample size means the numbers involved are small in relation
to the entire population. However, some generalisation must be made when dealing with
research of this nature.
.

Chapter 5 - Data Analysis
33
Chapter 4: Data Analysis

34
This chapter presents, findings and analysis of the semi-structured interviews carried out in this
dissertation. Interview transcripts are provided in Appendices.
After conducting a full literature review it became clear that BREEAM and LEED are
perceived in various different ways depending on the industry professional. Existing literature
was encountered by limited amount of practical evidence into the problems and difficulties
faced on GBRS projects. The absence of research on project management was particularly
apparent from individuals working on green building rating systems.
It was the researcher’s objective for this section to use interviews to examine the roles of
individuals and accomplish the following thesis objectives:
1. To examine the role of a project manager on green building rating systems
2. To examine the challenges for meeting a complete set of sustainable indicators.
3. To investigate the forms of communication on sustainable project.
4. To examine the most time-consuming aspects of working on BREEAM/LEED projects.

35
Section 4.1: Interviewee Profile
Question 1 - what is your profession?
The researcher commenced all interviews with an introductory question about participant’s
professional background and the corresponding role they have in the organisation. The aim of
this question is to commence the interviews with simple question.
 Participant A: Project Manager at PJ Hegarty & Sons
 Participant B: Project Manager at Sisk
 Participant C: Chartered quantity surveyor at Bruce Shaw
 Participant D: Director and Sustainability Engineer (LEED accredited professional) at
O'Connor Sutton Cronin
 Participant E: Senior environmental and sustainability professional (BREEAM and
LEED accredited professional) Mott MacDonald
 Participant F: Energy & Sustainability Consultant (BREEAM accredited professional)
at Easlár
 Participant G: Architect at Grangegorman Development Agency
 Participant H: Environmental Manager (LEED green associate) at Ecocem

36
Section 4.2: Participant Background to GBRS
Question 2 - In what way is your role or work affected by BREEAM or LEED?
This question was chosen to demonstrate each participants experience regarding green building
rating systems and to see how BREEAM or LEED has changed their working practices.
Participant A, who is a project manager, states that they had never worked on LEED project
before and that implementing LEED acquires 20-30 percent added workload. Furthermore,
participant A explains that the additional work regarding PM practice lies in understanding the
LEED requirements, greater management of subcontractors, making weekly environmental
walks and gathering documentation.
Participant B was the project manager on first BREEAM project developed by Sisk in Armagh.
Furthermore participant B was the BREEAM coordinator on the site. The PM’s work involved
the management of works on site and coordination of BREEAM information such as gathering
of documentation for the submittal to the BREEAM AP. Another task for the PM was getting
the contractors to understand the BREEAM requirements and how they must comply with the
set objectives.
Participant C, work involves pricing the bill of quantities, such task involved the €169 million
project of Guinness brewery where BREEAM and LEED were specified as a contractual
requirement. Participant C, states that GBRS are a new element that the company must upskill
on a higher level, furthermore, clients are continuously looking for information on the
additional costs associated with the implementation of BREEAM or LEED on a project. As a
result, participant C has to negotiate cost on the design stage and to agree on costs with the
contractor.
Both participants D and F are BREEAM and LEED assessor and are involved as external
consultants on BREEAM and LEED projects. Furthermore, D and F are involved in providing
advice, document management to clients and project teams and help to determine what credits
are achievable on GBRS. Other aspects of their work involve presentations on GBRS to
industry professionals on the assessment process. As a result, D and F have developed in-house
BREEAM and LEED manuals that summarises the documentation in non-technical English for
each BREEAM and LEED participant.

37
Similar to participant D and F, participant E is a sustainability consultant whose key role is to
carry out assessments on LEED and BREEAM projects, reviewing documentation and
monitoring the achieved credits, which are submitted to the final approval by the USGBC or
the BRE.
Participant G, responded that they had no previous knowledge of BREEAM prior to project
and that BREEAM did not impact their working practices other than producing documentation
for their internal BREEAM consultant.
Participant H is a LEED green associate at Ecocem who distributes and promotes Ground
Granulated Blast Slag (GGBS), which is an add mixture to concrete. Participant H has previous
experience of 15 projects where BREEAM or LEED was specified. Participant H role involves
communicating with contractors and giving presentations on benefits of using GGBS in
achieving BREEAM and LEED credits. As a result, participant H provides the documentation
to contractors for the project to gain 15 credits in the LEED certification. Such documentation
includes product origins and how it was extracted from raw materials and how the product is
transported to the construction site.

38
Section 4.3: Challenges on Carrying out GBRS
Question 3 - Are there any BREEAM or LEED requirements that have presented difficulty in
achieving the project?
From a project management perspective (Participant A) the difficult aspects of LEED is in
producing the right documentation as part of certain elements within the project. Other
challenging aspects involve the company’s adaptation to a new element of work regarding
LEED certification, as it takes up more time and understanding.
Participant B, does not find any major difficulties and states that once a project has a good
BREEAM assessor there should be no difficulties in attaining the certification. Participant B
finds that one challenging aspect in implementing BREEAM is making sure contractors
comply with BREEAM document submittal.
The difficult aspect faced by project quantity surveyor (participant C) was to evaluate the
design of the project and to price the BoQ. Furthermore, participant C states that certain design
elements were too costly, therefore they had to be mitigated for less costly alternatives. Such
example presented was photovoltaics panels, that were not feasible to the overall project,
therefore had to be left out. As a result, some credits are lost when pricing the project.
Participant D, finds that most difficult aspect of GBRS is information gathering and
communication as most firms do not realise how critical they are to the certification of the
project. Furthermore, participant D and F find that difficulties can arise if GBRS are
implemented too late in the planning process as certain LEED credits are lost or would be too
expensive to amend, that could have been gained in the design stage of the project.
Participant G, states that the most difficult aspect of BREEAM certification on Grangegorman
project was management of the documentation as it was a slow process and that no one in the
project team had previous knowledge about the BREEAM assessment. This lead from potential
‘outstanding’ rating to a ‘very good’ rating.
In comparison to participant G, participant D has developed their own company’s manual
system that summarises the documentation relevant to each participant. Additionally
participant F and participant D stated that the most difficult aspect in green building rating
systems can be specific criteria on achieving the points, as the descriptions are narrow and
sometimes impossible to achieve.

39
Section 4.4: GBRS On-Site Measure
Question 4 - Is there more supervision required at the construction stage for BREEAM or
LEED specified projects?
Yes, according to a project manager (participant A), the designs consultants would specify at
the tender stage that they have to appoint a LEED consultant so that there is one point of contact
for the LEED process. The LEED consultant would hold workshops for subcontractors and
would be involved in project meetings and monitoring everyone’s compliance with the LEED
process. Participant A, states that their role is to make everyone aware. The PM tasks would
include carrying out weekly environmental checks, submittal of LEED documentation,
monitoring of waste logs and making photographic evidence, which leads to the monthly
report.
Participant B, states that the same amount supervision is required in traditional projects without
certification. Participant B further states that most important aspects of the certification process
is to understand what is involved in the certification system and to make sure that
suppliers/contractors are compliant with BREEAM throughout the process.
Form the project quantity surveyors point of view (participant C), there would be an assigned
person to manage the assessment process leading to higher supervision element. Some of the
tasks of the assigned person would include documentation control and documentation upload,
administration and clean site policies.
From environmental consultant’s point of view (Participant E), more supervision is required as
there is a great deal of information tracking. Participant E recommends to have a dedicated
person on site (AP) so that the contractor does not have to spend most of their time documenting
GBRS process and tracking of credits. Furthermore, participant E states that if monitoring of
certification compliance is left to the site manager, it can often be forgotten as they are more
concerned of completing the physical build than to track documentation.
Participant H explains that the consultant will do most of the monitoring and may find it hard
to communicate with the contractor on-site, as often contractors are under pressure of
completing the project, therefore documentation can be pushed to the side.
This question was not presented to participants D, F and G as the interview questions were not
finalised.

40
Section 4.5: Identify Unique Project Issues
Question 5 - What was the most time consuming aspect of implementing BREEAM or LEED
on projects?
Project managers (Participant A) finds documentation as the most time consuming aspect on
the LEED project. Participant A states that subcontractors that have not worked on LEED
project before may need additional training, which takes up time and resources.
Participant B finds that the timely aspect of a BREEAM was understanding the certification
systems and complying with the required documentation. Another part of BREEAM project
that took up more time than anticipated was technical builders guide that presented difficulties
at the end of the project as the project manager did not know that it was originally part of their
work package.
On the other hand, quantity surveyor (participant C) finds that the most time consuming aspect
was finding out the precise budget for specific aspects of the project as certain credits such as
energy models, building fabric and building control system can become too expensive although
initially being part of the design. This led to changing certain aspects of the design to suit the
budget but still to gain highest award in both certification systems.
Participant D states that in 2009 the most time consuming aspect of LEED was getting the
design team up to speed on the system as ‘nobody cared, at the time’. Participant D explains
that people are more aware of LEED now but it still takes time to distribute the information to
project parties and make sure that everybody understood what they are doing regarding LEED.
Participant D elaborates that the most important aspect of LEED is to produce the right
information the first time as it can take up time to send documents back and forward until the
contractors have complied with LEED criteria. Furthermore participant D states LEED can be
time consuming if the main contractor does not fully understand the accreditation system.
Participant G responds, that documentation gathering takes up most of the time on BREEAM
specified project. Furthermore G explains that if there were more people that would deal with
BREEAM documentation it would be an easier and faster process.
Similar to participant D and G, participant F and E states that the most time consuming aspect
is gathering the evidence from the design team/client/contractor. The evidence has to be exact
or it will not pass QA processes from BRE or USGBC. This can be time consuming and

41
involves a lot of back and forth between assessor and design team particularly if the team has
no previous experience of LEED or BREEAM system.
Participant E adds that it can take time to understand LEED Ashrae standards, which are the
US quality standards for construction, they are not commonly used in Ireland and may require
additional understanding.

42
Section 4.6: Communication and Information Exchange
Question 6 - How do you think that communication and information exchange could be
improved on BREEAM or LEED projects?
According to participant A, it is important to have a good LEED AP that has a good systematic
documentation system. Participant A meets the LEED AP every two weeks regarding
certification compliance, which leads to monthly reports. Additionally it is better that all
documentation filters through one person only as information can go missing through chain of
actors that have to submit documentation.
Participant B finds that there were no issues regarding communication. Furthermore,
participant B recommends that BREEAM could be simplified for the subcontractors in non-
technical English as some requirement interpretations can be difficult to understand.
Participant D and G promote the use of ‘SharePoint’ and ‘A-site’ which are an online
collaboration servers where information regarding project can be managed. It works by project
teams uploading relevant documentation. Participant D finds that ‘A-site’ does not work
proficiently, therefore they have developed in-house document management procedure for all
their clients. Additionally, participant D and G hold presentations/workshops on
BREEAM/LEED and participate in regular team meetings.
Participant E explains that they have an in-house system for managing LEED and BREEAM
documentation. On a previous BREEAM project participant E has used ‘Tracker Plus’ and ‘IS
Tap’ which are online management tools for team collaborations. Additionally LEED has an
online platform whereby the project actors can access and review the assessment progress.
Furthermore, participant E states that project manager has to ensure that sustainability is always
on the agenda throughout the design team meetings and throughout the construction stage.
Participant C extends that they have dedicate a section in the project meetings towards
BREEAM and LEED as it has become part of every meeting agenda.
BREEAM AP (participant F) recommends the use of file sharing systems, which would make
BREEAM more of web enabled system where the evidence for each credit could be uploaded.
Participant H states that there needs to be a training courses available in addition to what it is
right now on LEED assessments. Participant H proposes that there needs be a forum or a society
where GBRS actors could get together and discuss BREEAM and LEED more openly.

43
Section 4.7: Training
Question 7 - Has there been training sessions implemented for staff on educating them about
BREEAM or LEED specific credits that they have to obtain?
Participant A comments that they had a workshop solely on contractor credits. Furthermore
participant A would organise workshops with sub-contractors educating them on LEED. Each
workshop has to be tailored to the specific sub-contractor. As a result, participant A would be
involved in kick-off meetings before the start of a project and also during the project in order
to refresh what documents are required and to obtain any additional information.
Participant B stated that they had only one, full day meeting on BREEAM prior to starting on
construction site that was held by BREEAM AP, explaining how the system works and credits
that concern PM.
The quantity surveying firm (participant C) have had few training sessions and find that they
have understood of what is required from their practice. Participant C tends to use previous
projects as example for GBRS and has developed an in-house database on the specific credits
they have to achieve. The firm finds that training is an ongoing process as they learn from
experience of GBRS specified projects.
Participant D recognises the importance of training and they would regularly give presentations
to different project teams. Participant D presentations involve a simple outline, on the GBRS
process in non-technical English so everybody understands it. Furthermore if people are still
struggling with LEED, they would meet each party individually and present specific part
related to their scope of works.
Participant E tends to hold workshops as part of their scope of works. At a pre-assessment
workshop they would gather the whole project team and discuss the specific requirements that
are to be involved when designing the building. The purpose of this workshop is to make the
people understand the different aspects of the system. Furthermore, they would share the
experience gained from previous projects and where the most likely difficulties are to arise.
Similar to participant D and E, Participant F adds that anyone can attend specific courses run
by Building Research Establishment (BRE) for further development and understanding the
BREEAM system, that are held through webinars.

