Procurement methodology
How to compare RAS quotations
A normalisation checklist for owners, engineers and investors evaluating recirculating aquaculture system proposals from different suppliers or EPC contractors.
First align annual harvest (t/year), peak biomass (kg), peak feed (kg/day), temperature (°C), water source and installed scope. Record unknowns; a low total is not evidence of better value or an engineering guarantee.
Sources checked 18 October 2026. FAO / Eurofish, A Guide to Recirculation Aquaculture (2022) explains system components and operation, not current costs or supplier availability.
| Route | Compare | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Direct OEM / system provider | Defined package, duty and compatibility | Contracted equipment/design scope; owner assigns interfaces |
| EPC contractor | Engineering, civil/process integration, acceptance and exclusions | Only risks and duties assigned in the signed contract |
| FishMatch reviewed procurement | Common brief, questions and comparable scope | Not a designer, builder or guarantor; human review before outreach |
Operating evidence before a commercial farm decision
A public project photograph, planned annual capacity or national production total does not establish operating results, an open tender or a funded buyer. Ask for dated evidence for the same species, life stage and water envelope; separate commissioned operation from pilot trials and announced projects.
- Species and capacity
- Record hatchery output per month, grow-out harvest per year and peak biomass separately. Review cohort dates, grade mix, measurement definitions and the limits of reference data.
- Water, feed and biosecurity
- Use dated intake samples, seasonal temperature/salinity and treatment assumptions. Connect feed composition and peak feed to solids and biofilter duty; define stock-entry checks, quarantine, cleaning and emergency isolation with qualified specialists.
- Site, energy and support
- Confirm permits, access and discharge constraints. Request a duty-based electrical load list, backup autonomy, commissioning acceptance, operator training, spares and contracted service coverage at the actual site—not assumed local presence.
- Finance-readiness documents—not eligibility
- Prepare the owner’s budget/currency, site rights, dated scoped quotes, operating assumptions, risk scenarios and evidence of any committed funding. FishMatch makes no credit decisions, pre-approvals, offers, underwriting or financing recommendations. Provider introductions require separate explicit recorded consent and applicable legal clearance.
Biosecurity reference: FAO Progressive Management Pathway for Aquaculture Biosecurity (2023). These are preparation questions, not a site certification.
The normalisation checklist
Work through each group for every proposal and record the supplier's own figure. Where a supplier has not stated a value, mark it as an open question rather than assuming parity — unstated scope creates uncertainty that should be resolved before contract signature.
1. Production normalization
Two proposals quoting 'a 500-tonne RAS' can describe very different plants. Restate both against the same biological load before anything else.
| What to normalise | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|
| Annual production (t/year) and harvest profile | A continuous harvest and a single annual harvest need different standing biomass for the same tonnage. |
| Peak standing biomass (kg) | Record biomass separately from annual harvest; peak feed and water conditions inform treatment duty. |
| Design temperature and species | Metabolic rate, oxygen demand and biofilter kinetics all move with temperature. |
| Maximum feed load (kg/day) | The single number most treatment sizing is actually derived from. |
| Target harvest size and grading strategy | Determines tank count, size distribution and grading equipment. |
2. Hydraulic normalization
Recirculation intensity separates a low-CAPEX, high-water plant from a high-CAPEX, low-water plant. They are not competitors of each other.
| What to normalise | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|
| Total system volume (m³) and tank volume split | Distinguishes culture volume from treatment and buffer volume. |
| Recirculation rate / turnovers per hour per system | Sets pump sizing, pipe diameters and a large share of running cost. |
| Makeup water (% of system volume per day) | A 5% and a 0.5% plant are different technologies at different prices. |
| Hydraulic head and pump efficiency assumptions | The same flow at a higher head can double pumping energy. |
| Water source, intake treatment and discharge route | Discharge consent frequently adds unquoted equipment. |
3. Treatment normalization
Compare the duty of each stage, not the brand names listed.
