How should I compare turnkey greenhouse or irrigation proposals?
Normalise before comparing. Rebuild every proposal onto one scope sheet: included and excluded works, design loads and standards, equipment makes and models, capacities and duties, spare and consumable assumptions, Incoterm and freight, installation and supervision days, commissioning and acceptance criteria, documentation, training, warranty term and response time, payment schedule and delivery programme. Then compare on total cost of ownership, not headline price. Differences that survive normalisation are real; differences that disappear were scope gaps.
What actually drives the answer
Ask every bidder to price the same option list separately so the comparison is not distorted by bundling.
Payment schedule and delivery programme carry real financial cost; a cheaper quote with heavy advance payments may not be cheaper.
Check that stated capacities are at the site's design conditions, not at a laboratory reference condition.
Request the responsibility matrix in writing: design, civil, mechanical, electrical, controls, commissioning and training.
Variables that change the answer
- Scope boundary
- Design conditions
- Warranty and service terms
- Payment and delivery schedule
- Local support
Evidence a supplier needs before quoting
- All proposals in full, including terms
- The original RFQ
- Site conditions used for sizing
What this answer does not settle
- Normalisation exposes scope differences; it does not verify a supplier's ability to perform, nor does it constitute legal or contractual advice.
Responsibility
- Professional review:
- Owner's representative, project engineer and legal review
- Delivered by:
- Manufacturer, integrator or EPC contractor
- Feeds RFQ section:
- Evaluation criteria
Related pages
More in this topic
Spotted an error? Write to support@seedmatchgroup.com — see our corrections policy.