44
Participant G relies on external bodies such as consultants to give presentations and hold
meetings. Participant G assumes that it is up to subcontractors to have information and training
regarding the accreditation process.
Participant H holds regular presentations on LEED/BREEAM systems as part of continuing
professional development to architectural and engineering firms.

45
Section 4.8: Management Review
Question 8 - Are there any suggestions on how management can be improved on BREEAM or
LEED projects?
According to the project manager (participant A) the company will look to gain LEED green
associate training for some of the main staff. Another investment will be to create their own
internal LEED framework as it is being specified on every new building that is coming up in
Dublin. The internal framework will be used at the start of a project and would be the starting
point from the contractor’s point of view.
Participant B states that it is important to have a good BREEAM assessor as for the information
to pass through one person only as it can be difficult to manage people’s compliance with the
documentation. Another suggestion is to have a meeting with the project team and to discuss
every credit that can be achieved in the project and also for everybody to realise their goal
towards BREEAM accreditation.
Participant C suggests that certain interpretations in LEED specifications are not clear,
therefore it is difficult to distinguish if some products can or cannot be used. Participant C
further explains that LEED projects work of Ashrae American standards and that it needs to be
adopted to Irish construction industry.
Participant D states that companies need to develop procedures on how to integrate LEED from
the start of a project as it will save time and it will assist firms in strategic planning. As a result,
participant D concludes that it is important to make everyone aware of what LEED is and what
needs to be done on a project. The most important aspect in LEED is that PM understand how
a project is planned before they can be a good manager of the LEED process.
Participant E suggests that one person needs to own the process (manage the process).
Furthermore, BREEAM and LEED need to be on the agenda in meetings. Participant E
explains that if people don’t discuss BREEAM over a long time it tends to be forgotten.
Participant H states that green building rating systems need to be discussed more openly.
Participant H suggests that IGBC should gain more knowledge on the systems and hold more
events on educating people on the assessment systems. This question was not presented to
participants F, and G as the interview questions were not finalised.

Chapter 6 - Research Findings
46
Chapter 5: Research Findings

47
The following chapter discusses the key points raised in the literature review and the key
findings acknowledged from the industry panel. This chapter also presents other issues of
significance in terms of green building rating system practices not examined in the literature
review but highlighted by the interviewees. The information gathered provides the researcher
with an indication on the evolving role of the manager in green building construction. The
author will conclude by offering his own analysis on the overall BREEAM and LEED
assessment regarding the research.
Section 5.1: Project Management Responsibilities on GBRS
The general consensus is that the most important aspect of the PM on GBRS is to fully
understand the green building assessment process. Furthermore the PM must be involved in
the project kick-off meeting during which all credit requirements regarding GBRS will be
discussed. It is the PM’s responsibility to implement and manage contractors in order for them
to comply with the GBRS documentation process. Generally the PM would hold workshops
for the contractors/suppliers whereby presenting GBRS and what is required from each
contractor. The workshop on GBRS should be carried out in non-technical English as to fully
explain each contractor’s roles towards the GBRS accreditation system. Additionally, the PM
would hold weekly meetings where GBRS is always on agenda, this makes sure that contractors
are compliant with GBRS throughout the construction process. The PM is expected to gather
the GBRS documentation from all of the contractors/suppliers for submission to the AP
consultant.
Other PM tasks involve planning and scheduling activities with a greater attention on green
requirement process. The author finds that the PM generally develops a personalised project
manual on how to go about GBRS specified projects in order to assist in future planning of
such projects.

48
Section 5.2: Green Specifications and Documentation
From the gathered secondary research and qualitative research the most difficult and time
consuming aspects of BREEAM and LEED accreditation is to produce the right
documentation, in order to achieve projected credits. Such documentation involves gathering
of information on the source of the product, how it is transported to the construction site, to
produce weekly environmental checks, to monitor waste logs and to make photographic
evidence. This research finds that contractors that have not worked on GBRS before tend to
submit inaccurate or incomplete evidence to USGBC or BER. Furthermore, information
submitted by PM must be as per GBRS guidelines or it will not pass the QA process which
leads to time delays caused by sending documents back and forward until the project team
complies with the precise standard. There are several recommendations put forward by
interviewees on how to improve the management of documentation. Such recommendations
are:
- The development of internal systematic BREEAM/LEED documentation manual and
templates summarising the exact information required.
- To have one person manage the BREEAM/LEED process so that information and
documentation filters through one person only.
- The use of file sharing systems such as DMS which would make BREEAM/LEED a
more of web enabled system where the evidence for each credit can be uploaded.
Section 5.3: Management Structure and Responsibility
Research analysis present that green building assessment methods tend to employ external
BREEAM/LEED consultants. The consultant’s role is to manage the GBRS process. The AP
determines what credits can be obtained compared to the design of the project and the budget
allocated to GBRS and is responsible for collecting and uploading the achieved credit
documentation to USGBC or BER. Furthermore, AP consultants tend to hold meetings where
they present the GBRS manual. It is evident that AP produces and distributes templates on the
documentation format to be used, which are presented in user friendly English. The author
finds that if GBRS is introduced after the design is finalised, then certain credits can be lost
due to noncompliance at the design stage.

49
Section 5.4: Training Opportunities
The author finds that one of the most important aspect of BREEAM/LEED is to understand the
process and to make sure that suppliers/contractors are compliant with BREEAM throughout
the process. The qualitative research reveals that training sessions are presented at the start of
projects where AP give presentations/workshops to the project team on the rating system and
credits that each party must obtain. These workshops cover the process of GBRS assessment,
as well as the documentation each person must supply to the consultant, and the credits to be
achieved. As a result, PM would discuss GBRS in all project meetings in relation to project
progress and compliance.
Further suggestions on training have been analysed as:
- Management staff gaining BREEAM or LEED accredited professional training.
- Creating companies internal BREEAM or LEED framework.
- Holding regular presentations/workshops for project teams.
Section 5.5: Sustainable Construction Site Management
As mentioned in section 2.8 GBRS contain extensive documentation. In relation to site
management, greater monitoring is required to document the site disturbance and pollution
prevention. Contractors have direct impact on 17 sub categories regarding the site management.
The author interprets that the most difficult and time consuming aspect of on-site management
is the SWMP, as subcontractors often try to cut corners if effective monitoring is not in place.
Site management requires greater planning and scheduling as the assessment limits the site
storage space and promotes just in time deliveries. It is estimated that GBRS will require up
to 20 percent of PM’s time to complete the project.

50
Section 5.6: Summary of Research Findings
The analysis of the research identified the evolving role construction practitioners working on
GBRS and the specific skills used to reduce the risks and uncertainties for the duration of the
build. The findings also incorporated the literature so it could be compared against the findings.
In addition the author found that understanding the accreditation systems prior to tendering for
a project are fundamental in enabling the high level of collaboration between different parties
in projects.
While the literature review gave a strong introduction to GBRS and identified many of its
features, both positive and otherwise, the author finds that there is a lack of awareness in the
current construction market of systems such as BREEAM and LEED. The interviews
highlighted the importance of training, communication and planning and how the combination
of all three can reduce cost by implementing internal frameworks and the development of
documentation templates.

Chapter 7 - Conclusion and Recommendations
51
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations

52
This chapter summarises the main results from the data provided throughout this dissertation.
The author reviews and compares material researched in the literature review against what
occurs in real life situations and analyses what he considers to be the current practice. It will
present an evaluation of the aim and objectives of the research and form a conclusion.
Furthermore, this chapter looks at the limitations and recommendations for this research. The
chapter concludes with suggestions on further research proposals on this topic.
Section 6.1: Aim of the Research
The primary aim of this dissertation was to investigate the evolving role of Project Manager
and challenges of delivering Green Building Rating Systems. This was achieved through an
extensive research on the surrounding literature and analysing industry professional’s
experience regarding the research topic.
Section 6.2: Research Objectives
The aim of this research was presented through the following objectives:
Objective 1 - To examine the role of a project manager on green building rating systems.
This was addressed through examining the green building rating systems of BREEAM and
LEED and the additional tasks faced by the PM on such projects. The results which are
presented in section 2.4 show that PM must plan and coordinate tasks with achieving highest
quality build while maintaining costs and delivering the project on time. Furthermore, this
study carried out a semi-structured interviews with the industry panel that expressed their views
and their experiences while carrying out green building rating system, which is presented in
chapter 4. It can be concluded that the main role of PM on green projects is to fully understand
the rating system and making sure everyone complies with objectives of GBRS. Furthermore,
as highlighted in section 2.5 it is considered that the PM’s most important task is to deliver an
effective communication amongst all parties involved.

53
Objective 2 - To examine the challenges of meeting a complete set of sustainable indicators.
The main challenges on BREEAM/LEED projects were presented as producing the right
documentation and understanding how the system works. This was examined through
interviews as seen in section 4.4 and summarised in the findings section 5.2. Furthermore, it
was discovered that sufficient training for industry professionals could mitigate the difficulties
faced on GBRS projects and open new markets for the company in the area of green
construction. This was presented in section 2.7 and section 4.8.
Objective 3 - To determine on-site management challenges in relation to delivering BREEAM
and LEED projects.
This objective was extensively researched in the literature review, showing that the PM will
have to plan and schedule their activities with additional green factors taken into account. It is
evident that closer monitoring of subcontractors will be needed, with more taught to waste
management plans and organising JIT deliveries. It was highlighted in section 2.6 and 5.5 that
training of subcontractors will determine the compliance with the project’s objectives.
Furthermore, the role of BREEAM/LEED accredited professional was examined in order to
see their responsibilities of managing certain on-site activities, such as gathering information
from contractors/suppliers.
Objective 4 - To investigate the forms of communication on sustainable project.
This objective was investigated in the literature review under the section 2.5 of communication,
which presented the DMS as a form of effective collaboration. This finding was contradicted
in quantitative analysis as the industry professionals argued the use of DMS and instead
proposed that communication can be improved by developing in-house GBRS manual system
and discussing the rating systems through weekly meetings and workshops.

54
Section 6.3: Conclusion
As Ireland is trying to meet its carbon emission reduction, the construction sector acts as the
main contributor to its current unsustainable course. Green building assessment methods and
other incentives can be presented as a solution for shifting the course of the current practices.
The emission reduction presents greater opportunities for more effective design and
management practices towards sustainable construction. As a result, BREEAM and LEED have
emerged as the leading green building certification systems that demonstrate new opportunities
in the current market.
For these reasons the research sets out the investigation of the two certification systems and
the PM’s role of implementing them in practice. The green building certification schemes are
designed to reduce the current carbon footprint and to create awareness amongst the different
construction actors. As a result, clients chooses to specify BREEAM and LEED in order to
provide ethical recognition of their building and to make monitory savings on energy usage
that leads towards increasing value of the building. It can be seen that green building
assessment schemes have number of weaknesses. The two certification schemes are a voluntary
decision and can be costly to introduce, meaning that the impact on the current environment is
limited. Another weakness of certification scheme is due to the government not having any
incentives in place to become BREEAM or LEED certified, therefor the certification schemes
depend on clients’ recognition.
It can be seen in this study that nearly all of the difficulties and challenges on GBRS projects
are connected to a wider range of business practices rather than being directly connected to
certification schemes. Therefore, BREEAM and LEED should not be perceived as a substantial
task as a whole, but rather as small adjustments in everyday practice, which in time will become
as common practice.
The main conclusion from this dissertation is that the role of project manager is constantly
evolving. It can be argued that the implementation of certification schemes have not changed
the traditional role of PM but instead has advanced their practice towards higher awareness of
sustainability. As a result, PM will require more efficient management and knowledge of
modern ways of construction. It has been illustrated throughout this dissertation the importance
for PM’s to full understand the assessment system, in order for them to meet the project
requirements.

