---
id: 2025-12-10T10:45:19-0500
title: 2025-12-10 10:45:19
tags:
  - occupational/takeoff
  - status/draft
  - topic/ambiguity
  - topic/transparency
daily: "[[2025-12-10]]"
---
# 2025-12-10 10:45:19

## ConEst Lighting Controls Meeting Notes

Meeting of all members of electrical [[conest|ConEst]]
to discuss [[lighting-controls-takeoff]]
lead by [[corwin-fluit]].

### Minutes

2025-12-10 08:30--10:00

Objective: Discuss lighting control systems

***

A primary reason for the discussion was presented:

> [!example] Example ^ex
> While putting together a large garden style project
> [[pdi-bid-estimating|Bid]] received a quote for lighting control
> at over one million dollars.
> Believing it [[gold-plating|overengineered]],
> Bid proposed ~$150,000 for lighting control "per code".
> The contract was awarded on those terms.
> When the project team received a quote for a "per code" system,
> the total was ~$600,000.

***

Ultimately the responsibility is ConEst's
to resolve discrepancies between:
* applicable code
* design intent
* Bid proposal intent
* PDR quote intent

***

It was erroneously suggested that lighting control conductors
may be run with their circuit conductors if both are 600V insulated.[^1]

[^1]: This is a violation of [[nfpa-70_725_control-circuits#725.136(I) Other Applications.|NEC 725.136(I)(1)]].
    See [[lighting-controls#0-10V Dimming|0-10V Dimming]].

### My Thoughts

The lighting control problem is misunderstood.
It's true that some technical training would be beneficial to ConEst estimators,
but root of the problem has nothing to do with lighting control.

When I heard [[#^ex|Corwin's example]],
where lighting control went wrong
and costed a job half a million in profit,
what I took away was that we sold high-risk scope
without knowing what was required _and without qualification_.

***

Others have suggested creating new assemblies grouped by manufacturer,
which I'm not a fan of.
While it's true that similar implementations
_are_ different between manufacturers,
the differences are trivial for our purposes.
More to the problem,
such an arrangement would inevitably lead to confusion
(i.e. taking off the wrong brand
because its contents happen to match better in a specific instance).