Raffles Consulting Services
Review ownership, directors, related companies and prior dealings before selecting a vendor for the Energy Efficiency Grant.
An EEG related-vendor conflict can undermine an otherwise sensible energy-efficiency purchase. The applicant should establish who owns and controls the supplier, document known connections and resolve uncertainty before making the declaration in the grant application.
Read the EEG independence wording
The official Energy Efficiency Grant FAQ says a selected vendor should have no relationship, connection, association or dealings with the applicant, its related companies, directors or common shareholders. It also requires the applicant to declare vendor relationships.
The wording extends beyond a simple related-company test. Finance and procurement should gather the facts and ask Enterprise Singapore where a connection is uncertain instead of choosing the answer that allows the purchase to continue.
Identify the actual contracting parties
Record the vendor’s registered entity, UEN, directors, shareholders, trading name and quotation contact. Confirm whether installation, financing, maintenance or invoicing will be handled by another entity. Review each material party, not only the brand on the proposal.
Compare these details with the applicant and its group. Check shared directors, owners, addresses, family links, referrals, employment history and recurring commercial arrangements known to the project team.
Run procurement separately
Independence does not establish value for money or technical suitability. Compare the proposed equipment with the approved EEG equipment list, operating need, expected energy savings, warranty, installation and after-sales support.
Keep relationship review and commercial evaluation as separate records. This makes it clear that a supplier was chosen for a supported, useful solution and that the declaration received its own review.
Escalate difficult examples
Examples needing closer review include a distributor owned by a director’s relative, a supplier using the same shareholder through another company, a former employee’s new business, a related landlord arranging the equipment and an invoice issued by a different group entity.
An arm’s-length quotation or market price does not erase the relationship. Disclose the relevant facts through the official route and retain the response. Do not ask the vendor to decide the applicant’s declaration.
Keep the applicant responsible
The applicant should control Corppass access, submit its own application, pay the relevant costs and understand the claim. Do not hand credentials to a vendor or permit a supplier to upload a declaration on behalf of an uninformed director.
The EEG energy-savings application guide covers the separate evidence needed for baselines and results. Vendor independence, eligible equipment and credible savings are different questions, and every one needs its own support.
Repeat the review when the project changes
Check the relationship again if the vendor, invoice issuer, installer, finance provider or ownership changes. Preserve the approved quotation and compare it with the final contract and invoice. A late substitution should not pass unnoticed through accounts payable.
Where the change affects the application, obtain the required approval before acting. Keep dated communications and do not assume a silence or technical portal limitation authorises the new arrangement.
Sign a concise review record
The record should name the entities checked, sources, connections found, conclusion, reviewer and date. Protect personal data and retain only what is necessary for the business and grant file.
Review the Singapore EEG Base Tier guide for the sustainability context. EEG related-vendor readiness means the company can explain the supplier relationship honestly, the equipment choice commercially and the final transaction from application through claim.
Complete the conflict review before the purchase is urgent. A documented question raised early is manageable; a connection found after payment can be much harder to explain or correct.
Trace the final transaction
At claim preparation, compare the approved supplier, final invoice issuer, payment recipient, delivery order, equipment serial number and installer. Investigate a mismatch before submission. A common brand does not prove that the same legal entity contracted and was paid.
Have accounts payable flag any request to redirect funds. Verify the request through known contacts and repeat the relationship check for the new payee. Preserve bank evidence without passwords or security credentials.
Close the file with a signed confirmation that no undisclosed relationship became known during delivery. This final check protects the accuracy of the original declaration and the claim record.
Connect the review to equipment eligibility
Confirm that the quoted make, model and quantity match the current EEG activity and approved equipment requirements. Check the expected deployment location, sector conditions and application timing. A conflict-free vendor does not make an ineligible product supportable.
Preserve the equipment listing or activity criteria reviewed on the application date. If the supplier changes the model before delivery, pause and check the official route before accepting a substitute.
Keep energy claims factual
Ask for the basis of projected energy savings and identify whether figures come from tested performance, supplier assumptions or the company’s own operating data. Do not repeat an unverified savings percentage as a guaranteed outcome.
After installation, retain commissioning, meter and operating records that fit the equipment. Review actual use and maintenance. The company should be able to assess whether the purchase achieved its business purpose independently of the grant claim.
Use an exception owner
Name one senior employee who decides how relationship questions are escalated. Procurement should not resolve an ambiguity alone when project deadlines or supplier pressure could affect judgement. The owner can pause commitment, request documents and seek clarification.
Maintain a short exception log showing the issue, evidence, question raised, official response and action. Close an item only when the declaration and transaction reflect the resolved facts. This creates continuity if the original project manager leaves before the claim.