Comparing Aquaculture Proposals Line by Line: The Normalisation Method

When proposals arrive in different currencies, different scope boundaries and different levels of detail, the buyer who compares headline prices loses. Normalisation — forcing every proposal onto one line-item sheet with one set of assumptions — is what turns a pile of PDFs into a decision. Here is the method.

1. Build the comparison sheet before opening the proposals

List every line you expect: each equipment package with its guaranteed duty, installed and running kW, spares for years one and two, commissioning days, training, freight, warranty terms, delivery weeks, payment schedule. This sheet comes from your RFQ scope, not from any supplier's format — which is why a structured RFQ makes this step nearly automatic.

2. Convert everything to landed cost

Ex-works, FOB, CIF and DDP prices are not comparable. Add freight, insurance, duties and site delivery so every line is the cost of that equipment operational at your gate. A cheaper ex-works quote routinely loses once freight and a crane are included.

3. Fill the gaps explicitly

Every missing line is a hidden cost. If proposal A includes commissioning and proposal B does not, add a realistic commissioning cost to B — flights, days, local labour. Never leave a cell blank; a blank cell is a future change order. Mark every estimated fill clearly so you can challenge it in clarification.

4. Add the ten-year operating column

Energy, consumables and spares dwarf most capex differences for pumps, aeration and filtration. Using the running kW and consumables each supplier stated (see RFQ best practices for how to force those into the quote), add a simple ten-year operating cost column at your local electricity price. The ranking often flips.

5. Score the non-price rows separately

Delivery time, guarantee strength, spares geography, commissioning scope and reference quality go on the same sheet but in a separate scoring block, weighted to your project. A remote shrimp farm weights spares response heavily; a financed RAS build weights guarantees and documentation. See how to evaluate aquaculture equipment suppliers for what to put in this block.

6. Send clarification questions to everyone the answer affects

If supplier A's answer to a scope question changes how you read their price, every supplier pricing that scope deserves the same information. Asymmetric clarifications corrupt the comparison. In a managed process this happens automatically — questions pass through the desk to all bidders, and identities stay confidential until you choose the handoff.

7. Only then meet the suppliers

The normalised sheet tells you which two or three proposals are actually in contention. Those are the suppliers worth meeting — with your questions targeted at the cells you estimated, the guarantees, and the interface risks. This is the final stage of the buyer journey: proposals in, comparison done, handoff to the supplier you chose, on your terms.

The short version

One sheet, landed costs, no blank cells, ten-year operating column, separate non-price scoring, symmetric clarifications, supplier meetings last. Do that, and the best proposal wins instead of the best salesperson. Submit one RFQ and the proposals arrive already structured for this comparison.