IGBC Consultancy

Understanding IGBC

IGBC provides green-building rating systems for different project types. A project team needs to select the relevant system and organise evidence for the mandatory requirements and credits it intends to pursue. Building type, occupancy, project stage and the boundary of the assessment influence that preparation.

The evidence should connect the proposed measures with drawings, calculations, specifications and implementation records. A design intention, a purchase specification and a record showing what was installed are related but different. Keeping those links clear helps the team answer assessor questions and explain changes during the project.

Who should explore this service?

Developers, owners and project teams considering an IGBC rating or preparing a submission can explore this support. New construction, existing assets and other project categories should be reviewed against their relevant rating system.

Define the activities, locations and products relevant to your enquiry. An existing record or assessment for a different business, site or product should be considered as background information rather than assumed coverage. If several requirements have been received, list them separately so each can be reviewed on its own terms.

Key areas and important distinctions

An IGBC project rating differs from GreenPro product ecolabelling and a GreenCo facility rating. Pre-certification and final certification also represent different stages. Describe the actual status and scope accurately.

Information and documents to prepare

Use the records already held by the business as the starting point. The table explains how to organise a useful preparation file. It does not replace the current checklist issued for a particular scheme, application or assessment.

The preparation and assessment journey

The work should progress from an identified requirement to reviewed evidence and a clear next step. These stages describe a consultancy preparation sequence; the external organisation’s process determines its own application, testing or assessment activities.

1. Discuss the project type, stage and intended rating.

   Use the original requirement and business facts to agree the starting point. Record assumptions as questions rather than treating them as confirmed requirements.

2. Review the applicable mandatory requirements and credit plan.

   Separate what is known from what needs authority, laboratory, assessment-body or competent professional confirmation. This avoids building the preparation around an unsupported route.

3. Create an evidence list and assign document owners.

   Identify document owners and use reviewed versions. A simple evidence index helps the team see both the information available and the gaps that still need action.

4. Organise the submission with clear references and consistent versions.

   Keep preparation tasks connected to actual implementation. Where a technical judgement is needed, identify the competent reviewer instead of treating an administrative check as a technical decision.

5. Coordinate preliminary review comments and final evidence.

   Record the question, owner and response evidence together. If a response changes the scope or an important fact, check the implications for the rest of the submission.

6. Record the awarded scope and applicable follow-up arrangements.

   Review the actual result, not just the fact that a submission was made. Retain its scope, conditions and the next action relevant to the applicant.

Potential benefits of a structured approach

• A coordinated project-evidence plan rather than disconnected files.
• Clearer ownership of calculations and credit submissions.
• Better visibility of changes between design and implementation.
• A more organised response to assessment queries.

A useful improvement is one the business can see in its working information: fewer unexplained differences, clearer ownership of a question, or a complete reference from a statement to its evidence. Discuss those outcomes as preparation goals rather than treating a certificate or acknowledgement as the only measure of useful work.

An illustrative example

A project team plans water-saving measures and efficient lighting. It identifies the drawings and calculations supporting the design, then records the equipment actually purchased and installed. If the design changes, the relevant calculation and credit evidence are updated together. The example illustrates evidence coordination; the rating body determines whether a credit is awarded.

To use this example in your own business, identify the equivalent product, activity or record and ask who confirms each fact. Write down the information missing from the file and the person who can supply it. The example is not a client case study or a prediction of the result for another organisation.

Common issues to resolve before proceeding

• Selecting a checklist without confirming project type and version.
• Submitting design claims without evidence of the implementation required at that stage.
• Assuming registration or pre-certification is the final awarded rating.

A review should record the specific issue, its owner and the evidence needed to resolve it. If information is inconsistent, correct the source with the applicant rather than creating an unsupported explanation. If the question concerns a technical or professional conclusion, refer it to the appropriately competent person.

After a submission or decision

Retain the final submission, implemented-measure records and rating decision. Check the relevant system’s conditions when changes, ongoing reporting or further certification are considered.

Keep the original requirement, reviewed submission, supporting evidence and resulting correspondence together. A later query is easier to address when the team can identify what was stated, which version was used and whether the underlying facts have since changed.

How TenderCert can support your next step

Start with the outcome you need and the evidence you already hold. Bring the exact buyer clause, authority request or assessment enquiry where available, together with a short description of the product, activity or site. This makes the conversation more useful than asking for an unspecified certificate.

TenderCert’s consultancy scope can then identify the preparation and coordination tasks to discuss, the person responsible for each input and the questions for the relevant decision-maker. The applicant should review information and declarations before any external submission. Keep the final reviewed version and the acknowledgement together so later follow-up begins from the same record.

Explore IGBC subservices

Choose the part of the work you want to understand in more detail. Each option opens its own explanation, working steps, evidence checks and enquiry link.

Common questions