Sustainability Vetting Guide

The questions that reveal whether a company actually practices sustainability aren't obvious — unless you've spent years inside the work. Because while the vocabulary has become widely distributed, the practice hasn't.

Organized across nine areas of inquiry, this guide gives developers, designers, and organizations a structured framework for evaluating consultants — from the commitments they've signed and reported to, to their technical standards, and organizational signals that indicate whether sustainability is embedded in firm culture (or just carried by one person).

This guide is intended to help you make more informed decisions when hiring consultants, if your organization cares about forging partnerships with mission-aligned partners. It is a living resource. If you have suggested additions or questions about how to interpret an answer, reach out to Sarah Gudeman, PE, LEED Fellow.

Knockout questions are weighted 3× — a score of 0 on any Knockout triggers a flag regardless of total score. Important questions are weighted 2×. Context questions are weighted 1×. Score each question 0 (Weak), 1 (Partial), or 2 (Strong). See the Scoring Reference at the end for full criteria.

01 Industry Commitments & Accountability Commitments

Are you a signatory of the MEP 2040 Commitment? Do you have a published Company Plan, and do you participate in quarterly Forum sessions?
MEP 2040 requires zero operational carbon by 2030 and zero embodied carbon across all MEP systems by 2040. The four commitments are: company plan, annual reporting, request low-GWP refrigerants, request EPDs in specs. A published Company Plan and forum participation distinguish intent from practice.

Knockout

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Are you a signatory of the AIA 2030 Commitment? Do you report annually to the Design Data Exchange (DDx)?
The DDx is the accountability mechanism — signing without annual reporting is performative. Current target (2025–2029): 90% pEUI reduction vs. CBECS 2003 baseline, scaling to 100% carbon neutral by 2030. Industry average: approximately 50%.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Have you adopted the SE 2050 Commitment? (Relevant for structural engineering firms)
SE 2050 asks structural engineers to eliminate embodied carbon in structural systems by 2050. Look for a published Embodied Carbon Action Plan (ECAP) covering education, reporting, reduction, and advocacy — not just a signed pledge.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Are you a signatory of The Climate Pledge? Do you report annual progress in alignment with the Paris Agreement?
The Climate Pledge commits signatories to net-zero carbon across their own operations by 2040, with interim annual reporting. Unlike industry-specific pledges, TCP spans sectors and applies to the firm's full operational footprint.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
What other climate commitments is your firm a signatory of?
Examples: Carbon Leadership Forum, World GBC Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment, Green Commons Peer Networks. Multiple commitments signal organizational culture, not individual effort.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

02 Carbon Disclosure, Reporting & Own-Operations Accountability Transparency

Do you quantify and disclose your Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions?
Scope 1 = direct emissions (vehicles, refrigerant leaks). Scope 2 = purchased energy. Scope 3 = supply chain, travel, purchased goods, and — critically — embodied and operational carbon of buildings the firm designs. Firms tracking only Scope 1 and 2 are reporting a fraction of their actual impact.

Knockout

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Has your firm published an ESG report? What framework guides your methodology — GRI, SASB, TCFD, or equivalent?
A recognized framework structures ESG disclosure in a way that is comparable, auditable, and less susceptible to greenwashing. Look for emissions intensity per FTE or per square foot of work — not just absolute values that grow with firm size.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Have you completed a double materiality assessment — evaluating both your operational impact on ESG issues and their strategic importance to your stakeholders?
Double materiality evaluates from two directions: how external ESG factors affect the firm's business (financial materiality) and how the firm's activities affect the environment and society (impact materiality). Aligned with GRI standards and the EU CSRD framework.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Does your firm have a published Sustainability Action Plan (SAP)? Is it publicly available?
Both the AIA 2030 Commitment and SE 2050 require SAPs within the first six months of signing. A SAP should include measurable targets, a timeline, and named accountability — not just aspirational language.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Has your firm received a third-party ESG rating, such as EcoVadis? What rating tier, and when was it last assessed?
EcoVadis rates organizations across environment, labor/human rights, ethics, and sustainable procurement, placing firms in percentile rankings against peers. A Silver rating (approximately top 25%) or higher reflects verified, third-party-confirmed ESG performance. Ask for the scorecard — it's shareable.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you have a structured carbon offset strategy? How do you sequence offsets relative to direct emissions reductions?
Offsets are a legitimate tool of last resort — after direct reductions have been maximized. Look for: a stated sequencing principle (reduce first, offset last); high-quality credits meeting additionality and permanence criteria; and third-party verification of offset quality.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

