Alternative
Facility Grid targets operational readiness. Deskely targets contractual completion.
Facility Grid is positioned around commissioning and operational readiness for buildings, giving owners and contractors a shared view of equipment status and testing. On an industrial asset, readiness is a consequence of certification — and certification is what the contract measures.
The short answer
Facility Grid alternative: the verdict
- Best for
- EPC completions with contractual milestones rather than operational readiness
- Last reviewed
Facility Grid is oriented around operational readiness and commissioning for facilities, tracking equipment through checklists to turnover. Deskely is oriented around contractual completion on capital projects: subsystem certificates, category-gated punch and a per-subsystem dossier. The right pick depends on whether your endpoint is an operations-ready facility or a contractually accepted subsystem.
Choose Facility Grid if
- The goal is operational readiness of a building or campus
- Equipment-level checklists match how your team works
- There is no EPC certification hierarchy in the contract
Choose Deskely if
- MC, RFC and RFSU are contractual gates with evidence requirements
- Tags come from EPC registers and P&IDs, not a facility asset list
- Preservation and loop checks must be tracked against live equipment
The problem
Building commissioning and industrial completions are different problems.
Both verify that equipment works before handover. They diverge on what the unit of record is, who signs it, and what the client is contractually owed at the end.
The unit of record differs
Building commissioning is organised around equipment and functional tests. Industrial completions is organised around tags rolled into subsystems, with certificates issued per subsystem.
Gating is contractual, not procedural
On an EPC scope, mechanical completion, ready-for-commissioning and ready-for-start-up are contractual milestones with defined evidence. The system has to refuse a certificate whose prerequisites are unmet.
Punch is categorised, not just tracked
A punch item that is category A blocks a certificate; category B does not. That distinction has to be enforced by the workflow, not by a label someone reads.
The deliverable is a dossier
The handover artefact is a structured, indexed evidence package per subsystem — not a report export. It has to be generated continuously, not assembled in the final months.
What you get
What Deskely is built to do.
A completions system for industrial and energy scopes, where the tag register is the spine and every certificate is derived from signed evidence beneath it.
Tag and subsystem master data
One register, imported from the EPC data, with every record hanging off a tag that belongs to a subsystem.
Learn moreTemplated ITRs executed offline
Inspection and test records completed on tablet in the plant with no signal, synced on reconnect.
Learn moreGated certificates
MCC, RFC and RFSU issued only when the underlying records are signed and blocking punch is closed.
Learn moreCategory-driven punch
A and B categorisation that actually gates the certificate rather than sitting in a status column.
Learn morePreservation on live equipment
Scheduled preservation routines against tags, with overdue exposure visible before it becomes a warranty argument.
Learn moreDrawing and data ingestion
P&IDs and vendor registers parsed into tags so the register is populated from source documents, not typed.
Learn moreHow it runs
Moving without losing history.
- 01
Export from the incumbent
Equipment or tag register, checklist status, issue list and document links.
- 02
Map to tags and subsystems
Records are attached to tags; tags are assigned to the subsystems the certificates will be issued against.
- 03
Attach completed evidence
Signed records from the previous system are carried across as evidence so the audit trail is continuous.
- 04
Cut over by subsystem
New execution moves subsystem by subsystem; the old platform becomes read-only history.
Side by side
Where each one fits.
Different asset classes, different definitions of done.
| Aspect | Facility Grid | Deskely |
|---|---|---|
| Asset class | Buildings and facilities. | Process plant, energy and marine assets. |
| Definition of done | Operational readiness for Day One. | Certified subsystem handover per contract. |
| Record hierarchy | Equipment and test based. | Tag, subsystem and certificate based. |
| Punch model | Issue tracking to closeout. | Categorised punch that gates certification. |
| Field conditions | Connected site working. | Offline-first, built for plant and offshore environments. |
| Handover output | Turnover documentation and dashboards. | Indexed dossier per subsystem with linked evidence. |
What changes
Offline-first
for plant, vessel and offshore work
Contractual
gates rather than readiness dashboards
Tag-level
traceability from record to certificate
Continuous
dossier assembly, not an end-of-job push
Before you shortlist
Estimate what your current process costs
Enter your tag count and record handling time to see the admin hours and cost in play — then book a demo against your own numbers.
FAQ
Questions about facility grid alternative.
Compare
Other alternatives teams evaluate.
Commissioning software vs Excel
Teams whose completions register has outgrown a spreadsheet
CompareCommissioning software vs construction management software
Projects already running a construction platform that cannot certify subsystems
CompareDigital commissioning vs paper checksheets
Field teams still transcribing signed checksheets into a tracker
CompareBluerithm alternative
Industrial and energy scopes certified per subsystem, not per building system
CompareCxAlloy alternative
Teams needing certificate-driven handover rather than issue tracking
CompareCxPlanner alternative
Industrial commissioning where progress must be derived from signed evidence
CompareProcore for commissioning: the alternative
Projects keeping Procore for construction and adding a completions layer
CompareLegacy completions systems
Teams carrying long setup cycles, per-seat licensing and vendor-dependent change
CompareBluerithm vs CxAlloy
Building commissioning teams deciding between the two market leaders
CompareCxAlloy vs Facility Grid
Building and data centre teams weighing two asset-led commissioning platforms
CompareBluerithm vs CxPlanner
Commissioning providers choosing between configurability and a fast start
CompareProcore vs CxAlloy
Teams deciding whether commissioning belongs inside the construction platform
Compare
