I am an amateur, but I have done some traditional BW ocassionally using FP4+, Tri-X and HP5+ in interiors with fluorescent lighting. It worked well for me. All that follows refers to traditional fluorescent tubes. There are newer, high frequency lamps which are a lot closer to incandescent than to the older tubes. When you have indirect lighting or a lot of reflections from white walls, fluorescent gives a more uniform, softer look than incandescent bulbs in my experience, because the light source has a larger area. Direct is about the same as incandescent but coming from a larger area it looks softer.
Contrast depends chiefly on the type of lighting (i.e. direct or indirect) and the developing conditions (developer, time and temperature), but fluorescent is not worse than incandescent in my experience.
You may need reflectors or fill flash; ambient light in a factory may not be exactly what you want or need; it will come from above and a bit from the sides. Floors are not usually bright so there is no light from below.
Chromogenic BW or color film should give less contrast than traditional BW with standard processing. Color film will give weird color effects since (traditional tube lamps) fluorescent light is a mixture of green and purple; it usually comes out as a strange green effect. I have read that filters may be used to correct, and definitely digital cameras may correct it easily.
Remember that fluorescent is pulsed light (with 50 Hertz electricity in Italy, you get one pulse every 1/100 second from each tube). Most industrial installations use three-phase systems that alternate those pulses from neighboring lamps tubes, so you may get one every 1/300 or so, equally spaced in time. You need to set an exposure time large enough to include a stable number of pulses, for reproducible results. That would mean at least 1/50; my results have been acceptable with 1/25 to 1/4 sec.