55
It has been highlighted throughout the dissertation that the lack of professional knowledge is
the main obstacle for taking on more sustainable construction practices. In order for BREEAM
and LEED to be more recognised in the current market there needs to be more training
opportunities for industry professionals. As a result, the public is becoming more aware of
climate change, increasing demand for green building markets. Furthermore, green building
certification schemes offer more social and environmental benefits, which has led to an
increasing demand for sustainable construction. This research has represented green building
certification systems as a significant step towards promoting sustainability in the current
construction industry.
Section 6.4: Research Limitations
This research was limited due to a number of factors. The literature on project management
and green building rating systems were sourced from foreign countries and not from the Irish
construction market. As a result, the researcher had to adapt to different systems and make it
applicable to the Irish context.
The selection of qualitative research has provided the author with great personal material from
key participants that quantitative research may not have reached. However, it might be argued
that the amount of interviewees does not sufficiently reflect the opinion of all project managers
that have carried out BREEAM or LEED assessment.
When it comes to qualitative research, the author initially targeted project managers that have
worked on BREEAM or LEED projects. Due to the niche of PM’s that have sufficient
experience in GBRS projects, the author had to expand the interviewee range to integrate other
profesionals that have been involved in green building rating systems. Despite the difficulties,
the researcher received positive responses which fulfilled the aims and objectives of this study.

56
Section 6.5: Recommendation
With the increase in greenhouse gas emissions the government has the responsibility to act on
its targets set out in the Kyoto protocol of reducing the country’s gas emissions by 20 percent
by 2020. The author presents BREEAM and LEED as the leading consideration from the
construction industry point of view in order to reach these targets. The government should
introduce BREEAM and LEED as a mandatory requirement on all public buildings as this
would reduce the carbon emissions. This legislation has been in place in the United Kingdom
since 2011. The current BER rating and Part L of the technical guidance documents only focus
on the emissions and energy consumption of a building but this does not take into account the
embodied energy produced during the construction stage.
From the literature review and the examined industry panel there is a lack of skills and training
available towards BREEAM/LEED certification. Currently the IGBC only offer LEED green
associate training and are not involved in the promotion of assessment tools. There needs to be
more courses for professionals regarding certification that are not necessary to gain
professional accreditation. As presented by one of the interviewees there needs to be a forum
where people can get involved and answer questions regarding the certification process.
Currently there is no service in Ireland that gives advice to unexperienced construction teams.
Construction professionals should develop their own internal systematic framework regarding
BREEAM and LEED specifications. This was recommended by a project manager and a
quantity surveyor during the interview stage, who feel that there is a great market for BREEAM
or LEED projects.

57
Section 6.6: Further Research
The Irish construction industry has great demands from Building Information Modelling (BIM)
and have therefore ‘Green BIM’ has been developed. Green BIM incorporates different
solutions to energy performance where sustainability and design are incorporated under one
model. This research could take the form of how BREEAM/LEED is implemented into the
system and how both systems benefit from one another. BIM is still at its infancy and therefore
it is the appropriate time to research the sustainable side of management.
Further, more in depth exploration would be to carry out a case study of on-site energy
consumption on traditional construction projects and how they compare to the green building
management practices. This form of research could monitoring certain element of waste in
order to analyse how delivering a green building is environmentally safe while still making a
profit.
Main dissimilarities between conventional and green construction projects exist, especially in
the level of details and communication required; to overcome the barriers, a project
management framework for green building construction should be developed, possibly
promoting adoption of sustainable management approaches for future green building projects.
.

Bibliography
59
References
 Alshawi, A. and Ingirige, B. (2003) Web-enabled project management: an emerging
paradigm in construction. Automation in Construction, July, 12(4), p. 349–364.
 Anderson, J. and Poole, M. (2009) Assignment and Thesis Writing. Cape Town (South
Africa): Juta.
 Andrea, O.B, Graft D., Manu O., Edwards D., and Holt G. (2012) Exploration of
management practices for LEED projects. Structural Survey, 30(2), pp. 145 - 162.
 Archives, Nacional. (2008) webarchive national archives. [Online] Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/fil
es/file46535.pdf
 Bayraktar, M. E. and Owens, C. R. (2010) LEED Implementation Guide for
Construction Practitioners. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 16(3), pp. 85-93.
 Bogenstätter, U. (2000) Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs in early design.
Building Research & Information, Volume 28(Issue 5-6), pp. 376-386.
 BREEAM (2015) Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method. [Online] Available at: http://www.breeam.com/why-breeam
 Bruce, R. D., Gebken, R. J. and Strong, S. D. (2009) The Impact of the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED-AP) Credential on
Prime/General Contractor Employees. International Journal of Construction
Education and Research, 5(3), pp. 182-196.
 Brundtland, G. H., (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future, Oslo: General Assembly of the United Nations.
 Cabeza, L. F., Rincóna, L., Vilariñob, V., Péreza, G. and Castella A. (2014) Life cycle
assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building
sector: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, January, Volume 29, p.
394–416.
 Cole, R. J. and Valdebenito, M. J. (2013) The importation of building environmental
certification systems: international usages of BREEAM and LEED. Building Research
& Information, 41(6), pp. 662-676.

Bibliography
60
 Davies, P. J., Emmitt, S. and Firt, S. K. (2010) On-site Energy Management Challenges
and Opportunities: a Contractor's Perspective. Journal of Environmental Management,
91(3), p. 654–661.
 Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide. Berkshire: Open University Press.
 Ding, G. K. C. (2008) Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment
tools. Journal of Environmental Management, February, 86(3), p. 451–464.
 Faratti, A., Dalpra, M. and Salvaterra, G. (2012) The role of general contractor in
sustainable buildings. Journal for Housing Science, 36(3), pp. 138-148.
 Farrell, P. (2011) Writing a Built Environment Dissertation: Practical Guidance and
Examples. West Sussex PO19 8SQ: Blackwell Publishing.
 Glavinich, T. E. (2008) Contractor's Guide to Green Building Construction. New Jersy
(Kansas): John Wiey & Sons Inc.
 Gorse, A.C. and Emmitt, S. (2003) Investigating interpersonal communication during
construction progress meetings: challenges and opportunities. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 10(4), pp. 234-244.
 Greetham, B. (2009) How to Write your Undergraduate Dissertation. 1st ed. London:
Palgrave MacMillan.
 Hore, A. (2006) Use of IT in managing information and data on construction projects
- a perspective for the Irish construction industry. [Online] Available at:
https://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/p
roject-management/Use-Of-It-In-Managing-Information-And-Data-On-Construction-
Projects-A-Perspective-For-The-Irish-Construction-Industry.pdf?ext=.pdf
 IGBC (2016) Irish Green Building Council. [Online] Available at:
https://www.igbc.ie/education/breeam-courses/ [Accessed 29 February 2016].
 Jamie, Y. and Mohamed, O. (2013) Investigation into contractors' responsible sourcing
implementation practice. 166(6), pp. 320-329.
 LEED (2016) Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design credentials. [Online]
Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/credentials [Accessed 29 February 2016].

Bibliography
61
 Li, Q., Syal, M., Turner, N. and Arif, M. (2013) Constructors and innovation credits in
green building projects. Construction Innovation, 13(3), pp. 320 - 338.
 Liyin, S., Hong, Y. and Griffith, A. (2006) Improving environmental performance by
means of empowerment of contractors. Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, 17(3), pp. 242 - 257.
 McCoskey, J. and Maddock, S. (1994) Environmental Management: Its Role in
Corporate Strategy. Management Decision, 32(1), pp. 27 - 32.
 Miles, G. (2014) Discoveries. [Online] Available at:
https://www.iesve.com/discoveries/article/taking-the-complexity-out-of-breeam-
assessments/
 Nachmias, F. and Nachmias, D. (1996) Research Methods in the Social Sciences. New
York : Martin's Press.
 Naoum, S. (2007) Dissertation research writing & for Construction Students. 2nd ed.
Oxford: Elsevier.
 Nitithamyong, P. and Skibniewski, M. (2004) Web-based construction project
management systems: how to make them successful?. Automation in Construction, 27
February, 13(4), p. 491 – 506.
 Nitithamyong, P. and Skibniewski, M. (2006) Success/Failure Factors and Performance
Measures of Web-Based Construction Project Management Systems: Professionals’
Viewpoint. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, January pp. 80-87.
 Ofori, G. (2000) Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore. European
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, September, 6(3-4), p. 195–206.
 Ofori, G., Briffett C., Gang, G. and Ranasinghe, M. (2000) Impact of ISO 14000 on
construction enterprises in Singapore. Construction Management and Economics,
18(8), pp. 935-947.
 Preece, C., Papargyropoulou, E., Patfield R. and Abdullah, A.A.B. (2011) Sustainable
Construction Waste Management in Malaysia: A Contractor's Perspective.
Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment, p. June.

Bibliography
62
 RIBA (2013) Royal Institute of British Architects plan of works. [Online] Available at:
http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/About/Default.aspx [Accessed 07 March 2013].
 Riley, M. and Cotsgrave, A. (2013) Total Sustainability in the Built Environment.
Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.
 Robichaud, L. and Anantatmula, V. (2011) Greening Project Management Practices for
Sustainable Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, January pp. 48-57.
 Roderick, Y., McEwan, D., Wheatley, C. and Alonso, C. (2009) Comparison of Energy
Performance Assessment Between LEED, BREEAM, and Green Star. Building
Simulation, 27 July pp. 1167-1176.
 Rudestam, K. E. and Newton R. R. (2001) Surviving your Dissertation. 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks(California): Sage Publications, Inc.
 Sarkisa, J., Meadeb, L. M. and Presley, A. R. (2012) Incorporating sustainability into
contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner
Production, August, 31(1), p. 40e53.
 Saunders, T. (2008) A discussion document comparing international EAM for
buildings [Online]
Available at:
https://www.breeam.nl/sites/breeam.nl/files/bijlagen/rapport_vergelijking.pdf
 Schwarts, Y. and Raslan. R. (2013) Variations in results of building energy simulation
tools, and their impact on BREEAM and LEED ratings: A case study. Energy and
building, July, Volume 62, p. 350–359.
 Schweber, L. (2013) The effects of BREEAM on clients and construction professionals.
Building Research & Information, 41(2), p. 129–145.
 Shen, L. Y. and Tam V. W. Y. (2002) Implementation of environmental management
in the Hong Kong. International Journal of Project Management, October, 20(7), p.
535–543.
 Silva, L. D. and Ruwanpura, J. Y. (2009) Review of the LEED Points Obtained by
Canadian Building Projects. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 15(2), pp. 38-54.

Bibliography
63
 Starrs, M. (2010) BREEAM versus LEED. [Online] Available at:
https://educnet.enpc.fr/pluginfile.php/15200/mod_resource/content/0/breeamvsleed.pd
f
 Stewart, D. and Corless, N. (2007) Rural Life. BER brings Energy efficiency to the fore,
February, p. 4.
 Syal, M., Mago, S. and Moody, D. (2007) Impact of LEED-NC Credits on Contractors.
Journal of Architectural Engineering, December, 13(4), pp. 174-179.
 Tam, C.M., Vivian, W. T. and Tsui, W.S. (2004) Green construction assessment for
environmental management in the construction industry of Hong Kong. International
Journal of Project Management, October, 22(7), p. 563–571.
 Taylor, T. (2015) BREEAM briefing paper ' Assessment carbon emissions in buildings'.
s.l., s.n., p. 46.
 TGD, (2011) technical Guidance Document part L, Conservation of fuel and energy,
Dublin: s.n.
 Turner, N. and Arif, M. (2012) BREEAM Excellent: Business Value Vs Employee
Morale. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 364(1), pp. 1-8.
 USGBC, (2015) United States Green Building Council. [Online] Available at:
http://www.usgbc.org/articles/about-leed
 Walker, H. and Brammer, S. (2007) Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom
public sector. School of Management, Volume Unpublished, pp. 1-20.
 Wu, P. and Low, P. S. (2010) Project Management and Green Buildings: Lessons from
the Rating Systems. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, April, 136(2), pp. 64-70.
 Wu, Z., Shen, L., Ann ,T.W., Zhang, X. (2016) A comparative analysis of waste
management requirements between five green building rating systems for new
residential buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20 January, 112(1), p. 895–902.
 Yates, J. (2014) Design and Construction for Sustainable Industrial Construction.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(4), p. B4014005.

Bibliography
64
 Zhang, X.,Wu, Y. and Shen, L. (2014) Embedding “green” in project-based
organizations: the way ahead in the construction industry?. Journal of Cleaner
Production, October, Volume 107, pp. 420-427.
 Zikmund, W. G. (1997) Business Research Methods. s.l.: Dryden Press.

