A “tender-ready” DIALux/Relux report is not a pretty screenshot. Reviewers approve (or reject) based on whether your submission is auditable: it must prove the design meets targets + uniformity, uses traceable IES/LDT photometrics, and maps cleanly to the layout + BOQ + deliverables pack.
For EPC and government bids, treat your DIALux report as a technical evidence file — the document that prevents tender rejection, redesign loops, and acceptance disputes.
Sunlurio Engineering Deliverables (for EPC/Government)
We provide DIALux/Relux PDF + matching IES/LDT pack + BOQ mapping for solar street lighting tenders.
Typical turnaround: 24H after inputs (drawing / Google Map pin / BOQ template).
Quick Answer (60 seconds)
Need the full tender submission pack checklist (BOQ + IES + attachments)?
→ Solar Street Lighting Tender Pack Checklist →
If any of these are unclear, tender submissions often get delayed, questioned, or rejected:
- Targets (Avg/Min + uniformity) are not stated clearly
- Maintained performance assumptions are missing (design looks “day-one only”)
- IES/LDT photometric files don’t match the quoted model/optics
- Layout quantities cannot be audited against the BOQ
- Solar operational assumptions are missing (autonomy days, DoD, PV orientation)
Get a tender-ready pack (24H)
✅ Request Engineering Pack (24H) →
✅ View Reference Projects →
Text link: Get the DIALux Tender Review Checklist (PDF) →
Who this guide is for (EPC / Government)
This guide is written for:
- Government procurement & technical committees
- EPC contractors and project consultants
- Municipal/roadway infrastructure contractors
- Teams that must pass tender review + owner acceptance
If you are looking for small residential “garden lights,” this guide is not designed for that use-case.
Solar-specific assumptions (so reviewers know this is solar, not grid-only)
Solar street lighting tenders often require solar-operational assumptions that impact real performance:
- Solar autonomy days (backup days) and behavior after consecutive cloudy days
- Battery depth of discharge (DoD) used for sizing and lifecycle expectations
- PV module orientation / tilt and shading risks (trees, buildings, pole shadows)
- Luminous efficacy (lm/W) stated clearly (chip vs luminaire/system) so claims are auditable
These items help reviewers confirm your report is not a generic roadway model, but a project-ready solar street lighting system submission.
What a tender-ready DIALux report must prove
A reviewer-safe submission proves 4 layers:
1) Targets — criteria and evaluation method are explicit (lux + uniformity)
2) Inputs — geometry and assumptions are realistic (widths, height, spacing, tilt, setback)
3) Photometrics — luminaires match the correct IES/LDT and optic distribution
4) Outputs — tables + plots are readable, consistent, and traceable to BOQ
If one layer is weak, the whole package becomes non-auditable.
Reviewer checklist vs deliverables (fast audit table)
Use this table to align your submission with what reviewers actually check.
| Reviewer checks (what they verify) | What you must provide | Common rejection reason |
|---|---|---|
| Targets stated (Avg/Min + uniformity) | Design criteria block + results tables | Only “average lux” shown, no uniformity |
| Maintained performance logic | Clear assumptions note (maintained approach) | Looks “day-one only”, no assumptions |
| Exact model/optics used | Luminaire schedule + model code + optics | “Generic luminaire” or unclear optic |
| IES/LDT traceability | File names listed + match BOQ model | IES mismatch / missing file reference |
| Geometry realism | Road width/lanes, pole offset, arm, tilt | Unrealistic geometry with no notes |
| BOQ auditability | Mapping table: BOQ → model → IES → qty | Layout qty cannot be audited |
| Solar operation basis | Autonomy days + DoD + PV orientation | Solar assumptions missing |
CTA (for reviewers): Request Engineering Pack (24H) →
What reviewers check (in real review order)
1) Targets (average, minimum, uniformity)
Reviewers want to see:
- Target illuminance criteria (average and minimum)
- Uniformity metric and pass/fail result (e.g., Uo or Emin/Eavg depending on project spec)
- Application type (roadway / pedestrian / parking / high-mast area)
Pass: criteria is stated in a compact “Design Criteria” block and results tables include uniformity.
Fail: only “average lux” is shown, or criteria is vague (“meets standards”).
Internal links:
2) Maintained performance assumptions (not “day-one only”)
Even if the initial plot looks good, reviewers often expect the design to reflect real-world depreciation.
What to include (simple and transparent)
- One-line statement:
- “Results are reported with maintained performance assumptions to reflect real operation.”
