Why Sports Lighting Bids Vary 2–3x
Sports lighting bids can vary 2–3x because of hidden engineering differences — not because one vendor is simply greedier than another. The spread comes from the class of play and whether light is designed to maintained or initial levels, fixture and driver quality, pole and foundation scope, surge protection, warranty, and whether a real photometric study backs the numbers. The cheapest bid usually achieves its price by quietly omitting something that makes the system reliable, compliant, or durable.
This guide shows where the differences hide and how to compare bids so the real cost — not just the sticker — drives the decision.
Where the differences hide
| Hidden factor | How a cheap bid cuts it |
|---|---|
| Maintained vs initial light | Designs to bright initial output that fades below spec |
| Class of play | Uses a lower class with fewer fixtures, under-lighting the field |
| Driver / fixture quality | Cheaper drivers and LEDs with shorter life |
| Pole & foundation scope | Under-scopes structure to look cheaper |
| Surge, warranty, controls | Omitted or minimized to cut price |
The most insidious is maintained vs initial: a bid that designs to bright initial output looks great on paper but drops below the target within a few years as the fixtures depreciate. Close behind is a quietly lower class of play, which justifies fewer fixtures and a lower price while under-lighting the field for its actual use.
How to compare fairly
The fix is to remove the hiding places. Require a photometric study and identical performance criteria from every bidder — the same RP-6 class, maintained footcandles, uniformity, spill limits, warranty, and surge protection. Once every bid is designed to the same documented standard, the differences become visible: you can see which proposals actually meet the spec and which cut corners to hit a number. At that point, a suspiciously low bid almost always reveals that something was left out.
The lifecycle truth
A sports lighting system is a 20+ year asset, so the lowest upfront number is rarely the lowest cost. A bid that wins on price by under-lighting, using short-life fixtures, skimping on structure, or dropping surge and warranty coverage typically costs more over its life — in re-lamps, energy, failures, and, worst case, a field that must be redone. Evaluate on lifecycle cost and compliance, not sticker price. Duvon's free photometric study makes its numbers transparent and comparable.
Frequently asked questions
Why do sports lighting bids vary so much?
Hidden engineering: class of play, maintained vs initial light, driver and fixture quality, pole and foundation scope, surge, warranty, and whether a photometric study backs the numbers.
Where do bid differences hide?
In maintained-vs-initial light, the class of play, driver/fixture quality, structural scope, and surge/warranty/controls cut from low bids.
How do you compare bids fairly?
Require a photometric study and identical performance criteria from every bidder, so differences become visible and a low number reveals what was left out.
Is the lowest bid the best value?
Rarely — a low bid usually omitted light level, quality, structure, or support, costing more over the system's 20+ year life.
What's the single best safeguard?
Requiring a photometric study from every bidder against the same RP-6 criteria — it exposes under-designed bids immediately.
Get a transparent, photometric-backed quote you can compare with confidence. Request it at duvonlighting.com/free-quote.