Your WELL journey includes two rounds of documentation review: Preliminary and Final. These reviews help to confirm that all feature requirements have been met and ensure the integrity of WELL Certification. Once you have addressed all the reviewer’s comments from the preliminary review and submitted them for final review, you will receive your final documentation review comments within 20-25 business days. The image below shows a sample WELL v2 Certification timeline obtained from the WELL v2 timeline estimator tool. 

Watch this video or read the article below to learn more about the steps required to successfully submit for final review.

Accessing your preliminary review 

After your first round of review, you will receive a message that your preliminary review report with comments is available. Access your review report to see the results of the preliminary review. 

Understanding the structure of your review report 

The top of the report contains a summary, using the following designations:

• The number of precondition points which require updates and/or additions to the documentation

• The number of precondition points which require data collected during onsite performance testing

• In a performance review, this designation will be called Achieved

• The number of optimization points which require updates and/or additions to the documentation

• The number of optimization points which require data collected during onsite performance testing)

• The number of optimization points which require both updates and/or additions to the documentation and data collected during onsite performance testing

• In a performance review, this designation will be called Not Achieved

• The total number of points that the reviewer confirmed to be attempted

• The total number of points per the project team’s selections in their WELL scorecard)

As mentioned above, the following pages of your review report will include a ‘Status’ and a 'Review Comment' for each feature part, as illustrated in the image below.

Explanation of statuses with examples

• For the feature parts that do not require any further action/documentation, the reviewer will mark them as “Anticipated,” as shown in feature L05.1 in the image below.

  In a performance review, this status will be "Achieved."

• For feature parts where the submitted documentation is non-compliant or if additional details are required, the reviewer will mark them as "Pending Documentation." The reviewer will also provide you with guidance in the Review Comment section for you to take further action, as shown in feature T03.1 in the image below.

• For feature parts that require on-site performance testing, the reviewer will mark them as "Pending On-site Assessment," as shown in feature S02.1 in the image below. You are not required to take any further action during the documentation review.

• For feature parts that require both documentation and on-site performance testing as verification, where both updates and/or additions to the submitted documentation and on-site performance testing are needed, the reviewer will mark them as "Pending Documentation, Pending On-site Assessment," as shown in feature N01.2 in the image below.

• For feature parts that require both documentation and on-site performance testing as verification, where the documentation submitted does not require any further action/documentation; however, the on-site performance testing will be required, the reviewer will mark them as "Anticipated, Pending On-Site Assessment," as shown in feature L02.1 in the image below.

  

• For the feature parts where the documentation submitted during final documentation review is not compliant, the reviewer will mark them as "Not Anticipated," as shown in feature W05.1 in the image below.

  In a performance review, this status will be "Not Achieved."

  Achievement of some feature parts is dependent on achievement within another feature part. Read on to learn how these cases appear in review reports.

   

Case #1: a feature part is dependent on another feature part that must pass on-site testing 

Feature L01.1 is an example, where if the project team chooses to pursue option 4, achievement of L01.1 relies on the performance testing results feature L03. In this scenario in the documentation review report, the reviewer will mark feature part L01.1 as "Pending Documentation" and provide a review comment, as shown in the image below.

This feature part may remain "Pending Documentation" in status up through Final Performance Review.

Case #2: a feature part is dependent on another feature part that only requires documentation

Feature A06.1 option 1 is an example, where achievement of this feature part relies on achievement of feature A03.1. In this scenario, the reviewer will mark the feature part as "Anticipated" as long as the dependent part is also "Anticipated," as shown in the image below.

• If the dependent feature part is "Pending Documentation" the reviewer will also mark the associated feature part "Pending Documentation." In this case, the project team should refer to review comments regarding the dependent feature part, as shown in the image below.

