I cannot choose an FR10 packing offer while commissioning has no owner

We listed installation checks, integration, application assessment, sample trials, documentation and training. Our maintenance team can support the work, but cannot take sole responsibility for the whole list.

Then ask the delivery-only supplier to price a defined commissioning service or identify a provider who will. We dropped a cheap fixture offer once our own team's missing work was honestly costed.

Don't assume the other offer is complete just because the heading says commissioning. What does it actually deliver, and which acceptance cases are included?

Elliot, its scope covers normal carton loading but says interruptions and changeovers are customer training matters. We have asked it to explain the boundary between application behaviour and teaching our staff.

A training session cannot supply missing application behaviour. Get the boundary clarified in the offer.

Exactly. The operators can learn agreed recovery and changeover procedures; they shouldn't be expected to invent them when the trainer reaches an empty heading. Include the normal people who will cover those tasks in the review.

Both suppliers have the same ordinary changeover and interruption examples now. Delivery-only supplier proposed an integrator; the other is revising its acceptance and training scope.

Ask whether that proposed integrator has accepted the work and seen the examples. Naming someone in a quotation is not the same as having them price the job.

The integrator declined after seeing the requested scope. We have removed that supposed commissioning allowance rather than keeping the supplier's estimate as if somebody had agreed to it.

Then that offer remains incomplete, even if its delivered-equipment price is firm.

Where did the other revision land? A single complete offer can still be too expensive, but at least you'll be deciding on a job someone is actually offering to finish.