We see many contractors lose public bids because of tiny technical errors LM-79/LM-80 1. When our engineers review project files, we often find gaps that lead to immediate rejection by the committee.
LED tender disqualification usually stems from five critical mistakes: mismatching technical parameters like lumens and CRI, missing independent test reports (LM-79/LM-80), proposing unapproved product substitutions, submitting expired regulatory certifications, and failing to follow strict pricing or document formatting requirements set by the procurement board.
Understanding these pitfalls is the only way to protect your bid and ensure your technical proposal moves to the final round.
How can I verify that my LED technical datasheets fully match the tender’s mandatory requirements?
When we prepare documentation for clients in Armenia or Bulgaria, we start by cross-checking every single digit. A small gap in efficacy or color temperature can end your project before it starts.
To verify technical datasheets, perform a line-by-line comparison between the tender’s “Mandatory Requirements” and your supplier’s specs. Ensure lumen output, CCT, CRI, and IP ratings match exactly; any deviation, even 1%, requires an official clarification or it will trigger automatic disqualification.
The Danger of “Roughly Equivalent” Values
In the world of municipal tenders, there is no such thing as “close enough.” If a tender specifies a minimum of 150 lm/W and your datasheet shows 148 lm/W, the evaluation software or committee will flag it. At our production facility, we emphasize that “typical” values on a standard marketing brochure are not sufficient for a formal bid. You need a datasheet that reflects the specific configuration you are quoting.
Key Parameters to Double-Check
Most disqualifications happen because of these specific metrics:
- Luminous Efficacy: Tenders now often demand >150 lm/W. Providing a 130 lm/W fixture is an instant fail.
- Color Rendering Index (CRI): If the requirement is CRI >90 for indoor spaces, a CRI 80 fixture will be rejected. Color Rendering Index (CRI) 2
- Ingress Protection (IP) and Impact Protection (IK): For street lighting, IP66 and IK08 are standard; lower ratings are non-compliant. Ingress Protection (IP) 3
Verification Matrix Table
We recommend creating a simple internal table to catch errors before submission:
| Tender Requirement | Supplier Specification | Match Status | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Min. 12,000 Lumens | 12,150 Lumens | Pass | Low |
| CCT 4000K Exact | 4000K – 5000K Range | Fail | High |
| L80 > 50,000 Hours | L70 > 50,000 Hours | Fail | Critical |
| DALI Dimming | 0-10V Dimming | Fail | Critical |
Using Third-Party Validation
Do not rely solely on the manufacturer’s word. Always ask for the LM-79 report that corresponds to that specific model. If the numbers on the datasheet don’t match the numbers in the test report, the procurement officer will assume the data is falsified.
What should I do if the supplier’s IES files and test reports don’t align with my project specifications?
We often see a disconnect between what a factory promises and what their lab reports actually prove. When we calibrate our test equipment, we ensure the data output is ready for strict scrutiny.
If IES files or test reports do not align, you must request updated testing from an independent lab or ask the supplier for the exact model’s LM-79 report. Never submit mismatched data, as evaluators use DIALux simulations to catch discrepancies between reported and actual performance.
Why Mismatched Reports Lead to Rejection
The IES file is the digital fingerprint of a light fixture. Procurement officers use these files to run their own simulations. If your bid claims a 120-degree beam angle but the IES file shows 90 degrees, your lighting design will fail to hit the required lux levels on the ground. This discrepancy is a “red flag” for technical fraud or incompetence.
Identifying “Borrowed” Reports
A common issue in the industry is when a factory provides an LM-80 report for a LED chip that they don’t actually use in the final fixture. This is an immediate cause for disqualification.
- Check the LED chip brand and model in the report.
- Compare it to the Bill of Materials (BOM) of the fixture.
- Ensure the report is from a recognized lab (like UL, Intertek, or TUV).
Documentation Consistency Checklist
| Document Type | Must Align With | Почему это важно |
|---|---|---|
| IES File | Photometric Table | Discrepancies fail DIALux simulations. |
| LM-80 Report | LED Chip Choice | Proves the 50,000+ hour lifetime claim. |
| LM-79 Report | Datasheet Lumens | Confirms the actual light output and efficacy. |
| Driver Spec | Dimming Protocol | Ensures compatibility with control systems. |
Resolving the Conflict
If you find a mismatch, do not try to “fix” the data yourself. Contact the manufacturer and demand the correct files. If they cannot provide them, it is a sign that the product has not been properly tested. In our experience supporting tenders in Moldova and Kazakhstan, having “submission-ready” files is what separates winners from losers.
