RAS grow-out tender — comparing four systems on one design basis
A consultant holds a client brief for an indoor recirculating grow-out unit but has quotes that cannot be compared: different biofilter sizing assumptions, different oxygen scope, different incoterms.
- Project type
- Indoor RAS grow-out
- Consultant input
- Target annual tonnage, species, water temperature, site power
- Suppliers invited
- 4 (2 consultant-nominated, 2 added from the sourcing desk)
- Client identity
- Withheld from suppliers throughout
- 1 · Design basis fixed first
Feed load, TAN production, make-up water percentage, temperature band and oxygen delivery method are written down before any supplier is contacted, so every quote answers the same question.
- 2 · Private RFQ issued
The same scope-of-supply, battery limits, incoterms and warranty text goes to every invited supplier. The consultant's own suppliers are added to the same package.
- 3 · Offers normalised
Offers are re-tabulated line by line: biofilter media volume, degassing, oxygenation, drum filtration, controls, spares, commissioning days, freight and duties.
- 4 · Gaps sent back
Missing lines — instrumentation, alarm redundancy, commissioning scope — go back to the supplier as written clarifications instead of being estimated.
- One comparison table on identical scope and incoterms
- Written scope-gap list per offer
- Total evaluated cost including freight, duties and commissioning
- Consultant-branded summary the client can read without supplier identities
The consultant presents the shortlist. Supplier selection stays with the consultant and the client.