Ceequal Version 4-1

8/19/2019 Ceequal Version 4-1

1/142

CEEQUALThe Assessment and Awards Scheme for improvingsustainability in civil engineering and the public realm

Scheme Desc r ip t ion and

Assessment Process Handbook

August 2010 (Matching Version 4.1 for Projects)

CEEQUAL was developed by a team led by the Institution of Civil Engineers, supported by theInstitution’s R&D Enabling Fund and the UK Government. It is now operated on behalf of the industryand profession through CEEQUAL Ltd, owned by a group of twelve organisations that were actively

involved in the project that developed the scheme, including the ICE, ACE, CECA and CIWEM.

www.ceequal.com


2/142


3/142

Who is involved in running CEEQUAL?

Origins and CEEQUAL Ltd

CEEQUAL was originally developed by a team led by the Institution of Civil Engineers, supportedby the Institution’s R&D Enabling Fund and the UK Government.

It is now operated, and continues to be developed, on behalf of the industry and profession throughCEEQUAL Ltd, owned by a group of fifteen organisations that are actively involved in operation ofthe Scheme and/or were involved in the project that developed the scheme, including the ICE, ACE, CECA and CIWEM.

Scheme Management

Administration of CEEQUAL Ltd and the running of the Scheme are presently contracted by theNon-Executive CEEQUAL Board of Directors to a joint Scheme Management Team comprisingCIRIA, Crane Environmental and Crane Environmental Associate Responsible Solutions actingtogether.

General enquiries about the Scheme, and how to participate in it, should be addressed to TheCEEQUAL Scheme Management Team at CIRIA, Classic House, 174-180 Old Street, London EC19BP, UK, Tel: +44 (0)20 7549 3300, Fax: +44 (0)20 7253 0523, E-mail: [email protected].

For queries about the overall operation of the Scheme and Assessor Training, and to contact theChief Executive of CEEQUAL Ltd, Roger Venables, please contact The CEEQUAL SchemeManagement Team at Crane Environmental Ltd, 1st Floor Offices, 1 Claremont Road, Surbiton,Surrey, KT5 8AL, Tel: +44 (0)20 3137 2379, Fax: +44 (0)20 8390 9368, E-mail:[email protected].

For the Scheme Technical Manager, call or email Ian Nicholson(Responsible Solutions) on 01509320100 or at [email protected].

Further revisions of this Handbook and the Assessment Manual(s) will be undertaken byCEEQUAL Ltd, and will reflect legislative changes, new guidance, improving assessmenttechniques and good and best practice as they evolve.

Verifiers

All Verifiers work as independents under contract to CEEQUAL. They are drawn from a wide rangeof backgrounds and have either been involved in the development of the Scheme from its inception

or trained and mentored into the Verifier role after completing a Project Assessment as an Assessor.

An Assessor can become a Verifier after a) completing at least one whole project assessment asan Assessor; and b) successfully passing the Verifier Training Course. Invitations for the latter arecirculated by CEEQUAL Ltd to ‘qualifying’ Assessors from time to time, when the Verifier poolneeds to be expanded.

Verifiers are also expected to attend regular 'refresher' workshops to keep up to date with revisionsto the CEEQUAL Scheme and Manual. Verifiers may also act as Assessors (though obviously noton the same project).

Revised August 2010


4/142


5/142

CEEQUAL Scheme Description and Assessment Process Handbook – for distribution

August 2010, updated from the December 2008 issue © CEEQUAL Ltd 1

Contents List

Section & title Page

Who is involved in running CEEQUAL? inside front cover

Glossary 2

1 Introduction to the CEEQUAL Scheme 31.1 What CEEQUAL is and the Awards available1.2 When to undertake an assessment1.3 Who runs CEEQUAL?1.4 What is in this Handbook

2 Why was CEEQUAL developed? and Why use it? 5

2.1 Civil engineering and its environmental and social context

2.2 Objectives of CEEQUAL

2.3 Why use CEEQUAL

3 Relationship between CEEQUAL and EIAs and EMSs, and its use as a checklist 6

4 How projects are required to be assessed 74.1 Introduction4.2 The assessment process4.3 How the scoping out works4.4 Special features of the Interim Client & Design Award assessment process

5 How the question scores have been weighted 11

6 Award grades 12

7 Content of the Assessment Manual for Projects and How it works 127.1 What is in the Assessment Manual for Projects7.2 How the Assessment Manual for Projects works7.3 Key to reading the Assessment Manual questions7.4 Sample Questions from the Assessment Manual for Projects, to illustrate the

scoring options

Appendix 1 How CEEQUAL has been developed 16


6/142



Glossary for this Handbook (another Glossary is provided in theAssessment Manual)

ACE Association for Consulting andEngineering

BRE Building Research Establishment

BREEAM BRE Environmental AssessmentMethodology

C&D Client & Design (Award)

C&OD Client & Outline Design (Interim Award)

CECA Civil Engineering Contractors’ Association

CIRIA Construction Industry Research andInformation Association

CPA Construction Products Association

D&B Design & Build

DETR Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions (beforereorganisation in 2001)

DREAM Defence Realm Environmental Assessment Method

EA Environment Agency (for England &Wales)

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMS Environmental Management System

ICE Institution of Civil Engineers

NSO Question cannot be scoped out

WPA Whole Project Award


7/142



1 Introduction to the CEEQUAL Scheme

1.1 What CEEQUAL is and the Awards avai lable

CEEQUAL’s original title was the ‘Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and AwardsScheme’. It is now promoted as ‘the Assessment and Awards Scheme for improving sustainability in civilengineering and public realm projects’. The CEEQUAL Awards Scheme is based on a self-assessment

carried out by a trained CEEQUAL Assessor that is then externally and independently verified by aCEEQUAL-appointed Verifier. For such external and independent Verifications, CEEQUAL charge projectteams a fee based on the construction value of the project – see the downloads page at www.ceequal.com for

the latest feescale – and assists with and provides publicity for the resulting Award.

This version of the Scheme is for the assessment of projects with a clearly defined project boundary and

timescale. With the completion of Version 4 for Projects in December 2008, a matching term contracts*version of the Scheme (*the current working title) is being developed and is anticipated to be available in late2010 or early 2011. That version is aimed at the assessment and recognition of environmental performanceon work such as highway or sewer maintenance or minor works in a geographical or operational area over anumber of years. However, pending completion of the Term Contracts Version, the rest of this Handbookconcentrates on the Projects Version of the Scheme.

In the three-legged model of sustainable development, which seeks to achieve economic, social andenvironmental success at the same time and may thus be connected to triple-bottom-line reporting,

CEEQUAL complements the planning system and clients’ financial and economic models by assessing awide range of environmental and social issues, including a project’s effects on neighbours and community

relations more generally. The Scheme also includes indirect economic issues through consideration of issuessuch as Energy, Materials and Waste that can significantly influence the financial outcome of a project. In promoting environmental and social best practice and measuring environmental and social performance,CEEQUAL is therefore a tool that assists significantly in the drive in the civil engineering industry and profession for more-sustainable development and construction – see the illustration below.


8/142



CEEQUAL therefore builds on current guidance and environmental good practice in civil engineering and public realm projects, and supports UK Government strategy by providing the civil engineering industry withan incentive and protocol for assessing, benchmarking and ‘labelling’ the sustainability performance of projects as part of the industry’s contribution to sustainable development.

The Awards available are:

• the Whole Project Award (WPA), applied for jointly by or on behalf of the Client, Designer and

Principal Contractor(s);• the WPA with an Interim Client & Design Award (the stage in the design process at which the

Interim Assessment is undertaken can be chosen by the applicant to best suit their needs and

procurement process);

• the Client & Design Award, applied for jointly by the Client and Designer;

• the Design-Only Award, applied for by only the principal Designer;

• the Construction-Only Award, applied for only by the Principal Contractor(s);

• Design & Construction Award for project teams that do not include the client, on design & constructand other partnership contracts.