- A short assumptions box:
- environment note (dusty/coastal/industrial) if relevant
- maintenance approach (periodic cleaning / typical maintenance)
- solar sizing basis: autonomy days + battery DoD
Common rejection trigger
- No mention of maintained logic, no assumptions, report looks like a marketing output.
3) IES/LDT traceability (model + optics)
This is the #1 tender failure point.
Reviewers verify:
- Luminaire model in report matches the BOQ model
- Optic distribution used fits the application
- IES/LDT file name is listed and traceable
Internal links:
Minimum requirement: include a luminaire schedule
- Model code: __
- Wattage: __
- Optics/distribution: __
- Mounting height: __
- Tilt angle: __
- Arm length / setback: __
- IES/LDT filename: __ (with revision/date)
Common rejection trigger
- “Generic luminaire” in software, or IES file not matching the quoted model/optics.
4) Geometry realism (height, spacing, tilt)
Reviewers check whether the geometry is credible:
- Road width, lanes, sidewalks, median
- Pole positions/offsets, arm length, overhang
- Mounting height, tilt angle
- Spacing constraints
Pass: layout matches a drawing/map and constraints are documented.
Fail: geometry is “too clean” or impossible, with no explanation.
Internal link:
5) BOQ audit mapping (layout quantity must match)
Even if results are fine, procurement can reject a submission if quantities can’t be audited.
A reviewer should trace:
BOQ → Model code → IES/LDT → DIALux layout qty (without guessing)
Internal link:
Minimum: add a mapping table (3 lines is enough)
- BOQ Item → Model code → IES file ref → Qty
- BOQ Item → Model code → IES file ref → Qty
- BOQ Item → Model code → IES file ref → Qty
CTA (audit-safe pack): Request Engineering Pack (24H) →
Common tender rejection reasons (and fast fixes)
Fast fix checklist (reviewer-friendly)
A) “Uniformity not reported”
Fix: Export full tables showing Avg/Min/Uniformity — not only plots.
B) “Maintained logic missing”
Fix: Add an assumptions box + one-line maintained statement (simple, honest).
C) “IES mismatch / not traceable”
Fix: List IES/LDT filenames and ensure BOQ model matches those files.
D) “No BOQ mapping / quantities not auditable”
Fix: Add a mapping table (layout qty ↔ BOQ qty) and reference the pack:
E) “Screenshot-only submission”
Fix: Export a complete PDF including luminaire schedule, tables, and calculation settings.
Minimum submission package (review-safe)
A clean “review-safe” package typically includes:
1) DIALux/Relux PDF report (criteria + geometry + tables + plots)
2) IES/LDT photometric pack (by model/optics, traceable file names)
3) Tender documents pack (BOQ mapping references, naming rules, submission structure)
4) Datasheets + drawings (system + mounting/pole details as needed)
5) Acceptance & handover checklist (for owner sign-off and O&M)
Start here:
Inputs we need to deliver in 24H (copy/paste)
You can reply “Unknown” where needed.
- Country/city (or Google Map pin): __
- Application: road / area / parking / village / high-mast: __
- Road/area width (m): __
- Pole height (m): __
- Pole spacing (m): __
- Arm length / bracket: __
- Tilt angle: 0° / other: __
- Operating hours per night: __
- Solar autonomy days (backup days): __
- Battery depth of discharge (DoD) assumption: __
- PV orientation / tilt constraints (if any): __
- Efficacy target (lm/W) (chip vs system): __
- Restrictions (coastal/desert/vandalism/glare): __
- Tender targets (if specified): __
Start here: Engineering Support →
FAQ (tender-side)
Can we submit screenshots instead of a full DIALux PDF?
Usually not. Reviewers typically require tables, settings, traceability, and a luminaire schedule — not only plots.
What is the #1 reason DIALux submissions get rejected?
The IES/LDT does not match the quoted model/optics, so the report is not auditable.
Do you provide IES/LDT files by model and optics?
Yes:
Photometric Files (IES/LDT) →
What inputs are required to start the design?
Location, geometry, pole constraints, and targets (if available). “Unknown” is acceptable at early stage.
Can you update the report if pole spacing or height changes?
Yes. We can revise quickly after constraints are confirmed.
Do you include BOQ mapping and acceptance checklist?
Yes. A tender-ready pack includes BOQ mapping references and typical owner acceptance and handover items.
Next step
If you want a reviewer-safe submission, don’t only “generate a DIALux file” — build an auditable pack:
✅ Request Engineering Pack (24H) →
✅ View Reference Projects →
✅ Tender Documents & BOQ Mapping →
✅ Contact →
