Procurement

Requirements spec: the request determines comparability.

Quotes can only be compared if every vendor is answering the same question. The structure below makes the request verifiable and heads off the most common cause of failed procurements: differing assumptions about the operating point.

ProcurementReading time 7 minUpdated 2026-08-27

A nine-section structure

01Process Goal

What should be achieved on the part, and how is it measured?

02Part

Geometry, material, volumes, and part variety.

03Operating Point

Pressure, flow rate, and nozzle configuration as a value pair.

04Productivity

Cycle time, shift model, and required availability.

05System Constraints

Media, installation site, safety, service, and acceptance.

The order is not arbitrary. It follows the specification logic: from the required result, to the tool, to the hydraulic operating point, and only then to the machine. Starting at section 3 and dictating a pressure figure has already pre-empted the specification — usually unintentionally, and rarely optimally.

Mistakes that make quotes impossible to compare

Common wording problems and their effect
Wording in the RequestProblemBetter Wording
“Pump with 4,000 bar”No flow rate defined, no operating point“3,800 bar at the tool at 3.8 l/min, continuous duty”
“high cut quality”Not verifiable, no basis for costing“functional edges at Q4, outer contour Q2, reference part enclosed”
“99% availability”Worthless without a reference period and definition“97% referenced to planned production time, planned maintenance excluded”
“high-performance drive”Nominal motor rating says nothing about the operating point“state electrical power draw at the operating point”
“including water treatment”No basis for sizing, quotes will vary wildly“treatment based on the enclosed water analysis, target values stated”
“training included”Scope undefined“two days on-site, up to six participants, in English”
The single most effective step

Enclosing an actual reference part and having every vendor cost the same cut or the same cleaning task delivers more comparability than twenty pages of technical specification. It surfaces assumptions that would otherwise only become visible at acceptance.

Text template, ready to adapt

The following template can be copied directly into a request document and completed with project-specific details. Square brackets mark the fields to be filled in.

WATERJET SYSTEM REQUEST

1  PROCESS GOAL
   Process .................. [Cutting | Cleaning | Coating removal | Deburring | Material removal]
   Starting condition ........ [Material, thickness, coating, contamination]
   Required end condition .... [Cut quality / residual contamination / removal depth / freedom from burrs]
   Acceptance criterion ...... [How is the result measured and accepted?]

2  PART OR OBJECT
   Dimensions ................ [L x W x H, weight]
   Material and condition .... [Standard designation, pre-treatment]
   Batch size / annual volume  [Units per year, batch sizes]
   Part range ................ [Number of variants, changeover frequency]

3  HYDRAULIC OPERATING POINT
   Operating pressure ........ [bar at the tool, not the pump's maximum pressure]
   Flow rate ................. [l/min at the operating point]
   Nozzle configuration ...... [Number, diameter, type]
   Abrasive .................. [Grit size, mass flow kg/min, feed method]

4  PRODUCTIVITY
   Cycle time / area rate ..... [s per part or m² per hour]
   Shift model ............... [h per day, days per week]
   Required availability ..... [% including definition of the reference time]

5  AUTOMATION AND GUIDANCE
   Tool guidance ............. [Manual | CNC | Robot | Special kinematics]
   Loading ................... [Manual | Pallet changer | Automated]
   Interfaces ................ [Higher-level control, MES, data formats]

6  MEDIA AND INFRASTRUCTURE
   Inlet water ............... [Attach analysis: hardness, conductivity, chloride, particulates]
   Electrical supply ......... [Available power, voltage, protection]
   Compressed air / other media [Demand and availability]
   Wastewater ................ [Discharge route, permit status, limit values]
   Installation site ......... [Area, ceiling height, foundation, access, crane runway]

7  SAFETY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
   Protection concept ........ [Enclosure, interlocking, access concept]
   Reaction force ............ [For hand-held tools: N in the long axis]
   Applicable legal framework  [2006/42/EC until 19 Jan 2027, then (EU) 2023/1230]
   Noise ..................... [Requirement at the workplace]

8  OPERATION AND SERVICE
   Wear-parts list ........... [Service life and list prices over three years]
   Service response time ..... [Committed hours in case of downtime]
   Spare-parts availability .. [Stock holding, lead times for critical parts]
   Training .................. [Scope, location, language, number of participants]
   Documentation .............. [Language, format, scope, declaration of conformity]

9  ACCEPTANCE
   Acceptance criteria ....... [Reference part, measurement method, tolerances]
   Place of acceptance ....... [Factory acceptance and/or on-site acceptance]
   Warranty .................. [Scope and terms]

Frequently asked questions about the request

How detailed should an initial request be?

Complete in sections 1, 2, and 4; open in section 3. The process goal, the part, and the required productivity need to be fixed; experienced vendors can derive the operating point from them. That derivation is itself a useful comparison criterion — a vendor who can justify it cleanly has understood the task.

Should a budget be stated?

A range helps, provided it is honest. It rules out quotes sized well past the actual task and lets vendors grade equipment options sensibly. Without a range, quotes routinely differ by a factor of three, and comparing them becomes the actual work.

How are operating costs factored into the award decision?

Through a full-cost comparison using a consistent service life, load profile, and energy and material prices. Vendors supply consumption figures at the defined operating point, plus a wear-parts list with service life. The approach is described under Operating Costs.