Direct answer
A sports lighting submittal should let a reviewer confirm performance, product and responsibility without contacting the bidder. That means a project photometric report with its grid and light-loss factor stated, a fixture schedule with exact models, aiming documentation, listing records per model, controls information, warranty documents and any required sourcing records.
Who this is for
Contractors, distributors, manufacturers' representatives, and owners' staff assembling or reviewing a submittal package for a publicly bid sports-lighting project.
What a submittal package is for
A submittal package exists so the owner's engineer can confirm that what will be delivered matches what was specified, and so the owner has a record that survives staff turnover. It is a set of evidence, not a set of assertions. Every claim in it should be traceable to a document that a third party could independently check.
Two failure modes dominate. The first is omission: a required document is simply absent and the reviewer approves the package without it. The second is substitution: a document is present but describes a different model, a different configuration, or a different test than the one being supplied. Substitution is harder to catch and does more damage.
The package, item by item
Product data
•Manufacturer, model, and full configuration code for every luminaire, exactly as it will be ordered.
•Published product datasheet for the specific configuration.
•Input wattage, lumen output, efficacy, colour temperature, and colour rendering, each traceable to a published source.
•Optical distribution designation.
•Finish, mounting arrangement, and accessories.
Photometric evidence
•Photometric data file for each luminaire type, matching the model and configuration quoted.
•The laboratory photometric test report supporting the data file.
•The calculated layout, with grid spacing and extent, calculation height, maintained illuminance results, uniformity ratios, light-loss factor with its components, mounting heights, and pole coordinates.
•Aiming data by fixture and by pole.
•Spill and glare evaluation at owner-named points, labelled as calculated.
Certification and qualification records
•Safety certification status with the certification body, file number, and category — verifiable in the issuing directory.
•DLC qualification record by model, where the project or a rebate requires it.
•Any additional listings the specification requires.
Lifetime and reliability data
•LM-80 data source and the TM-21 projection basis for any L70 figure, presented as a projection.
•Operating temperature range and any derating.
•Surge protection rating.
•Ingress protection rating.
Structural data
•Effective projected area and weight for each luminaire and mounting arrangement.
•Mounting hardware details.
•Pole and foundation structural verification for this site by a licensed engineer, or a statement of when it will be provided and by whom.
Electrical data
•Input voltage range, current draw, power factor, and total harmonic distortion.
•Driver information and control compatibility.
•Circuiting, panel schedules, and connected load.
Controls
•Control system description, components, and network requirements.
•Any recurring licence, subscription, or hosting cost, stated plainly.
•Commissioning responsibilities.
Commercial and compliance
•Warranty document — the controlling document itself, not a proposal summary of it.
•Lead time and delivery terms.
•Domestic-content documentation where the funding source requires it, at the level of specificity the requirement demands.
•Country of origin information consistent with the records held.
Project administration
•Complete schedule of values or itemised pricing as required.
•Deviations and substitutions listed explicitly, with the specification clause each departs from.
•Contact for technical questions during review.
What gets evaluated, and how each figure is labelled
Item | Label | Meaning |
Layout illuminance and uniformity results | Calculated | Software prediction; not a measurement and not a guarantee. |
Spill values at named points | Calculated | Software prediction at defined locations. |
Lumen output, efficacy, colour data | Reported | From a laboratory test report on a specific sample. |
L70 | Reported | A TM-21 projection from LM-80 data. |
Safety certification | Listed | A directory record verifiable by file number. |
DLC qualification | Listed | A record on the Qualified Products List verifiable by model. |
EPA and weight | Specified | Manufacturer-published values for structural use. |
Warranty terms | Specified | Terms in the published controlling document. |
Pole and foundation adequacy | Calculated | Structural engineering result by a licensed engineer. |
Post-installation results | Field-measured | Do not exist at submittal stage. |
Common review findings
•The photometric file corresponds to a higher-output configuration than the one quoted.
•The light-loss factor is stated as a single number with no components and no maintenance interval.
•The calculation grid is coarser than the specification required, which improves apparent uniformity.
•Spill values are given at points the bidder chose rather than the points the owner named.
•A certification file number is given for a related model rather than the one quoted.
•The warranty is summarised in a proposal paragraph and the controlling document is not attached.
•Structural verification is promised "after award" without naming the responsible engineer.
•Domestic-content statements are made at a level of generality that does not match the funding requirement.
•Controls subscription costs are absent from the pricing and surface after award.
•Deviations are present in the product data but not listed on a deviations schedule.
Each of these is a clarification request, not necessarily a rejection. The point of a checklist is to catch them before award rather than during construction.
Retrofit versus new construction
Retrofit submittals should additionally include the survey basis for existing pole positions and heights used in the calculation, and the structural verification of the existing poles for the new luminaire EPA and weight. A retrofit submittal built on record-drawing geometry rather than surveyed geometry should be flagged.
New-construction submittals should include the pole and foundation design package and the coordination between the lighting layout and the civil and structural drawings.
What can change the answer
•A specification revision or addendum changes required deliverables.
•A change of funding source can add domestic-content documentation requirements.
•A rebate application can add DLC qualification as a hard requirement.
•A substitution request changes which photometric and certification records apply.
•A change in pole locations or heights invalidates the submitted layout and aiming.
•The adopted edition of the governing standard changes the targets the layout is reviewed against.
Verification checklist
1.Every luminaire configuration code in the submittal matches the quoted order exactly.
2.Each photometric data file corresponds to its configuration code.
3.The supporting laboratory test report is attached, not merely referenced.
4.Grid spacing, extent, and calculation height are stated on the layout.
5.Light-loss factor components and maintenance interval are stated.
6.Results are labelled maintained or initial without ambiguity.
7.Aiming is documented by fixture and by pole.
8.Spill points match the owner's named points.
9.Certification file numbers verify in the issuing directory against the quoted model.
10.DLC records verify by model where required.
11.EPA and weight are provided for the exact mounting arrangement.
12.Structural verification is present, or its responsible engineer and date are named.
13.The controlling warranty document is attached in full.
14.Controls subscription and licence costs are disclosed in pricing.
15.Deviations are listed explicitly against specification clauses.
16.Domestic-content documentation matches the funding requirement's specificity.
Duvon's role and limits
Duvon Lighting assembles product-side submittal documentation for our products: datasheets, photometric files and their supporting test reports, certification and qualification records, EPA and weight figures, warranty documents, and calculated layouts with the assumptions stated.
We do not produce structural engineering, we do not certify photometric results, and we do not prepare the contractor's or engineer of record's portions of a submittal. Where a specification requires a document we cannot evidence, we will identify it as an open item rather than supply a substitute that appears to satisfy it.
Next step
Send us the specification section and the bid date. We will return the product-side submittal documentation for our products, itemised against the specification's requirements, with any open item identified rather than glossed