More frequently than ever before, contractors are asking designers to approve submittals for lighting equipment that differs from what the designer specified for the project. Attached to the request is always a reason for why the designer's hours of effort—carefully listening to their client's needs and wishes, understanding project-specific complexities, self-educating on the local electrical code, vetting product features, running lighting calculations, all in an effort to curate a fixture schedule that miraculously checks all the necessary boxes—turned out to be an unnecessary waste of time because the electrical contractor, distributor, or lighting rep has spent half an hour putting together an "Alternate" proposal. The ask, of course, is that the designer will simply forget all the billable hours they have already spent on the project, and in their free time review the alternate package that has probably not gone through the same vetting process.

Before a project goes out to bid, lighting manufacturer’s reps are given an opportunity to present suggestions to designers for products they represent. The word "specific" is a critical part of the word "specification." Designers are under immense pressure to curate a fixture schedule based on dozens of criteria that change from project to project. There is a reason this process is not called "suggestion." Manufacturer reps can suggest, but designers specify. There is a time and place for both. Once the designer has specified equipment for the project, it is inappropriate for a rep to continue trying to get their products onto the project. Reps, distributors, and contractors should only quote the equipment specified by the designer.

Once a designer has specified lighting equipment, their role changes from designer to construction administrator. This phase of the process brings a new set of responsibilities, expectations, and challenges. As construction administrator, the designer is expected to carefully review the lighting submittal package, presented by the construction team, based on the equipment selected during the design process. There is a time for design, and a time to review submittals. Unless directed by the owner, there is no reason why a designer should be expected to revisit, much less defend, their design during the submittal process.

Just as a contractor would not allow a designer to use the submittal review process to change the design and add features not specified in the contract documents, contractors and vendors should not expect designers to defend their specifications made during the design process. Submittal review is not a chance to revisit design decisions. This practice is both disrespectful to the design team and a misuse of time and money.