What are we to make of ‘equal and approved’. Who is the beneficiary when products get swapped out as part of a ‘value engineering’ exercise. And does the client even know about it?
What does ‘equal and approved actually mean? Here’s an idea from the NBS: ‘use of these terms in the specification means that the contractor can use another brand that it considers equal or equivalent, without having to notify the contract administrator or seek approval. The contractor is constrained by legislative provisions requiring products to be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose where that purpose is known, and so forth.’
And here’s another idea, this time from The Light Review: ‘equal and approved is a mechanism for increasing profit margins for the supplying contractor, with little or no regard for luminaire performance or reliability.’
Choose your definition according to mood, I guess.
There are weaselly intentions here. Look again at that statement from NBS. In my ignorance, I’d always assumed that this was a two-stage process; that someone offered up an ‘equal’ product and someone else ‘approved’ that selection. Now I see that the dark heart of this practice sits in the contractor’s office only. But, surely, the contractor isn’t an innocent by-stander; there is money at stake. So, not an independent judiciary, then.
But there’s even more to it than that – there always is. I’ve never met a client who wants poor lighting, or lighting that falls apart months after installation. Why would anyone want to support such an idea? But let’s talk about that favoured exercise of the client body, Value Engineering – described by Wikipedia as ‘a systematic method to improve the ‘value’ of goods or products or services by using an examination of function. Value, as defined, in the ratio of function to cost.’
You’d think that Value Engineering should work both ways; that the occasional VE exercise might determine that the scheme, as specified, doesn’t meet the client brief and scheme quality (and costs) needs to be raised accordingly. Now – in all my years, I reckon that I’ve faced that situation . . . hardly ever. And when it has happened its because a client has been faced with an electrical contractor scheme that defies all belief (even the belief of an inexperienced client). I’ve taken on the review exercise, improved the specification and increased the budget – to the relief of all concerned, including the contractor who stood to make more money by supplying a more expensive basket of fixtures. But those experiences feel like views through the looking glass. The more usual situation has been the contractor taking one look at my specification and offering to cut the cost by x%. ‘Value’ never enters into the conversation.
Before going any further, let’s look at the legal side of things:
By using the term ‘approved’ – and the assumption has to be that, as the lighting specifier who produced the luminaire specification you’re also approving use of those products, then YOU assume responsibility for those products. By adding ‘equal or approved’ into a specification you shift the matter of final selection (and approval) further along the contract chain, typically to the installation contractor. There may be very good reasons why the lighting specifier doesn’t want to hold the liability for product selection – nothing to do with product appearance and performance, but all to do with where the luminaire is to be installed and possible degrees of protection that may be required in that environment. And, as the lighting specifier, how much do you know about the fire rating of the building, or the structural and servicing arrangements going on behind the ceilings?
So, as the lighting specifier, you may want to avoid any legal minefield, but you WILL know all there is to know about the luminaires that you want to use; what they look like; how they perform; their photometric and electrical data – all those things that the manufacturer has informed you about in the product data sheets. And that means that you can lock down the luminaire specification far more tightly than is often the case. Taking a crude example, if you really feel that you have to specify a 600×600 LED panel with a 3000lm output and 4000K colour temperature – and you leave it at that, then don’t be surprised to find a fixture installed that will be lucky to survive the commissioning.
Here’s another way of specifying that product:
- the product appearance and its physical dimensions
- Compliance with BSEN 12464 and suitability for use in a UGR19 environment (and data viewable upon request)
- 3000lm output, from the luminaire
- LOR to be >75%
- 90% LED lumen maintenance at 60,000 operating hours
- 4000K colour temperature
- Colour deviation to be no greater than 3-MacAdam ellipses
- Controlled via DALI
- Emergency versions required (3-hour operation)
If you are obliged to follow the ‘equal and approved’ route then you also need to ensure that the ‘equal’ hurdle is set as high as possible. Your response to the client brief and your design will already have demonstrated how efficient the proposed scheme will be in use, so you’re able to establish a strong argument when the contractor (inevitably) comes back with an inferior product. And your best friends here will be the manufacturer. You WILL be placing reliance on their published technical data to defend your scheme, so make sure that the manufacturer can support you with their technical paperwork.
The next step: The next battlefront in this never-ending saga of design v. construction is how to make sure that the scheme designer gets sight of any proposed changes before the event. That’s not always easy but this is the crucial process where projects succeed or fail.
.
There is more to a lighting specification than the price tag. Most ‘Equal and Approved’ activity relates simply to cost, with little or no regard for luminaire performance, longevity or robustness in fabrication. There is nothing wrong with the Design Review phase of a project, but when it comes down to a stock “we need to save 20%”, then the wrong metrics are being chased.
.
.
This article is one on the series of Good Lighting pieces for The Light Review.
