What Does ‘Basis of Design’ Really Mean?
A discussion this past week on Construction Specification Institute (CSI) – Connect caught my attention. It was between a group of architects and specification writers discussing the basis of design in a project specification and, more specifically, why you would include two or three alternative manufacturers in the spec. There were many opinions about what the architect was trying to accomplish using the term basis of design. Here are several of the comments:
“As I see it, the basis of design almost amounts to sole-sourcing, but with an almost-false veneer of ‘open proprietary specifying’ slapped on it to make it look good.”
“In my experience, the basis of design is meant for use with one product. Listing three products as basis of design is somewhat common but technically incorrect. If listing three products, the spec should instruct the reader to ‘provide one of the following…’”
“I don’t think listing more than one product makes sense?”
The other side argued:
“When using basis of design, to prevent a proprietary spec, the design professional must list three other manufacturers who can make similar products as the basis of design. Listing them in the spec allows for competitive bidding. Equivalent products by other manufacturers listed will be reviewed as ‘comparable products’ in regular submittals.”
“The whole point of listing something as a basis of design is to indicate that you used one product as the starting point for your calculations, measurements, color scheme, or assembly and that if the contractor chose to use one of the other listed products, that they are responsible for recalculating whatever the assembly is. If the products are functionally the same and ‘equivalent’ (not necessarily ‘equal’), then you have three acceptable products, not three products that are the basis of design.
“I would add, though, that for your specific situation … you need to see the Division 01 section that defines how a contractor is to submit an unnamed product in lieu of the basis of design product. That section is likely 01 60 00 ‘Product Requirements,’ but might be addressed wherever submittals are addressed instead.”
Each of the participants did not dispute the last opinion. When a general or subcontractor is bidding on a job, no matter how the specification is written, you will find instructions in Division 01 of the specifications under “Product Requirements” on the correct way to submit your preferred manufacturer. Whether it is the basis of design, an or-equal, or a substitution, as long as you submit the product correctly as spelled out under “Product Requirements,” your bid should be considered.
Many manufacturers will help you submit their products on a bid correctly. Just because you see a manufacturer called out on the spec as basis of design, don’t feel the need only to bid on that product. In today’s market, value engineering, condensing lead times or reducing costs can win you the job and keep it profitable.
I’ve been on both sides of the fence. One, where my products were rarely-to-never specified and were almost always value engineered into the project. Two, where my products are a desirable BOD, competing with alternates. Price vs quality vs lead time. You can go 1-for-3 and get burned. 3-for-3 and come out a champ. BOD sometimes comes down to how many fabricators and glaziers you have in your market to give you the best chance of success. But when it comes to aesthetics paired with thermal performance, BOD can leave little room for alternates, and that’s ok. Bronze isn’t silver and silver isn’t gold (figuratively and literally).
Very well stated Paul. Thanks for sharing. I am going to share this article with many people!
Thanks, Mario, spread the word.
Does “basis of design” include the specified performance criteria, such as structural performance, air, water resistance, thermal, etc? If so, shouldn’t any product being substituted for the basis of design product meet those same performance standards? This whole argument usually devolves the “value engineering” discussion into “value eradication,” where apples and oranges are being compared as equals, usually because the money for the alternate is cheaper. It’s a cruel world in which we live…
Chuck,
I could not agree more! This includes the whole issue of “delegated design”. If you figure out a way to make something work, based on the design, that is cheaper than what was specifically drawn, then be sure to understand or get the performance criteria. Even if the product drawn does not exist, do not assume you can engineer something to an “uncertain or unwritten performance criteria” that you may be held to later.
Good comment Chuck. It was a pleasure to meet you at the BEC conference. Your comment is what started the discussion. Does “basis of design” include the specified performance criteria? Some architects do some don’t. Some were called lazy if they don’t and others were called soft by using “basis of design” with alternates as a copout for not making it a single source spec. “Value engineering or ( discounting ) as some architects refer to it, unless it is a solid single source spec., will always be in effect, which is my point.
Paul:
Some great feedback on this one… You really stirred up the pot! One other thought: More than one listed product is a function of architects trying to represent to owners that they’re open to just more than one possible source, that having the project open to other possibilities prevents the owner from being painted into a corner when it comes to the cost of whatever is being bid. I know a lot of public sector projects can’t list just a single source, they’re required by law to open the spec up to other possibilities as well. Regrettably, the same logic is used on private sector jobs as well. In any case, “basis of design” or substitute when accepted: Caveat Emptor!!! The owner is going to get whatever the GC and Architect say is acceptable, usually based strictly on cost. And then take on the risk when it doesn’t meet what was spec’d for performance.