Case #3: a feature part requires on-site assessment is dependent on another feature part that requires on-site assessment

Feature A08.2 is an example, where A08.2 requires on-site assessment and is dependent on A08.1 which also requires on-site assessment. In this scenario, the reviewer will mark A08.2 as "Anticipate, Pending On-site Assessment" and provide a review comment indicating that there are on-site requirements for the part itself, and it is dependent on the achievement of the dependent part, as shown in the image below.

Understanding review comments

Review comments may specify the need for drawings, photographs, or additional documentation to ensure the feature part meets compliance. 

Below are a few examples: 

Example 1: Documentation Missing (Provide drawings)

In the example below from the Design Lactation Room feature, the review comments explain that while a drawing was provided, it does not demonstrate that the quantity of lactation rooms meets current and anticipated demand.

To begin with, you can open the scorecard or the digital standard and refer to the feature language to make sure you understand the feature requirement (see image below).

In the image above, you can see that a project needs to meet all of the listed requirements. It is unclear from the drawing provided that there are sufficient lactation rooms to meet demand–the team should provide an updated drawing clearly demonstrating feature compliance.

Example 2: Documentation Missing (Provide On-site Photographs)

For example, the following review comment was provided for the Promote Fruit and Vegetable Visibility feature. It explains that the on-site photographs provided do not confirm compliance with the Commercial Dining Space requirements for the feature.

To respond, you can take and upload photographs at your location that meet the requirements as outlined.

Example 3: Documentation is missing demonstration of implementation

Unless submitting for Precertification, WELL feature achievement is based on the current, active implementation of specific strategies for the project, rather than on having plans to implement those strategies in the future. While some features may make reference to actions taken in the future, this is not universal. Unless clearly stated otherwise in the feature language, feature requirements must be met through current policies in place at the location. For example, the following comment identifies this issue for documentation submitted for the Waste Management Plan.

To respond to this review comment, you would need to confirm that the strategies outlined in the waste management plan are final and currently in place. This can be done by changing the language in the manual to ensure it reads as an actively used document, or by including a supplementary document from the owner confirming it is currently in use.

Resources to help you respond

Here are a few resources and tips to consider in putting together your responses for your final WELL documentation review:

Review the feature requirements for any features marked Pending Documentation

Cross-reference your updated documentation with the feature sections that were highlighted in your preliminary review. Make sure that your updated documents respond to each comment, and that your updates fulfill the requirements of the relevant feature sections as written. 

Consider how many of the features to respond to based on your targeted WELL achievement

Calculate the number of features required to submit the updated documentation. For example, if you only need 5 more features to achieve your targeted level of certification, but you have 12 features listed as Pending Documentation, you may decide to only respond to a smaller set of those features. We always recommend targeting a few features beyond what is required for your targeted milestone. 

Reference the verification tab in the digital standard

Open up the digital standard and navigate to the "verification" tab for the features to which you are responding. The verification tab often provides helpful information about what submitted documentation should cover at minimum.

Review sample documentation if available

Check for any available sample documentation as these documents can be helpful to reference when addressing pended features. To access the sample documentation, go to your project dashboard, click on the Support tab, scroll down to the Documentation Prep section, and open Sample Documentation.

Other challenges

• If you have challenges in reaching the threshold of features needed, you can consider adding new features in your final submission or consider submitting an innovation proposal or an AAP. 
  • Innovations, which may include an already approved innovation or a novel one that you propose. See the Innovations concept for more information.
  • Alternative Adherence Paths (AAPs), which may include an already approved AAP or a novel one that you propose for any of the features. 

Contact us for WELL coaching support if you have questions about your review comments by clicking the ‘Get Help’ button in your ‘Support Tab’. 

Submitting for your final review

The steps to submitting for your final review are as follows:

1. Upload your documentation into your scorecard under the appropriate feature, as you did for your preliminary documentation. Ensure it is all clearly labeled.
2. When all your documents have been uploaded, click on the Reviews tab of your WELL project dashboard and click “+Submit review” button.
3. Choose Final Documentation review as the Review phase from the dropdown menu.

You can expect to receive your final review results in 20-25 business days!