Appendices
66
Appendix 1 – Participant A - Project Manager
Lorcan McCarra - PJ Hegarty & Sons - 10th March 2016
Davis: what is your profession?
Lorcan: My title would be project coordinator, project manager and the background would be
of bachelor of engineering and civil engineering. My field would involve commercial and
building sector in Ireland and Australia.
Davis: Have you worked on a green project before and if so was there any sustainable
requirements that presented difficulties in achieving the project?
Lorcan: I have no previous projects that had sustainability factor but I’m currently working on
a project that is seeking to gain LEED platinum. It’s one of the first projects in Ireland to target
LEED platinum standard. The difficulties in achieving the project would be documentation
really. Other than that it is well structured process. Other difficult part would be that it’s a
whole new element to the company.
Davis: Was it easy to implement it into your company and your role?
Lorcan: It was easy as we had O’Connor Sutton Cronin who are the sustainability consultants
and they have all the system laid out for us from setting up the project to ticking off the
documentation. What they provide is in depth, especially when you get into the project you
read the requirements and then when the project has started you know exactly what you are
doing. To be honest it is a simple system. From a contractors point of view, once you set out
the targets on what you have to achieve it is easy. Of course it does take up more work and
understanding.
Davis: In what way is your role/work situation affected by BREEAM or LEED?
Lorcan: since starting this project my job description has changed as now I’m a BCAR
champion which is a whole new element signed to my role so that would take up about 20 –
30% of my role. So LEED is a constant point of managing subcontractors, I make weekly
environmental walks, documenting. So it’s not a fulltime job for me honestly but it does take
up a substantial amount of time every week.
Davis: Is there more supervision required at the construction stage for LEED specified
projects?

Appendices
67
Lorcan: Yes that’s spot on of what I was talking about. The designs consultants OSCS would
specify at the tender stage that we have to appoint a LEED champion so there is a one point of
contact for the design consultants and there is one person intentionally taking on charge and
they have to be part of the design team. So again just sitting down with subcontractors and
stepping them through it again going back to the weekly environmental walks it’s all
documentation so every point you are claiming and documenting. Such documentation would
include weekly reports, photographing that the environmental checks are in place and that leads
on to the monthly report. Then chasing down the waste logs such as moving waste off site so
every piece has to be documented. Definitely requires more supervision and my role is to make
everyone aware. For example it is a necessary to have a good demolition subcontractor who
take on the whole package and take the waste management so if they have worked with LEED
before it makes all the difference. It helps with the supervision.
Davis: what was the most difficult and time consuming aspect on implementing LEED on this
project?
Lorcan: So it is the chasing of documentation. So another difficulties was the waste facilities.
When we are sending waste of site we are targeting LEED platinum so 75% of construction
demolition waste has to be recycled. Another difficulty would be waste facilities that would
accept waste they are really reluctant to providing figures and information. They think that we
are trying to track them. So that leads to a lot of chasing and hassle. So it took us a month to
get the information that we wanted out of the waste facilities. So our demolition subcontractor
has worked through LEED before and they have a really good system whereby they track waste
so their documentation ends up being our main records even better than the waste facilities.
Other subcontractors you are going to struggle a bit more. So if they haven’t worked on a LEED
project before it seems to frighten the whole concept of it. It’s not that bad when you break it
down.
Davis: do you think that communication or information exchange could be improved on a
LEED project?
Lorcan: we are lucky to work with OCSC so they have a really good documentation system in
place so we sit down with them every two weeks so we have monthly reports going back and
forward again you can see the reason behind specifying a LEED champion behind the
contractor’s team. So it is better that it all filters through one person.

Appendices
68
Davis: Has there been training sessions implemented for staff on educating them about LEED
specific credits that they have to obtain? For example toolbox talks or site meetings?
Lorcan: Before the project kicked off we sat down with OCSC site team and we had a workshop
with them solely on contractor credits. So as they had worked with LEED before they presented
the credits that we could obtain. So smaller subcontractors who had not dealt with it before we
would run a workshop discussion on LEED where we would introduce templates that we would
like them to use. So we would meet with our concrete or steelwork subcontractors so each
workshop has to be tailored to the specific role. So for example we sat down with our mec &
elec where we would have a kick-off meeting before we start and then one during the project
to refresh what is required so as to see if they need any more information.
Davis: Is there any suggestions on how management could be improved on LEED projects?
Lorcan: Because it is our first project we are still learning but at the end of the project I will
look to gain LEED green associate training. Another suggestion is to create our own internal
framework as it is being specified on every new building that is coming up in Dublin. So we
will need to create our own internal systems and framework that will be used at the start of a
project. And that would be the starting point from a contractor’s point of view.
Lorcan: have you talked to anyone else?
Davis: yes I have contacted Bruce Shaw, Mot MacDonald, BREEAM assessor, Architect and
few more.
Lorcan: have you contacted any Contractors?
Davis: no
Lorcan: There is definitely a niche in LEED and BREEAM. And it is the early days for LEED
in Ireland. One thing I’m finding out there is that the information is US based and I think that
there will be more Irish to work off and trough. There seems to be calls from few other
developers who don’t know what LEED is and what does it mean. Or a contractor.
Davis: did you had to follow the American Ashear standards?
Lorcan: it takes a bit of work in tracking your recycled materials. So it is pretty open when you
compare it to BREEAM its open to a bit of interpretation to what

Appendices
69
Appendix 2 – Participant B – Project Manager
Brian McCaffery - John Sisk & Son Ltd – 24th March 2016
Davis: The first question is: What is your profession?
Brian: I’m a project manager and I studied civil engineering. My role at the moment is
managing a project from interface point of view from a life cycle product to a live building. In
terms of project management on that site was a three story ground floor to second floor office
block in Armagh city. It was the first project that Sisk had done in BREEAM area. So my role
involved being the BREEAM coordinator of the site. So we had a client specifying BREEAM
and it was a design and build project so we had our design team. We also employed BREEAM
consultant from Scotland and she would advise everybody on the whole process. So on the day
one we all sat around the table and advised everybody on the job and from my point of view
anything to do with the site works was my responsibility. So it wasn’t QS or Forman it was my
responsibility to coordinate all the information such as documentation and applications to
provide it to BREEAM assessor.
Davis: So what way is your role/ work altered by BREEAM or LEED when you are working
on a project?
Brian: It is a big thing. It’s getting the contractor to understand what BREEAM is all about.
Obviously client knows all the benefits it’s going to bring to him and what the contract is all
about. When you are doing your pre-qualification meetings with the contractors you want to
make sure that what they are supplying is complying with BREEAM such as responsibly
sourced and all that kind of stuff. I suppose its like a box tick saying what has to be checked.
The role is just another thing you have to do on the job so you have to be organised with it.
Davis: What specific things do you have to do? Do you have to deal with the subcontractors
and ask them to give you the documentation?
Brian: Before you even start on site you have to know what BREEAM is all about. So when
you are the contractor and suddenly realise in six months’ time that you have lost a piece of
paper that will cost a point. So you have to be aware of it all the time. I don’t know how it
works with a standard project but with the design and build you have to understand that. We
were able to manipulate the design at the predesign stage to make it more applicable and to
make it more viable from a BREEAM point of view. So we were looking at the changes we

Appendices
70
could make to get a certain point. So for example if we change this we are able to get this point
but the other points may be too expensive. It comes down to the money in the project. So I
suppose from a PM point of view, you have to consider your contractor and everything that
you have to do as part of it. You have to oversee different energy sides of the project and just
to make sure that contractors are complying.
Davis: The next one there is: Is there any sustainable requirements that presented difficulty in
achieving the project?
Brian: Its five years since I did the project.
Davis: So it was one of the first ones done in Ireland?
Brian: Yes and it got a BREEAM excellent actually in the end. I think the difficulties were
with the biomass boiler. I don’t know if that was originally spec in the actual design drawings.
But I think that people have a general negative view of what a biomass boilers are. There was
no major issue.
Davis: Would there be documentation that presented difficulty?
Brian: I think the whole process was very good and we had a very good assessor and she was
able to in any way possible. So having a good assessor is the key. She laid out everything to us
so there was no twisting arms so she knew everybody was new to the process.
Davis: I think it is very interesting to know on how all the documentation works.
Brian: So basically how the whole thing works is… First meeting we had was where we sat
down with the clients design team and our design team and the BREEAM assessor wen trough
with every point that was applicable. So the design was able to change to a certain point but
for some fundamentals it couldn’t. So she went through to everything that has to be achieved
and they are your targets. So everybody went away with precise information on what each
member had to do.
Brian: one difficult element of BREEAM was the builders users guide as it was a separate part
and it kind of fell on us and I don’t think that it was right to fall on us. I think that may have
been the week area and it should have been the design team. It was a part about the occupants
themselves. I didn’t really knew what I was doing there but it had to be got and I had to
understand it. That was one thing I remember.

Appendices
71
Davis: Is there more supervision required at the construction stage for LEED and BREEAM
specified projects?
Brian: no there wouldn’t. It was just about making the contractor to comply with BREEAM.
Davis: how did you make the contractor comply?
Brian: So it was trough asking the contractor to send certifications from where they scored the
timber so that it’s CEF or CEC cert. So they were the responsible sourcing areas. So there were
certain parts of the criteria. These have to be BREEAM certified rating. So basically when the
QS is asking for the rates so I had to look what had to be done here. So we had to find out what
can or can’t be done here. So for example stone cladding. It is specified so, therefore it can’t
be the cheapest. So I would say there that there was a certain amount of supervision. In terms
of environmental aspect of the site so there was dust monitoring, recycling facilities, concrete
washout areas which is king of standard stuff.
Brian: have you looked through the whole process yourself?
Davis: yea I am familiar with the process and I know that there are 51 points that you have to
comply with and that together there is 110 points. There is the management side, energy side
which contributes to 19% of the overall points and there is the indoor environmental quality.
Brian: that’s it. Another thing as well is that most sites now has recycling facilities. So there is
a bit of supervision. Maybe it took me 5-10% more time but it’s not a huge task. So how it
starts off is at the client then to the design team and then to the contractor and then to the
subcontractor.
Davis: What was the most time-consuming aspect of implementing BREEAM/LEED on the
project?
Brian: There was initially time aspect of understanding it. That was a big element. A lot of the
contractor’s didn’t know about it. Especially 5 years ago. There is that and then there is getting
all that information as on a standard job of operations. But with BREEAM there was a whole
folder that had to be issued and to go through the technical submittals. Another things was the
technical builder’s guide that took up more time at the end of the project. They were a big thing
for me. Other things were making e-mails and phone calls but that was your everyday task.
Davis: do you find it that there was chasing of documentation?

Appendices
72
Brian: there was quite a bit of that especially towards the end where you had to provide your
evidence. But I wouldn’t say time consuming wise. I would say more the designers can’t spec
a certain boiler. They are designing it so.
Davis: How do you think that communication and information exchange could be improved on
LEED and BREEAM project?
Brian: From my point I taught that it was very good. I would say it was from contractors and
subcontractors where the whole process could be simplified. To make it in simple English
would be a good idea so that the contractor can understand the whole process and sub-
contractor would understand exactly what is at stake here. I think now people are complying
with all the different materials and specifications. In terms of communication from my own
experience it was easy. Because it was design and build we could manage the design a bit more
where our design team could make changes to suit BBREEAM and that would be given to the
clients design team.
So when we price the job we look at design and build and its specified that it has to be
BREEAM excellent and that was the criteria that we price the job on so we signed a
commitment that we are going to achieve that whereas by normal build its: client ‘I want a
BREEAM excellent’
Referee to the drawing of the system
Davis: Who was the design team?
Brian: It was scot Wilson they are big in UK and then we had DA Architects from Armagh.
Davis: how it works now is that BREEAM is specified in the contractors documentation and
also that they have to get their own external BREEAM assessor on board to carry out their
point monitoring.
Brian: they need as assessor there as they have their own role and they don’t have time to deel
with it.
Davis: Has there been training sessions implemented for the staff on educating them about
BREEAM/LEED specified credits that they have to obtain?
Brian: Not really. Basically first day we had BREEAM assessor coming in and for the whole
day went through the process and that’s how we learnt there was no other training.

