WELL pricing

Tristan - I have a con call on Friday with someone from IWBI. I will ask the question about the price adjustment June 30.

As for the justification, the way forward with WELL (in my humble opinion) is two-fold:

1) See where there are already overlaps with LEED project requirements, non-LEED project requirements (OPR). Anything outside of these two categories gets lumped into "WELL Project Costs" - one-time things that need to be done to meet the needs of the WELL standard.

2) Then the ongoing activities, building operations, wellness studies, occupant engagement, PR, etc. all get pushed into a separate bucket that's NOT project related. These costs fall under building maintenance and/or HR-overhead. If the Certification fees are largely (80/20) allocated to this bucket, then the expense is considered a cost of doing business and not a project cost. This seems to be easier for project teams to get behind because it's not affecting their performance during the project itself. If the client company has a Wellness program already in place then this conversation becomes a lot easier.

Assembling the team seems to also be much more important for WELL than it is for LEED. The behavioral adjustments that are needed directly tie to "culture" which is something that CEOs and HR Managers deem as their responsibility to mold and maintain. If WELL doesn't fit with the culture, the project, cost aside, is dead in the water.

It's not a clear path, and it's not inexpensive. But I'm beginning to believe it has staying power.

I agree with her if her business is solely commissioning. But from what I understand, aside from performance verification of certain aspects, there is a lot of work that needs to be done "behind the scenes" as well as in front of the client to make the WELL program work effectively. ---EDIT--- Also, I think as more WELL APs materialize, the IWBI will allow more and more third party verification to happen in the private sector. ---

I'm coming to the understanding that WELL is simply not the same as LEED. It's much more on a human scale.

At a recent panel discussion, hosted by the BSA/AIA and USGBC MA Chapter, one of the most striking comments to me was regarding ongoing occupant interest and interaction with WELL. Occupants in one building were continually poling each other and the sustainability/facility staff on how *they* (collectively) were doing. Issues like air quality, food choice, counting steps, avoiding the elevator, walking to lunch instead of driving, etc. had become integrated into daily culture because WELL brought these issues out into the open. That same occupant population never asked about the fact that the same space is also LEED Certified, nor what that means.

LEED is cool for building nerds, but to the general population it lacks a human touch. I think it's important to do both. Again, the challenge will be rolling the costs into business management overhead as opposed to one-time project budgets.

Hi Brian,

You make some good points.

LEED* is focused on the planet, while WELL is focused on the people.
(*LEED includes an IEQ credit category so it does address the human aspect)

The GBCI is currently in the RFQ process to identify outside entities who can perform the Performance Verification and WELL Assessor roles of WELL certification.

Rolling the costs into business management overhead, rather than one-time project budgets, will be crucial since WELL certifications lapse after 3 years.

To add to this, another offline conversation with someone within the WELL ranks here in Boston stated that as adoption increases, the pricing structure will likely change to reflect that.