The WELL Building Standard, a certification mark of the International WELL Building Institute, does not treat an unsuccessful on-site result as an automatic end to the project's certification attempt. Where a required feature is not achieved after performance verification, the project may take curative action and arrange targeted follow-up testing. A specific precondition can be retested, while an optimisation can be retried where the project still wishes to pursue it. The testing agent may organise retesting when an on-site result does not meet the applicable requirement, and retesting may continue until passing results are obtained. The project bears the cost of that follow-up work.
An unsuccessful result means that the recorded condition did not demonstrate achievement of the relevant feature at that point in the process. It does not by itself establish that every part of the project has failed, nor does it require the entire performance-verification visit to be repeated. The follow-up route can focus on the specific item that did not achieve the required outcome.
The testing agent can report the result to the project team and organise retesting. The project then has an opportunity to investigate the cause, change the relevant building or operational condition and decide whether to proceed with another test. Scheme guidance states that specific items can be addressed and retested and that this applies to both preconditions and optimisations.
The evidence package and the distinction between testing and review are addressed on the neighbouring pages.
Curative action is the project's response to the unmet result. It may involve correcting incomplete work, adjusting an operating arrangement, repairing or replacing an element, revising control settings, improving implementation or resolving another project-specific cause. The appropriate action depends on the feature, the recorded evidence and the conditions that existed during the original test. This page does not reproduce the scheme's technical criteria or prescribe a generic remedy.
The purpose of curative action is to change the condition that produced the unsuccessful result, not merely to repeat the same test in the hope of a different number. A project should understand what changed between attempts and retain a clear record of that change. The scheme owner's guidance requires failed attempts and the corrective action taken by the project team to be noted when passing results are later submitted.
Responsibility for choosing and implementing the remedy remains with the project and its competent advisers. The testing agent can identify that a result did not meet the applicable requirement and can arrange follow-up testing, but the agent should not become the designer of the mitigation used to secure a pass. Current scheme guidance restricts the agent from advising on curative tactics because that would create a conflict with the independent testing role.
A precondition is a required feature within the applicable certification route. If a precondition tested on site is not achieved, the project cannot simply ignore that result and rely on other successful work. The specific precondition must be brought into an acceptable state and retested if the project is to demonstrate that the required feature has been achieved.
The retest should be targeted to the item that remained unmet, following the applicable protocol for that feature. This targeted approach avoids describing performance verification as an all-or-nothing examination in which one unsuccessful result cancels every passing result. Scheme guidance states that projects may address and retest specific feature parts and can proceed once the required preconditions have passing results.
For project governance, an unmet precondition should be treated as a priority decision. The project manager needs to identify the responsible technical party, establish the corrective scope, protect the required operating condition and coordinate the agent's return. The response should be recorded clearly enough for the later review to understand the sequence from unsuccessful attempt through corrective work to passing evidence.
An optimisation has a different place in the project's intended achievement route. Where an optimisation is not achieved, the project may decide to correct the condition and retry it because the feature remains important to the selected scorecard and desired outcome. The project may also need to reconsider how the unsuccessful optimisation affects its wider target, but that strategic choice is separate from the mechanics of retesting.
Retrying an optimisation still requires genuine curative action where the original condition did not meet the applicable requirement. The project should not assume that an optional feature is subject to a lower standard of evidence. If it is pursued, the follow-up test must be conducted and documented through the same controlled performance-verification route.
The distinction is therefore one of project consequence rather than measurement credibility. An unmet precondition leaves a required feature unresolved. An unmet optimisation affects a feature the project elected to pursue. Both may be retested, but the project's decision-making around urgency and scorecard implications may differ.
The scheme permits retesting to continue until passing results are obtained. This does not mean that repeated attempts are invisible. The agent is expected to retain and note the failed attempts and the corrective action taken, even though the formal performance submission is built around passing results.
This approach balances correction with transparency. The project receives an opportunity to improve the condition rather than being permanently judged on the first unsuccessful measurement. At the same time, the testing history remains relevant because it explains why the agent returned, what the project changed and how the final passing result was reached.
