To compare lighting quotes fairly when only one includes design work, look at what each quote covers before you look at the totals. A design service changes the scope, so the two prices may describe two different jobs. Write down what each quote states, what differs, and what is missing.
Then ask the providers to explain or close those gaps in writing. A design line item has no fixed dollar value, so don't subtract a guessed fee from one total just to make the numbers line up.
Compare scope side by side before comparing totals
The totals only mean something once you can see which items match. Put both quotes into one worksheet and copy each provider's exact wording.
This order follows commercial construction bid guidance that recommends aligning scope before comparing price. That guide tells buyers to match bids to the same scope and check inclusions, exclusions, assumptions, and allowances first. Only then does it compare dollars. The guide covers construction bids in general, not lighting. Still, the same order keeps a lighting quote comparison honest.
Give both columns the same project name and quote labels. Fill in each row, then mark it Matching, Different, or Not stated.
| Quote item | Quote A: exact wording | Quote B: exact wording |
|---|---|---|
| Design tasks and named outputs | ||
| Project inputs used | ||
| Layout assumptions | ||
| Exclusions | ||
| Revisions and follow-up | ||
| Fixture supply: models, quantities | ||
| Design pricing: bundled, separate, or not stated |
Read the finished worksheet in two layers. The first layer is scope: what work each provider will actually do. The second is price format: how that work shows up on the page. A design line listed on its own is a price format. It doesn't tell you what the work includes, and a bundled total doesn't mean the design is free.
Treat every Not stated row as an open question, not as included work. If a few rows say Different or Not stated, the totals aren't comparable yet. Those rows become your list of things to clarify. Don't use them to pick a winner.
Clarify what "design work" covers
Treat "design" as a label with no fixed meaning until the provider spells out the tasks and outputs for this quote. Two providers can use the same word for very different work, so ask each one directly.
These questions can be copied into an email:
- What design tasks will you perform for this project?
- What named outputs will we receive, and in what format?
- What is excluded from the design work?
- How many revisions are included, and what happens if the layout changes after we review it?
- Is any follow-up included after you deliver the design?
- Is the design priced separately or bundled into another line? If it is bundled, can you show it separately?
Base each answer only on what that provider confirms for this project. Don't assume one provider works the same way as another.
Also check who handles each piece of work when systems connect. In a DOE campaign Q&A on controls integration, Webster Marsh called identifying scope and responsibility the biggest challenge. He also advised never using documentation that says an item is "provided by others." When lighting controls or integration are part of the project scope and either quote uses that phrase, ask who supplies that device or service, and write the name in your worksheet.
If a quote promises a photometric layout, our guide to reading photometric data and IES files explains what that kind of output shows. That helps you judge whether a promised deliverable answers your project's questions.
Align the project inputs and assumptions behind both quotes
Two quotes can only be compared when they start from the same project information. Check which baseline and layout basis each proposal used. Write down any input that is different, estimated, assumed, or missing.
One example comes from the DOE/FEMP Lighting Retrofit Workbook, written for the National Park Service. Its audit worksheet records lamp quantities, wattage, and operating hours, along with total fixture wattage, with hours entered as estimated daily hours of use. The workbook is a National Park Service tool, not a rule for commercial quotes. Even so, those fields show the kind of baseline worth checking. If one quote counts more existing fixtures or assumes longer operating hours, its total reflects a different starting point.
Layout assumptions need the same check. Ask which drawings, site visit, photos, or measurements each provider used to plan the layout. Our guide on project inputs for photometric layouts shows which inputs shape a layout. That makes it easier to spot when one proposal filled a gap with its own assumption.
Keep fixture supply on its own row, separate from the inputs used to lay out or price the job. One quote may supply fixtures while the other only lists them, or names a category instead of a model. Compare exact model numbers and quantities. Our guide on checking lighting document claims helps you match each listed fixture to its actual documents.
A different assumption doesn't prove either proposal is wrong. It only means the quotes aren't priced on the same basis yet. Give both providers the same project records, then ask each one to confirm or revise the inputs that don't match.
Request a written clarification or aligned revision
When the quotes still cover different work, send each provider a written request that names the exact gaps. Ask for clarification or a revised scope before you compare totals.
- Pull every row marked Different or Not stated from your worksheet.
- Ask each provider to confirm in writing the included work, project inputs, layout assumptions, exclusions, and follow-up terms for those rows.
- Request a revised scope based on the same project records and the same fixture-supply scope. Where the provider can, ask for design pricing on its own line.
- Compare the revised totals only after both quotes describe the same basis. If gaps remain, list them next to the totals.
A short request can follow this format:
Project: [name] / Quote: [number and date] Item that doesn't match: [row from worksheet, with your quote's wording] What we need clarified: [included work, input, assumption, or exclusion] Requested revision: [aligned scope, separate design price if available]
A provider may decline to itemize or reprice. In that case, keep the remaining differences visible in your lighting quote comparison. Describe what each quote still leaves out, and don't treat the lower total as the better deal by default. Once the scopes match and you pick a provider, a review-ready commercial lighting submittal keeps the chosen fixtures traceable to what was quoted.
FAQs
Can I just subtract the design fee from the quote that lists it?
Only if every other row of the two quotes already matches. Subtracting the fee assumes the other quote needs no design work, or hides the same work somewhere else. Neither is known until that provider says so. The fee line covers only the tasks that quote states. It isn't a market price you can apply to another proposal.
What if the design is bundled and the provider won't break it out?
Compare the bundled quote on the design tasks and outputs it states in writing, and mark the price treatment as different. A provider may choose not to itemize the design cost, unless your bid terms or contract require it. You can still judge whether the stated work covers what your project needs, even without a separate number.
Does a quote without design work mean my project doesn't need it?
No. It only means that quote doesn't state any design work. Ask that provider who will produce the layout and fixture selection. That could be you, another firm, or no one. If you are expected to supply drawings or a layout, record that as part of the quote's scope.
What if I have no existing-lighting records to give either provider?
Ask each provider where its inputs came from, such as a site visit, photos, or estimates. Then note which numbers are confirmed and which are assumed. If only one provider surveyed the site, record that difference. It can explain part of the gap between the totals.