Appendices
73
Davis: So you learnt from experience?
Brian: that was 7 years ago and I’m assuming now but that how it was we learn from
experience.
Davis: and what did you tell sub-contractors then? Did they know what BREEAM is?
Brian: well when we went through the list we kind of realised that where they have to be
compliant by. So when they were supplying materials they had to know what they were doing
and we originally had to put that in the pre-qualification documents and if you don’t even
bother coming near this project and is as simple as that. So most of your material is like timber
and all that kind of stuff so they have to order it from a good sore and the wood had to be
stamped
Davis: Is there any suggestions on how management can be improved on BREEAM/LEED
projects?
Brian: My own experience was quite positive. Definitely on the builders users guide so you
have to get someone to come in and do that for you. I think there was that kind of option but
we taught it was possible for us to do it and we would save money by doing it ourselves.
Management wise it is important to have a good assessor and that communication was trough
one person so with the client, design team, us and the contractor. As long as you have that you
are on to success.
Davis: so what you are saying is that you have only one owner for the whole process of
BREEAM?
Brian: I think it is important from the start to go through every single point and spend that day
so everybody realises that and everybody realised that what we were doing.
Davis: I think that’s all the questions finished

Appendices
74
Appendix 3 – Participant C – Project Quantity Surveyor
Michael Smith – Bruce Shaw – 10th March 2016
Davis: what is your profession?
Michael: My name is Michael Smith and my profession is a chartered quantity surveyor, and
I’m working with Bruce Shaw for the last four years.
Davis: Have you worked on green projects before and if so was there any sustainable
requirements that presented difficulty in achieving the project?
Michael: The biggest project that I have worked on achieved LEED Platinum which was the
Diageo Brue house number four down on the keys. It was the first brewery in the world to
achieve LEED platinum and it was the first manufacturing facilities in Ireland to achieve
BREEAM outstanding. The initial difficulties was that we had to run energy models and there
was certain items ruled out that were just to expensive like PV solar panels that just wouldn’t
work as to how much it was going to cost. What gave us the capacity to achieve the required
points for BREEAM outstanding and LEED platinum was the output from the building process
was that energy was going to be used to power a lot of the buildings on site and it is able to sell
the energy back to the grid.
So the main difficulties were that certain solutions didn’t work. In a lot of the jobs now we
have to do cost trackers. The LEED assigned person will come up with all the points that are
required for LEED platinum and then we as cost consultants have to assess how much they are
going to cost. At this stage you have to choose which points we are going for and which points
are too costly. You still have to reach you goal but the points that can’t be achieved have to be
taken off the list. For example for that project PV panels or rainwater harvesting just don’t
work for the cost point of view.
That’s the only project that I have worked from the start to finish where I have gone the full
circle from the inspection to the solution in the Brew house no 4. At the moment we have a
number of office blocks that we are working on handover key and the client is looking to get
LEED gold.
Davis: did he decide at the start of the project? Because I find it that research states that it is
difficult to bring in LEED/BREEAM when the design is finalized

Appendices
75
Michael: it is very difficult because when you know it at the outset you can adapt your design
to suit but if you come in the 11 hour and say I want to get LEED gold then you have missed
the boat. A big element of LEED is that at your design stage you have to upload a lot of
documentation and then you have the construction stage. So at the design stage is where a lot
of the points can be gained because you can adapt your design. You can say that your PV panels
are not going to work on this project documentation is uploaded to the USGBC. So if you come
in at the construction stage then all the opportunities are gone. It is still possible but it is going
to cost a huge premium to go back and retrofit so at the design stage is where you can adapt.
You can work out your tracker and how much it is going to cost you
Davis: did it take much of your time to adapt to LEED or BRREAM or was it your normal job
and it didn’t bother you to much?
Michael: it is part of my role but you do have to dedicate your time to it. When we go to a
meeting now with the design team LEED and BREEAM is the section on the minutes. The
client has designated an assigned person to facilitate the process. We as QS doing or cost plan
we have a LEED and BREEAM section the as well. It is more and more now. It’s part of the
norm. When we go to the meeting the very first question we get asked is the goal regards LEED
and BREEAM as we need to know now because we need to know A- the cost and B- the design
needs to adapt. It can have a huge effect on your façade so all your glazing. If you are going
for LEED platinum you may need a twin wall system so you got your outer layer of glass and
then a gap and then an inner layer of glass. That is a huge cost so you need to see that that’s
too costly, can we get the points through another way. So it’s part of the job now that has to be
factored in. So a lot of the jobs now we do cost trackers so we would get the LEED and
BREEAM list so we would put a total cost column to the right hand side and to see which
points are feasible top get and which ones are not
Davis: So how much cost would you dedicate towards LEED? As research shows that it is
between 1- 5% if you want a BREEAM or LEED
Michael: Are you talking about cost or time?
Davis: about the cost on the project and your time as well. The research also shows that
BREEAM would take up about 20% of your time?

Appendices
76
Michael: As QS not it would not, maybe the architect or the assigned certifier but for us it
would be 5%.
From a cost perspective we have found on jobs that LEED gold can add about 2-3% in cost
and LEED platinum 5 – 6%. About time at the time you initially spend a lot of time at the
beginning but once the project kicks off it just becomes as part of the spec then and it just runs
as the job progresses. The contractor would then have to build to the spec that is given to them
which would include all the LEED requirements and so it’s just administered as normal job.
Davis: in what way is your role or work situation affected by BREEAM?
Michael: So a week ago we had Patrick Field in from OCSC and he gave a presentation on
LEED. So majority of client now are looking for LEED. So our role is affected by it and it’s
another thing we have to upskill on and the clients are asking how much is it going to cost ,
what’s the effect and then we have to agree the cost of the design stage to agree that cost with
the contractor then.
Davis: Research shows that it will increase the value of the property by 11%
Michael: that’s more of a question towards the property value. But we do see at meetings that
it is a big selling point. So you know the way there is the version 3 and version 4 so people
tend to go for the newer versions.
Davis: Is there more supervision required at the construction stage for BREEAM or LEED
specified projects?
Michael: Yes there is as they would have an assigned person to manage the process so there is
a higher fee and supervision element required. The assigned person would monitor that. The
project that we had in the Diageo had a cost tracker at the outset so we said of how much LEED
is going to cost so we then had to monitor that trough the construction stage. So if we had
Landscaping in we would have a budget for what the landscaping is going to be and then we
have to manage that during the process and agree the costs and administer. So that validates
that there is more supervision required at the construction stage. Especially the contractor has
a big responsibility in LEED and BREEAM. So if they are not up to speed on it not going to
work. So documentation control and documentation upload and administration, clean site
policy’s all that kind so stuff, they have a big role to manage that and that has to be supervised
as well. So now it’s built in the contract documents so it’s a contractual requirements now so
they have to work towards gaining the BREEAM gold so they have a big part to play.

Appendices
77
Davis: What was the most difficult and time-consuming aspect of implementing BREEAM or
LEED on a project?
Michael: The most time consuming is that there are certain points such as energy models and
the building fabric to price is very time-consuming as for the designers to find out what kind
of building control system is going to work and how does it tie in with the façade so its time-
consuming at the outset to set their goals and to see how the design is going to evolve. So for
the design team the most time-consuming part would be the outset as they have the role of
getting the design right. From the QS perspective it’s trying to get the budgets right as its time-
consuming and then during the construction stage there is no time consumption as the costs
have been finalized as it’s then passed to the contractor. So we put it in our preliminaries
documents that the contractor needs to have an assigned person as well to manage all of the
project, to gain all the documentation, to upload it, to make sure to implement site waste
management plans are being implemented
Davis: How do you think that communication and information exchange can be improved on
LEED or BREEAM projects? Between
Michael: The projects that we have worked to date has been very good. So we have a dedicated
section in the meetings, so it is not treated as an after taught at the meetings. So we would hold
specific LEED and BREEAM meetings.
Davis: would you use special software t exchange the information such as drop box or
management software system?
Michael: there is a big exchange between services consultant and the architect. So it would
impact them more as regarding communication. But from our point as I said there is specific
minutes of the meetings to do with BREEAM where we get the specific information, the design
team gives the design details. So we tend to deal with things in the traditional end where by the
Engineer the architect and consultant do their jobs and then they give us the design
implementations and then we cost it.
Michael: LEED tends to be more popular as regarding all the headlines and how global it has
got. Especially American multinationals tend to know what LEED is and not BREEAM. And
also LEED has a very good system.
Davis: Have there been training sessions implemented to staff on educating them about
BREEAM or LEED on the specific credits that they have to obtain?

Appendices
78
Michael: Yes there has. So we have had a couple of training sessions and we are more aware
of it now. So when a project is coming up and they are saying that they are going for LEED we
have the learnings from other projects. So first thing is to set up the cost tracker and you need
to be involved in the meetings and you need to know what is going on not just a few tweaks
here and there. Depending on the building, the façade could be affected, services could be
affected. So we do have in-house talks and in-house team get together and always LEED and
BREEAM is the cost holder on the budget and the contract documents that go out. So then we
develop our database of the specific credits such as if there is bike racks or solar panels or if
there is rainwater harvesting and then we look at how much that is going to cost on that project
and therefore we may have to change the light fittings to sustainable LED. So now the training
is an ongoing process so for every job that you go to you learn more about the systems. So the
big element is the preliminaries. So when contractor is going to price the job he needs to be
fully aware of what his requirements are so we have to document that out and give it to the
contractor and say ‘you need an assigned person, you need to control all these documents, you
need to have a clean site policy’ and all those things cost money so they need to be in the
contract document that comes back.
Davis: is there any suggestions on how the management can be improved on BREEAM or
LEED projects?
Michael: So it’s a good goal to reach. But so far we have not had a bad experience with it to
begin with so everyone has set up the meetings gone through the design so we haven’t really.
Sometimes the interpretations can be a not clear on certain points. So on one project regarding
the Environmental Declaration of Product EDP of materials it is a very complicated process
whether you can or can’t be achieved. So we are trying to negotiate a contract sum with the
contractor so we are saying that we want this point for the EDP and he is saying what are the
design implications? So we answer you have to use chip board or ironmongery from specific
suppliers because they have been accredited EDP rating and it therefor can be difficult process
because there can be certain interpretations on certain products so it is difficult to distinguish
if some products can be used or not.

Appendices
79
Appendix 4 – Participant D – Mechanical & Electrical Engineer, LEED AP
Patrick Field - O'Connor Sutton Cronin – 19th March 2016
Davis: What is your profession?
Patrick: I’m a director in OCSC mechanical and electrical sustainability’s. There are two
different companies. There is OCSC associates which is the civil structure and then there is
OCSC M&E and sustainability. And I’m a director of that company but specifically
sustainability in that company. I graduated in 2008 from D.I.T. I did building services
engineering and I went traveling for about six weeks then I came back and the managing
director of M&E set up the company in here and I started in that same day and from that I have
gone from senior to associate and then to the director of the company. That is all to the fact that
I took lead on sustainability so I set up the section within the company and it has just grown to
7 peoples staff under the sustainability alone.
Davis: I just recently browsed your webpage and noticed that you are specifically going in the
direction of LEED. Are you currently doing the refurbishment project on Bank of Ireland? It’s
BREEAM.
Patrick: Yes we are currently working on the project and so far it has achieved BREEAM
outstanding at the design stage rating. And then we have 14 LEED projects currently ongoing
and 10 BREEAM projects in London and then one in Dublin which is the Central Bank of
Ireland.
Davis: Are you involved in the LEED project in Dublin Airport?
Patrick: Yes we are the LEED Accredited professionals. It’s the HOB building.
Davis: I have to interview Rob Fox on that building.
Patrick: I’m the LEED AP on the shell and core works.
Davis: Have you worked on ‘green’ project before? If so was there any sustainable
Patrick: The first green project that I worked on in Ireland was BD medical. BD medical
produce pen needles for diabetes. They are based in Pottery road. They are a global company
and Pottery road is their Dublin branch. BD have a corporate policy that was broth in 2009 that

Appendices
80
stated that all new buildings will be LEED certified. On that building we were broth vey late
in the process. Design team had already gone to tender. The tenders came back so the
contractors were picked and only then we were broth in to the project as the LEED AP. They
had someone on board before who gave them a bit of information in relation to the background
on LEED but it wasn’t helping them to get towards certifications. When we went on board we
reviewed all the information that had come back and they already had started construction on
site and we proved that they can only barely get past the point ‘LEED certified’. From a
corporate perspective yes they started late but surely they can still achieve silver so the key
challenge to that was to get everybody up to speed on LEED within the design team in the
matter of six weeks. They had to give us their information and only then we could sit with the
contractors to make sure they knew what they were doing for LEED. The one key challenge
was to get from certified to silver. On this project we were not the M&E on it but LEED AP’s.
What we did was: the boiler system there that was giving hot water to the facility we
recommended that they take that out and there was a compressor that was providing
compressed air for the whole facility and there was waste heat coming from that so we were
able to convert that into hot water and use that in the building instead of the boiler. So that
system picked up 12 points in the energy and pushed us from the certified to silver. We got
LEED silver on the building which was a massive accomplishment. The key challenges there
was the LEED AP was broth in too late, nobody knew how to design to LEED, the current
design didn’t match so they had to make changes to the current M&E design to get the points.
Davis: what is the maximum points that you can get in the energy section 19?
Patrick: 21 points in total depending if it is core and shell or if it’s new construction so it
changes slightly so it varies between 19 and 21.
Davis: Was that new construction?
Patrick: that was new construction and they were going to be end user. Other buildings we are
doing in Dublin like DAA with shell and core the HOB building, because, well, at the time
they didn’t know who the tenant was. Now, if you were to draw it out, you have the DAA
facility, hum… it’s kind of slit like that [sounds of drawings]. This is the main tendered areas.
So this all facility will get LEAD. Hum, Core and Shell… now, they actually have a tenant to
move in, and for this element it works, we are the LEAD AP. But when the tenant comes in,
ESB are going to be the tenant moving in, and we are going to be the M&E consultants and
LEAD AP for the commercial interior fit out. So there is a kind of cross reference cos there’s

