Substitution terminology in construction
Contents |
[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
Featured articles and news
Airtightness in raised access plenum floors
New testing guidance from BSRIA out now.
Picking up the hard hat on site or not
Common factors preventing workers using head protection and how to solve them.
Building trust with customers through endorsed trades
Commitment to quality demonstrated through government endorsed scheme.
New guidance for preparing structural submissions for Gateways 2 and 3
Published by the The Institution of Structural Engineers.
CIOB launches global mental health survey
To address the silent mental health crisis in construction.
New categories in sustainability, health and safety, and emerging talent.
Key takeaways from the BSRIA Briefing 2024
Not just waiting for Net Zero, but driving it.
The ISO answer to what is a digital twin
Talking about digital twins in a more consistent manner.
Top tips and risks to look out for.
New Code of Practice for fire and escape door hardware
Published by GAI and DHF.
Retrofit of Buildings, a CIOB Technical Publication
Pertinent technical issues, retrofit measures and the roles involved.
New alliance will tackle skills shortage in greater Manchester
The pioneering Electrotechnical Training and Careers Alliance.
Drone data at the edge: three steps to better AI insights
Offering greater accuracy and quicker access to insights.
From fit-out to higher-risk buildings.
Heritage conservation in Calgary
The triple bottom line.