The Client & Design Award is available before construction has started as an award for a client and designer, perhaps in a situation where the contractor has not yet been appointed or does not wish to participate in a

Whole Project Award. An Interim Client & Design Award is available on the way to a Whole Project Award.In this circumstance the Interim Award is superseded once the project is finished and Whole Project Awardcompleted.

The Design-onl y, Construction-onl y and Design & Construction Awards are offered for situations where

the client does not wish to parti cipate in a Whole Project Award or where the individual team members

wish to apply separately f or an award that i s related dir ectly to their own contr ibuti on to a project.

1.2 When to und ertake an assessment

The timing of both the scoping (see below) and the assessment is important to the success of the assessmentand the level of Award achievable. Although it is possible for an Award to be applied for after completion of

the applicant project (what we term a retrospective award), the recommended process will involve:• a decision to apply at an early stage in the project’s development;

• early appointment of the Assessor by the Project Team and of the Verifier by CEEQUAL;

• the scoping-out process to determine whether particular questions do not apply;

• (for this scoping-out) information about contamination, results of archaeological investigations,ecological assessments etc would have to be available in order to decide whether these issues could be disregarded and the questions scoped out – see Section 4.3 below;

• alternatively a provisional scoping out can be undertaken with the proviso that these issues may needto be re-visited when the results of investigations are available;

• gathering of the necessary supporting evidence and information by the Assessor as the project proceeds;

• Verification at or very soon after completion of the project, or for the Client & Design or Design-

only Award at, or very soon after, the design is completed.

When starting to use CEEQUAL early in a project, many Assessors have found it helpful to ‘plot’ theCEEQUAL questions against their project programme, showing when the questions need to be considered

and when the evidence for each question is likely to become available. These Assessors say that such planning aids greatly the delivery of evidence and of improvements to the project through consideration of

the issues raised by the questions at the right time in the project process.

1.3 Who run s CEEQUAL?

The Scheme is operated through CEEQUAL Ltd, which has a Non-Executive Board and to which CIRIA andCrane Environmental (with its Associates) are contracted to administer the company and Scheme.CEEQUAL Ltd is supported by, amongst others, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Civil EngineeringContractors’ Association and the Association for Consulting and Engineering. CEEQUAL forms a core part


9/142



of the Sustainable Development Strategy and Action Plan for Civil Engineering jointly developed by ICE,CECA, ACE, CIRIA and CPA.

1.4 What is in this Handbo ok?

This CEEQUAL Scheme Description and Assessment Process Handbook explains:

• the purpose of the scheme;

•

why it should be used;• what it covers;

• it’s relationship to environmental impact assessments and environmental management systems;

• how projects are to be assessed using this Manual, including the scoping-out of questions in order tomatch the Scheme to each project being assessed.

The content of the Assessment Manual for Projects is dealt with in Section 7.

Prior to Version 4, this Handbook and the Assessment Manual for Projects were combined in a singledocument. They have been produced as separate documents from Version 4 onwards to allow for easier

updating of this document and in anticipation of the forthcoming Assessment Manual for Term Contracts.

2 Why was CEEQUAL developed? and Why use it?

2.1 Civi l engineering and its environmental and soc ia l con text

Civil engineering shapes and influences the environment in which we live, for the benefit of society and todeliver its expected quality of life. Many civil engineering projects, such as sewerage schemes, wastewatertreatment plants, city metros, land contamination remediation schemes and flood alleviation schemes, as wellas public realm projects such as pedestrianisations, enhancements of public spaces and refurbishment of parks, intrinsically improve environmental quality and human well-being.

Yet civil engineering and public realm projects are still too-often perceived by society to have a damagingeffect on the living environment and there has been for some years now substantial and ever-increasing

pressure to reduce their environmental impact during construction and whole-life performance. Schemes not built to exacting environmental standards, or using environmentally intrusive and damaging construction

processes, risk alienating communities and bringing the whole construction process and industry intodisrepute.

The CEEQUAL scheme seeks to address these issues and to improve the environmental and social

performance of civil engineering and public realm projects by providing an incentive to clients, designers andcontractors to adopt best environmental and social practice, and therefore to deliver more-sustainableconstruction.

2.2 Objec tives of CEEQUAL

The objectives of the CEEQUAL Scheme are:

• to recognise the attainment of good, very good or excellent environmental and social practice in civilengineering and public realm projects;

• to promote improved sustainability performance in project specification, design and construction; and

• to create a climate of environmental awareness and continuous improvement in the industry.

2.3 Why use CEEQUAL?

Promoters of major civil engineering projects are required to undertake a regulatory Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) and consequently to prepare an Environmental Statement (ES), normally at the preliminary or outline design stage. However, this does not extend to smaller projects or to a post-construction evaluation of the environmental quality and performance of the project as actually implemented.The CEEQUAL scheme complements the statutory requirement, by operating during and (for Whole Project,

Construction Only and Design & Build Awards) after design and construction, checking what is actually builtand how it is built, but not (yet) how it is actually operated when complete.


10/142



In essence, CEEQUAL is therefore:

• a tool for Project Teams to assess how well they have dealt with the environmental and many socialissues on their projects;

• a mechanism for having those assessments externally and independently verified and recognitiongained;

• an evidence-based assessment, not an assertion-based assessment;

• a question set that can be used by Project Teams as a checklist to significantly influence thedevelopment of design and/or construction management made as a project progresses from concept

to completion.

In this, CEEQUAL complements and helps to deliver current UK Government sustainable development policy and other initiatives, as well as the ICE-led Sustainable Development Strategy and Action Plan forCivil Engineering. These tie in with CEEQUAL in that they set a framework by which to deliver improvedsustainability performance on individual civil engineering and public realm projects. Sustainability ActionPlans are being used to assist in procurement and set goals at the outset of the project, while CEEQUALmeasures performance in design and during project construction, and rewards excellence. In this context, it isimportant that the Office of Government Commerce’s Common and Minimum Standards list CEEQUAL

alongside BREEAM and DREAM as the assessment tool for civil engineering projects.

Applicants for Awards report a range of benefits from having their project assessed under CEEQUAL.• Reputation-building and good PR – including delivery of the applicant’s environmental,

sustainability and/or corporate social responsibility policies.

• Enhanced team spirit – developing a positive “we must score well here” attitude and rewardingteams that have gone the extra mile.

• Demonstrating commitment to the environmental agenda – to clients, within the team and theorganisations involved, and to the industry as a whole.

• Improvements to projects and best practice – including whole-life costing, waste minimisation,resource efficiency (materials, water, energy), and reducing complaints and environmental incidents.

One CEEQUAL user has reported that actions prompted by the CEEQUAL questions resulted in savings ofover three times the CEEQUAL fee just part-way through the project.

The Interim Award on the way to a Whole Project Award allows public recognition of the Client and DesignTeam early in the project (especially useful when the construction period is long), rewards the efforts of the

team up to that point in the project, and can provide a ‘target’ for the project delivery team to aim for, as wellas pointers to the action the delivery team could undertake to achieve a high score.

3 Relationship between CEEQUAL and EIAs and EMSs, andits use as a checklist

The CEEQUAL scheme complements any statutory requirement or voluntary decision to undertake an

Environmental Impact Assessment or prepare an Environmental Statement or Environmental Commentary.The Whole Project Award and Design & Build Award operate during design and construction, checking whatis actually built and how it is built.

CEEQUAL does not assess the environmental need for the project nor its social acceptability, but supportsclients, designers and contractors in dealing positively with environmental quality and associated socialissues relevant to the project, and helps to integrate such thinking into the design and construction processes.This integration includes issues such as protection of the surrounding natural environment, mitigationmeasures, landscape design, nature and source of construction materials, use of recycled materials, energyconsumption, and environmental management of the civil engineering or public realm project site. The

CEEQUAL question set can thus be used to influence the issues that are addressed in regulatoryEnvironmental Impact Assessments or less-formal environmental commentaries on project proposals.

