Submission review

About submission review

Review the submission for traceability before sending it for assessment.

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.

For submission review, agree the product, activity, application or record involved and the working output. Focus the preparation on the information needed at this stage, with clear evidence references and an understandable handover for the person continuing the work.

When this support is useful

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.

This subservice can be discussed when the business has reached the relevant stage, received a request for information or identified a gap it cannot resolve from its existing records. Start with the actual request and explain what work has already been completed. That avoids both duplicating earlier preparation and overlooking an unresolved dependency.

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.

The starting information for this work

The task-specific inputs are: Completed templates, supporting files and review comments.

Identify the current version of each input and the person who can confirm it. Keep the original requirement alongside any summary. Where an input has not yet been verified, mark that point clearly so the preparation does not convert an assumption into an application statement.

• Project description, location and intended rating route
• Applicable rating checklist and attempted credits
• Architectural and engineering drawings
• Relevant energy, water or other project calculations
• Material specifications, purchase records and implementation evidence
• Previous submissions, review comments and responses

How the work is organised

1. Check references.

   Begin with the relevant source record and the scope agreed with the applicant. Record the fact being checked and identify what would establish it, rather than relying only on a title or a previous file name.

2. Identify conflicting calculations.

   Compare the related information as a connected set. A change to one attachment can affect a product description, application field or evidence reference elsewhere, so keep those relationships visible.

3. Compare final evidence with design changes.

   Retain the reviewed result and any question that remains open. Identify the next owner and the evidence needed before the applicant treats the work as ready for the next stage.

The steps should be agreed with the business and adapted to the actual record or product. Where a question requires a technical, regulatory or other professional conclusion, the preparation should identify the appropriate reviewer. Administrative organisation and professional assessment remain different responsibilities.

Evidence and consistency checks

Use this wider service context to check whether the task-specific records remain coherent. For example, names, models, locations and reporting periods should be understandable across related files. If they differ for a valid reason, explain the relationship with the applicant and keep the source evidence accessible.

The working output and its handover

A review log and corrected submission index.

A useful handover identifies what was reviewed, the version or date, the evidence references and the outstanding questions. It should also identify the next responsible person. That allows another team member or an external reviewer to continue the work without reconstructing the preparation history from scattered messages.

An organised output is not a substitute for the relevant external decision. Where the next step is a submission, test, assessment or professional review, agree who authorises it and which reviewed information will be used. Keep the acknowledgement or response with the same record.

Why careful preparation matters

• 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.

For this subservice, judge the preparation by how clearly it resolves the task and supports the next decision. An output that still contains unexplained identity or scope differences can create avoidable questions later, even if the folder appears complete. The practical aim is a record that the business can understand and stand behind.

An illustrative working 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.

At the submission review stage, the team would focus on this question: Does each claim point to the correct implemented or stage-appropriate evidence? The evidence for the answer should be recorded in the working output, with any unresolved point assigned to a person rather than silently treated as settled.

Common issues and the final review

• 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.

The task-specific review question is: Does each claim point to the correct implemented or stage-appropriate evidence?

Separate a missing document from an unsupported claim and from a technical question. These need different actions. Obtaining a file may resolve the first; correcting the statement or obtaining competent review may be necessary for the others. Keep those actions visible until the responsible person has reviewed the result.

After this stage is completed

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.

Retain the task output with the source information, reviewed version and relevant correspondence. If the underlying business facts change before the next submission or assessment, check the effect on the prepared material rather than assuming the earlier result still applies.

Discuss your requirement with TenderCert

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.

Common questions