Appendices
81
not that many LEAD AP in Dublin and Ireland so you kind of design, you kind of, a couple of
people can go to it so there’s a little bit of a link there, you know.
Davis: Oh wow, ok! Yeah, I did a project on the Dublin airport project and it was very hard to
find information on it… but… yeah so it’s like refurbishment then
Patrick: correct
Davis: yeah so have you already done the models?
Patrick: yeah we have yes, so with the model part of it, there was an original consultant brought
on so we were not doing the model and it was a crowd from STS. Now they always predicted
they’d get five points, which is extremely poor when you see the type of building that they
were building. So it basically came to the point where they were six months late with the report.
We were asked to step in and do the LEED model. And we proved that they were able to
actually get 13 points. But it was because you’re … with the energy model, I don’t know if
you’re aware but there’s a baseline you can compare it to. And that’s when it shows the points
increase but when you get an existing building, you compare to the existing building façade.
So it was single glazed, no insolation in the walls, so we score really well on the basis that we
were improving from that. Cos it was a refurbishment project.
Davis: Oh wow, that’s a nice one! Hum, was there anything else that had been difficult?
Patrick: anything else that had been difficult? Hum… I think the production of tender
documents. So what we’ve tried to do here is simplify. To give one manual that’s to be
followed, ok. And it covers everything that’s needed, from LEAD perspective on all the credits.
So what that allowed us to do is, it simplifies it for everybody on the design team. So they don’t
have to put it on all their tenders’ documents, “to comply with LEAD, you need to comply with
these standards…” they just say, “refer to OCSCs LEAD document for complying. So, before
we did that, it got fairly tedious in reviewing the information, cross-checking, all that kind of
stuff. So we’ve simplified it by doing that, but that was a definite challenge.
Davis: all right, yeah, I’ve researched that one as well. So now, the next question: What are the
greatest differences between projects without certification and project with LEAD / BREEM
requirements?
Of course that’s a very broad question there but is there anything that you really have to go out
of your traditional way of … even at tender stage, or at building stage, or…

Appendices
82
Patrick: yeah, yeah… ok, I suppose if you were to look at… I’ll give you an example of a
building. So, we were the LEAD APs on exchange building, in Dublin. So with that building…
it didn’t start out as LEAD, but the client did want a B, or an A3 on the building. So a building
energy rating. Which is regulation so, on the regulation you only have to get a C1 to comply
but they wanted to push the border cos he was very energy efficient, and he said “can we get
an A3?” so we proved that you can get an A3. So, they were doing all the energy stuff that
links up with LEAD but they weren’t going for LEAD assessment. So then, everybody in the
market place was going for LEAD assessment so I said “right, we will as well”. So the
differences that I saw… so we were going to go straight ahead for a B or.. And build it, and
don’t worry about LEAD. But what changed then when we brought it in was that people had
to then worry about the tendering information that covers LEAD, that they had the right type
of lighting system in, that they didn’t just comply with the BER, met the LEAD criteria as
well… so they were minor changes to the MNE systems. The facades, there was no changes.
The concrete and steel there was no change or specifications. Because everything they were
doing anyway complied with the LEAD criteria. We just had to document it. So the biggest
thing that I saw was that all they had to do was to document it in the LEAD format. And you
were fine. We got gold, no problem, and ok. But that would be the biggest difference. I see
what people are building in Dublin, if you didn’t do a LEAD assessment of a BREEM.. The
building that you would build will still achieve… could still achieve a LEAD gold or a BREEM
very good.
Davis: by just complying with the technical guidance documents
Patrick: exactly. So they’ll do that anyway but it’s just the fact “right, well I want a badge on
the wall, this is what we have to do” which is just paperwork really. And if you want to go for
the platinum, or outstanding they are changes, definitely they are changes. But if you were to
go with like a good or a very good on a BREEM they wouldn’t change anything. They’d no
difference, it’s just a bit more paperwork, that’s all.
Davis: all right, so… what are the most difficult and time consuming aspects of implementing
LEAD / BREEM on projects?
Patrick: I think, that BD medical, that first project that we had, was getting, at the time, in 2009,
was getting the design team of the speed. So everybody… nobody cared, at the time. Everybody
was like “oh, another standard, I have to comply with it, you know, can you not do it?” but we
had to give everybody the information, make sure they understood what they were doing, and

Appendices
83
then produce the right information for us. So there was enough going back and forward, and
back and forward… I know, you need to do this, you need to do that… so that took us so much
time. And there was a confusion over that. But what we found is that architects, contractors,
even clients are all up to speed with LEAD. So, that time consuming thing has reduced. So that
isn’t there anymore. So the only thing that’s time consuming now that we see is when you have
a main contractor who doesn’t know what they’re doing on site. You have to sit and hold their
hand. So when they get technical submittals in for USGBC, or something like that, everything
is sent to you instead of him now. “Oh that complies, oh that’s fine now”. That’s the time
consuming thing now. Back in 2009, it was getting all the documentation together and all. But
that’s not the case anymore. It’s more so the construction stuff so yeah.
Davis: all right yeah! And so, what kind of things would you do to reduce the time maybe?
Like, is there a special system, like you said, you’ll have your own documentation that you
refer to…
Patrick: Yeah correct. So what we do is, we’ve got a design team manual. We now have a
construction team manual. So the design team manual summarizes, instead of going through
the all manual, what they need to do. And if you take a credit like cycle spaces, we give them
examples from other projects. As to, “this is the calculation you need to do”, “that’s the drawing
that matches it”, “you can see what you need to do on the drawing”. “Do that on your drawings
and you’ll be fine” so it’s almost like a step by step on the design team. And on the construction
site it’s exactly the same. So, “look you need to prevent local sources from sedimentation
getting in, this is what to, do there’s an example on another project, and that’s how you record
it on a weekly basis”. So everything is now systemized and the minute we get appointed we
give that out to everybody. Ok, so it wouldn’t change much. You would have small variations,
on different projects but it’s very little.
Davis: All right! Well I didn’t know people were so up to speed like.
Patrick: yeah no but it is like you know, like we started back in 2009 and what are we on now…
14 projects so… for us to make money out of it, we need to have these things in place. You
now, so as efficient as we can be, you know.
Davis: all right yeah, and the 5th
one is: how do you think that communication and information
could be improved in LEAD/ BREEM projects? And that in in kind of reference to document
management software, and if you have used any on previous projects?

Appendices
84
Patrick: Yeah so, I suppose, the typical way the projects go with LEAD or without LEAD is
everybody tends to go to an A site type of thing. I don’t know if you’ve seen that
Davis: I haven’t no
Patrick: so it’s almost like a fancy drop box. So what it is that there’s a platform, everybody
uploads their information and then they assign different people to sign them off. Ok so during
a construction program, the main contractor puts it in place, they get all their technical
submittals or the design team their stuff in, and everybody works off the one platform. What
happens is that with the LEAD you add in another layer the people have to check. So we tend
to stay away from that platform as much as we can because everything gets very procedural
and it doesn’t need to be. So what we do is, we give a presentation of design stage. So say,
“These are the key credits, and here are the examples, ok. Send them to us, we’ll review it and
then you’ll upload it so it’s correct.” There’s not forward and back, forward and back. Then
we’ll do the same with the construction team. And then when we go to submit the USGBC
everything is ready to go. So we take away from that A site website so. As far as document
control. The quickest way we’ve learned, we’ve tried to do it the A site way, it doesn’t work.
Too complicated. We do it our way. We have our procedure. Everybody sends it to us, and
then everybody uploads to LEAD online. That’s the quickest way of doing it. It’s the most…
we deal with the directly instead of everything going through the contract manager, which is
messy.
Davis: so you have your own quality control system
Patrick: right, yes, so we have, obviously BREEM or LEAD check everything. We have our
own Q/A system internally. And we run everything through
Davis: nice! yeah so, had there been any training sessions implemented for staff or
subcontractors, about educating them on LEAD / BREEM and specific credits that they have
to obtain
Patrick: yeah. So, when we get appointed on a job, we’ll do a pre-assessment strait away on
the building. And we’ll come in a give a presentation. Very high level of… “we think, based
on the current design you can get gold. “ he client will always ask : so what will I have to do
to gain platinum ?” so we do a very simple outline, a bit more on the credits and on the outline
, without flustering everybody around the table. We do the same thing for the construction
team. Presented in a “user friendly English” so everybody understands it, instead of some

Appendices
85
American terminology they use, and we present it again. And if then people are still struggling
with the stuff, we go and meet them individually and present just their part. And that’s a number
of 6 or 7 presentations, for different scenarios.
Davis: so you’re actually the kind of lecturer for the staff and for the subcontractors?
Patrick : correct, so you’ll still get the people request, I’d like to get a qualification myself so…
there’s the Irish Green Building council, with training sessions in that… so certain people will
go and trained up themselves, you know. And that’s fine, you know. But we just say, “Look if
you just want to get through the project, we do enough of the guidance on it, and we’ll explain
it, to what you need to do”. And then we do it ourselves.
Davis: ok. And do you ever get in here any training sessions? For your staff, you said you have
6 people or…
Patrick: yeah so, what we’ll do is that at Christmas time, two of our engineers got qualified as
LEAD APs. The way I’ve always found it is that, they did a course in the Irish Green Building
Council, just a couple of hours.. It’s not beneficial. It’s not, as far as we’ve seen it. Like when
I’ve done my training there was no training. I bought the manual, I read it cover to cover, and
understood it and went to do the exam. And that’s what they’ve done. And what I found is that
you just.. You pick it up a bit better, instead of listening to somebody. Because what they’re
trying to do, is get you to pass the exam, not to be a good LEAD assessor. Ok. And there’re
two different things, people will pass the exam but not understand how to do a good LEAD
assessment. And I need engineers who are ready to go and manage a project, not to just pass
an exam.
Davis: this is just a question for myself, I was looking at also may be doing the… not LEAD
AP but general associate, yeah. Is that easy to do or…
Patrick: very easy yeah. I would definitely recommend it. If you’re potentially going out and
looking for a job, come at the end of the year, to have it on your CV that you’ve done it, and
you’re going out to a main contractor, that, I think it’s fantastic because all of a sudden you’re
the ideal candidate for being the LEAD champion for them, on jobs. And you take all the info
and you give it to the LEAD AP.
Davis: Oh and did you have to do yourself the general associate before you become an AP?

Appendices
86
Patrick: yeah, the green associate. Yeah so, for my exam I had to do both. Two exams. You
have to pass both to become an AP. If you failed the green associate you couldn’t pass the AP
exam. So you have to pass two. You know, that 5 hour exam.
Davis: so it’s a bachelor and a master type of thing
Patrick: yeah, kind of, that’s exactly what it’s like. It is quite easy, it’s just the principles of
green designs, but then the AP is just specific to the LEAD manual. So you can pass the green
associate. You could probably go on and pass it now, if you had a good understanding of
general sustainability. Generally. But the AP, you need to read the manual.
Davis: of course yeah. Ok. In what way is your role, work situation affected by BREEM and
LEAD? So what you would have done before and now that you have gone on LEAD projects,
like obviously you took on the training, is there anything additional, I would say, in your role?
Patrick: that we do, I suppose from reading and writing it’s kind of, you know, what way we
approach our role, based on we’ve done or what’s happening in LEAD and BREEM. Like, it’s
great for us, honestly that we do it, cos at the end when we go to present for a new job to a
client, they’ll say “right, when you design a mechanical system and an electrical, what do you
do differently?” that’s the question you’re always asked. So what we say is “look, we are LEAD
assessors, we are energy modellers, so what we’ll do is the system that goes in is already at a
good level of sustainability. It’s already adopted to principles. We’ll not come back and retrofit
in it”. Clients love to hear that. A lot of LEAD APs are architects but they don’t understand
MNE. So what we do as well is the extents of energy modelling in houses, we do the MNE
systems, the lighting, the façade we give advice on, and how to maximise daylight, and take
out solar gain. So we do this all encompassing study and that will improve sustainability, lead
to a great LEAD score, and not cost the client any money. So that’s what they love to hear. It’s
the fact that you offer all these services, and because we have LEAD and BREEM in house,
we already have a compliant MNE design. And we can give advice to the architect for the
façade. We’re giving them a lot more stuff for just the basic MNE provision that they’re looking
for. You know, so…
Davis: all right! I’m finding out more now than I am in textbooks like. So yeah, is there any
suggestions on how management can be improved on LEAD / BREEM projects?
Patrick: suggestions, hum… from our point of view it is.. Like it’s constant monitoring. It is.
Constant monitoring. The one thing we’ve seen, like the first project we did was BD. SISK ,