CEEQUAL can also be used to demonstrate that actions proposed or recommended in an EnvironmentalStatement or environmental commentary have actually been delivered on the project.


11/142



An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a mechanism for managing the environmental impacts andopportunities of a business, development project or operational process. Its complexity and scope aredependent on:

• the extent of environmental risk and opportunity associated with the situation the system is used tomanage; and

• its importance to the organisation with responsibility for that risk or opportunity.

In addition to being an awards scheme, CEEQUAL can be used at any point throughout a project’s durationas a checklist, either as part of the specification for delivery of high environmental quality, and/or to developan EMS. For example:

• clients may use CEEQUAL to set standards and uphold the prescribed environmental quality throughthe design and construction processes;

• designers may use it as a tool to aid decision-making on environmental issues and as a differentiatorof their services;

• contractors may use it to fulfil their obligation to deliver the permanent works to the requiredenvironmental quality or to fulfil their desire to enhance standards, creating differentiation for theirservices.

Experience with the Scheme so far suggests that the ideal point for CEEQUAL to be used in these ways is at

the outset of the project, led by the client for the project. A full project environmental plan, with targets setfor each phase of the project, sets the scene for the supply chain to respond. Such a comprehensive project

environmental management plan can only be set in motion by the client. It signals the client’s intent todeliver a project with defined environmental standards. It provides a framework for managing this intentionand carrying out reviews of its success. It sets out the levels of engagement expected of each party. In thiscase, CEEQUAL would provide partly a specification for the project’s environmental management processesand, partly, a checklist for environmental issues that the Project Plan should cover.

Please note that, while CEEQUAL standards are expected to be used as a benchmark against which targetstandards of contract performance can be set and assessed, achievement of a CEEQUAL score or Awardlevel cannot be made a contract condition in publicly procured contracts and, in the view of the team that

developed the CEEQUAL Scheme, should not be made a contract condition or used as a financial

bonus/penalty measure in private contracts. In either case, however, the Scheme can and may be used inspecifications, for example ‘the project should seek to achieve a CEEQUAL Very Good or Excellentstandard’.

4 How projects are required to be assessed

4.1 Introduction

As indicated in Section 1, the CEEQUAL Award Scheme is based on a self-assessment carried out by atrained CEEQUAL Assessor that is then externally and independently verified by a CEEQUAL-appointedVerifier. The Assessor can be a member of the applicant’s staff or sub-contracted by the applicant from the

wide range of organisations now employing CEEQUAL Assessors. The Verifier is independent of theorganisations undertaking the project being assessed and is commissioned by CEEQUAL Ltd and paid forfrom the Award application fee.

The clients, designers and/or contractors applying for an Award will use this Handbook, the AssessmentManual containing the questions, scores and guidance, together with an Online Assessment Tool, to assess

and score the performance of their project. The assessment starts with a scoping process, which is done bythe Assessor in consultation with the Verifier. The applicant(s) then need(s) to gather and provide supportingdocumentary evidence in order to justify each score they award themselves (for example, project records,meeting minutes, photographs, construction record file, or appropriately signed statements).

Exper ience with the scheme so far indicates that the most effective approach is to start coll ecting and

collating the necessary documentation f rom the outset of a project, or at l east as soon as the in tention toapply for a CEEQUAL award is known, as extracting evidence fr om records later wi ll be more time-

consuming and potenti all y dif f icu lt – if possible at all – compared to gathering evidence in parallel wi th


12/142



project progress. The Verifier will use this evidence to rigorously verify that the self-assessment is accurate,and may seek changes – increasing or decreasing the score – before the Award can be given.

As thinking and practice develops on the issues covered by the Scheme, refinements to the assessment process will be made and additional questions may be included or scores for some questions changed,

resulting in further new versions of the Scheme like Version 4 for Projects published with this Handbook. New versions will be issued as changes in practice warrant it and resources at CEEQUAL allow. These will

be clearly labelled, and applicants will be able to choose whether to seek an award under the Scheme currentat the time of their application or the latest Scheme in place at the time when they seek verification.

4.2 The assessment process

The following explanation applies in principle to all Awards, but with some differences when an InterimClient & Design Award is undertaken – those differences are covered in Section 4.4. The overall process issummarised in the diagram below and amplified by the following text.

1. The organisation applying for an award under the CEEQUAL Scheme needs to identify, either on itsstaff or contracted in, an individual who has been or can be trained and certified by CEEQUAL Ltdto act as its Assessor.

The Assessor is responsible for the self-assessment and for gathering the necessary evidence tosupport the scores awarded. Once the first instalment of the fee has been settled, the Assessor will be

sent a copy of this Handbook and the Assessment Manual, and the Project will be set up on theOnline Assessment Tool. The Online Assessment Tool is used to record the whole assessment process including the reasons for scoping questions out, the scores awarded by the Assessor, as wellas the Verifier’s comments and amendments.

I n or der not to miss essenti al guidance and scoping-out restr ictions, it is necessary to use the

Manual f or the assessment, and to use the Onli ne Assessment Tool only to record scores achieved

and evidence provided.


13/142



2. CEEQUAL nominates a Verifier according to a combination of workload, availability, distance to the project and expertise relevant to the project.

3. Once the Verifier has been appointed, the Assessor sets up the scoping-out process, which usuallyinvolves a face-to-face meeting with the Verifier. The purpose of the scoping-out process is to

determine the issues to be assessed and any questions that are irrelevant to the project, which are thenscoped out. The Assessor should come to the meeting with proposals and justification for questions

to be scoped out and be ready to discuss these with the Verifier. In addition to agreeing the scoping-out the Assessor should be prepared to provide sufficient background information to enable theVerifier to become familiar with the project. This meeting is also the Assessor’s opportunity to

discuss any other queries they have with regard to the assessment process. The agreed scoping-out ofquestions is recorded by the Assessor in the Online Assessment Tool. See Section 4.3 for more detailon the scoping stage.

4. The Assessor then works through the questions in the Manual, gathering all necessary supportingevidence and allocating provisional scores based on the evidence available. It is important torecognise that, in this process, two over-riding assessment rules apply:

• if no evidence can be found to match a question, no points can be scored; and

•

partial scores for partial evidence are not possible unless the scoring scale provides for this.For early applicants, the Assessment task could be a continuous process to be carried out in parallelwith project progress or, alternatively, it could be a single concentrated effort if the application ismade towards the end of the design or construction period, or if the project is of modest scale andduration. The Verifier will be available throughout this time for consultation over the telephone or byemail.

5. Once the assessment is complete and the scores have been entered in the Online Assessment Tool,together with a commentary of the supporting evidence, the Verifier will then be notified that the

project is ready for review.

6. The Verifier will:

• review the scores and the listing of supporting evidence;


14/142



• agree a date for a verification visit, which is normally held on site – this should not normally be any later than 4 weeks after the Verifier has received the project for review;

• attend the verification meeting and review a random sample of questions and their associatedevidence and resolve any other queries they may have.

7. At the verification visit the Verifier will meet the Assessor and any other staff that may be helpful tothe verification process. Occasionally, he or she may need to get expert help for specialist subjects,

such as ecology or archaeology. Any site visit should be used to confirm that the self-assessment has been fair and robust, and is supported by evidence both in writing and on the ground.

8. After the verification visit, the applicant has the opportunity to provide to the Verifier any missingevidence in support of their case. The timescale for this will be agreed at the Verification meeting butshould normally be within two to four weeks.

9. Once the Verifier has completed their review and entered their comments and scores in the OnlineAssessment Tool, the CEEQUAL Technical Manager will be notified that the project is ready forratification. This ratification will usually be completed within three weeks.

