The short answer: Honestly, you can’t be sure unless you’re comparing proposals built on a defined scope of work. With a single proposal, you can sit down with your elevator service provider, have them walk you through it, and ask the right questions — but even then, if you don’t know your equipment’s condition, it’s hard to judge. On a decision this expensive, a conversation with an independent elevator expert is worth it, and it tends to pay for itself.
Why this is so hard to judge
A modernization proposal is a large, technical document for a decision most owners face only once or twice at a given building. You’re being asked to spend a six-figure sum on equipment you can’t easily evaluate, quoted by the elevator company that profits from the work. That information gap is exactly where over-scoped and over-priced work lives — and the company selling the job isn’t an unbiased source.
What a legitimate proposal looks like
Specific scope. It should name each individual component being replaced — controller, door operator, motor/drive, fixtures, safety devices — not hide behind “full modernization.” And those are only the beginning of what a thorough proposal should spell out. If you can’t tell what you’re buying, you can’t tell whether it’s reasonable.
It matches your equipment’s condition. A sound scope lines up with an honest assessment of what’s actually worn or obsolete — not a blanket “modernization.” Proposals often don’t spell out what’s being reused, replaced, or refurbished, or why each item falls into one of those buckets.
This is a genuinely complex question, and answering it well takes real knowledge and complete information about the equipment.
The cost bomb nobody points out: “alteration”
Here’s the part that surprises owners. Under ASME A17.1, a modernization is considered an “alteration” — and an alteration can require bringing the elevator system up to the current code edition, not just the parts you’re replacing. Swapping a controller, for example, can pull in upgrades to things like the fire-alarm interface, pit equipment, or ADA-related items.
That’s not necessarily a scam — sometimes code genuinely requires it. But it’s often where a “partial” modernization quietly becomes a full one, and where a proposal balloons. It’s worth understanding all of this upfront, because whether a company calls the job “full” or “partial” can be fairly subjective.
The red flags
- Vague scope — “full modernization” with few components listed
- No code triggers spelled out — once the controller is changed, what else has to be brought up to code?
- Bundled extras you didn’t ask about, hard to separate from the core work
- OEM lock-in — proprietary controllers or software that tie you to one vendor for the life of the equipment
- A single bid — no independent comparison
- Pressure and urgency — “this price is only good this week”
The best protection: bids and an independent read
- Get at least three proposals, including from independent (non-OEM) contractors, for a real market comparison.
- Have it reviewed by someone independent — a consultant or an independent elevator expert who doesn’t sell the work can flag over-scoped items and, with the full picture, tell you what’s actually necessary and help you judge whether the number makes sense. On projects over a certain size, that review is small next to what it can save.
- Decide phased vs. full deliberately. Full modernization costs more upfront but usually less over time; phasing spreads the cost but buying components separately can cost more in total. Make that a choice, not a default.
What to do next
- You have a modernization proposal in hand: have it reviewed before you sign — the review is cheap insurance on a six-figure decision, not to mention the potential for change orders.
- You’re not sure you even need to modernize yet: get a straight read on your equipment’s remaining life first.
- You want leverage: put the project out to competitive bid on a clear, independent scope so you’re comparing apples to apples.
We’re independent — we don’t sell modernizations, so we have no stake in the scope. With all the applicable information about your equipment and the proposal, we can tell you what’s actually necessary and what isn’t, point out where a scope has ballooned, and help you walk into the decision with clear eyes.
FAQ
What should a solid modernization proposal include?
At a minimum, a specific list of the components being replaced and a scope that matches your equipment’s actual condition. Vague “full modernization” wording with no detail is a red flag.
How many bids should I get?
At least three, including independent (non-OEM) contractors, so you have a real market comparison instead of a single company’s number. You’ll notice the numbers come back very differently unless everyone is bidding to the same defined scope of work.
Is it worth hiring someone to review the proposal?
On a six-figure project, usually yes. An independent reviewer who doesn’t sell the work can — with the applicable information — flag over-scoped items, tell you what’s actually necessary, and help you judge whether the number makes sense, often saving far more than the review costs.
Should I do a full or phased modernization?
It depends on your budget and equipment. Full costs more upfront but less over time; phased spreads the cost but can be more expensive in aggregate. It should be a deliberate decision based on your situation, not the contractor’s default.