03 Refrigerants & Embodied Carbon in MEP Systems Technical Practice

What is your standard practice for refrigerant specification? Are you actively specifying low-GWP refrigerants — A2L class (R-454B, R-32), natural refrigerants, or GWP below 700?
R-410A (GWP 2,088) is no longer available in new residential and light commercial equipment as of January 2025. A leading firm specifies low-GWP proactively, can name current specified refrigerants with GWP values, and can articulate the A2L transition rationale — not just cite compliance.

Knockout

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do your specifications request EPDs for MEP equipment? Can you show us example spec language?
The MEP 2040 Commitment requires EPD requests in project specifications. Asking to see actual language — not a description of intent — is the real test. It separates practice from policy.

Knockout

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you conduct Whole Building Life Cycle Assessments (WBLCAs)? Do you have access to embodied carbon benchmarking data across building types?
WBLCAs quantify embodied carbon across structure, envelope, MEP equipment, and sitework. Firms that conduct them make evidence-based material and system decisions rather than relying on assumptions. Benchmark access enables comparison against peer buildings.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you use the EC3 tool or equivalent for MEP lifecycle analysis?
EC3 is the Carbon Leadership Forum's primary EPD database and analysis platform. A firm engaged with embodied carbon should know and use it actively.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you calculate TEWI or LCCP for refrigerant system selection?
Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) and Lifecycle Climate Performance (LCCP) capture both refrigerant leakage and operational energy — the full climate picture over equipment lifespan, not just nameplate GWP.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

04 Ventilation, Indoor Air Quality & Occupant Health Indoor Environment

What is your standard of practice for ventilation calculations — prescriptive ASHRAE 62.1 compliance, or performance-based optimization?
Leading firms optimize ventilation rates using energy analysis rather than defaulting to prescriptive minimums. Ask about DCV, occupancy input methodology, and whether ventilation is modeled as part of broader energy and IAQ analysis. "We meet code" is not a strong answer.

Knockout

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you design beyond minimum ventilation standards — WELL, Fitwel, RESET Air, or ASHRAE 62.1 Enhanced Ventilation?
Minimum code compliance is the floor. Ask specifically about their approach to high-density, healthcare-adjacent, or vulnerable-population spaces.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
What is your approach to filtration specification? What is your baseline, and when do you escalate to HEPA-level filtration?
MERV-13 has become the widely recommended post-pandemic commercial minimum, though code requirements vary by jurisdiction. Stronger engineers articulate the pressure drop vs. particle capture tradeoff and have a clear decision framework for escalation.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you specify continuous air quality monitoring (CO₂, PM2.5, VOCs, humidity) integrated into building automation systems?
Passive design is insufficient — monitoring enables verification. Ask if they design sensor-to-controls feedback loops, and whether occupants and operators have visibility into real-time air quality data.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
How do you approach IAQ verification post-occupancy?
Design intent and installed performance are different things. Firms serious about IAQ design for verification — flush-out procedures, post-construction testing, ongoing monitoring — not just permit compliance.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

05 Energy Analysis & Performance Verification Data & Evidence

What is your standard practice for energy analysis on your projects? For projects where you provide MEP or building science services only, how do you capture or contribute to whole-building energy performance data?
For integrated design firms: whole-building modeling should begin at schematic design on all projects. For MEP/building science consultants: the question shifts to how they track influence on building performance when they don't control the model — Do they push clients toward modeling? Do they track actual energy outcomes? Are they contributing to AIA 2030 DDx reporting?