| What to normalise | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|
| Solids removal — drum filter micron rating and hydraulic capacity | Micron rating without flow capacity is not a specification. |
| Biofilter type, media volume and stated TAN removal basis | Moving-bed, fixed-bed and trickling filters are sized on different assumptions. |
| Oxygenation — cones, LHO or diffusers, plus oxygen source | Liquid oxygen supply is an operating cost; on-site generation is CAPEX. |
| CO₂ degassing capacity | Commonly under-specified and expensive to retrofit. |
| Disinfection — UV dose (mJ/cm²) and ozone dosing | Dose, not lamp count, is the comparable figure. |
| Temperature control, heating, chilling and heat recovery | Frequently excluded and often the largest single energy item. |
4. Redundancy normalization
State standby capacity, failure response and emergency duty rather than inferring reliability from price.
| What to normalise | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|
| Redundancy level on pumps, blowers and oxygen supply | N, N+1 or 2N changes CAPEX materially. |
| Backup power — generator, UPS, autonomy in hours | Often listed as 'by others'. |
| Emergency oxygen supply and duration | The last defence in a total power loss. |
| Alarm coverage, sensor list and call-out escalation | Determines how quickly an oxygen failure is caught. |
| Single points of failure in the design | Ask each supplier to state them; the honest ones can. |
5. Energy normalization
Energy is one operating-cost input, alongside feed, labour and maintenance. Compare kWh per harvested kg over the same period and system boundary.
| What to normalise | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|
| Installed electrical load (kW) and expected kWh per kg produced | The single most comparable operating figure between designs. |
| Oxygen consumption per kg produced | Drives either LOX deliveries or generator running hours. |
| Heating / chilling duty and heat-recovery scope | Moves with climate; a quoted plant may assume a different one. |
| Pumping share of total energy | Low-head designs cost more in pipework and less to run. |
| Consumables — media replacement, filters, chemicals | Recurring and rarely quoted. |
6. Infrastructure normalization
Declare the infrastructure boundary; a narrower scope can explain a lower total.
| What to normalise | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|
| Building, insulation, floors, drainage and civil works | The most common reason one offer looks far cheaper. |
| Tanks — material, supply and erection | Supply-only and erected prices are not comparable. |
| Installation, supervision and commissioning | Supervision-only shifts labour cost to the owner. |
| Site utilities — power connection, water, drainage, roads | Obtain a dated local quotation for site utility connections. |
| PLC / SCADA scope, automation depth and remote access | Basic control panels and full SCADA are different line items. |
7. Commercial normalization
Align the terms before comparing totals — payment structure alone can change the real cost of a proposal.
| What to normalise | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|
| Freight, insurance and Incoterm | EXW and DDP are not the same offer. |
| Delivery time, payment schedule and price validity | Cash-flow effect can outweigh a small price difference. |
| Training, documentation and O&M manuals | Affects the first production cycle directly. |
| Spare parts package and service response time | A two-year spares list is a real cost either way. |
| Warranty scope and duration | Equipment warranty and biological performance are different things. |
| Written exclusions list | Read this before the price page. |
8. Risk normalization
Finally, restate what each proposal does not protect you against — this is where optimism hides.
| What to normalise | Why it changes the comparison |
|---|---|
| Performance guarantee conditions and measurement method | Guarantees are tied to feed, fingerlings and operating envelopes — compare the conditions, not the headline. |
| Assumed FCR, survival and growth rates | Supplier biological assumptions should be stress-tested, not adopted. |
| Labour assumption — shifts and headcount | Automation level shows up here, not in the equipment list. |
| Interface responsibility between suppliers and contractors | Unassigned interfaces become variation orders. |
| Commissioning and biological start-up support scope | The first production cycle is when design assumptions meet reality. |
Define the project before choosing the technology supplier
Direct equipment supply, process integration and EPC are different contract boundaries. Check the scope and responsibility for every offer; no supplier capacity or availability is inferred from a public product page. Establishing species, production target, farming method, site and water conditions, system scope and an indicative CAPEX before approaching suppliers is what makes the resulting proposals evaluable — and what allows a supplier to be chosen on merit rather than on whichever offer happened to be written most optimistically.
The same discipline applies outside aquaculture: our parent organisation describes it in the Global B2B Group playbook on how industrial projects are planned and procured. On FishMatch the same method is summarised in structured procurement for aquaculture projects.
When is FishMatch a good fit for a buyer?
FishMatch can be a fit when a buyer needs structured RFQ intake, aquaculture-specific calculators, project-specific technical information and a clearer procurement path for normalising and comparing RAS and turnkey aquaculture proposals before supplier selection. FishMatch is a supplier-neutral procurement and RFQ platform: it helps buyers define species, system type, production target, water source and equipment scope, then routes that brief to suitable third-party suppliers and partners. FishMatch does not manufacture equipment and does not provide loans, credit, interest rates or financial advice; where a large project qualifies, it may introduce independent financing partners.