How do I identify hidden technical risks in a factory quote before I submit my official bid?
In our factory, we don’t just send prices; we look for “deal-breakers” in the tender text. Many suppliers miss these because they are only focused on selling a box, not winning a contract.
Identify hidden risks by checking for “or equal” clauses, specific driver brand requirements, and lifetime calculation methods (L70 vs. L80). If a factory ignores the fine print—like surge protection or THD limits—their quote is a liability that could lead to your disqualification.
The Trap of Vague Specifications
A factory might quote you “100W Street Light” without mentioning the Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) 5 or the Power Factor (PF). Many high-end tenders require THD <10% and PF >0.95. If your supplier provides a standard driver that has 20% THD, your bid will be rejected.
Investigating the Component Brand
Tenders often mandate specific “Tier 1” components (e.g., MeanWell drivers, Philips chips). If the factory quote says “High-quality Chinese brand,” you are at risk. You must insist on the specific brands mentioned in the tender or provide a formal “technical equivalency” document that proves the alternative is equal or better.
Component Risk Assessment
| Component | Hidden Risk | How to Detect |
|---|---|---|
| LED Driver | No Surge Protection | Check if 10kV SPD is included or internal to driver. |
| Housing | Poor Heat Dissipation | Ask for the “Температурный тест” in the LM-79 report. |
| Diffuser | Rapid Yellowing | Ensure UV-stabilized polycarbonate or glass is specified. |
| Gaskets | Water Ingress | Confirm if they use silicone or cheap rubber (EPDM). |
Financial Risks Tied to Specs
Sometimes a quote looks low because the factory excluded “optional” requirements that are actually mandatory. This includes mounting brackets, specialized connectors, or pre-programmed dimming profiles. If you win the bid and realize these aren’t included, your profit margin will disappear or you will fail the final inspection.
Why is choosing a low-cost supplier often the reason my technical proposal gets rejected by the committee?
When we manage export orders to Eastern Europe, we see that price-driven decisions often backfire. A low price is useless if the technical evaluation score is zero because the documentation failed to meet the bar.
Low-cost suppliers often get bids rejected because they lack the budget for independent lab certifications, use generic components that fail to meet efficacy minimums, and provide incomplete documentation that does not satisfy the committee’s rigorous “no-exception” technical compliance policies.
The Cost of Documentation
A major reason for high prices in tender-ready products is the cost of testing. A full suite of LM-79, LM-80, ISTMT, and EMC reports can cost thousands of dollars. Low-cost factories skip these. When a procurement officer sees a bid without these third-party proofs, they disqualify it as “technically unresponsive.”
The “Under-Performance” Фактор
Cheap LED fixtures often use “over-driven” chips. This means they push the LEDs to reach high lumen numbers initially, but they fail quickly due to heat. Evaluation committees are aware of this. They look for the junction temperature data 6 in the technical files. If the factory cannot provide it, the committee assumes the product will not last the required 5 or 10 years.
Tender-Ready vs. Low-Cost Supplier
| Особенность | Tender-Ready Supplier (e.g., CST LIGHTING) | Low-Cost “Spot” Factory |
|---|---|---|
| Документация | Full LM-79, LM-80, IES, CE, RoHS | Basic datasheet only |
| Компоненты | Specified Brands (Inventronics/Philips) | “Factory standard” unbranded |
| Гарантия | 5-10 Year Project Warranty | 2-year limited “repair” warranty |
| Техническая поддержка | Detailed compliance checking | Only provides a price list |
AI and Automated Evaluation
In 2026, many government agencies use AI-driven tools 7 to scan bids. These tools look for keywords and specific certification numbers. Low-cost suppliers often submit blurry scans or outdated certificates. An AI will flag these instantly, and your bid will be rejected before a human even looks at your price. Choosing a mid-range supplier with “Technical Security” ensures you survive this automated culling.
Заключение
Winning a lighting tender requires 100% technical accuracy and verified documentation. By avoiding these five common mistakes—from data mismatches to poor supplier choices—you ensure your bid remains competitive and compliant.
Footnotes
1. Explains the differences and importance of LM-79 and LM-80 standards for LED lighting. ↩︎
2. Provides a comprehensive definition and explanation of the Color Rendering Index. ↩︎
3. Defines the IP code and explains its significance for protection against solids and liquids. ↩︎
4. Describes the IES standard file format for photometric data, crucial for lighting design. ↩︎
5. Explains Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) and its impact on LED lighting systems. ↩︎
6. Details the concept of LED junction temperature and its critical role in performance and lifespan. ↩︎
7. Discusses the role and risks of AI in government procurement and tender evaluation. ↩︎