A pre-assessment spreadsheet is available to Assessors prior to formally applying for an Award to help gainan indication of the score which could be achieved.

4.3 How the scoping-out works

The scoping-out process, requires the Assessor and Verifier to discuss and decide whether any individualquestions are not applicable or are irrelevant to the project being assessed and therefore should be scoped out.In this process, both the Assessor and the Verifier must be aware of the difference between not applicable (i.e. should be scoped out) and not done or able to be done (i.e. applicable, but no points scored).

For instance, for a Construction-only Award, it may be tempting to scope out questions because measures

asked for were “not in the brief” or “not our responsibility”. The question that should always be asked beforescoping-out any question is whether a measure could have been taken even though it was not specificallyasked for – in essence, is the issue the question addresses relevant to the project or not. For example, a project

to design and construct a flood defence bank will consume land and so be unable to scope out the land usequestions but may use no energy during its lifetime, in which case the energy in use questions can be scoped

out.

For almost all questions, guidance on scoping-out is provided along with examples of situations where theycan be scoped out. However, more than 80 questions out of the total of 208 have been marked as NSO for‘No Scoping Out’, i.e. scoping-out of these particular questions has been ruled out. However, it is alsoacknowledged that, for very small-scale projects, refurbishment projects or unusual situations, scoping-out ofentire sections, including NSO questions, may occasionally be necessary. These situations will need to beestablished as the project progresses and can be discussed individually with the CEEQUAL TechnicalManager.

Once scoping-out has been agreed, scoped-out questions will be flagged as such in the Online AssessmentTool, and the reasons for scoping noted in the commentar y field . The maximum possible score isautomatically adjusted to take account of scoped out questions.

It may be necessary to review the scoped-out questions as the assessment progresses, for example if thescoping-out is undertaken before it is established whether the site has any land contamination. Changes to theinitial scoping agreement can be made, but only in consultation with and agreed by the Verifier.

4.4 Special features of the Interim Client & Design Award assessment process

For a Whole Project Award with an Interim Client & Design Interim Award, the following additional process

steps and guidance need to be adopted.

• There are two verifications, one of an assessment undertaken at an agreed point during the design process (the interim Award), the other as normal for a Whole Project Award, at the end of the

construction stage (the final Award).


15/142



• A usual use of the Interim Award is to assess the contribution to the sustainability of a project by theclient and their overall scheme designers – for example in securing planning and other consent for the project – after which delivery of the project is handed over to a delivery team, often contractor-ledand including other designers. This team would then complete the detailed design as well as theconstruction phase, and would then complete the Whole Project Award Assessment with the Clientand other project team members.

•

At the Scoping-out meeting, the Assessor and Verifier not only agree the scoping-out of irrelevantquestions but also the proportion of the potential design scores that should be available for scoring inthe Interim Award, with the balance being assessed in the second verification at the end of the project. To undertake this design score allocation, an additional scoring column is used to allow thedesign scores to be split between the two Award stages.

• The assessment up to the agreed interim stage, and its verification, is then undertaken in essentiallythe same way as any other assessment.

• After ratification of the Interim Award, the Project is made ready in the Online Assessment Tool bythe Technical Manager for completion of the Whole Project Assessment (final Award).

• Some questions assessed at Interim stage can – or need to be – re-assessed at the final Award stage. Itis primarily for this reason that once the final Whole Project Award has been made, the Interim

Award becomes null and void.

5 How the question scores have been weighted

The 12 sections in the Scheme have been weighted by CEEQUAL, and these weightings are embedded in thescores awarded for each question. The weightings are based on consultation within the CEEQUAL TechnicalAdvisory Group, Assessors and Verifiers, the ICE, and a range of other stakeholder groups and interested parties.

The Weighting Factors used in this version of the Manual are the result of a new weighting exercise carriedout during 2008 and are as follows.

1. Project Management – which covers the need for environmental risk assessments and activeenvironmental management, training, the influence of contractual and procurement processes, deliveringenvironmental and social performance, construction issues, minimising emissions: 10.9%

2. Land Use – which covers design for minimum land-take, legal requirements, flood risk, previous useof the site, land contamination and remediation measures: 7.9%

3. Landscape – which covers covering consideration of landscape issues in design, amenity features,local character, loss and compensation or mitigation of landscape features, implementation andmanagement, and completion and aftercare: 7.4%

4. Ecology & Biodiversity – which covers impacts on sites of high ecological value, protectedspecies, conservation & enhancement, habitat creation measures, monitoring and maintenance: 8.8%

5. The Historic Environment – which covers baseline studies and surveys, conservation andenhancement measures to be taken if features are found, and information and public access: 6.7%

6. Water resources and the Water Environment – which covers control of a project’s impactson, and protection of, the water environment, legal requirements, minimising water usage, andenhancement of the water environment: 8.5%

7. Energy and Carbon – which covers life-cycle energy and carbon analysis, energy and carbonemissions in use, and energy and carbon performance on site, but not embodied energy, which is inSection 8: 9.5%

8. Material Use – which covers minimising environmental impact of materials used, minimisingmaterial use and waste, responsible sourcing of materials including selection of timber, using re-usedand/or recycled material, minimising use and impacts of hazardous materials, durability andmaintenance, and future de-construction or disassembly: 9.4%


16/142



9. Waste Management – which covers design for waste minimisation, legal requirements, waste fromsite preparation, and on-site waste management: 8.4%

10. Transport – which covers location of a project in relation to transport infrastructure, minimisingtraffic impacts of a project, construction transport, and minimising workforce travel: 8.1%

11. Effects on Neighbours – which covers minimising operation and construction-related nuisances,legal requirements, nuisance from construction noise and vibration, and from air and light pollution, and

visual impact, including site tidiness: 7.0%

12. Relations with the Local Community and other Stakeholders – which coverscommunity consultation, community relations programmes and their effectiveness, engagement withrelevant local groups, and human environment, aesthetics and employment: 7.4%

6 Award Grades

There are four grades for all of the types of Awards: ‘Pass’, ‘Good’, Very Good’ and ‘Excellent’. The percentage scores necessary for these grades of award are:

Pass = over 25%Good = over 40% Very good = over 60%Excellent = over 75%.

It should be noted that a 100% score in the CEEQUAL assessment is not possible. There are issues thatconflict with each other, and a high score on one aspect may mean that points will not be scored on otheraspects. For example, refurbishment of an historic bridge may call for materials to be brought a long distanceso that they match the existing, whereas another question rewards the project for minimising the distance thatmajor materials are transported. Applicants and their Assessors have to accept this point; the grade thresholdlevels take this into account.

The CEEQUAL assessment has been designed to reward efforts that go beyond the legal minima, striving for

environmental best practice and “going the extra mile”. Therefore a ‘Pass’ at above 25% suggests that the

project’s environmental performance is approximately 25% of the way from minimum legal compliance tothe pinnacle best practice represented by the highest achievable score.

Apart from Client & Design and Design-only Awards, any project that has been successfully prosecuted for breach of environmental legislation or fails to score positively on any of the legal compliance questions will be referred to a panel of Verifiers for a judgement to be made on the merits of the individual case about themaximum level of score that can be allowed. As a result, such projects may be barred from achieving a‘Good’, ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ award regardless of the score achieved. If prosecution is pending at thedesired time for verification, the assessment and verification will be shelved pending the outcome of the prosecution.

7 Content of the Assessment Manual for Projects and How itworks

7.1 What is in the Assessment Manual for Projects?

The Assessment questions and guidance on how to address them, guidance on scoping out and evidenceguidance are all provided in the Assessment Manuals. At present (August 2010) only the Assessment Manualfor Projects is available (Version 4), for use on the assessment of civil engineering or public realm projectswith a clearly defined project boundary and timescale. Coming in 2011 is a Term Contracts Version, for theassessment and recognition of environmental performance on work such as highway or sewer maintenance orminor works in a geographical or operational area over a number of years.