Knockout

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
What is your firm's average pEUI reduction across your reported portfolio?
AIA 2030 DDx reporters can pull this data directly. The industry average is approximately 50%. Current target (2025–2029): 90% reduction vs. CBECS 2003 baseline. Ask where they sit and what's driving the gap.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you track post-occupancy energy use? Can you share examples of design intent vs. actual EUI?
The gap between predicted and actual performance is where most buildings fail. Firms that track actuals learn from them. Firms that don't are designing in the dark.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Have you designed projects targeting zero energy or zero carbon, with post-occupancy data to confirm performance?
Zero energy and zero carbon are distinct goals. Ask them to explain the difference and name the verification pathway: PHIUS, LBC Zero Energy, DOE Zero Energy Ready, ASHRAE 228. Post-occupancy utility data is the only real proof.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

06 Credentials, Certification Experience & Organizational Designations Credentials

What is the difference between a legacy LEED AP and a LEED AP with specialty — and which does your team primarily hold?
Legacy LEED APs (pre-2009) reflect a general knowledge baseline. LEED AP+ credentials (BD+C, O+M, ID+C, ND, Homes) require ongoing continuing education. BD+C is by far the most common specialty — O+M and ID+C are significantly rarer, requiring demonstrated experience in existing buildings operations or commercial interiors. Distributed O+M and ID+C holders signal lifecycle expertise.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you have LEED Fellows on staff?
LEED Fellow is the highest individual credential in the green building field — awarded to fewer than 500 professionals worldwide. It requires 10+ years of demonstrated leadership, peer nomination, and a rigorous multi-round portfolio review. It cannot be purchased or fast-tracked.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
What other active credentials does your team hold across commissioning, energy, carbon, health, and smart buildings?
Look for: BCxP, CxA (commissioning); CEM, BEMP, CDP — ASHRAE Certified Decarbonization Professional, HBDP — ASHRAE High-Performance Building Design Professional, HFDP — ASHRAE Healthcare Facility Design Professional (energy/carbon); WELL AP, WELL Faculty (health); Fitwel Ambassador; WiredScore AP, SmartScore AP; CPHC (Passive House). Distribution across the team matters more than total count.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Is your firm a LEED Proven Provider? If so, for which rating system families?
LEED Proven Provider is a GBCI organizational designation requiring a minimum of six certified projects in the same rating system family where the firm served as Project Administrator. Proven Provider firms receive abbreviated GBCI reviews (~10–15 business days vs. the standard 25). Signals a sustained, verifiable track record.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Does your organization hold a WELL Enterprise Provider (WELL EP) designation?
WELL EP is an IWBI organizational designation — distinct from individual WELL AP credentials — awarded to firms delivering WELL solutions at portfolio or enterprise scale. Requires demonstrated multi-project experience, minimum WELL AP threshold on staff, and IWBI Keystone membership.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Are you familiar with LEEDv5? How is your team preparing for changes in prerequisites, credits, and carbon focus?
LEEDv5 significantly expands focus on embodied carbon, resilience, and human health across BD+C, ID+C, and O+M. Firms not actively tracking this will be caught unprepared within two to three years.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

07 Electrification & Decarbonization Strategy Future-Readiness

What is your firm's default position on fossil fuel systems in new construction?
The right answer is all-electric as the documented default, with gas systems requiring a written client request and documented rationale — not the reverse. "We do what the client asks" is not a sustainability position; it is an absence of one.

Knockout

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you have demonstrated experience designing cold-climate heat pump systems as primary heating and cooling?
Cold-climate heat pump design requires different assumptions, equipment selection, backup strategies, and design heating temperatures. Ask for specific project examples and the outdoor design conditions they engineered to.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
How do you approach decarbonization retrofit assessments for existing buildings?
Retrofit decarbonization is the dominant market challenge of the next two decades. Firms with a repeatable, structured methodology — not just case-by-case engineering — are more valuable for portfolio owners.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