Repeated testing should remain technically controlled. Each attempt must follow the applicable method and should not be manipulated through temporary or unrepresentative conditions that do not correspond to the required protocol. The objective is to demonstrate that the corrected project condition now achieves the feature, not simply to generate a favourable isolated reading.
The project bears the cost of follow-up testing. Scheme guidance states that additional testing fees apply where retesting is needed and that the project is responsible for costs associated with the follow-up work. The amount depends on the testing scope and contractual arrangement, so no universal figure can be stated.
Retesting can also affect programme dates. Time may be needed to diagnose the cause, approve corrective work, procure materials, implement changes, restore the required operating condition, schedule the agent and complete any external analysis. A project programme that assumes every test will pass at the first attempt leaves no managed route for correction.
Commercial responsibility should be considered before the visit. Contracts can identify who pays where an unsuccessful result arises from incomplete construction, deficient operation, access failure or another controllable project cause. Those private allocations do not change the scheme's position that the project remains responsible for the follow-up testing cost.
A single pass-or-fail examination gives one opportunity and closes the process after an unsuccessful result. The scheme's curative route works differently. It identifies a gap, permits the project to correct the underlying condition and allows focused retesting until passing evidence is obtained. This makes verification part of an improvement process while preserving the requirement for an externally reviewed passing result.
The route also encourages projects to respond to evidence rather than argue from design intent. A drawing, specification or assurance cannot overturn an on-site result that did not achieve the applicable criterion. The project must change the relevant condition and demonstrate the effect through another controlled test where that feature remains necessary or desired.
Corrective opportunity does not guarantee eventual achievement. The project still needs to identify an effective remedy, implement it properly, fund the follow-up work and obtain a passing result that survives formal review. Curative action offers a route forward, not an exemption from the requirement.
UAE projects may reach performance verification while fit-out close-out, seasonal operating adjustments, tenant mobilisation and facilities handover are still being coordinated. When a result is unsuccessful, the project manager should establish whether the relevant condition is controlled by the main contractor, a specialist, the tenant, the facilities operator or the client. Unclear ownership can delay correction more than the technical work itself.
The project should preserve the original test record, document the investigation and record the completed corrective action. It should then confirm readiness with the testing provider before arranging the follow-up visit. Retesting too early can repeat the same failure and add cost without producing useful evidence.
Senior reporting should distinguish between an unsuccessful initial result and a final feature determination. The accurate position is that the item remains unresolved pending corrective work, retesting and review. This language reflects the scheme's corrective structure without implying that the project has already achieved the feature or that the first result permanently ended the certification route.
An independent resource. WELL is a certification mark of the International WELL Building Institute pbc. No affiliation, endorsement or accreditation.
No. The project may take curative action and retest the specific precondition or retry the optimisation concerned. The scheme allows focused follow-up rather than requiring the whole project to be treated as failed.
Yes. Scheme guidance states that retesting may continue until passing results are obtained. Each attempt should follow the applicable protocol, and the agent should note failed attempts and the corrective action taken.
The project and its competent advisers decide and implement the remedy. The testing agent may report the unmet result and arrange retesting but should not advise on mitigation tactics where that would conflict with the independent testing role.
The project bears the follow-up testing cost. Commercial agreements may allocate that expense among project parties, but the scheme's testing guidance places responsibility for retesting costs on the project.
Both involve correcting an unmet condition and producing new controlled evidence. The difference lies in the feature's role: a precondition is required, while an optimisation is elected as part of the project's intended achievement route. An unresolved precondition cannot simply be replaced by success elsewhere.
This site is an independent information resource. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, accredited by or authorised by the International WELL Building Institute pbc, which owns the WELL certification mark, and it is not a certification body, an assessor, a performance testing provider or a scheme partner. Nothing on this page can certify, assess or award anything under the scheme, and nothing here is a substitute for the scheme's own published documentation. Requirements are summarised factually rather than reproduced; where a numeric threshold is stated it is drawn from documentation the scheme's owner publishes openly, and the specific figure is cited rather than the table it sits in. Certification under the scheme is voluntary and is not required by any authority in the United Arab Emirates.