Non-comparable quotations: why the wrong project is often chosen

There is a very specific moment when many lighting retrofit projects start to go off track. It is not during installation, and not even a few years later. It happens much earlier: when the quotations arrive.

Most of the time, companies find themselves in a familiar situation: they have three or four proposals on the table, all apparently complete and well presented. At that point, it feels like it is enough to compare and decide. But that is exactly where the problem begins.

In most cases, those quotations are not actually comparable, even if they look like they are.

The misleading comparison

The comparison is almost always based on the same elements: total price, installed power, number of fixtures, return on investment time. These are correct parameters, but they only tell part of the story.

Two projects can have very similar numbers and completely different results once implemented, because what really makes the difference is the level of design, the quality of the control system, and the actual long-term performance.

What is left out of the comparison

There are aspects that rarely emerge clearly, but that make a real difference over time.

The level of design can vary significantly from one proposal to another: some are based on accurate simulations, while others are just quick adaptations.

The quality of light is another critical factor, but difficult to assess without technical analysis: uniformity, glare, and visual comfort all have a daily impact on workers’ well-being.

Then there is the real performance over time. Not all systems behave the same after two or three years, and this directly affects both energy consumption and maintenance.

Finally, control systems. In many cases they are not included, or they are treated as a marginal option. In reality, they are one of the most influential elements on the final result.

The real mistake: comparing numbers, not solutions

When every proposal is built on different assumptions, financial comparison loses meaning, because you end up treating solutions that are not equivalent as if they were, creating a real distortion: choosing what looks cheaper without fully understanding what is being purchased. This often leads to one of three situations:

• Choosing the lowest price and not achieving the expected results
• Choosing a middle option without real understanding of the differences
• Postponing the decision because there is no solid evaluation criterion

Changing perspective before choosing

The point is not to analyse quotations better, but to build a better comparison.

Before looking at numbers, some basic questions must be clarified: are we comparing projects with the same level of detail? Is the control system included or not? Is the expected result real or only theoretical? If these questions cannot be answered, the comparison is not reliable.

The cheapest choice often ends up being the one that is simply easier to understand, not the one that is actually right.