Interview scorecard template

Energy Auditor interview scorecard

Evaluate Energy Auditor candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, work that shipped, diagnosis under uncertainty, and working across the org. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check command of ASHRAE Level I to III audit scope, ASHRAE 211 procedures, weather-normalized utility baselining, and tools like eQUEST, EnergyPlus, RETScreen, or IPMVP-based M. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
engineering applied scienceashrae 211blower door testingcem certificationmeasurement and verification
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names audit level scope precisely, explains degree-day normalization, and holds CEM, CEA, or CMVP with modelling work they built themselves. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate cites named audit reports with quantified savings, implemented measures, and post-retrofit verification rather than a list of recommendations only. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Technical depth

35% weight

Check command of ASHRAE Level I to III audit scope, ASHRAE 211 procedures, weather-normalized utility baselining, and tools like eQUEST, EnergyPlus, RETScreen, or IPMVP-based M and V.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains the physics or mechanism behind their work, not just the tooling
  • Names the standards, tolerances, and constraints they designed against
  • Can defend a design decision under follow-up questions
  • Distinguishes what they personally engineered from what the team delivered

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain the fundamentals of their own stated specialism.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows the vocabulary but not the underlying mechanism; struggles under follow-ups.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge for the role; depth thins out on edge cases.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains trade-offs and defends decisions well.

5
Excellent

Names audit level scope precisely, explains degree-day normalization, and holds CEM, CEA, or CMVP with modelling work they built themselves.

02
Evaluation factor

Work that shipped

30% weight

Ask for specific buildings audited: floor area, sector, ECMs recommended, verified kWh or therm savings, simple payback figures, and which measures the owner actually funded.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names specific programmes, parts, or systems that reached production or field use
  • States their own scope inside the project
  • Can give measured outcomes: yield, cycle time, cost, failure rate
  • Explains what went wrong and what they changed

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No delivered work; experience is coursework, lab-only, or purely observational.

2
Needs Improvement

Contributed to projects but cannot say what shipped or what their part was.

3
Satisfactory

Has delivered real work; outcomes described without numbers.

4
Very Good

Names shipped work and their scope, with some measured results.

5
Excellent

Cites named audit reports with quantified savings, implemented measures, and post-retrofit verification rather than a list of recommendations only.

03
Evaluation factor

Diagnosis under uncertainty

20% weight

Probe how they resolve conflicting evidence: blower door and duct blaster results, FLIR imagery, combustion analyzer readings, submetering data, or bills that contradict occupant reports.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a real failure they chased to root cause
  • Shows a method: isolate variables, reproduce, measure, eliminate
  • Distinguishes correlation from cause
  • Says what they ruled out and why, not only what the answer turned out to be

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No diagnostic method; guesses or escalates immediately.

2
Needs Improvement

Trial and error with no structure; cannot explain how they narrowed the cause.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable method on familiar problems; less structured on novel ones.

4
Very Good

Clear systematic approach with a real root-cause story.

5
Excellent

Walks through a puzzling consumption anomaly, the instrument data gathered, and how the true cause (controls, schedule, envelope) was isolated.

04
Evaluation factor

Working across the org

15% weight

Assess how they work with facility engineers, finance staff on payback thresholds, and utility rebate program administrators or contractors bidding the recommended scope.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders without condescension
  • Has negotiated scope, cost, or timeline with manufacturing, product, or suppliers
  • Documents decisions so others can act on them
  • Takes review feedback without defensiveness

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate outside their specialism; dismissive of other functions.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication gaps cause rework; avoids stakeholder contact.

3
Satisfactory

Works adequately with other teams; documentation is thin.

4
Very Good

Communicates clearly across functions; reliable collaborator.

5
Excellent

Describes translating audit findings into capital requests, defending assumptions to CFOs, and shepherding incentive applications through utility review.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Energy Auditor

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    What experience do you have conducting energy audits?

  2. 02

    Do you have experience with residential, commercial or industrial audits?

  3. 03

    Can you explain the process you follow from initial contact to final reporting?

  4. 04

    Can you describe the methodologies you use during your audits?

  5. 05

    What tools and software do you use when performing an audit?

See the complete Energy Auditor question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards