Sustainability certification, ESG, carbon accounting and advanced building-performance analysis, integrated into a single technical practice.
OKELIS is a sustainability and building-performance consultancy working across the built environment in Abu Dhabi and the wider GCC.
Our team holds Pearl Qualified Professional and Independent Commissioning Agent appointments and has delivered 25 projects under the Abu Dhabi Estidama Pearl Rating System, across schools, mosques, hospitals, villas, commercial towers, residential buildings and a hyperscale data centre.
Alongside certification we run the technical analysis that supports it: whole-building energy modelling to ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G, daylight simulation, life cycle assessment to EN 15978, life cycle costing to ISO 15686-5, construction waste management and greenhouse gas accounting to the GHG Protocol.
Every recommendation is quantified. Where a target is set we model it, measure it and report against it, using recognised standards and established simulation tools, and we document the assumptions so the result can be checked by a third party.
Most of a building's environmental and financial performance is fixed by decisions taken in the first ten percent of a project. We exist to put reliable evidence in front of those decisions while they can still be changed.
To be the regional consultancy of reference for evidence-based sustainability, where a rating, a target or a disclosure is supported by analysis a third party can reproduce.
To integrate certification, carbon, ESG and building-performance analysis into one technical service, so that clients receive a single, coherent and defensible picture of performance.
Energy use intensity in kWh/m²/yr. Tonnes of CO₂e by scope. Spatial daylight autonomy as a percentage of floor area. Net present cost over a defined study period. Pearl credits awarded. Each is modelled against a stated baseline and reported with its assumptions attached.
Modelled, referenced and auditable. No unsupported claims.
Advice driven by the analysis, not by a product or supplier.
Complex analysis communicated so decision-makers can act on it.
We stay on the project through to certification and operation.
Energy, daylight, carbon, cost and certification are run by the same team on the same model. Findings from one discipline immediately inform the others, with no re-basing and no contradictory reports.
Every target is backed by simulation or measured data, prepared against recognized standards and structured so it survives third-party review by a certification body, auditor or lender.
We use parametric simulation and AI-assisted workflows to evaluate large option sets within the design programme, so that envelope, glazing and plant selections are ranked on modelled results rather than on precedent.
Pearl Qualified Professionals with 25 Estidama projects delivered under PBRS and PVRS, working daily with the Abu Dhabi review process, alongside Al Sa'fat, Barjeel, Mostadam, LEED, BREEAM and WELL.
We assess environmental impact and financial impact together, so the specification that wins is the one that performs across the asset's life, not simply the one with the lowest capital cost.
We remain engaged through construction-stage compliance, contractor coordination, submission and final award. This is the stage at which certifications are most often lost.
Buildings and organizations are not certified, measured, costed and decarbonized in isolation. Each analysis constrains and improves the others. OKELIS runs them as one connected system, so that a change in the façade specification is immediately visible in the energy model, the carbon inventory, the whole-life cost and the certification score.
LEED · BREEAM · Estidama · WELL · Mostadam · Barjeel · Al Sa'fat
Energy · Daylight · GHG inventories · ESG data · Baselines
Simulation · ECM evaluation · LCA · LCC · Scenario testing
Reduction strategy · Net-zero pathway · ESG strategy · Reporting
We take responsibility for the certification outcome, not only for the documentation.
Certification fails at the seams: a credit assumed at concept that the specification cannot support, a construction-stage record nobody collected, a submission built to the wrong reviewer expectation. OKELIS manages the whole path: feasibility, target setting, design-stage compliance, contractor coordination, submission and award.
We advise on the rating system that genuinely suits the asset, its jurisdiction and its commercial objective, then run the credit strategy against the design as it actually develops.
We test the target rating against the brief, budget and site before it is written into the contract, so that the project does not commit to a level it cannot reach, or settle for one it could have exceeded.
Every credit carries an owner, an evidence requirement and a status. The register is reviewed at each design stage, so nothing is discovered missing at submission.
Energy, daylight and water credits are supported by our own models, produced in-house and consistent with the analysis used elsewhere on the project.
Material submittals, procurement records and site practices are reviewed against credit requirements while they can still be corrected.
| Asset types | Commercial, residential, hospitality, education, healthcare, mixed-use |
| Entry point | Concept design. Earlier engagement lowers the cost of compliance |
| Duration | Design stage through final award |
| Interfaces | Architect, MEP, structural, cost consultant, main contractor |
| Evidence base | In-house energy, daylight and water modelling |
Certification body logos are shown subject to review and approval under each organization's trademark and usage requirements prior to publication.
USGBC · International. The default for investor- and tenant-facing commercial assets.
BRE · International. Widely recognized by European investors and funds.
Abu Dhabi. Mandatory minimum ratings apply to most development.
Dubai. Green Building Regulations compliance for new buildings.
Ras Al Khaimah. Emirate-level green building regulatory system.
Saudi Arabia. National rating system for buildings and communities.
IWBI · International. Occupant health, comfort and indoor environment.
We advise on the system that meets both regulatory duty and commercial intent.
ESG performance is only credible when the data behind it can be traced, replicated and audited.
We help organizations move from ad-hoc disclosure to a managed ESG function: a defined reporting boundary, a data architecture that produces the same answer twice, material topics chosen by evidence rather than convention, and KPIs that a board can actually steer by.
Reporting is prepared against recognized frameworks: GRI, TCFD, CDP and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and structured so that assurance, investor due diligence and lender review can be satisfied without rebuilding the dataset.
Energy, emissions, water, waste, materials, biodiversity and climate risk, measured at asset and portfolio level.
Health and safety, workforce, occupant wellbeing, supply chain practice and community impact.
Policy, oversight, disclosure controls, data assurance and accountability for stated targets.
| GRI | Global Reporting Initiative. The most widely adopted standard for multi-stakeholder sustainability reporting. |
| TCFD | Climate-related financial disclosure. Governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets. Increasingly expected by lenders. |
| CDP | Environmental disclosure platform. Climate, water and forests questionnaires scored and published to investors. |
| UN SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals. Mapping of organizational contribution against the seventeen global goals. |
| ISO 14064 | GHG quantification and reporting. The verification-grade basis for the emissions figures behind ESG disclosure. |
Data is gathered manually, assumptions go unrecorded and the boundary shifts between cycles. The result is a report that cannot be assured, cannot be compared year on year, and cannot support a target.
We build the data architecture first. The report is then an output of the system, not an annual reconstruction.
A net-zero commitment is only as sound as the inventory underneath it.
We quantify greenhouse gas emissions for organizations, projects and assets across all three scopes, using recognized methodologies and documented emission factors, so that the baseline withstands scrutiny and the reduction pathway is built on something real.
For buildings we assess both operational carbon, the emissions of running the asset, and embodied carbon, the emissions locked into its materials and construction. Both are needed before a credible reduction strategy can be set.
Emissions from sources the organization owns or controls: fuel combustion in boilers, generators and chillers, company vehicles, and refrigerant losses from HVAC systems.
Typically the smallest share for a property portfolio, but the most directly controllable.
Indirect emissions from purchased electricity, district cooling, steam and heat. Reported on both a location-based and a market-based method where the data supports it.
The primary lever for most buildings, addressed through efficiency and renewable procurement.
All other indirect emissions across fifteen categories: purchased goods and services, capital goods, construction materials, business travel, commuting, waste, tenant energy and end-of-life.
Usually the largest and least understood share. Screening establishes which categories are material.
Every target, every claim and every year-on-year comparison is measured against the baseline. If the boundary is wrong, the factors are undocumented or the data is unverifiable, the whole pathway is unusable, and the correction is visible to everyone who read the first report.
We set the baseline to withstand third-party verification from the outset, and document the recalculation policy for when the organization changes shape.
As operational energy improves, embodied carbon becomes the larger share of a building's lifetime impact.
Life Cycle Assessment quantifies the environmental impact of materials, products and whole buildings across every stage, from extraction, manufacture, transport, construction and use through to replacement and end of life, in accordance with ISO 14040/14044 and EN 15978.
We use it to identify where impact actually concentrates, then test alternative specifications against it. In most buildings a small number of elements carry the majority of embodied carbon, and they are decided early.
An EPD is a verified, standardized statement of a product's environmental impact. We review supplier EPDs for scope, validity and comparability before they are used in an assessment. Declarations are frequently not directly comparable, and substitutions made on the headline figure alone can increase impact.
Operational carbon can be improved later. Embodied carbon is emitted before handover and cannot be recovered.
As grids decarbonize and buildings become more efficient, materials account for a larger proportion of lifetime impact.
LEED, BREEAM and regional systems award credits for whole-building LCA and material transparency.
Embodied carbon is increasingly reported in Scope 3 inventories and requested in investor due diligence.
A life cycle assessment is only useful if it changes a decision. We run it at the point where the structural system, the façade build-up and the primary materials are still open, and we present the result as a comparison between options, not as a single number.
| Concept | Structural system, grid, massing, basement extent. The largest single influence on embodied carbon. |
| Scheme | Façade build-up, glazing ratio, structural efficiency, material family selection. |
| Detail | Concrete mix design, cement replacement, steel recycled content, finishes. |
| Procurement | Supplier EPDs, transport distance, local sourcing, substitution control. |
LCA quantifies the environmental impact of a specification. LCC, overleaf, quantifies its financial impact. OKELIS runs both from the same model, so that the two results can be read against each other rather than argued separately.
Value engineering that only looks at capital cost transfers the saving onto the operator.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis evaluates the full financial consequence of a design decision, covering capital, energy, water, maintenance, replacement, operation and residual value, discounted to present value over a defined study period.
It gives the client an objective basis for choosing between alternatives, and gives the design team a defence for the specification that performs, expressed in the terms the decision is actually made in.
Set to the client's holding period or the asset's design life. A shorter period favours low capital cost.
The client's cost of capital. A higher rate discounts future savings and favours deferral.
Assumed movement in energy, water and labour cost over the period, tested for sensitivity.
Expected service life and replacement cycle of each system, and the residual value at the end.
Set against the client's holding period or the asset's design life, not a default. The period chosen determines which option wins.
Capital, energy, water, maintenance, periodic replacement and disposal, with energy demand taken from the building energy model rather than assumed.
Apply the client's discount rate and escalation assumptions, and state them explicitly. The result is only meaningful alongside them.
Vary energy tariff, discount rate and component life. An option that only wins under one set of assumptions is not a recommendation.
A calibrated energy model turns an argument about the façade into a number.
We build whole-building thermal models to evaluate and optimize energy performance, testing envelope, glazing, shading, HVAC strategy, lighting, controls and renewable generation against the local climate and the building's real operating profile.
The model serves several purposes at once: code and certification compliance, energy conservation measure evaluation, EUI targeting, and the energy demand that feeds the carbon inventory and the life cycle cost analysis.
Demonstrating the required improvement over an ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G or local code baseline.
Producing the energy evidence behind LEED, Estidama, Mostadam and Al Sa'fat credits.
Ranking envelope, glazing, shading and plant options on measured energy and cost impact.
Supplying the energy demand used in the carbon inventory and the life cycle cost model.
Annual energy consumption · Energy Use Intensity · peak demand · end-use breakdown · compliance margin · certification points · carbon and cost inputs.
| Envelope | Insulation levels, thermal bridging, air-tightness, glazing specification, window-to-wall ratio, external shading and orientation response. |
| HVAC | System selection, plant efficiency, part-load behaviour, heat recovery, demand-controlled ventilation, chilled water and district cooling interface. |
| Lighting | Installed power density, daylight-linked dimming, occupancy control and zoning strategy. |
| Controls | Setpoints, schedules, optimum start, night purge, and the gap between designed and operated behaviour. |
| Renewables | Photovoltaic array sizing, self-consumption, solar thermal and on-site generation scenarios. |
In this climate, the daylight strategy and the cooling load are the same decision.
We simulate annual daylight availability across the floor plate to maximize useful natural light while controlling glare and solar gain, reducing lighting energy demand without transferring the load onto the cooling system.
Results are expressed in the metrics that certification bodies and design teams actually use: spatial daylight autonomy, annual sunlight exposure, daylight factor and glare probability, evaluated against the façade options on the table.
Annual daylight availability across the occupied floor plate, hour by hour, against the local sky and sun path.
Glazing ratio, glass specification, external shading geometry and internal control strategy.
Lighting energy, cooling load, plant sizing, occupant comfort and certification credit achievement.
Glazing ratio, glass specification and shading geometry are usually settled on appearance and capital cost, then defended for the rest of the project. We test them against daylight, glare, cooling load and lighting energy together, and present the trade-off as a set of comparable options.
| Glazing ratio | More glass admits more daylight and more heat. The useful range is narrower than most schemes assume, and it is orientation-dependent. |
| Glass specification | Visible light transmittance against solar heat gain coefficient. A high-performance coating can hold daylight while cutting gain. |
| External shading | Geometry tuned to orientation and sun path: horizontal on south, vertical on east and west. The most effective single measure in this climate. |
| Interior control | Blinds, light shelves and daylight-linked dimming. Necessary, but no substitute for getting the façade right. |
A well-daylit floor plate reduces installed lighting hours, which reduces lighting energy and the cooling load that lighting creates. Handled badly, the same daylight arrives as glare and solar gain. Occupants close the blinds, the lights go on, and the cooling system carries both.
Spatial Daylight Autonomy. The share of floor area receiving 300 lux for at least half of occupied hours.
Annual Sunlight Exposure. The share of area receiving excessive direct sun, a proxy for glare risk.
Interior illuminance as a percentage of unobstructed exterior illuminance under an overcast sky.
Daylight Glare Probability. Occupant discomfort risk evaluated from specific view positions.
Each service has its own deliverable, but they are not sequential and they are not independent. The energy model feeds the carbon inventory and the cost analysis. The daylight study changes the façade, which changes both. Certification evidence is a by-product of work already done. The matrix below shows where each discipline is active across a project.
| Service | Concept | Design | Procurement | Construction | Operation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Building Certification | |||||
| Building Energy Modelling | |||||
| Daylighting Assessment | |||||
| Life Cycle Assessment | |||||
| Life Cycle Costing | |||||
| GHG & Carbon Accounting | |||||
| ESG Reporting & Advisory |
The shading study changes the cooling load in the energy model, which changes the operating cost in the LCC and the plant size in the capital cost.
The material comparison is run for carbon and for whole-life cost together, so the substitution is judged on both before it reaches procurement.
The modelled and metered energy demand becomes the Scope 2 inventory, which becomes the disclosed emissions intensity in the ESG report.
Influence over performance is highest at concept and lowest at handover, while the cost of change moves in the opposite direction. Our scope is arranged around that reality.
Sustainability consultants are frequently appointed once the design is fixed, at which point the role reduces to documenting whatever the building already is.
Appointed at concept, the same fee changes the building. We would rather argue about orientation and structural grid than write a compliance report for decisions nobody can revisit.
A hospital, a data-heavy office and a hotel do not fail in the same way. Occupancy pattern, internal gain, ventilation duty and operating hours drive completely different strategies, which is why the analysis is set up per sector rather than per template.
Beyond individual assets, we work with corporate and institutional organizations on portfolio-level GHG inventories, ESG reporting, decarbonization strategy and performance benchmarking across multiple buildings and operations.
Our analysis is prepared against internationally and regionally recognized standards, so that results are comparable, defensible and acceptable to certification bodies, auditors, lenders and regulators.
| GHG Protocol | Corporate accounting and reporting standard for Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions |
| ISO 14064 | Quantification, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions |
| ISO 14040 / 14044 | Life cycle assessment: principles, framework and requirements |
| EN 15978 | Assessment of environmental performance of buildings, calculation method |
| ISO 15686-5 | Buildings and constructed assets: life cycle costing |
| GRI | Global Reporting Initiative sustainability reporting standards |
| TCFD · CDP · UN SDGs | Climate-related disclosure, environmental scoring and global goal alignment |
| ASHRAE 90.1 | Energy standard for buildings, including Appendix G performance rating method |
| ASHRAE 55 | Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy |
| ASHRAE 62.1 | Ventilation and acceptable indoor air quality |
| IES LM-83 | Spatial Daylight Autonomy and Annual Sunlight Exposure methodology |
| International energy codes | Applicable national and emirate-level energy conservation requirements |
| CIBSE guidance | Building services design and performance evaluation references |
Where certification body logos are used in the final published portfolio, the list and its presentation will be reviewed and confirmed against each organization's trademark and usage requirements prior to publication. For review
Delivered in Abu Dhabi under the Estidama Pearl Rating System, in Pearl Qualified Professional and Independent Commissioning Agent roles, with the building performance analysis run in-house alongside.
| Energy modelling | 19 |
| PQP and ICA | 19 |
| Waste management | 4 |
| Life cycle assessment | 2 |
| Daylighting, LCC | 1 |
Project photography, gross floor area and client names to be supplied by OKELIS. Client naming approval required before publication. Awaited
All projects are located in Abu Dhabi and delivered under the Estidama Pearl Rating System, in Pearl Qualified Professional and Independent Commissioning Agent roles, together with the technical scopes carried out alongside them.
| No. | Project | Stage | OKELIS scope | Target rating | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Red Crescent Headquarters | Construction | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 2 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 2 | International Community School | Construction | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 2 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 3 | Noya 2 Jumaa Mosque | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 2 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 4 | Abu Dhabi Equine & Camel Hospital | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 5 | Jamal Al Nuaimi Villa | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PVRS | Completed |
| 6 | Al Suweidi Villa | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PVRS | Completed |
| 7 | Avangard Training Center | Construction | Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 8 | Eagle Hills Broad Project | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 9 | Al Reman Residential Building C48 | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 10 | Al Reman Residential Building C73 | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 11 | Commercial Building C144 | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 12 | Commercial Building C64 | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 13 | Commercial Building C61 | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 14 | Muna Academy | Construction | Daylighting · LCC | Not rated | Completed |
| 15 | Amazon Data Center | Design | PQP · ICA | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 16 | Al Reman Residential Building 868 | Design | PQP · ICA | 1 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 17 | Residential Building C25 | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Ongoing |
| 18 | Eagle Hills Broad Project | Construction | Supervision | 1 Pearl PBRS | Ongoing |
| 19 | Delma Mall Hotel | Construction | Energy modelling | 1 Pearl PBRS | Ongoing |
| 20 | Al Sader 1 School | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling · Waste | 2 Pearl PBRS | Ongoing |
| 21 | Al Sader 2 School | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling · Waste | 2 Pearl PBRS | Ongoing |
| 22 | Al Sader 3 School | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling · Waste | 2 Pearl PBRS | Ongoing |
| 23 | Al Shamkha School | Design | PQP · ICA · Energy modelling · Waste | 2 Pearl PBRS | Ongoing |
| 24 | Al Riyad School RD79 | Construction | Life cycle assessment | 2 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
| 25 | Al Riyad School RD79 | Construction | Life cycle assessment | 2 Pearl PBRS | Completed |
Energy modelling was carried out on 19 of the 25 projects, alongside daylighting, life cycle costing, life cycle assessment and construction waste management. Gross floor area, client name and project photography to be supplied by OKELIS for each entry. Awaited
[ The constraint the project team was working against: a regulatory requirement, a performance target, a programme or budget pressure, a site condition. Two to three sentences. ]
[ What we analysed, what we recommended and what changed as a result. State the method used and the decision it informed. Two to three sentences. ]
Figures shown are illustrative placeholders only. Actual project data, imagery and client approvals to be provided by OKELIS before publication.
Before any modelling, we establish what the project is actually trying to achieve: a regulatory approval, an investor requirement, an operating cost target, a reputational position, or all four. The technical scope follows from that, not from a standard service list.
A defensible starting point: the boundary, the assumptions, the emission factors, the climate file, the operating profile. Documented and agreed at the outset, because every subsequent result is measured against it.
Simulation across the disciplines that apply, covering energy, daylight, carbon and cost, run as a set of comparable options rather than a single scheme. Where the option space is large, parametric and AI-assisted workflows widen the search.
Findings are presented as a decision, not a data dump: what we recommend, what it costs, what it delivers, what it depends on, and what the alternative would have been. Assumptions are stated so the recommendation can be challenged.
Recommendations are tracked through specification, tender, submittal review and construction. A measure that is designed but not procured has delivered nothing, and this is where most performance is lost.
Once the asset is running, measured performance is compared against the model. The gap is investigated, reported, and fed back into the next project. This is what keeps the modelling honest.
Applied to a single building or an entire organization, the sequence is the same.
Establish the standard the asset will be held to.
Quantify the current and predicted performance.
Test options and select on evidence.
Deliver, verify and report the reduction.
Energy, carbon, cost and daylight results all derive from the same geometry and the same assumptions, so they never contradict each other.
Certification, ESG, GHG, LCA, LCC, energy modelling and daylighting, coordinated rather than subcontracted.
Every published figure traces to a model run, a measurement or a documented emission factor, and the assumptions travel with it.
Pearl Qualified Professional and Independent Commissioning Agent roles carried on our own projects, not subcontracted.
For enquiries regarding certification, ESG, carbon accounting, life cycle analysis or building-performance modelling, please contact us.
[ Full registered address ]
OKELIS Engineering Consultancy L.L.C. S.P.C.
[ email address ]
[ website ]