How to Perform a Technical Bid Evaluation for Tower Packing and Internals

When several suppliers quote the same tower packing or internals project, procurement teams often begin with the easiest number to compare:

price.

That is understandable, but it is also where many poor purchasing decisions begin.

Two quotations can have the same equipment description while actually covering different materials, geometry, documentation, fabrication scope, inspection requirements, or installation hardware.

For engineered tower internals, a technical bid evaluation should therefore take place before commercial comparison is treated as meaningful.

Start with a Common Technical Baseline

Every supplier should be compared against the same reference documents.

These may include:

• purchaser datasheet;
• RFQ specification;
• tower drawings;
• process conditions;
• required material;
• approved packing type;
• inspection requirements;
• documentation requirements.

If Supplier A quotes against Revision 2 while Supplier B uses Revision 4, the two offers are not directly comparable.

Document revision should therefore be checked before evaluating technical details.

Separate Compliance from Supplier Proposal

A useful technical review distinguishes three conditions:

Compliant — supplier meets the stated requirement.

Deviation — supplier proposes something different.

Clarification required — information is insufficient to determine compliance.

This is far stronger than marking every item simply “OK.”

A supplier may write “complied” while the actual offer contains a different sheet thickness or excludes the support grid.

The evaluator should verify the offer itself.

Compare Product Identity

For packing products, review the parameters that define the actual product.

For random packing, this may include:

• packing type;
• nominal size;
• material;
• wall or sheet thickness;
• geometry;
• bulk density;
• relevant technical data.

For structured packing:

• packing model;
• surface area;
• corrugation geometry;
• sheet or wire construction;
• element height;
• segmentation.

For demisters and tower internals, equivalent product-specific parameters should be reviewed.

Compare Scope Before Comparing Price

A low quotation may exclude:

• support grids;
• hold-down devices;
• installation hardware;
• shop trial assembly;
• drawings;
• material certificates;
• inspection reports;
• export packaging.

Another supplier may include all of these.

The technical bid evaluation should therefore identify the complete supply boundary.

Otherwise, procurement may select the lowest quotation and discover later that several required items were never included.

Material Requirements Need Special Attention

Material wording should be checked carefully.

Examples include:

SS316 vs SS316LPP vs virgin PPstandard ceramic vs specified alkali-resistant ceramic

A technically similar description is not automatically contractually equivalent.

If an alternative material is proposed, the supplier should identify it as a deviation.

Review Design Assumptions

Suppliers often need to make assumptions when information is incomplete.

Typical assumptions may involve:

• tower inside diameter;
• manway size;
• support-ring dimensions;
• operating flow;
• packing bed height;
• segment size.

These assumptions should be visible in the quotation.

A supplier should not be penalized merely for stating assumptions.

In fact, clear assumptions often indicate a more disciplined technical offer.

The risk is hidden assumptions.

Compare Documentation Scope

For EPC projects, documentation can materially affect both price and lead time.

Check whether each supplier includes:

• GA drawings;
• fabrication drawings;
• material certificates;
• inspection reports;
• ITP;
• PMI or NDT if required;
• installation drawings;
• MDR.

A supplier offering only the physical equipment is not necessarily equivalent to one offering a full project documentation package.

Identify Commercially Important Technical Deviations

Some deviations have little cost effect.

Others can change the commercial comparison significantly.

Examples include:

• heavier sheet thickness;
• higher alloy material;
• different packing geometry;
• additional support structure;
• different segmentation;
• additional testing.

Procurement should quantify these differences where possible before comparing final prices.

Use a Technical Bid Tabulation

For larger projects, the evaluation should be captured in a structured comparison matrix.

Typical columns may include:

• RFQ requirement;
• Supplier A;
• Supplier B;
• Supplier C;
• deviation;
• clarification;
• final technical status.

This creates a transparent decision record.

It also makes future AI-assisted quotation comparison easier because technical differences are structured rather than buried in PDF notes.

Technical Acceptance Is Not Supplier Ranking

The objective of the technical evaluation is to determine whether each offer meets the project requirements or requires clarification.

A compliant offer may still differ commercially.

The engineering review should therefore avoid mixing technical compliance with purchasing preference.

Engineering Takeaway

Technical bid evaluation converts several visually similar quotations into a true like-for-like comparison.

For tower packing and internals, the evaluation should cover product construction, material, scope, design assumptions, interfaces, inspection, documentation, and declared deviations before commercial price is treated as comparable.