Two vapor recovery proposals for the same depot can differ in price by a wide margin. The gap usually reflects different assumptions about scope, site conditions and support, not simply different equipment quality.
Capacity Basis
Check what unload profile each proposal used for sizing. One based on measured throughput justifies its capacity choice; one copied from a catalog may oversize or undersize the unit. Ask for the sizing calculation; suppliers who did the homework provide it readily.
Scope Boundaries
Interconnection piping, condensate returns, electrical supply and commissioning appear in some proposals and vanish in others. List each boundary explicitly. The proposal excluding commissioning looks cheaper until a separate crew arrives to start the unit.
Membrane and Consumable Life
Membrane modules, oil and filters carry different service lives under different vapor loads. Proposals should state expected intervals under the site’s own profile, not generic figures. Replacement costs dominate long-term economics, and honest interval estimates separate serious suppliers from optimistic ones.
Compliance Documentation
Proposals differ in the documentation they commit to provide: performance data from tests, as-built drawings, operating manuals. Verify which documents arrive at handover, because retro-fitting documentation costs more than producing it with the project.
Support Terms
Response time commitments, remote monitoring options and spare part availability belong in the comparison. A slightly higher price with defined support often beats a lower price with best-effort service, especially for depots where downtime carries visible cost.
Comparing on Equal Terms
Normalize the proposals into a table: capacity basis, scope boundaries, consumable intervals, documentation and support. Price comparison only means something after the assumptions line up, and the normalization itself often reveals which supplier understood the site best.