08 DEI, Equity & Organizational Values Culture & Values

Does your firm hold a Living Future JUST Label, B Corp certification, or another third-party organizational transparency designation?
The JUST Label requires public disclosure across six categories and 21 indicators scored on a tiered framework. B Corp certification similarly requires verified performance across governance, workers, community, and environment. Either signals the firm has submitted its organizational practices to external scrutiny — not just published a values statement.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you have a formal DEI commitment — and how is it operationalized?
Ask for specifics: designated lead or committee; measurable goals with regular reporting; signed external commitment; internal initiatives with documented outcomes. Statements of intent without structure or measurement are not commitments.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you survey your employees on workplace culture? Do you participate in Best Places to Work or equivalent third-party programs?
Firms that listen to their employees retain them — stable, tenured staff deliver better outcomes on complex projects. Ask whether employee feedback actually changes firm policy, not just informs it.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
What is your firm's ownership structure?
Employee-owned firms (ESOPs, partnerships, cooperatives) tend to have lower turnover, stronger alignment between stated values and individual behavior, and deeper institutional memory. Ownership structure reveals incentive alignment in ways stated culture often doesn't.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you have a policy on pro bono or reduced-fee work for community, nonprofit, or under-resourced clients?
Firms with genuine equity commitments extend sustainability expertise beyond their paying client base. This reveals whether values are held selectively or broadly.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

09 Firm Culture & Project Integration Culture

How is sustainability integrated into your QA/QC process? Are there formal checkpoints where energy performance and carbon impact are reviewed before project milestones?
Sustainability should be embedded in standard workflow — not added at the end or triggered by client request. Ask to see a project checklist or quality control document. If they can't produce one, it isn't systematized.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Can you share two or three projects where sustainability constraints drove a design decision that materially changed the outcome?
Generic examples signal sustainability as an add-on. Specific anecdotes with data — EUI before and after, refrigerant GWP, cost delta, commissioning findings — signal genuine integration. Press for numbers.

Important

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Have you pursued formal certification or performance verification for your own office space?
A firm that consults on LEED, Fitwel, ENERGY STAR, or WELL but hasn't applied those standards to its own space is not practicing what it preaches. Ask specifically: Is your office LEED certified? What is its ENERGY STAR score? Has it been Fitwel certified? Benchmarked through Arc PERFORM?

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do you have a supply chain sustainability policy that applies environmental and social standards to your vendors and subconsultants?
Look for: supplier screening criteria that include environmental consciousness and ethical practices; alignment with standards like the RBA Code of Conduct; documented procurement practices. Firms that ignore their supply chain are reporting an incomplete ESG picture.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
What happens when a client declines sustainability recommendations? How do you document and respond to that decision?
How a firm handles pushback reveals whether sustainability is principle or preference. Look for documentation protocols and honest dialogue — not immediate deference to avoid discomfort.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2
Do members of your firm actively participate in standards development, code committees, or technical working groups?
Active participation in USGBC/GBCI technical advisory groups (including LEEDv5 development), ASHRAE technical committees (Standards 90.1, 62.1, or 228), AIA committees such as COTE, ICC energy code development, or Living Future program development signals that a firm is shaping future standards — not merely complying with current ones. Ask which committees, in what role: reviewing and commenting is different from authoring, voting, or chairing.

Context

☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2

Performance Tiers

Any Knockout scored 0 triggers a flag regardless of total score. A flag requires explicit discussion before engagement — it does not automatically disqualify.

All KOs ✓

Minimum threshold to proceed on any project where sustainability is a stated goal.

≥ 96 pts (59%)

Strong — appropriate for LEED, WELL, or performance-based projects.

≥ 137 pts (85%)

Exceptional — peer-level practice; appropriate for LBC, zero carbon, or where sustainability is non-negotiable.

Red Flags in Answers

Citing LEED certification as proof of practice without naming the credits they led
"We comply with code" as the answer to any performance question
Can't name GWP values for the refrigerants they specify, or explain A2L classification
Claims MEP 2040 or AIA 2030 status but no Company Plan, no DDx reporting, no forum participation
Sustainability described as triggered by client request rather than a firm-wide default
Conflating energy efficiency with decarbonization — high-efficiency gas offered as a "sustainability" answer
No post-occupancy data, or unwillingness to discuss predicted vs. actual performance gaps
One sustainability champion in a large firm with no organizational infrastructure behind them
ESG report published without a named framework guiding methodology
Carbon offsets leading the conversation before direct reductions have been addressed

