How to scope an AV or Low-voltage project in 2026 when costs keep moving

In 2024, scoping an AV or low-voltage project followed a familiar rhythm: define requirements, get quotes, get approval, issue POs. Quotes were good for 30 to 60 days. Hardware arrived roughly when expected. Budget variance was manageable.

In 2026, that rhythm has a new variable: tariffs.

Most commercial AV hardware; displays, cameras, DSPs, control systems, microphones, structured cabling components; is manufactured in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, or other parts of Southeast Asia. When tariff rates shift, so do prices. And in 2026, they’ve been shifting. Crestron is itemizing a 5% tariff surcharge on invoices. Other manufacturers have folded similar increases into list prices. A project scoped in Q4 2025 may look meaningfully different on paper by the time equipment ships in Q2 or Q3 2026.

This isn’t a reason to slow down project planning. It’s a reason to plan differently.

 

---

Start the procurement conversation earlier

The single highest-leverage change a PM can make to project scoping right now is moving the equipment procurement conversation earlier in the timeline, before scope is fully finalized, not after.

That means:

• Getting preliminary equipment lists from your integrator or vendor during scope definition, not at bid. Even rough lists let you identify tariff-exposed product categories and build contingency accordingly.
• Understanding how your integrator handles tariff cost pass-through. Some are transparent (explicit surcharge line items). Others fold increases into revised quotes with less visibility. Asking the question upfront removes surprises later.
• Specifying manufacturer-neutral where possible. A scope that allows for equivalent substitutions across manufacturer gives you more flexibility if a specific product’s pricing shifts significantly before the PO is issued.

 

---

Build a contingency line into every hardware-heavy project

Hardware contingency used to be a best practice. In 2026, it’s a necessity.

For AV and structured cabling projects, a 5–10% hardware contingency line is a reasonable starting point in the current environment. For projects with longer delivery timelines; phased rollouts, multi-site deployments, anything stretching into Q3 or Q4; the upper end of that range is more appropriate.

The contingency conversation with clients or internal budget owners is easier to have during scoping than after a change order. Framing it accurately; this is a risk management line, not padding; is the right approach and the honest one.

 

---

Understand quote validity and lock in what you can

Standard AV quotes in 2025–2026 are running 15–30 day validity windows in many cases, shorter than the 30–60 days that were typical before tariff volatility became a factor.

For projects where scope is defined and internal approval timelines are predictable, the practical move is to get to PO as quickly as possible after quotes are finalized. For projects where approval timelines are longer, building quote refresh checkpoints into the project schedule prevents the surprise of re-quoting at higher prices mid-project.

On the structured cabling side, copper pricing has been volatile independently of tariff effects. For large-volume cabling projects, understanding how your contractor handles material pricing; fixed at bid, or adjusted at delivery; is an important contract question, not just a logistics one.

 

---

What doesn’t change

Tariff volatility changes procurement strategy. It doesn’t change what good project delivery looks like.

Clear scope documentation, standardized installation practices, accurate testing and labeling, complete closeout packages, these matter as much in a volatile pricing environment as in a stable one. More, arguably, because projects under budget pressure are more likely to cut corners that become expensive problems later.

The PMs who are navigating 2026 well are the ones who are planning procurement earlier, building honest contingency, and having the tariff conversation with clients upfront, not explaining a change order after the fact.