Compare materials in the same public setting

Compare supplied packages, not species names alone

A useful commercial material comparison begins with the same job for every candidate. Define the route, actual board section, surface treatment, profile, length requirements and connection. Then ask each supplier to identify what its offer includes, excludes or leaves unresolved.

Keep Ipe, Cumaru and Garapa as separate candidates with their own product records. Their species pages explain selected material characteristics and what those mean for a commercial review. The appearance control above keeps the promenade setting constant so a color preference is easier to discuss. It does not rank structural performance, walking comfort or durability.

Build an evidence comparison before a price ranking

Give each requirement its own row in the review: product identity, board section, machining, supplied condition, connection, surface evidence, maintenance instructions and delivery scope. Put the offered value and supporting document beside it. If an offer has no answer, leave a visible gap rather than scoring it as equivalent.

Separate differences from conflicts. A different offered length assortment may be workable after layout review. A missing profile drawing prevents a mechanical-fit conclusion. A proposed change outside the accepted specification requires the project’s substitution process. Treating all three as a single “alternative material” note loses the decision that needs to be made.

Understand what common property claims can answer

Density concerns mass for a stated volume and condition. Hardness, strength, natural durability and surface performance describe different questions; one impressive value cannot substitute for all of them. Check the units, test basis and specimen condition before comparing numbers from different publications.

The Forest Products Laboratory explains that moisture exchange depends on the surrounding air and the wood’s existing moisture state, with important effects on properties and performance. For procurement, this means the offered drying condition and the project’s handling plan deserve their own entries. It is not enough to add a generic “seasoned hardwood” note.

Use exact project design information for supports and attachments. Published species data are background for informed review, not permission to select a span or a screw arrangement from this comparison.

Price the same installation and operating scope

Normalize quotations to the same surface layout, required machining, length distribution, accessories, delivery stages and exclusions. A square-foot price can conceal different usable widths or packages. Keep taxes, freight, unloading and specialist fabrication explicit where they apply to the quotations being reviewed.

Fictional example: Offer A supplies the field boards with the required profile. Offer B has a lower board price but leaves machining and accessories unpriced. Record those omissions before comparing totals. Do not assign an invented allowance simply to make the worksheet produce a winner.

The owner also needs to compare the proposed care approach and access for replacement. Distinguish a documented care requirement from a budget assumption. This page does not publish live market prices; Hardwood Prices owns the detailed quotation-normalization task.

Decide appearance with samples and a care brief

Review candidate samples under relevant project lighting and identify their surface treatment. Agree how natural variation will be assessed. A screen’s brown or golden tone is not a calibrated acceptance standard, and a fresh sample does not predict the appearance of every exposed location.

Finishing guidance from the Forest Products Laboratory treats appearance, protection and cleanability as distinct selection considerations. Apply that distinction to the owner’s brief: what appearance is desired, which actual product provides the proposed treatment and how will its care be carried out in a public place?

Keep the accepted basis, documented exceptions and open items with the procurement worksheet. The result should be an explainable selection record, not a species league table whose assumptions disappear after purchase.