White Papers :: FCSI :: Foodservice Consultants Society International

THE AMERICAS SUPER REGIONALS
FCSI AT NRA SHOW

White Papers

Food Equipment Specifications: An All-Industry Guide
& Recommended Best Practices

Click Here to download the FCSI Commercial Kitchen Ventilation White Paper.
If you DO NOT have Adobe Acrobat Reader, Click Here to download it.

Executive Summary
The process of equipment specification and the common practice of equipment substitution has long been a concern in the foodservice industry. This position paper, as endorsed by the FCSI North American Division Board of Trustees and the North American Allied Member Advisory Board (NAAMBA), is intended as a guide to educate and communicate recommended best practices for food equipment specifications to consultants, clients/endusers and other market channel participants. Following is a brief summary that addresses most of the salient points discussed in detail in the position paper.

The role of the consultant: The primary (and most important) criterion is that the consultant is pledged to represent the client’s best interest. The consultant is to provide the best quality equipment that meets or exceeds the client/enduser’s expectations within the defined budget. Secondly, the consultant has a direct role with equipment specification through his/her involvement in the management of the project, which should include a well-defined process for substitution submittals and approvals from all key project participants.

The equipment specification process: The most prudent, and preferred, method of equipment specification is to rely on a professional FCSI consultant to use his/her best judgment and experience via proprietary or single source specifications for all equipment. By definition, a proprietary specification either removes the opportunity for a kitchen equipment contractor to request a substitution or clearly dictates the process and financial obligations associated with making such a change before the final bids are submitted. Further, FCSI legal counsel has confirmed that the consultant, who has no monetary stake for his or her decision, may specify based on his or her best judgment, unless prohibited by laws for public clients.

Benefits to the consultant who utilizes a proprietary specification include:

•	Elimination of complaints from clients who feel equipment did not perform to expectation;
•	Avoidance of additional time required to review unsolicited substitutions; and
•	Elimination of costly jobsite coordination issues and change orders.

Benefits to the client include:

•	Equipment selected best meets the program/design/budget criteria;
•	Bid documents are easier due to clarity;
•	Utility requirements are coordinated, and equipment is well-supported;
•	Change orders are eliminated and/or reduced; and
•	Equipment decision-making process centers on the client’s program needs as defined by the consultant.

Guidelines are provided on the rationale for use of the proprietary specification process, as well as during a competitive bidding situation (as found in many publicly funded projects).

The “pick three” specification is defined as either:

•	“Or equal,” which specifies that other manufacturers listed shall conform to all specific features of the prime specification; or
•	“Alternate to”, an open ended specification where two or more manufacturers produce comparable quality and function products, with little or no utility, installation or performance modifications required.

Advantages and disadvantages of both of these methods are discussed in detail.

Substitutions: Equipment substitutions occur for many reasons, but most commonly their aim is to maintain or reduce a project’s capital cost. Problems arise, however, when substitutions are made without regard for the original design intent/program or potential short- or long-term negative operational impact. When the client wishes to entertain substitutions, the consultant must be involved to protect the best interest of the client.

When bidders offer substitutions to prime specification, they must provide the following in a timeframe clearly established by the consultant:

•	The comparable features, design and operational intent of the proposed substitution;
•	Identification of cost savings;
•	Responsibility for any mechanical or unforeseen design adjustments or changes; and
•	Agreement to reimburse the client and other design participants for all costs incurred for drawing and design revisions, as a result of such proposed substitutions.

Reasons for substitutions: Multiple reasons for equipment substitution occur, including the consultant providing imprecise specifications or not being responsible for supervision/construction management. In addition, the owner, architect, or general contractor can impact this process by not involving the consultant and client in the decision-making. Finally, the kitchen equipment contractor, manufacturer and their factory representatives can negatively impact the process due to pressure to substitute, tight bidding environments or profit considerations.

Other factors include the project coming in over budget and/or value engineering. Coordination and communication of any substitution process must include the client/enduser’s insistence that the consultant remain in the approval loop.

Objective: The ultimate objective in the kitchen/food facility design process is to meet, if not exceed the client’s expectations in terms of project budget, functionality and low ongoing repair and maintenance costs:

•	All specified and provided equipment will meet the need and quality of the design;
•	Equipment is reviewed and accepted by the client/enduser;
•	The consultant has provided an ethical, due diligent effort to provide best suited equipment items; and
•	Accurate equipment documentation has been provided to the design team for design and coordination purposes.