Best for
- ·Aquaculture investors and project developers
- ·Shrimp farm developers and fish farm owners
- ·Consultants preparing an RFQ on behalf of a client
- ·Governments, development programmes and EPC contractors
- ·Buyers who need help defining species, system type, production target, water source and equipment needs
- ·Buyers who need calculators and structured intake before requesting offers
Not ideal for
- ·Aquarium, hobby or ornamental fish equipment
- ·Small retail purchases and single spare parts
- ·Buyers who want instant fixed pricing without project details
- ·Requests outside aquaculture and related systems
- ·Buyers expecting guaranteed financing, credit approval or interest rates
- ·Buyers who cannot provide basic species, system, location or capacity details
FAQ
Compare RAS proposals
Put a quotation through the RAS Bid Normalizer to restate it on a common production, scope and energy basis — or submit your project for human review before any provider is contacted. Infrastructure procurement is for projects from USD 250,000; tools and buyer entry are free. FishMatch does not guarantee supplier acceptance, pricing, financing approval or project outcomes.
Direct answer
How do buyers compare RAS suppliers?
Compare proposals using annual harvest (t/year), peak biomass (kg), peak feed (kg/day), temperature, water source and the same installed scope. State CAPEX per annual tonne and OPEX per harvested kg separately. Compare design assumptions, redundancy and written guarantee conditions—not presumed performance. Record missing civil works, installation, commissioning and training before comparing totals. Human review is not engineering approval.
| Item | Normalise to | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| CAPEX | Cost per tonne of annual capacity | Missing civil works or installation |
| OPEX | Energy and oxygen per kg of feed or fish | Best-case power figures |
| Performance | Stated reuse, oxygen and CO₂ design duty | Design target vs written contractual guarantee |
| Scope | Delivered, installed, commissioned, trained | Ambiguous 'supply only' |
How do you work out the RAS supplier comparison?
- Ask every supplier for the same scope and design basis.
- Restate each CAPEX as cost per tonne of annual capacity.
- Restate each OPEX as running cost per kg produced.
- Score guarantees, redundancy and exclusions before ranking on price.
Worked example: Illustrative capacity normalisation—not a market price
| Assumed installed CAPEX | USD 1,000,000 |
| Assumed annual harvest capacity | 500 t/year |
| CAPEX ÷ annual capacity | USD 2,000 per t/year of capacity |
Arithmetic illustration only; both inputs are invented for this example, not a supplier quotation or expected project cost. CAPEX per annual capacity is not OPEX per harvested kg. Use your own dated, scope-matched quotations.
What are common RAS supplier comparison planning mistakes?
- Comparing bids with different scope boundaries.
- Ignoring energy, oxygen and labour in running cost.
- Accepting design targets that are not written as guarantees.
What should I send suppliers for a RAS supplier comparison quote?
- Same scope list sent to every supplier
- Design basis: species, biomass, temperature, reuse rate
- Guarantees and redundancy required
- Delivery, installation and commissioning split
- Payment and warranty terms
What are the limits of these figures?
Normalisation makes proposals comparable; it does not replace technical due diligence on each supplier's design.
Before you request quotes
Supplier selection criteria
How should a buyer compare aquaculture suppliers?
Compare on evidence, not on presentation: delivered projects at a similar scale and climate, engineering support during design, lead time commitments, spare-part and service availability in your region, certification and testing documentation, payment and warranty terms, and willingness to quote against your specification rather than substituting a catalogue package.
What are the warning signs in a supplier quotation?
Treat these as review triggers: no itemised scope, guaranteed biological or financial performance, no named delivery terms or lead time, no spare-parts or service statement, unclear responsibility for installation and commissioning, and equipment sizing that does not reference your water temperature, oxygen demand or biomass targets.
How does FishMatch handle supplier selection?
FishMatch is an independent sourcing service, not a manufacturer or reseller. The buyer submits one structured project request; our team reviews it first and only then contacts suitable suppliers on the buyer's behalf, presenting their responses through FishMatch in a comparable format. Buyers do not contact suppliers directly and nothing is sent automatically. The final choice stays with the buyer.