17/142



The Assessment Manual for Projects contains:

• 12 Sections covering:§ Project Management§ Land Use§ Landscape§ Ecology and Biodiversity

§ The Historic Environment§ Water Resources and the Water Environment§ Energy and Carbon§ Material use§ Waste Management§ Transport§ Effects on Neighbours§ Relations with the Local Community and other Stakeholders

• Each section presents:§ the background to each main issue covered by the questions;§ the assessment questions; and, for each of these:

• an explanation of the question;

• the range of possible scores;

• guidance on how they are to be assessed; and

• examples of evidence that might be acceptable.

7.1 How the Assessment Manual for Projects works

The Assessment Manual for Projects is used for any project assessment – ‘Whole Project’ Client & Design,Design-only and Construction-only. The scoring column is divided into the three project roles or stages –

client, design, construct – as shown below. Depending on the context of the question, the score

• is awarded for the client, designer or contractor undertaking the action sought by the question; or

• is awarded if that action is taken at the early planning & concept stage, during design or duringconstruction, by whoever is deemed by the Project Team to be the appropriate party to do so.

Whilst the Assessment Manual applies to all the different Award types, the Online Assessment Tool isAward-specific. Each Project is set up to only show the questions that apply to the respective Award to beassessed. However, the Assessment Manual must be used to identify the distribution of scores for different project roles or stages, as illustrated below.

Example 1:

Example 2:

Example 3:

Client Design Construct

1 1 1

1

1

Example 1: Some questions apply to all three stages and, in a joint application (Whole Project, Design &Build or Client & Design Awards), a point can be scored for each role or stage of the project where this particular requirement has been fulfilled.

Example 2: Other questions apply only to one or two roles or stages, as other Project Team members mayhave no control over this particular factor or it may be an inappropriate time for the required action to betaken. In this case the respective columns are greyed out. So, in the example given above, only a WholeProject or Client & Design application can achieve a point here. The question is not applicable to a Design-


18/142



only, Construction-only or Design & Build Award (and does not appear in the respective Awards in theOnline Assessment Tool.

Example 3: Other questions refer to an action that can be taken at any stage of the specification, design orconstruction process, and/or by any member of the Project Team, but only once throughout the project.Therefore the point for fulfilling this requirement can only be given once, even in the case of a jointapplication. It is also possible to gain the point in the Design-only or Construction-only awards, but not if

the client (and/or the designer in the case of the Construction-onl y award) had already undertaken the

action, in wh ich case the question would be scoped out .

Different scores are sometimes awarded for the same action at different stages in the overall project process.This reflects the environmental importance of this action being taken at the different stages of a project.

Please also note that in some questions there are sliding scales of scores for different levels of compliancewith the question, and these may vary for the different types of awards.

In general, the Assessment Manual has been written on the assumption that final assessment and verification

take place at or close to project completion. This means that Assessors for Client & Design, Design-onlyAwards and Interim assessments may need to make appropriate changes to the tense where necessary.

7.3 Key to reading the Assessment Manual questions

The following illustrates how the questions are presented in the Manual.


Questionnumber

(e.g.1.1.2)

Assessment question.

If No, score 0; if Yes score 3.

3 The

Assessor

can fill in

the score

achieved

here* .

Guidance on scoping out is given immediately under each question and is in bold i tali cs.

Additional guidance that is essential or helpful to assessing the question is added below the question itapplies to.

v Finally, this box gives guidance on the kind of evidence that would be considered acceptableor not. They are examples only and should not be considered to be comprehensive lists.

A grey line like the one above indicates the end of one assessment question and all related guidance, and the

beginning of the next question. For the benefit of Assessors and Verifiers using the Manual, it has beendesigned to keep questions and related guidance on a single page.

To save space (and thus paper) the column headings (Client, Design and Construct – referring to the relevant

stage or role at which or by whom the action is to be taken) only appear once on each page and are notrepeated for every question on pages with more than one question.

* This is an optional stage and of cour se uses up a copy of the Manual f or each Assessment. The formal r ecordi ng of

scores shoul d take place in the Onl ine Assessment Tool.

7.4 Sample Questions from the Assessment Manual for Projects, to illustrate thescoring options

The following three Questions extracted from the Assessment Manual for Projects illustrate the three maintypes of scoring used – Yes-No, increasing scores for progress along the path of Plan, Implement Monitor,Revise, and sliding scales of achievement, for example in delivery if percentages of recycled materials inaggregates or other construction materials. They also illustrate the range of guidance provided.


19/142




8.2.3(was8.2.2)

Has an assessment been made at design stage to ensureoptimisation of cut and fill to reduce the quantity of excavatedmaterial to be taken off site?

If No score 0. If Yes score 4

4

Scope out onl y on projects where there is no excavation or in situations where, for example, a structure

such as a tank is completely underground and there are no options on size (e.g. storm tanks).

‘Cut and fill’ is the term used to describe the whole process of profiling of the landform for the project –excavation in some parts, deposition and compaction of excavated and/or imported material in others. The

balancing of these two elements leads to minimisation of the import or export of materials to and from the project. This balancing can be done by computer modelling or other, more-traditional methods.

Clearly this question is most applicable to road and rail schemes, and sometimes to airports and industrialestate development. However, it does need to be considered in any project where there is major excavation.In particular it applies to structures which are semi-buried (e.g. service reservoirs) where there may be scopeto balance cut and fill with how much of the tank is below ground.

v Evidence could be in the form of calculations showing the cut and fill balance and/orcontract drawings with mapped out areas for cut and fill and/or contract drawings with

mapped out areas for cut and fill.


4.2.3(was4.2.2)

If there were Schedule 9 species (Wildlife & Countryside Act1981 or Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 ), injurious weeds,

or other invasive plants or animals present on site, has:

– A method statement (or equivalent) been drawn up and Approved for their control and management? Score 6

– Has it been monitored? Score 5 – And achieved? Score a further 5

If No to all, score 0

6 10

In respect of Schedule 9 plants, it may not be possible to be sure that any measures to eradicate the plantshave been wholly successful, at least not for some time after the project is completed. Therefore the evidenceto look for is whether or not all the actions that were set out in the method statement have been carried out. If they have, the control of the plants should also have been achieved. So ‘achievement’ must be assessedappropriately up to the point of assessment, not against a prediction of what is anticipated to be achieved in

the long term. Constraints maps as a record of areas treated can also be a useful tool to judge whether theobjectives of invasive species control has been or is being achieved.

Some other species of plants including those covered by the Weeds Act may be considered a pest if theycause problems to third parties. For example, common ragwort Senecio jacobaea is a native plant that is poisonous to grazing animals, but which is of value in terms of biodiversity, not least because it is a host plant for the larvae of a UK BAP species the cinnabar moth. Such species should only be considered underthis section if identified as a specific problem in regard to the site in question and its neighbours.

Some introduced animal species are invasive as a result of reproductive or competitive advantage, such asSignal Crayfish or Mitten Crabs. Method statements are required to prevent the spread of these species toareas where they are not already present. Note also that some species of animal are also called pest species,

for example brown rat and feral pigeon. However, the occurrence of these species is not usually increased bycivil engineering projects, and they are more a health & safety hazard for the workers than of strictly


20/142



environmental concern. Their control is more closely related to good housekeeping and hence they are notdealt with here.

Guidance on the management of invasive species is available in CIRIA Publication C679 Invasive Speciesmanagement for infrastructure managers and the construction industry, 2008.

Note that ‘achievement’ must be assessed appropriately up to the point of assessment, not against a

prediction of what is anticipated to be achieved in the long term.

v Evidence should be in the form of method statements or other appropriate managementcontrol. Monitoring and achievement should be evidenced by documentation that

demonstrates that the method statements have been adhered to.


