Decide whether a Washington commercial building needs an energy audit, existing-building commissioning, both, or a narrower controls or HVAC scope.
An energy audit and existing-building commissioning answer different owner questions. An audit evaluates energy use and develops potential measures. Commissioning investigates whether equipment, controls, and operating sequences perform as intended. Neither label defines the full scope, and neither automatically includes implementation.
Start with the decision the building team needs to make. The guide below separates four common starting paths, shows what to put in a request, and links to Washington provider research only after the scope is clearer.
These paths can be sequential or combined. Ask each provider to identify the investigation, systems, site work, calculations, testing, deliverables, corrections, and verification included in its written scope.
Choose this path when the owner needs a building-wide view of energy use, a list of potential measures, comparative energy and financial analysis, or a plan for later project development. Confirm the audit depth, site work, assumptions, calculations, and intended use of the report.
Choose this path when the immediate uncertainty is how equipment, controls, schedules, or system interactions operate. Define the systems and symptoms, available trend data, functional testing, issue log, correction responsibility, and verification expected.
Use both when the owner needs a broader opportunity plan and operating problems also need investigation. State which activity comes first, how findings transfer between teams, which recommendations require separate approval, and who verifies completed corrections.
When the affected equipment, controls sequence, reporting task, or planned project is already known, a focused controls, HVAC, benchmarking, design, or implementation engagement may be more direct than a broad audit or commissioning study.
Short answers grounded in public program and federal guidance. The written scope still controls each engagement.
No. An energy audit generally identifies and evaluates energy-saving opportunities. Existing-building commissioning investigates how building systems operate and can include testing, issue tracking, corrections, and verification. The two activities can complement each other.
Useful inputs can include the owner's goals, known operating problems, included systems, controls or trend data, prior reports, staff knowledge, site-access limits, and the desired verification and documentation. Missing information should be identified rather than guessed.
Do not assume that it can. The applicable Washington pathway and current Commerce rules determine which documents and actions are required for a covered building. Confirm the requirement before selecting or combining services.
No. An audit report does not itself implement measures, and commissioning findings do not establish who will make every correction. The proposal should state what is included, what needs separate approval, who performs later work, and whether verification is included.
A reliable energy-use baseline can help frame the building and track performance, but the necessary preparation depends on the engagement. Ask what utility data, Portfolio Manager records, controls trends, drawings, and operating records the provider needs.
This directory is independent and cannot determine what a particular building must do.