Evaluate Microgrid Engineer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, work that shipped, diagnosis under uncertainty, and working across the org. Technical depth leads at 35%, so probe their command of islanding and reconnection logic, droop versus isochronous control, IEEE 1547 and UL 1741 SA settings, and sizing runs in HOMER. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate explains grid-forming versus grid-following inverter behaviour, cites specific protection settings, and defends generation and storage sizing against real load profiles. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate names commissioned sites with capacity figures, seamless transfer test results, and post-energisation performance data rather than studies that stalled at design.
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
Probe their command of islanding and reconnection logic, droop versus isochronous control, IEEE 1547 and UL 1741 SA settings, and sizing runs in HOMER Pro, ETAP or PSCAD.
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
Explains grid-forming versus grid-following inverter behaviour, cites specific protection settings, and defends generation and storage sizing against real load profiles.
02
Evaluation factor
Work that shipped
30% weight
Ask which microgrids they took from single line diagram to energisation: site size in kW or MW, BESS and genset mix, commissioning tests, and measured resilience hours delivered.
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
Names commissioned sites with capacity figures, seamless transfer test results, and post-energisation performance data rather than studies that stalled at design.
03
Evaluation factor
Diagnosis under uncertainty
20% weight
Test how they chased faults with no clear cause: nuisance trips, DERMS setpoint conflicts, inverter fault codes, Modbus or SCADA comms dropouts, unexpected battery degradation.
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 real anomaly using logs, PQ meter captures and firmware history, isolating the cause and confirming the fix survived repeat cycling.
04
Evaluation factor
Working across the org
15% weight
Look for how they handled utility interconnection queues, AHJ and fire marshal reviews, EPC contractors, and finance teams pressing on PPA or capex assumptions.
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 negotiating interconnection study comments and translating technical constraints into cost and schedule terms utilities, owners and EPCs all accepted.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Microgrid Engineer
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you provide examples of microgrid projects you have led or been closely involved in?
02
Can you describe your experience with microgrid design and implementation?
03
Can you discuss reliability problems you have faced and how you addressed them?
04
What experience do you have with grid-connected compared with islanded operation?
05
What methods do you use for protection and isolation in these systems?
