Earlier this week I had a disagreement with a contractor about my specifications and fixture schedule.\u00a0 The client, who had never been involved in a construction project of this type, didn\u2019t know which one of us to believe.\u00a0 It went like this:\u00a0 We are coming up on the end of construction and the contractor is slightly over budget.\u00a0 In order to save money he wants to start to substitute less expensive products for those that have not yet been purchased which, in this case, includes the lighting fixtures and control system.\u00a0 His problem is that my specification and fixture schedule are so clear and precise (also referred to as \u201ctight\u201d) that he is having a hard time finding acceptable alternates.\u00a0 He told that owner that my tight specification is unfair because of this, and that I\u2019ve essentially \u201cgiven\u201d the project to certain manufacturers \u201cregardless of price.\u201d\u00a0 I explained that a tight specification protects the integrity of the design, and thus protects the owner, by guaranteeing that the expected design is the one that is installed.\u00a0\u00a0 Who is a client to believe?\u00a0 Let\u2019s go through this.<\/p>\n
As a lighting designer I have one source of income \u2013 my fee.\u00a0 I don\u2019t get a royalty or commission from manufacturers that I specify*, I don\u2019t sell fixtures to the project, and I don\u2019t set pricing for fixtures.\u00a0 As a result, my only incentive to specify one manufacturer over another is appropriateness for the project.\u00a0 I talk to the owner about their needs and desires, budget, and timeline. I evaluate fixtures based on performance, options, accessories, quality, and price.\u00a0 I run calculations to make sure that the appropriate amount of light is being delivered and that the lighting system\u2019s power consumption is within code limits.\u00a0 In some cases I\u2019m contractually required to identify three equal fixtures for each type.\u00a0 That\u2019s a lot of work and I want to make sure that it isn\u2019t lost or undermined, so I write a tight specification.<\/p>\n
After all of that work, though, most projects don\u2019t require the contractor to provide only those items that the designers have specified.\u00a0 The rationale is that this gives contractors more flexibility in getting the best price, especially for public projects being paid for with tax dollars.\u00a0 In practice, however, this is often not the case.\u00a0 The contractor wasn\u2019t present during the design process and doesn\u2019t understand the criteria that went into selecting each fixture.\u00a0 He (or she) is primarily concerned with price, not performance.\u00a0 It\u2019s common for the first round of substitutions offered by the contractor contain a large number of fixtures that are inappropriate for one reason or another.\u00a0 If a substitute fixture will do the job I usually accept it, but I won\u2019t accept a fixture just because it\u2019s offered.\u00a0 A tight specification sets the requirements for the fixtures and provides the basis for rejecting inappropriate substitutions.\u00a0 Yes, this can constrain the contractor\u2019s choice of substitutions but for a good reason.\u00a0 There are huge variations in fixture performance, even when fixtures look the same.\u00a0 I\u2019ve had contractors (and architects) say that a downlight is a downlight is a downlight.\u00a0 Take a look at the photometrics and it quickly becomes obvious that this just isn\u2019t so.<\/p>\n
From a designer\u2019s perspective we protect the client by protecting the design, accepting substitutions that work but rejecting those that don\u2019t.\u00a0 A tight specification can limit the amount of back and forth with substitutions by setting strict criteria that substitutions must meet.\u00a0 That\u2019s part of the professional expertise we bring to the project.<\/p>\n
*I admit I do sometimes get a nice box of chocolates during the holidays.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"