Appendices
87
who are the biggest construction teams, because they have great procedures in place, they find
it very easy to bring in the LEAD stuff. But how it is now, with even the smaller guys like
Hegarties they knew they had to adjust to LEED or BREEM. So we went to meet them for the
first time ad we were expecting right “we’ll give them the full presentation and come back in
two weeks” they had all the LEAD documents ready for us to review, strait away. And they
were in fantastic shape, with everything that we needed, they had everything that we needed
and it was already ready to go, so there was a contactor there that knew how to manage the
process, they had LEAD AP in place on their site that was going to give us all the information.
it Was absolutely ideal. So really it’s just awareness that everybody’s aware for what’s actually
needed to be done. But because LEAD is so common now, everybody is just adapting to it.
And the contactors can go and sell themselves and say “look that are our costs for the project
but you know what, here’s the benefit : we do LEAD on the daily basis, there won’t be any
problem due to construction and we guaranty that we’ll get the gold or the platinum. So
everybody is moving on to it, it just took a bit of time but every main contractors, the likes of
walls, or SISKS, or Hegarties, or Bam… , they know exactly what they’re doing, you know.
They have the guys in place so... Is there anything on the design side that can be improved?
Not so much on the management side. I think once you’ve got a good LEAD AP, he will be
the manager. So it’s a guy who knows, who hasn’t just passed the exam, it’s a guy who knows
how... and that’s a key thing, the two engineers I have, they’re maybe two years working, so
they’ve passed the LEAD exam, they’re getting up to speed with MNE systems, but they don’t
know how a project runs, how do contracts work, how the tenders documents go, what comes
back, what’s a technical submittal.. So until they understand that, they’re not going to be able
to manage properly a project correctly. So that’s the big thing, is that, you know, they need to
understand how a project runs before they can be a good manager of the LEAD process
Davis: ok so you definitely need experience before you take on a LEAD and stuff
Patrick: Oh yeah, exactly. So yeah, I hope that answers everything
Davis: oh yeah, thank you

Appendices
88
Appendix 5 – Participant E – Sustainability Manager, BREEAM/LEED AP
Ronan Hellissey – Mott MacDonald – 10th February 2016
Davis: What is your profession?
Ronan: I’m an environmental consultant and scientist and I have expertise in rainwater quality
and I do a lot of environmental assessment work. I’m also the sustainability champion for Mott
MacDonald in Ireland and Europe
Jessika: I’m a sustainability consultant based in Cambridge in the UK and I work for Mott
MacDonald clean energy and did a couple of years in waste management and I have worked
for Mott MacDonald for three years
Davis: Have you worked on green projects before and if so was there any requirements that
presented difficulty in achieving the points? Specifically to BREEAM and LEED.
Jessika: So the major part of my work is being a LEED AP and also a BREEAM AP so a large
part of my role is to do the assessments is the LEED and BREEAM projects. In terms of issues
I would say that it is projects specific depending on what the client wants from the project and
where the project is located as it influences certain things. So the key difficulties would be
where the sustainability is an after taught for a project as opposed to when it is integrated in
the project requirements from the outset of the project. Also a difficulty comes when the design
of the project has progressed significantly and the client tries to implement LEED or BREEAM
and that’s where it can be difficult or costly for a project to even achieve points.
Davis: In what way is your role/ work situation is affected by LEED or BREEAM?
Jessika: Well that’s one of my key parts of my job is to assess LEED or BREEAM and that’s
where I spend 80 – 90% of my time when working on the projects where I’m appointed as the
party consultants by project parties or by project teams to undertake the role of LEED or
BREEAM assessments. So my role is to review documentation and monitor the points online
which goes of to final approval to the USGBC or the BER and provide advice.
Davis: Is there more supervision required at the construction stage on BREEAM or LEED?
Jessika: Yes I would say so. I would recommend especially on LEED projects to have a
sustainability champion or LEED champion as part of the contractor team and a dedicated
person on site so that the contractor does not have to spend 100% of their time doing LEED or

Appendices
89
BREEAM but just to assist with the documentation and tracking of the points and progress of
the construction. If it is left to someone like site manager it can often get forgotten as there is
quite a lot documentation and tracking of materials used and waste management there is quite
a lot of tracking involved in the process.
Ronan: So Jessika on a lot of the projects there is obviously nobody that is assigned.
Jessika: often we tend to make it as a contract requirement for both LEED and BREEAM that
goes into the tender documents for contractors so that they can practice it before the jobs. But
more often they tend to put someone forward that will we the owner of LEED and BREEAM
from the contractor’s side. They will look after all the construction related credits and that they
are documented. But they would not spend 100% of their time spending on just BREEAM or
LEED.
Davis: so your role would be just to deal with the documentation and order site managers and
project managers to hand in all the documentation so you can put it in a system?
Jessika: yes that’s right. They both go to the USGBC or BER to go through the quality
assurance. With LEED they have an online platform. For my role we help the project team and
the contractor. We tend to upload the documentation on to the Mott Macdonald online platform
and review it before it goes out to USGBC for their review.
Davis: What was the most difficult and time consuming aspect of implementing BREEAM/
LEED on a project?
Jessika: When you start of on a project and people are not aware of the assessment methods so
we have to take on the role on educating the team and explaining the requirements to them and
try to make it as clear as possible and as easy as possible for the team. Also to produce the
documentation. I think LEED and BREEAM try to accept the documentation which the project
team will be producing anyway for the project as opposed to requesting LEED or BREEAM
specific documentation just for the credits. Also LEED uses the Ashrey standards which is the
US standards so it is a difficulty to undertake the Ashrey models. In Ireland it is not common.
Davis: how do you think that information exchange could be improved on LEED or BREEAM
projects? And would you use a document management software for managing all the
documents?

Appendices
90
Jessika: We tend to produce trackers such as x-cell documents. We have in-house document
systems for LEED and BREEAM. On a previous BREEAM project we have used ‘Tracker
Plus which is an online management tool and ‘IS Tap’ which is quite useful on project teams
and often request that they are used because it is an online management tool so everyone has
access to it and reports would be generated. But generally we tend to use the tools that are
generated by ourselves. LEED has an online platform which the whole team has the access to
so they are able to review progress.
On the documentation exchange we tend to recommend that somebody needs to own the
process tough out the project. Weather that is the project manager who would ensure that
sustainability is always on the agenda throughout the design team meetings and throughout the
construction stage as well.
Davis: Has there been training sessions implemented for the staff on educating them about
BREEAM and LEED and the specific credits that they have to obtain? Is there credits that you
would really try to achieve on projects when advising the clients?
Jessika: There is no mandatory training that we would give to the project team but we tend to
hold workshops as part of our scope of works. So a pre-assessment workshop where we would
gather the whole team and talk about the specific requirements that are to obtain the credits so
in that there will be an education within that respect as we would be teaching about the different
standards. We would usually pass down the experience that we have had from previous
projects. In terms of the credits we tend to go for so the location of the project would determine
the specification strategy. So in BREEAM and LEED there is quite a high number of credits
available for public transport access or being located to local amenities so if we are able to gain
credits there it would not be costly. So we tend to focus on the easy wins and then we develop
a specification strategy from there.
Davis: Is there any suggestions on how management could be improved on LEED and
BREEAM projects?
Jessika: As I said before someone needs to own the process. We have had situations where
people want to do LEED or BREEAM at the start of the projects and it always need to be on
the agenda on the meetings. So if the people don’t talk about in for a long time people tend to
forget about it and it is important to acknowledge that there is a common goal of reaching
BREEAM or LEED and try to drag the process that way.

Appendices
91
Ronan: I would think that the earlier in the project it is introduced the more beneficial it would
be.
Jessika: Yes definitely. So we have had projects where the first thing a client mentions is
BREEAM so it is involved in an early stage so therefore it is much easier to achieve the goal.
On the other hand we have had projects where the design is almost finished and only then we
get asked to come in and go for LEED or BREEAM. That’s where it gets very difficult or even
impossible to achieve the standard. There are credits that have to be achieved in the design
stage so if it is not from the beginning on it may make it difficult to and costly to change.
Ronan: So what projects have you been working on recently?
Jessika: There was one on Bagot Street and capital dock. So we work for confidential clients

Appendices
92
Appendix 6 – Participant F – Sustainability consultant, BREEAM AP
Amanda Gallagher - Easlár – 22nd February 2016
Davis: Have you worked on ‘green’ project before? If so was there any sustainable
Amanda: BREEAM can be difficult to achieve as some of the credit criteria is very prescriptive
and some of the credits need to be achieved early on in the project. For example stakeholder
participation credits need to be implemented at brief/concept design stage. If the client/design
team decide to implement BREEAM at later stages in the project they may have already missed
out on achieving some credits. Difficult credits to achieve are Life Cycle Costing credits,
Responsible Sourcing of Materials credit, Refrigerants credits and recycled aggregate credits.
In addition, rural areas will struggle with transport credits and site selection credits.
Davis: What are the greatest differences between traditional project without certification and
project with LEED/BREEAM requirements?
Amanda: It depends on the design team’s knowledge of sustainability. If the design team and
client are well informed they may not need to use BREEAM or LEED. If they aren’t well
informed and want to cut costs to the detriment of sustainability BREEAM/LEED can prevent
this as it ensures sustainability is present in the project throughout. Also clients will use the
BREEAM/LEED badge to attract tenants and inward investment or add value to their property
portfolios.
Davis: What was the most difficult and time consuming aspect of implementing
LEED/BREEAM on projects?
Amanda: Gathering the evidence from the design team/client/contractor. The evidence has to
be exact or it won’t pass QA processes from BREEAM or USGBC. This can be time consuming
and involves a lot of back and forth between assessor and design team, particularly if the team
hasn’t done LEED or BREEAM before.
Davis: How do you think that communication and information exchange could be improved in
a LEED/BREEAM project?
Amanda: Using file share systems can be helpful. If BREEAM was more of a web enabled
system where the evidence for each credit could be uploaded into a dedicated space that links

Appendices
93
to each credit requirement. I think LEED already has this. The team could upload their
evidence individually to the correct place. Example of acceptable evidence could be provided
to help teams get their evidence right.
Davis: Has there been training sessions implemented for subcontractors/staff on educating
them about LEED/BREEAM and specific credits that they have to obtain?
Amanda: Yes, we have regular meetings during the process and BRE run specific courses for
clients/design teams and contractors.
Davis: In what way is your role/work situation affected by LEED/BREEAM?
Amanda: I am a BREEAM AP and BREEAM Assessor and am currently delivering numerous
projects in the UK and Ireland. It makes up about 50% of my workload.

Appendices
94
Appendix 7 – Participant G - Architect
Pat O’Sullivan – Grangegorman Development Agency – 22nd February 2016
Davis: The first one, what is your profession?
Pat: I am an Architect.
Davis: What were the pros and cons of implementing BREEAM on this project?
Pat: I suppose the pros is publicity. The cons were time. Weather they use green materials that’s
another thing we went from an energy point of view but still used blocks.
Davis: In what way is your role/work situation affected by LEED/BREEAM?
Pat: Not really. It’s just managing and producing information as to back up and just give it to
them and to see how to achieve the credits to try to help it’s as if you are trying to give a report
and evidence to try and report it that helps rather than giving rough pile of documents.
Pat: It does take up more time. Like you could do a project without certification. It’s a case of
if you can manage getting a ‘very good’ without doing any work to do a little bit of extra for
excellent is better again
Davis: What are the greatest differences between traditional projects without certification and
project with LEED/BREEAM requirements?
Pat: with BREEAM you are looking at what would involve in actually getting in accreditation
there is a lot more time involved and it’s a lot more structured and I would say that it’s a lot
better document let’s say traditional. You get a lot more detail in achieving the credits. With a
standard one you just fill in the numbers you know the volume the house you have and the
window you have this is probably a lot more structured and measured and a better qualification
and in terms of commitment to it the other one is just a case of sitting down and filling numbers
and that is. You just get a kilowatt per hour and per year and if it’s in a certain range it’s an A
1, 2, 3 whereas with this is kind of you are striving the whole time to find the information to
prove that you got and there is a lot more reading involved there is a lot of research and as such
you are rewarded with better accreditation.
Davis: What are the most difficult and time consuming aspects of implementing LEED bream
on the project?