8.5.2(was8.4.2)

NSO

What percentage by volume of materials (excluding bulk fill andsub-base) for use in the permanent works has been specified tobe made from reclaimed or recycled material, whether reclaimedfrom the site or elsewhere?

Under 5%, score 05% to


21/142



• identifying the core environmental issues to be covered, and how performance beyond legal and industryminimum standards can be assessed and credited;

• developing sets of scores and a methodology for assessment;

• trialling of the draft scheme on real projects by the Project Partners;

• producing a business plan for the subsequent operation of CEEQUAL;

• documenting and presenting the proposed scheme to the construction industry and its clients.

The second phase of the development project – from Feasibility to Implementation – started in May 2002,

and saw the scheme through further trials and the first set of assessments undertaken in the Spring andSummer of 2003 using Version 1 of the Scheme. These first eight awards were presented in June andSeptember 2003.

Technical development of the Scheme

In the development of CEEQUAL, account was taken of the substantial body of research and experiencerelating to environmental issues on construction projects, environmental management of design andconstruction, and the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), anaward scheme that has achieved a voluntary improvement in the environmental specification, constructionand performance of buildings. However, unlike the BREEAM scheme for buildings, where there are specificschemes for different types of building, CEEQUAL has been developed to be the assessment framework

appropriate to any civil engineering project, such as roads and railways, airports, coast and river works,water supply and wastewater treatment, power stations, retail and business parks, as well as public realm

projects such as street environment improvement projects, park improvements and landscaping projects.

In parallel with this, the future management of CEEQUAL as a self-sustaining business operation was

arranged and a third version of the scheme produced. The participating Project Partners steered theDevelopment Project through a Project Advisory Group to develop and test the scheme details. Widerindustry consultation was also invited, so that the evolving system of scores, assessment, trial applicationsand the operational business plan were open for industry comment and contribution.

Since full operation of the Scheme was established, updating and further development of the Scheme has been a high priority. An update – Version 3.1 – was published in summer 2007. Version 4, with additionaland revised questions, reviewed weightings and re-scored questions, was published in December 2008. Afurther update – Version 4.1 – was published in August 2010.

Who was involved in the Development Project?

The participating organisations were (Project Partners are indicated by an asterisk):

• Association of Consulting Engineers(now the Association for Consultingand Engineering)*

• AMEC

• Anglian Water

• Arup*

• Atkins Environmental*

• BAA• Babtie (now Jacobs)*

• BRE*

• British Waterways*

• Buro Happold*

• Carillion Construction

• Chartered Institute of Water &Environmental Management*

• Casella Stanger*

• CIRIA*

• Civil Engineering Contractors’Association*

• Confederation of ConstructionClients

• Cornwall County Council*

• Costain*

• Crane Environmental*

• Channel Tunnel Rail Link

• Dean & Dyball Construction Ltd

• Department of the Environment (NI)• Department of Environment,

Transport and the Regions (project

sponsors prior to May 2001)

• Department of Trade & IndustryEnglish Nature (now NaturalEngland)

• Edmund Nuttall Ltd (now BAM Nuttall)

• Environment Agency

• Faber Maunsell*

• Government Construction Clients’Panel

• Highways Agency

• Institution of Civil Engineers*

• KBR*

• King Environmental*

• Laing (now Laing O’Rourke)

• M4i Sustainability Group (now partof Constructing Excellence)

• Ministry of Defence• Morrison Construction

• NI Assembly

• Network Rail (previously Railtrack)

• Northern Ireland ConstructionService*

• Scottish Environment ProtectionAgency

• Taylor Woodrow*

• Temple Environmental*

• TRL*

• WSP Environmental*.


22/142


23/142


24/142

CEEQUALThe Assessment and Awards Scheme for improvingsustainability in civil engineering and the public realm

Assessment Manual for Projectsin the UK & Ireland

Version 4.1, August 2010

To be read in con junct ion wi th the

Scheme Descr ipt ion and Assessment Process Handboo k

CEEQUAL was originally developed by a team led and part-funded by the Institution of Civil Engineers and

the UK Government. It was initially called The Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment & AwardsScheme. It is operated through CEEQUAL Ltd, which is owned by a group of organisations that were actively

involved in the development of the scheme, including the ICE, ACE, CECA and CIWEM.

www.ceequal.com


25/142


26/142

CEEQUAL Assessment Manual for Projects in UK & Ireland, Version 4.1, August 2010 © CEEQUAL Ltd 1

Contents List

Section & title Page

Introduction to the Assessment Manual for Projects 3

Assessment and Verification Process Summary 5

1. Project Management 7

2. Land Use 18

3. Landscape Issues (includes rural landscape and townscape) 30

4. Ecology & Biodiversity 38

5. The Historic Environment 48

6. Water Resources and the Water Environment 57

7. Energy and Carbon 65

8. Material Use 72

9. Waste Management 83

10. Transport 92

11. Effects on Neighbours 98

12. Relations with the Local Community and other Stakeholders 108


27/142


Glossary

ACE Association for Consulting and Engineering

AGLV Area of Great Landscape Value (localauthority designation)

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BAT Best Available Technology

BATNEEC Best Available Technology Not EntailingExcessive Cost

BPEO Best Practicable Environmental Options

BRE Building Research Establishment

BREEAM BRE Environmental AssessmentMethodology

CATNAP Cheapest Available Technique Narrowly Avoiding Prosecution

C&D Client & Design

C&OD Client & Outline Design Interim Award

CABERNET Concerted Action on Brownfield andEconomic Regeneration Network

CADW The Welsh Assembly Government's historic

environment division.CCS Considerate Constructors Scheme

CCW Countryside Council for Wales

CDM Construction (Design and Management)Regulations

CECA Civil Engineering Contractors’ Association

CL:AIRE Contaminated Land: Application in RealEnvironments

CLEA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment

COSHH Control of Substances Hazardous to HealthRegulations 2002

CPA Construction Products Association

CRoW Countryside and Rights of Way Act

CSA Canadian Standard AssociationsCSR Corporate Social Responsibility

D&B Design & Build

DCLG Department for Communities and LocalGovernment

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs

DETR Department of the Environment, Transportand the Regions (before reorganisation in512001)

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

DREAM Defence Realm Environmental AssessmentMethod

EA Environment Agency (for England & Wales)

EC European CommissionECI Early Contractor Involvement

EH English Heritage

ECJ European Court of Justice

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

EMS Environmental Management System

EPA Environmental Protection Act 1990

ES Environmental Statement

EWC European Waste Catalogue

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

HAZOP Hazard and Operability Studies

HIA Health Impact Assessment

ICE Institution of Civil Engineers

ICRCL Interdepartmental Committee on theRedevelopment of Contaminated Land

IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

IFA Institute of Field Archaeologists (in Ireland)

IHBC Institute of Historic Building Conservation(in Ireland)

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

IT Information Technology

IUCN International Union for Conservation ofNature

LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan

LDF Local Development Framework

LMS Landscape Management Strategy

LNR Local Nature Reserve

LPA Local Planning Authority

LWP Landscape Works Plan

NE Natural England

NGO Non-Governmental OrganisationNIEA Northern Ireland Environment Agency

(formerly the Environment & HeritageService, Northern Ireland)

NNR National Nature Reserve

NRA National Roads Authority (in Ireland)

NSO Question cannot be scoped out

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (nowDCLG)

PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of ForestCertification Schemes

PEMP Project Environmental Management Plan

PIR Passive Infra Red

PFI Private Finance InitiativePPG Planning Policy Guidance

PPS Planning Policy Statement

QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment

RBCL Risk-Based Clean-up Levels

SEMP Site Environmental Management Plan

SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency

SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative

SGV Soil Guideline Values

SiLC Specialist in Land Condition

SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

SMR Sites and Monuments Record

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

SSSI Site of Special Scientific InterestSuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems

SWMP Site Waste Management Plan

TIA Transport Impact Assessment

TPO Tree Preservation Order

TRADA Timber Research and Development Association

UDP Unitary Development Plan

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WCA Wildlife & Countryside Act

WPA Whole Project Award

WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme


28/142


Introduction

This Assessment Manual contains the CEEQUAL assessment questions and guidance for the assessment of

civil engineering or public realm projects located in the UK and Ireland and that have a clearly defined project

boundary and timescale.

It must be read in conjunction with the separately-available CEEQUAL Sch eme Descr ipt ion and

Assessm ent Process Handbo ok , which sets out not only the purpose and origins of CEEQUAL but also the

fundamental principles and process of a CEEQUAL Assessment and its Verification. A summary reminder of

the operation of a CEEQUAL Assessment and its Verification is given for convenience below.

A term contracts* version of the Scheme (*term contracts is the present working title of the new version) is

currently being developed and is anticipated to be available in late 2010/early 2011. That version is aimed at

the assessment and recognition of environmental performance on work such as highway or sewer

maintenance or minor works in a geographical or operational area over a number of years. In addition, an

international version is also to be prepared, starting in the second half of 2010. If you are interested in finding

out more about either of these new versions please email the CEEQUAL Chief Executive at

[email protected].

Throughout the Manual, wherever practicable, references are provided to relevant UK or Irish law and

guidance. Within the UK, there is a wide range of regional variation, some regulations being applicableacross the UK, some only to a single region or country within the UK. In some sections where it has been

practical to do so these regional variations are listed in detail, whereas in others just one has been quoted

with ‘or equivalent’ added. These ‘equivalents’ within the UK and Ireland will be progressively addressed in

future updates (either within the Manual or as separate guidance sheets) and we invite users to write in with

any details that they are able to supply – please write to Ian Nicholson, CEEQUAL Technical Manager at

[email protected].

What is different in Version 4 of the Assessment Manual for Projects?

Version 3.1 of the CEEQUAL Manual was produced in 2007 in response to queries and issues arising during

assessments carried out since the launch of Version 3 in June 2004 and to take account of changes in

practice, guidance and legislation. The explanations and guidance provided for each of the questions were

amended and/or expanded where appropriate, but no questions were added, removed or substantially

changed, nor scores amended.

In the preparation of Version 3.1, it became clear that further amendment of the Scheme would be

appropriate in the light of advancing knowledge, improving practice, the rapid emergence of carbon as a

subject and performance measure, and other matters from the political agenda. Version 4 also addresses

queries and issues that have arisen during assessments carried out since the launch of Version 3 and our

overall experience with the Scheme so far.

The result is Version 4 of the Assessment Manual for Projects, for which the Scheme Managers and the

Technical Advisory Group have:

•

reviewed every section for− changes required by new legislation

− potential improvements driven by improving practice,

− perceived changes in best practice

− the implications for the Scheme of the rapid emergence of carbon as a subject

− whether any questions should be removed, and

− changes needed because of the performance of and our experience with the Scheme;

• added a significant number of new questions, especially in a re-named Section 7, now on Energy

and Carbon;

• reviewed and amended a number of questions;

• substantially revised Section 5, previously called Archaeology and Cultural Heritage and now

called The Historic Environment;

• revised the order of some questions and moved a few from one section to another;• carried out more detailed updating of terminology, legislation and/or references;

• revised the relative weightings of the 12 sections following industry-wide consultation;


29/142


• re-scored the new question set with a total of 2000 points across all 12 sections compared to 1000

points in Version 3, thereby increasing the flexibility in setting the relative importance of the

questions within each of the sections;

• revised the scoring spreadsheets in line with the new questions and scoring, and added

functionality to ease the assessment process.

The designation ‘Version 4 of the Assessment Manual for Projects’ denotes that both the question set and

scores have been changed from Version 3.

Although new questions have been added and others removed, the principles of scoring and scoping-out

established in previous versions of CEEQUAL have been maintained. Assessors who have been using

Version 3 will not have to re-train. A briefing sheet will be issued with this new Manual and a voluntary half-

day briefing workshop will also be held.

Old question numbers are referred to in question boxes where the numbers have been changed, to assist

Assessors and Verifiers already familiar with Version 3.

This Version 4.1 includes a range of updates, clarifications and additional guidance but the question set and

scoring remains as with Version 4, except for Question 4.3.1, where the clarification includes a re-

organisation of the progressive scoring on the question, but within the original maximum score in Version 4.

Award Grades

There are four grades for all of the types of Awards: ‘Pass’, ‘Good’, Very Good’ and ‘Excellent’. The

percentage scores necessary for these grades of Award are:

• Pass = over 25%

• Good = over 40%

• Very good = over 60%

• Excellent = over 75%.

It should be noted that a 100% score in the CEEQUAL assessment is not possible. There are issues that

conflict with each other, and a high score on one aspect may mean that points will not be scored on other

aspects. For example, refurbishment of an historic bridge may call for matching materials to be brought along distance so that they match the existing, whereas another question rewards the project for minimising

the distance that major materials are transported and these may be incompatible. Applicants and their

Assessors have to accept this point; the grade threshold levels take this into account.

The CEEQUAL assessment has been designed to reward efforts that go beyond the legal minima, striving

for best environmental practice and ‘going the extra mile’. Therefore a ‘Pass’ at 25% suggests that the

project’s environmental performance is approximately 25% of the way from minimum legal compliance to the

pinnacle best practice represented by the highest achievable score.

Apart from Client & Design and Design-only Awards, any project that has been successfully prosecuted for

breach of environmental legislation or fails to score positively on any of the legal compliance questions that

have not been scoped out (listed below) will be referred to a panel of Verifiers for a judgement to be made onthe merits of the individual case about the maximum level of score that can be allowed. As a result, such

projects may be barred from achieving a ‘Good’, ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ Award regardless of the score

achieved. If prosecution is pending at the desired time for verification, the assessment and verification will be

shelved pending the outcome of the prosecution.

4.2.1 to 4.2.3 Ecology 9.2.1 to 9.2.5 Waste management5.2.1 Historic environment 9.2.7 Hazardous waste6.2.2 Water pollution 11.2.2 Nuisance abatement.

Technical queries about operation of the Scheme

For technical queries about operation of the Scheme and/or on interpretations of this Manual, contact theScheme Technical Manager, Ian Nicholson, on 01509 320100 or at [email protected].


30/142


Assessment and verification process summary

• Role of Assessorso Take the lead in making the assessment happeno Arrange the scoping and verification meetingso Propose scoping and agree with the Verifier

o Collect the evidence and complete the official CEEQUAL Scoring Spreadsheeto Submit the assessment to the Verifier on the Spreadsheeto Meet the Verifier for the verification meeting

o Respond to the Verifier’s querieso Comply with the CEEQUAL Code of Conduct.

• Role of Verifiers o Agree scoping out with the Assessoro Respond to the Assessor’s querieso Review the completed assessment

§ Check the Spreadsheet – does the evidence match the score?§ Annotate the Spreadsheet where the evidence is not sufficient§ Mark the score down (if felt to be too generous) or up (if scoring felt to be too harsh)§ View selected evidence at the verification meeting§ Adjust scores further as necessary

o Submit the verified assessment Spreadsheet to CEEQUAL for ratification

o Act as an ambassador for CEEQUAL Ltdo Keep up to date with Scheme updateso Comply with the CEEQUAL Code of Conduct.


31/142


• Code of Conduct, requires everyone involved in the scheme to:o act fairly and impartially in undertaking Assessments and/or Verifications;o respect confidentiality and not disclose to third parties any information about the projects

assessed or verified that is unconnected with the CEEQUAL assessment;

o act with integrity;o follow the relevant CEEQUAL procedures;o act with reasonable skill, care and diligence in all matters concerned with the Scheme.