Green Signs in Answers

Unprompted mention of embodied carbon alongside operational carbon — understanding they require different strategies
Specific project examples with real EUI numbers and honest discussion of what didn't work
Active credentials distributed across the team, not concentrated in one person
EPD and low-GWP refrigerant spec language they can show immediately
WBLCA experience with access to embodied carbon benchmarking data
Familiarity with LEEDv5 with a concrete transition plan
A clear firm-wide electrification position that doesn't require a client to request it
Active participation in CLF, ASHRAE, MEP 2040 forums, or Living Future working groups
Post-occupancy tracking as standard practice, not an exception
JUST Label, B Corp, EcoVadis Silver or higher, or equivalent third-party ESG transparency
LEED Proven Provider or WELL EP designation — sustained, verified organizational performance
Their own office certified or formally benchmarked — they've been through the process themselves

Scoring Reference

This guide uses a weighted point system. Every question is scored 0–2, multiplied by question weight. The total provides a comparable benchmark across firms — but how you apply the tiers should reflect your project's sustainability ambition.

How Points Work

Type	Weight	Max / Question
Knockout (7 questions)	× 3	6 pts
Important (23 questions)	× 2	4 pts
Context (14 questions)	× 1	2 pts
Maximum Total		163 pts

Score Definitions

StrongSpecific, verifiable, demonstrated with evidence. Can produce documentation on the spot — spec language, reports, post-occupancy data, policy documents. The claim is backed by the artifact.

PartialClaims compliance but the answer is vague, evidence is unavailable in the moment, or the firm is "working toward it." Correct directionally, incomplete in practice.

WeakNo; doesn't know; deflects; or the stated position contradicts the question. Includes "we do what the client asks" for commitment and electrification questions.

Performance Tiers

⚑ FlagAny KO = 0Knockout scored 0 regardless of total. Must be discussed and resolved before engagement on sustainability-integrated work.

Not Aligned< 65 ptsSustainability is not embedded in practice. Appropriate only for projects where sustainability is not a goal.

Developing65–95 ptsCommitments exist but practice is inconsistent. Suitable for low-sustainability-priority projects with active oversight.

Strong96–121 ptsConsistent practice across core areas. Appropriate for LEED, WELL, or performance-based projects.

Leading122–136 ptsAbove-average across technical, organizational, and cultural dimensions. Appropriate for net zero, high-performance, or complex portfolio work.

Exceptional137–162 ptsPeer-level practice. Appropriate for Living Building Challenge, zero carbon, or projects where sustainability is non-negotiable.

Knockout Flag Rules

There are 7 Knockout questions. Any Knockout scored 0 triggers a flag in the live scoreboard — regardless of total score. A flag means the evaluation should pause for an explicit conversation about that gap before engagement proceeds. A flagged firm can still be engaged on non-sustainability-critical work; the flag exists to prevent assumption-driven misalignment on projects where these commitments matter.

A Knockout scored 1 (Partial) does not trigger a flag but should be noted. It typically means the firm is on a credible path but hasn't fully implemented — worth a follow-up conversation, not automatic disqualification.

Knockout Criteria: What 0 / 1 / 2 Means for Each

KO 01 · Section 01

Are you a signatory of the MEP 2040 Commitment? Do you have a published Company Plan and participate in quarterly Forum sessions?

Strong: Signatory with a publicly accessible Company Plan; can show it immediately; active quarterly forum participation; EPD language already in template specs as a result of the commitment.

Partial: Signatory; Company Plan exists but is internal or incomplete; limited forum engagement; recently signed without full implementation underway.

Weak: Not a signatory; or claims to be without ability to verify; or signed but has no Company Plan and no forum participation.

KO 02 · Section 02

Do you quantify and disclose your Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions?

Strong: All three scopes quantified and publicly disclosed using GHG Protocol or equivalent; Scope 3 includes multiple categories beyond business travel (purchased goods/services, employee commuting, upstream leased assets); annual reporting cycle with named framework.