Appendices
95
Pat: Documents it’s one thing to say yea I got to do that and another thing to going about and
doing it and approving it.
Davis: do you have to do an additional training then for yourself to understand the documents?
Pat: No Amanda was the person she facilitated the whole thing and compiled everything and
put it together and she was involved in the original design team. Amanda do any time
information went out to both of them in drop box in terms of what was being issued. Gives you
a much better idea of what’s out there and involved. I’m guessing accreditation as I said earlier
the BER one is numerical things where as this is a lot more information and gives you a lot
more better chance of what you are trying to achieve in terms of EMBODIED ENERGY usage
and you know makes you think about what you are doing and where you are situating the
building.
Davis: How do you think that communication and information exchange could be improved is
a LEED/BREEAM project?
Pat: Document control and information exchange I mean you are talking about common data
environment where you drop everything into it like a drop box. There is a lot of problems with
E-mails that don’t concern me but has my address on it. We use SharePoint here as well but
we only started initiating it as its only last couple of months but its set up and running. We have
an FTP site which is an external sever where we allow access to information to. But yea I think
information and communication is critically important to any of these documents. The problem
is if there was a better system. The responses for me would have been dealt with a lot quicker
than just to drop in to drop box as it’s a nightmare using it
Davis: has there been training sessions implemented for staff about the BREEAM
accreditation?
Pat: we haven’t had any. We did have a sustainability engineering firm come in that gave
presentation. I spoke to him about it but he never really sat down to address the information
that was required but we rely on other such as consultants. Amanda was a consultant that we
used to prepare that. outside of that when it comes to subcontractors it’s up to them to have the
information and the training and its straight forward it’s not very tactical in the information
that is required.
Pat: it won’t be bam but it will be whoever successful contractor. This project that I’m looking
at is design finance and operate. Basically when we get into project agreements say you give

Appendices
96
us the building there is the parameters to design it you have to that it and finish it off in
designing it do it. We want you to give us back something that is excellent be on the exemplar
type of design and to see that it is able to achieve it and all these credits you take it and do
better on some stuff if you can’t get it on others.
Pat: of course BIM is going to be 20% of savings straight up and so. Mainly go to do with us
is occupations evaluations where you can actually can enter design errors certificate where its
after 12 months assess how building has performed and you know we will see where we are
improving. Everybody you know they want to say that you will improve the energy efficiency
of the building by using BIM so. There is reports out there, research out there that. But if you
look at any of the ‘seta’ documentation. They document themselves. There is sort of papers
where they identified that they halved saved it. I don’t know if you can get your hands on seta.
I know Louis is a member of seta. The seta report for it would have been a 2015 that’s actually
quite a good one. They are quite big big documents but they sort of talk about BIM on achieving
energy and BIM aligned with BREEAM like energy in BIM go together with BREEAM.
Davis: Have you ever worked on a green project before if so was there any BREEAM
requirements that presented difficulties in achieving the project?
Pat: Now in the briefing documents the DIT when they gave it to us it actually specified you
know either LEED or BREEAM so that’s what we went with and then whether design team
came on board we actually went about trying to procure the BREEAM so we got in touch with
Amanda Gallaher who is based at Donegal who is involved in the project
Davis: Who is the BREEAM assessor?
Pat: and she has been actively involved in producing the documents so we got a quote and we
got to them and then we got 3 quotes there was an original quote there was the quote for design
and during the construction and then after project assessment yea BREEAM in use and to see
how it goes after 12 months currently at fault and we are verging on very good we at the outset
we were looking for excellent but we came apparent that we did the introduction meetings and
we understood that we are not going to understand a BREEAM excellent accreditation so we
went for very good.
Davis: and what did you find that was stopping you from achieving the excellent
Pat: Time. And that what happened was we sat down there with them and they had never done
a BREEAM project so this is all new to them and to me as well so it was a case of you know

Appendices
97
finding out what was happening in the bream and what you needed to do but nobody told me
as a client that I was going to have to produce a lot of information because it was originally
that de
Davis: So the documentation involved is a lot, do you see it passed through your table a lot
with everything you design or do with BREEAM, do you just come back to the points to see if
you can achieve it?
Pat: That was more of the design teams side of it, like the guys Philip Grey and the others were
actually preparing the documents. It would be there responsibility to do that, once we identified
that we were going to get a credit, they would then have to adhere to that. I think the document
you are talking about is a huge big book.
Davis: Do you feel at the start it could have been better explained to you what was involved?
Pat: As a client you normally pay for a services and expect somebody else to do it. You don’t
expect that you then have to start producing information but that is probably particular to this
project. I would have been expecting if you were doing a BREEAM project you would ask the
questions then take that information to the client and you’d draft it up. In this case I have been
walking around the site trying to count the number of bus stops. But that’s all in the document,
if you are going to embrace BREEAM you have to take this on board. The other thing is
whether it was in the original letter of appointment to architect and the design team we want
you to deliver a BREEAM project they get paid for it and then turn around and say that’s not
in our scope of services it’s going to be an extra, so you end up doing it yourself. Often we
have access to information as well confirmation meetings we have had with the neighbours so
we were able to furnish them with that information.
Davis: Would earlier contractor involvement in the design have been more beneficial in the
achievement of BREEAM credits and is more supervision required at the construction stage?
Pat: I would say yes, BAM are at that stage now where we are looking for excellent, we have
taken a decision that we would get a very good. Whereas if the contractor had been involved
at the outset it would have pushed us a little bit more. They pushed and pushed, like there was
meetings upon meetings where they pushed and pushed for information.
Davis: Do you find it was easier to implement BREEAM on the design and build opposed to
traditional where there would have been many variations.

Appendices
98
Pat: Yes because they are building it, if you talk about concrete delivers because they have
their own green procurement/ specification, their own obligations when it comes to waste
separation on site and that ties into what BREEAM is doing on site as well.
Davis: What was the most problematic and time consuming aspect of Implementing BREEAM
on this project?
Pat: I would say documentation, because we are the project coordinators we don’t have a list
of people below us to help, there was a lot of search for documents. If there was more people
this would have made it easier. It was a slow torturous process, it’s not like whereas if you
were doing it start after you would remember it and you would keep note of it, we just forgot
about it. I suppose because the BREEAM at that stage wasn’t something you were conscious
of. It’s only afterwards that you become aware of this response.
Davis: Which, if any of the BREEAM assessment areas, was difficult to attain credits?
Pat: I’m going to say cycling one for the simple reason it was easy to get.
Davis: What they were easy credits but you didn’t manage to get them?
Pat: Yeah. The actual consultation with stakeholders/ neighbours that was a difficult one just
to get the documentation.

Appendices
99
Appendix 8 – Participant H – Sustainability coordinator LEED AP
Susan McGarry - Ecocem – 8th March 2016
Davis: You are the BREEAM/ LEED associate, yeah?
Susan: I’m the environmental manager in Ecocem and part of that job, I take care of the internal
environmental side of things. That involves our management systems and certifications. But
the external part of my job is on LEED/BREEAM on side. What I’m doing is, chasseing
certifications. So in order for our product to end up in the Aviva Stadium we’ve to contact
architects, engineers, contractors and get them to use our product if they want to get the
specification. What found is the product will be specified for technical reasons and the problem
the engineers will use it for the durability and the strength and then the environmental thing,
well it’s just a nice thing to have. But what LEED has done for us is that it had given us the
commercial reason for specifying for the environment. So I’ve a direct reason to sell to all the
environmental conscious architects or engineers cos I can tell it can contribute of 15 of the total
of 110 point of LEED. It actually contributes of 15, and that’s only one product. It doesn’t cost
many more, it doesn’t cost the costumer any more, they just write in 50% GGBS and then when
they do their LEED calculations there’s 15 that results directly. So that’s my job, it’s go out
and tell everybody. We have our technical guide. So we’ve actively promoted this. And I’ve
targeted it, as much as I can I’ve tried to get a list of all the LEED assessors in the country and
I’ve tried target them all, go and meet them, and just get the word out there cos some people
would know that GGBS, say it would add to recycle content that’s quite an obvious one. But
there’s a lot of other points that GGBS, they certainly wouldn’t know that GGBS contributes
to. So it’s kind of just going out and trying to educate everybody. So that’s my job.
Davis: Have you worked on green projects before? Is there any sustainable requirements that
presented difficulties in achieving the project?
Susan: My help comes in to sell the concrete to the concrete producer. So a LEED consultant
would come in and request information from the contractor on the materials. Then the
contractor passes the documentation on to all the material suppliers. So the concrete producers
are asked a lot of information on recycled content on where the cement came from and the
continuance of the concrete. Over the past 18 months we have been asked for this over a lot of
our jobs. This is why I upskilled to become a LEED green associate to be able to answer those

Appendices
100
questions. I have helped on all the big LEED projects that have happened over the past 18
months. Such as the Kerry innovation Centre in Nass. I have worked with the environmental
manager in the Diageo the new brew house. It is the same contractors and consultants that
would come up on all the LEED and BREEAM jobs. I come in as the advisory most of the
time.
Davis: Who specifies LEED?
Susan: It’s the Architect or the consulting engineer that would specify the product. Sometimes
the Architect and the engineer can overlap with the LEED consultancy and there may not be
third party LEED assessor. I have been involved in Canada house which is a big job in the city
center and it has been demolished and rebuilt and it is going for LEED gold. For that project
there was a separate LEED consultant. Their job was not to be on site but just to gather the
LEED points. It is supposed to be an integrated process where everybody would meet on the
site. That would be your Contractor, Architect, the engineer and everybody that is involved on
the physical site and that is supposed to happen on certain milestones of the project. In my
experience that does not happen. They just want to build a building and they are concerned of
how it looks like. So the LEED consultant tries to gather all the information and gather all the
points. So sometimes it does not work as it is supposed to.
Davis: In what way is your role/ work situation been affected by BREEAM /LEED?
Susan: Its that I actively promote LEED and BREEAM in order to promote my product more
as they benefit my product by on their LEED and BREEM credits. So we would provide the
documentation of where our product comes from, how we transport it, and that it is 100% pre-
consumer recycled material. They are the four main points that get you credit in LEED.
Davis: Is there more information required at the construction stage for BREEAM and LEED
specified projects?
Susan: I can’t comment on that as I have not had that experience. What I have from my
experience is that LEED consultant wants to know what has happened in order to get his LEED
credits. It can be hard for him to communicate with the contractor on site as the contractor is
trying t build and may not have the time for all the information. That’s where communication
can get difficult.
Davis: What was the most difficult and time consuming aspect of implementing BREEAM and
LEED on a project?

Appendices
101
Susan: It would be the information gathering. There is a lot of companies for whom LEED and
BREEAM is new so they would ask ‘why do you need this information’ and ignore it and not
realize how critical it is to get the information over to the contractor so he would pass it on to
the LEED consultant as soon as possible. So I would say Information gathering and
communication would be a major issue.
Davis: How do you think that information and communication could be improved on BREEAM
and LEED projects?
Susan: I think that there needs to be training courses run more than what it is right now.
Currently there is LEED assessors training and BREEAM assessors training and that is all.
People don’t want to share their ideas. It can be seen since LEED updated from version 3 to
version 4. Sometimes people want to gain just basic information and not go for the full
accreditation. The only way is to call USGBC where you have to look at the time difference
and they usually give you quite a generic answer. There should be a form where everyone could
get together instead of keeping their information to themselves which does not work as
everyone has to collaborate together. I have been involved in 20 projects over the past 18
months and only the same people have been working on the same projects. They are the people
with the knowledge and if they could share their experiences it would be a bit easier.
Davis: Would you think of using document management software?
Susan: No as it is going in the BIM territory so I would not know about it but it would help
with life cycle analysis and the documentation tracking. All you would use now is a drop box
folder or a special drive. If somebody does not update it is going to be gone in 2 weeks.
Contractors are to busy and they are not going to update things like that.
Davis: Has there been training sessions implemented for staff on educating them about LEED/
BREEAM and specific credits that they have to obtain?
Susan: We have continuous professional development presentations like the CPD presentations
that you would do in engineers Ireland or the institute of architects. So I give a presentation on
LEED and BREEAM and the environmental credits. So we have given that as an internal
presentation to all of our staff and I also go into all the architectural and engineering firms and
deliver presentations. In that regard that’s what we are doing. I know that the Irish Green
Building Council they run the green associate training and they run the BREEAM assessor
training.

Appendices
102
Davis: Is there any suggestions on how management can be improved on LEED BREEAM
projects?
Susan: I think we need to discuss it more openly. I think IGBC could gain more knowledge on
it and nobody knows who to talk to. The list of who is a green associate is not up to date and
half of those people don’t exist and I have met people who are green assessors and I have never
met them before. I think if there was a society where they could run training courses and do
general meetings and deal with FAQ during the month. I think there is a scope for something
like that and more information exchange because there is a more efficient way of doing things.
And it would help to open the market for other firms as only the same people tender for those
projects.

Green Building Rating Systems and the Role of the Project Manager

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Green Building Rating Systems and the Role of the Project Manager

More from Davis Ciprikis

Recently uploaded

Green Building Rating Systems and the Role of the Project Manager