• Reminders of evidence and process requirements

o Make sure the evidence fully meets scoping requirements – read the guidance and donot try to change the rules.

o Do not scope out a NSO question! Talk to your Verifier or CEEQUAL if you are concerned.

o Give reasons for everything

§ Why points have been awarded or deducted§ Why questions have been scoped out§ Provide a full commentary in the spreadsheet.

o No evidence means no points.

o If a question asks for evidence at every stage or role, up to three separate items ofevidence will be required.

o Look for 2 part scores – e.g. implementing and monitoring – where separate evidence maybe needed for each.

o Make sure evidence is appropriate to the nature, scope and scale of the project –

especially important for the management questions.

o Make sure the evidence demonstrates an action took place at the correct stage – forexample a photo showing an outcome when the question asks ‘during design’ may not beacceptable.

o Photographs – make sure they are appropriate, and be clear about their acceptability – is asnapshot acceptable or does the question ask for evidence of continuous performance.

o Process vs outcomes:

§ Evidence of plans§ Evidence of checking/auditing plans – X visited site ½ day per week – but what did X

do?

§ Evidence of performance (percentages).

o Appraisal – Plan – Implement – Monitor

§ Appropriate evidence for the stage in this sequence.§ An EIA is not a plan and a plan does not demonstrate implementation.§ Performance data does not demonstrate a plan.

o Consider the big picture

§ Look at the inter-relationship of questions and evidence.

o If health & safety documents are used for evidence § Make sure they explicitly cover the environmental and/or social matters being

addressed by the question.


32/142


1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

This section considers how environmental and sustainability issues are being incorporated into the overallmanagement of the project. It covers a number of issues ranging from environmental management systemsand training through to how the procurement processes consider environmental performance. CEEQUALassesses what is being built and how it is built. So references to sustainability and social issues throughout theManual refer to the social issues that arise from developing, designing and constructing the project, rather

than the broader issues of social acceptability of the project.

1.1 Basic principles

An environmental management system (EMS) is a mechanism for managing the environmental impacts of a business, development project or operational process. Its complexity and scope are dependent on:

• the extent of environmental risk and opportunity associated with the situation the system is used tomanage;

• its importance to the organisation with responsibility for that risk or opportunity.

CEEQUAL can be used at any point throughout a project’s duration as a checklist, as part of the specification

for delivery of high environmental quality, and/or as a checklist for an EMS.

Experience with the Scheme so far indicates clearly that the ideal start point for the CEEQUAL process to beused in any of these ways is at the outset of the project, led by the client. In that case, CEEQUAL wouldfunction partly as a specification for the project’s environmental management processes and partly as achecklist for environmental and social issues that the Project Plan should cover.

The CEEQUAL scheme complements any statutory requirement or voluntary decision to undertake anEnvironmental Impact Assessment leading to an Environmental Statement, or to prepare an environmentaland/or social impact commentary. It does this by operating during and after design and construction,

checking (except for Interim, Client & Design and Design Only Awards) what is actually built and how it is built. It does not assess the environmental need for the project nor its social acceptability, but supportsclients, designers and contractors in dealing positively with environmental quality and many social issuesrelevant to the project, and helps to integrate such thinking into the design and construction processes. TheCEEQUAL question set can thus be used to influence the issues that are addressed in regulatoryEnvironmental Impact Assessments or less-formal environmental and social impact commentaries on project proposals. CEEQUAL can also be used to demonstrate that actions proposed or recommended in anEnvironmental Statement or environmental commentary have actually been delivered on the project.


1.1.1

NSO

Was there a documented commitment to consider and assessthe environmental aspects for each stage of the project?

If No, score 0. If Yes, score as indicated for each stage.

4 2 2

v Evidence could include a written commitment from the Project’s Directors, a ProjectEnvironmental Policy Statement, objectives & targets, etc. However, a general Company

Environmental Policy Statement is not sufficient, unless it includes a specific commitment to

consider and assess environmental aspects for every project. Additionally, specifying that a

project has applied for a CEEQUAL Award is not considered appropriate evidence.


33/142


34/142


1.2 Environmental management


1.2.1(was

1.1.4)

NSO

Have appropriate mechanisms been put in place to manage theproject’s environmental issues, impacts and opportunities?

If No, score 0. If Yes, score as indicated

2 4 4

It should be stressed that ‘appropriate mechanisms’ does not automatically mean that a full ISO14001-compliant system is required. This may well be appropriate for larger or complex projects but for smaller projects the mechanisms could be as simple as minutes of meetings or communication via sitememorandums. The key thing to demonstrate is that there is a mechanism by which the key actions to betaken are documented along with the responsibilities for undertaking them.

At design stage, ‘appropriate mechanisms’ could be in the form of a Project Environmental ManagementPlan (PEMP) or Action Plan. However, the fact that an EIA was undertaken for the project cannot of itself be

regarded as evidence that mechanisms for the management of issues identified in such a study are being

operated effectively and appropriately.

At construction stage, ‘appropriate mechanisms’ could be in the form of a SEMP or an Integrated SiteManagement Plan that includes coverage and management of environmental issues. Such a plan would coverthe management of all significant environmental aspects of the construction process and would bespecifically drawn up for the relevant site and project. It should address issues such as the management ofsub-contractors’ and suppliers’ environmental performance and training requirements. It should also include procedures for monitoring its implementation and emergency response plans as well as operational control

procedures (for example, waste disposal and spill prevention).

It is very important that designers positively seek information on, and get copies of, agreements,commitments and undertakings made during the consents process and integrate their contents into the design

process. Equally, contractors need to secure and act on similar information from the consents and design processes that relate to the construction stage to ensure that commitments made earlier in the project areadhered to and that inappropriate actions are not taken.

v Evidence could be procedures, flowcharts, checklists and/or documented control measures,and would form part of an EMS if there were one in place. However, an EMS is not a

prerequisite and, in smaller companies or projects, evidence could be minutes of meetings at

which these issues, and the mechanisms to be used, are discussed and agreed. Appropriate

mechanisms could have been put in place without the existence of a full EMS. However, they

do need to be documented in some form and should clearly state the steps to be taken and

any roles and responsibilities to be assumed. They also need to match the level of complexity

of environmental issues relevant to the project.

v The output from an environmental impact assessment that included discussion of how theproject’s environmental issues, impacts and opportunities are to be managed would not be

sufficient evidence to gain the points for this question. Evidence is required that such EIA

outputs have been translated into action.

1.2.2(was1.1.5)

NSO

Have regular* checks been made to ensure that thesemechanisms have been implemented?

If No, score 0. If Yes, score as indicated

2 4 4

On longer-duration and/or larger projects these checks are likely to include formal internal environmentalaudits. However, these may not be appropriate on smaller or shorter duration projects. The important thing to


35/142


demonstrate for this question is that some form of checking has taken place to ensure the mechanisms

referred to in Question 1.2.1 have been implemented and are effective. On smaller projects, this could simply be records of review in weekly meeting minutes, for instance.

*Interpretation of ‘regular’ depends on the size of the project and, in particular, the length of time it is predicted to take. On the majority of projects a review on a three-monthly basis would be acceptable, but thisshould be more frequent on projects or project phases of 6 months or less. If the review period is longer, andthis is still considered acceptable, then it should be justified. In any case, it is essential that the extent of the

reviews should be appropriate to the environmental risks and scale of the project.

v Evidence could be site review meeting minutes, site inspections (checklists etc) or auditreports.


1.2.3(was1.1.6)

NSO

Is there a record of actions to be taken as a result of thesechecks, with individuals identified and timeframes stipulated?

If No, score 0. If Yes, score 2 for each stage

2 2 2

This specifically refers to the checks undertaken in 1.2.2. The record should show how these ‘correctiveactions’ (to use ISO14001 terminology) are going to be undertaken.

v Evidence could include actions shown as being closed off in minutes, close-out of audit non-conformance reports, or other evide

Documents

Ceequal Version 4-1