Discussion on the issue of equipment weight
Thread Content
For EPC fixed-price contract projects, how can it be more reasonably explained to the owner if the final weight of the equipment is lower than that specified in the initial quotation?
It is normal for the final weight of the equipment to be lower (or higher) than the weight indicated in the initial quote. When providing a quote, many conditions may still not be determined or the information provided may be incomplete; therefore, assumptions are made in the quote, which may not correspond to the actual situation. Therefore, even for closed-price contracts, an error margin should be set for the equipment weight, at ±5% or ±10%, and price adjustments are allowed for amounts exceeding this margin. If no boundaries are specified in the contract and a significant error occurs, it is necessary to identify the specific cause of the error and resolve it through negotiation between the two parties.
It seems like you’re falling behind quite a bit, huh?:) Let me share something I’ve encountered before – for equipment tenders, we usually provide engineering drawings for use in the bidding process. The price after the bidding process has also been determined. Later, the manufacturer requested an increase in the wall thickness (the originally calculated thickness was considered sufficient; approximately 17 was required, but 18 was chosen). The designer felt that whether to increase the thickness was a matter related to the construction drawings, and since no additional payment would be made, they replied that as long as the thickness wasn’t reduced, it was fine; if they wanted to increase it, they could do so on their own. Here’s the problem: in the end, the manufacturer demanded more money on the grounds that the wall thickness had increased and the weight had gone up, and they got their money. In the end, the person in charge of the bidding blamed the designer for a poor design. So, for issues like yours where the amount is either too low or too high, as long as you maintain good relations with the tendering party and engage in friendly negotiations, it can be resolved nicely. It could also be that there are flaws in our company’s management system; since designers do not participate in the evaluation process, they are not aware of the intricacies involved, which leads to such problems. In short, as long as good relations are maintained, matters can be resolved through friendly negotiation.
These days, many Party B entities make money through this