Partial: Scopes 1 and 2 tracked with quantified data; Scope 3 estimated for some categories or tracked but not publicly disclosed; or Scope 3 limited to business travel only.

Weak: Only Scope 1 and/or 2 tracked; no Scope 3 accounting; or no quantified GHG accounting at all.

KO 03 · Section 03

What is your standard practice for refrigerant specification? Are you actively specifying low-GWP refrigerants?

Strong: Updated template specifications default to low-GWP refrigerants on all projects; can show spec language immediately; can name current specified refrigerants with GWP values and articulate the A2L transition rationale; not waiting for client request.

Partial: Specifies low-GWP refrigerants on certification projects or when clients request it; no firm-wide default; can describe the approach but cannot immediately show spec language.

Weak: Defaults to legacy equipment without proactive GWP consideration; unaware of AIM Act implications for their specifications; or describes refrigerant selection as "whatever the equipment comes with."

KO 04 · Section 03

Do your specifications request EPDs for MEP equipment? Can you show us example spec language?

Strong: EPD language in template MEP specifications applied to all projects, not just certification work; can share the actual language on the spot; covers multiple equipment categories (HVAC, electrical, plumbing as appropriate).

Partial: Has included EPD language in some project specifications; can describe what it says but cannot immediately produce template language; applied inconsistently across project types.

Weak: Does not request EPDs; describes intent to but has no spec language; or limits EPD requests only to specific LEED credits.

KO 05 · Section 04

What is your standard of practice for ventilation calculations — prescriptive ASHRAE 62.1 compliance, or performance-based optimization?

Strong: Performance-based optimization is the firm's standard on all project types; uses DCV with clearly defined occupancy input methodology; ventilation interacts with energy modeling; goes beyond ASHRAE 62.1 prescriptive minimums as a default, not an exception.

Partial: Uses performance-based approaches on certification and high-performance projects; defaults to prescriptive compliance on standard work; DCV is applied when specified by the client or required by a certification program.

Weak: Prescriptive ASHRAE 62.1 compliance is the stated standard; cannot meaningfully distinguish between prescriptive and performance-based approaches; code compliance is the goal.

KO 06 · Section 05

What is your standard practice for energy analysis on your projects?

Strong: For integrated design firms — whole-building modeling begins at schematic design on all projects. For MEP/building science consultants — actively tracks building performance data, reports consistently to AIA 2030 DDx, and can show post-occupancy performance data for completed projects.

Partial: For integrated firms — modeling is standard on certification projects but not all; begins at CDs on standard work. For MEP consultants — DDx reporting is recent or partial; post-occupancy tracking inconsistent.

Weak: Energy modeling only when required by code or client request; for MEP consultants — no systematic tracking of building performance outcomes; cannot provide any post-occupancy energy data.

KO 07 · Section 07

What is your firm's default position on fossil fuel systems in new construction?

Strong: All-electric is the firm's documented default for new construction; can reference a policy or stated position; gas systems require written client request with documented rationale; firm proactively raises electrification in project discussions without waiting to be asked.

Partial: Firm recommends all-electric and does so when given the opportunity; no formal documented policy; gas systems evaluated on client request without requiring formal documentation; doesn't consistently initiate the conversation.

Weak: No stated position; evaluates gas vs. electric based solely on client preference or first cost; describes the choice as "the client decides"; or has not considered a firm position on this.

A Note on Section 06 — Credentials

Credential accumulation correlates with firm age and size. A five-person firm with five years of practice cannot be held to the same credential depth as a 100-person firm with 30 years of green building work. When evaluating Section 06, treat Context-level credential questions as relative benchmarks — ask whether the firm is investing in credentials that match their project scope, not whether they match an absolute count. The distribution of credentials across a team matters more than total numbers: one LEED Fellow carrying all sustainability weight for a 50-person firm is a red flag, not a green one.

How to Vet an Engineering Team on Sustainability

Performance Tiers

Red Flags in Answers

Green Signs in Answers

Scoring Reference

How Points Work

Score Definitions

Performance Tiers

Knockout Flag Rules

Knockout Criteria: What 0 / 1 / 2 Means for Each

A Note on Section 06 — Credentials