We handle the data.
You stay the engineer.

Your client does. We hold it to run the service they are paying for and for nothing else: we do not sell it, we do not aggregate it into anything we publish, and we do not use it as a route to approach your client. You and your client can both export everything at any time, in the formats it went in.

In Malaysia. That was a deliberate choice rather than a default, because a Registered Energy Manager holding a client's consumption history usually has an answer to give on where it sits, and “somewhere in the region” is not one.

You export and you leave. Bills, readings, the module record and the report output all come out in the form they went in, so the practice keeps its working papers whatever happens to the relationship. There is no version of this where your client's compliance history is stranded on our side of a login.

No, and the design goes out of its way not to. Every figure traces back to the document it was keyed from, so a finding you are asked to defend has a source you can open rather than a model output you have to trust. The platform ranks and flags; it never marks anything validated. If you reject a finding it stays rejected, and nothing reaches a submission without your sign-off.

Nothing, when the account is yours. We invoice you and nobody else, and your client gets a seat on their own building at no cost to either of you. Your own side is priced per building, per year; how many client seats each building carries comes with your package, and the figures are worth settling on a call rather than reading off a page.

Then they hold the account and you get a seat on that building at no cost, so a sale arriving from the other direction never leaves you locked out of a building you manage. Separately, a client you have registered with us is yours: we will not approach them.

Key their own bills and readings, see their building's dashboards and filing readiness, and sign off as BPIC in the platform rather than over email. The first of those is the one worth noticing: chasing a client for twelve statements stops being your job, and the keying lands on the desk of the person who already has the documents.

Twelve months of utility statements for one building, which is a single sitting. The portfolio view exists from the first building you stand up and fills in as you add the rest. There is no implementation project, no site visit, and nothing to install before the first screen is worth looking at.

It is structured to GP/ST/No.45/2024 and covers the ten modules of the EE&C report, nine where a premise has no production to divide energy by. Conversion coefficients and classifications are maintained centrally, so a revision updates your figures rather than your spreadsheet.

No. Twelve months of utility statements is enough to stand a building up and to keep it standing. Sub-metering is worth adding later, and it upgrades a saving from an engineering estimate to metered isolation, which is a stronger verification tier. It is an upgrade you time, not a prerequisite we time for you.

It does not, and it should not. The audit is work for a Registered Energy Auditor, and the judgement inside it is yours. What this replaces is the collecting, the keying and the reconciling that currently sit between the audit and the report, plus the twenty-two months afterwards where nobody was watching the building.