Planning an Airfield Lighting Upgrade: Choosing the Right Procurement Path

Two airfield lighting upgrades with similar scopes can have very different outcomes. Often, the difference is decided before construction starts.

The procurement path determines how much control the airport keeps, who carries design risk, how comparable the tender prices are, and how issues are resolved when existing infrastructure does not match the records.

For AGL projects, this matters. Many airfields have been modified over decades, and drawings do not always reflect what is actually in the ground.

The main procurement options

Fully designed, construct only

The airport engages a designer to prepare the drawings and specification, then tenders the construction works.

This gives the airport the most control and usually produces the most comparable tender pricing, because each contractor is pricing the same design.

It suits projects where the works interface with existing infrastructure, where equipment selection has long-term maintenance implications, or where the airport wants certainty about exactly what will be installed.

The downside is that more work is required before tender. It also means the design needs to be based on proper site investigation. If the drawings are wrong, the construction phase will expose it through variations and delays.

Design and construct

The airport defines the requirements, and the contractor is responsible for both design and delivery.

This can work well for straightforward projects where the performance requirements are clear. It can also reduce programme time and bring practical construction input into the design.

The risk is that vague requirements are usually resolved in favour of the cheapest compliant interpretation. If the brief does not clearly define equipment, standards, interfaces, commissioning and documentation, the airport may not get the outcome it expected.

Design and construct can be effective, but only when the performance specification is strong.

Hybrid approach

A useful middle path is to prepare an independent reference design or detailed scope, then tender the project as design and construct.

This gives the contractor flexibility while still setting a clear technical direction. It also gives the airport a benchmark for assessing tender responses and reviewing the contractor’s final design.

For many AGL upgrades, this is often the most practical balance between control, programme and risk.

Common failure points

Regardless of the procurement model, most problems come from the same areas.

Not enough site investigation

Existing circuits, conduits, pits and control systems often do not match the records. If these are not checked before tender, they become construction variations.

Condition assessment, circuit testing and services investigation should happen early, before the scope is locked in.

Weak performance specifications

For design and construct projects, the brief needs to be specific. Common gaps include:

• Equipment selection left too open.
• Existing control system interfaces not properly defined.
• Compliance stated generally, without nominating the relevant standards and requirements.
• No independent design review before installation.
• Commissioning and handover requirements not clearly specified.

A short or vague brief does not transfer risk effectively. It usually just creates ambiguity.

Commissioning treated as an afterthought

Commissioning should be clearly included in the scope. This includes circuit testing, control system functional testing, photometric verification where required, witnessed checks, test records and formal sign-off.

If these requirements are not included in the tender documents, they may not be priced properly.

Poor handover documentation

As-constructed drawings, test results, warranties, product data, configuration settings and maintenance information should be checked before final payment.

Once the contractor has demobilised, it becomes much harder to obtain accurate records.

Remote and regional airfields need extra planning

Remote projects change the risk profile.

Mobilisation may be a major cost, replacement parts may not be readily available, and the runway may be critical for medical evacuation or essential community access.

For these projects, more effort should go into pre-mobilisation planning, equipment selection, spares, staging, shutdown windows and contingency arrangements.

A missing fitting, transformer, tool or test instrument can delay the whole project.

Choosing the right path

The best procurement model depends on the project.

As a general rule, the more the project interfaces with existing infrastructure, live operations, legacy control systems or remote site constraints, the more valuable an independent design or reference design becomes.

For simple, self-contained works, a well-written design and construct brief may be suitable.

The key is to decide the procurement path early. By the time the tender is released, many of the project’s cost, quality and risk outcomes have already been set.