Substitution terminology in construction

[edit] Introduction

In terms of the selection of products and materials for construction projects there are many different ways to stipulate certain or simply suggest products based on performance. The way in which certain materials or products will be selected on a project will depend on the type of contract and whether the designer or client wishes to use a performance specification or a prescriptive specification, or a combination of both for different parts of the building. The subject of substitution or seeking alternative products as those initially spe

There are many different terms and phrases that might be related to the subject of substitution, in connection to building projects, many of which have quite specific legal and contractual meanings such as;

[edit] Or-equal

Or-equal, in terms of construction projects is a term that may be found in a specification, suggesting that an alternative product other than the one stated may be acceptable. It is considered a relatively vague and unclear method of indicating the possibility of a substitute, as it is likely that any alternative would need to be approved by the contract administrator, on behalf of the client.

[edit] Or-equivalent

The term or-equal is similar to the phrase or-equivalent, which the NBS in its article "Substitution and beyond" suggests may be preferable for legal reasons.

'Or equivalent' can also be added for legislative reasons in public sector procurement. This does not actually indicate that (a) an equivalent exists, or (b) that the specifier is happy for another product to be used. The term is merely being used to comply with European pro-competition legislation.

Both phrases leave the detail in terms of what an equal or an equivalent quite might be quite open, and potentially open to interpretation. It may be that one of these terms has been adopted into the contract documents and specifications because the same term was used by the client at the initial stages of the project procurement documents and contracting requirements. If the terms are to be used it may be advisable to clearly define what is meant by them, in terms of the specification and contract.

[edit] Equal approved

In almost cases the judgement as to what is equal or not, is likely to be made by the contract administration, Architect or client rather than the contractor because any change or substitution will need to be approved by them before it can proceed. As a result many specifiers may add 'approved' to one or other of the phrases to indicate that approval is required (even though this may well be clearly stated in the contact documents.) such as 'or equal approved' and ‘equal and approved’ ( perhaps clearer still). Again NBS in its article "Substitution and beyond" suggests that adding "approved" may actually make the issue more complex.

"Because many specifiers are not comfortable with the idea that the contractor can use another product without notification or approval, they often add 'approved' to the phrase, e.g. 'or equal approved'. This doesn't actually solve the problem. Instead, it makes it worse, as there will often be disagreement about equality or equivalence, and agreement is required. The contractor will have one view (perhaps coloured by a desire to make a little more profit, or to catch up with the programme), and the specifier another (perhaps coloured by a desire to ensure a stylish hand basin, even though it is technically equivalent to the very un-stylish one proposed by the contractor – not a point of view a judge is likely to have much sympathy with – being 'reasonable' is the usual legal requirement). Jobs have ground to a halt over arguments about equality."

See also: Approved equal.

[edit] Or approved alternative

Another phrase, that might be used is "Or approved alternative" which avoids the suggestion of equality, as most likely products will vary across the wide variety different characteristics, so perhaps equal is misleading.

[edit] Other as approved

Further to this some specification writers might suggest requesting a submission of "comparable products” where an alternative is suggested or simply using the phrase "other as approved" to avoid the question of equality, although this may also be seen as leaving selection to wide open.

[edit] Deemed to comply

The phrase deemed to comply may be preferable is there are a number of alternative and similar products on the market. The suggestion here is that if one single product is wanted then that should be specified without potential alternatives or substitutes as described above. If there are known alternatives then perhaps three will be given followed by deemed to comply, giving examples, along wth critical criteria for those products. Again here the NBS in its article "Substitution and beyond" gives a useful explanation.

"If the contractor uses this brand, then this has been predetermined by the specifier to meet the generic requirements, and no extra evidence is needed. If the contractor does not use the deemed-to-comply brand, then sufficient information must be submitted to demonstrate that the proposed product or system meets the generic description (see clause A33/140 Compliance, in the NBS Preliminaries). This description should make it clear just what attributes are critical, and what the pass/fail points are for each one. Aesthetic matters can be covered by a requirement (specified on a product by product basis) to submit samples along with the other evidence needed to demonstrate compliance."

[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings

• Approved equal.
• Contractor's designed portion.
• Contract documents.
• Final specifications.
• Outline specification.
• Output-based specification.
• Material substitute.
• Performance.
• Performance specification.
• Prescriptive specification.
• Production information.
• Public procurement.
• Service level specification.
• Specification.
• Specification basics.
• Substitute.
• Tender documentation.
• Tender.

[edit] External links

• https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/substitution-and-beyond#
• https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/5/regulation/9/made
• https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29/section/4
• https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/35/section/1
• https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/part/2/made