How to Compare Irrigation Quotations Without Guessing
Two offers usually differ because they describe different scopes. The normalisation sheet that makes prices comparable before anyone negotiates.
Two irrigation quotations usually differ because they describe different things, not because one supplier is cheaper. Normalising them is a short, mechanical exercise: same duty, same scope, same quantity basis, same delivery and same validity. Done properly, it removes most of the apparent price gap before anyone negotiates.
01 – Why each channel needs it, and where it is used
| Channel | Role in this decision | Why they need it |
|---|---|---|
| Distribution and wholesale | Compare supplier offers before reselling | Reselling on the lower number without normalising scope produces a margin problem at commissioning |
| Contractors and integrators | Bid against a specification | The bid that wins on a stripped scope is the bid that loses on variations |
| Direct B2B users – farms, estates, municipal green | Compare offers for a known duty | The cheapest offer usually excludes the parts that make the installation work |
| Specifiers and influencers – designers, procurement consultants | Make evaluation objective | If the basis is not fixed, the comparison is arbitrary and the award is indefensible |
It applies wherever more than one offer arrives: municipal tenders, estate upgrades, irrigation packages, distributor price comparisons. The mechanism is the same – the numbers are only comparable when the scopes are.
02 – How to make a preliminary selection
Write the duty first: peak flow, allowable pressure loss, required grade, water description and cleaning model. Those five turn a price list into a specification, and without them no comparison is possible.
Then list the scope items explicitly: housing, element, element grade, gauges, valves, bypass, controller, mounting, documentation and spare elements. Every item present in one offer and absent in another is a scope difference, not a price difference.
Then normalise the commercial terms: quantity basis, MOQ, validity, lead time, payment terms and delivery point. A unit price at a quantity nobody will order is not comparable.
Finally, ask for the assumption behind each offer: the flow at which the element is rated, the loss quoted, and the grade supplied. An offer that states its assumptions can be checked; one that does not has to be trusted.
03 – Comparing the realistic options
The table is the normalisation sheet itself – the document that turns several offers into one comparison.
| Line | What to record |
|---|---|
| Duty | Peak flow, allowable loss, required grade |
| Scope | Housing, element, valves, gauges, controller |
| Documentation | Flow rating, grade basis, materials |
| Commercial | Quantity basis, MOQ, validity, lead time |
| Service | Spares, response time, warranty |
Filling it takes an hour and usually removes one or two offers before price is discussed, because the scope difference becomes obvious rather than argued.
04 – What goes wrong, and what still needs confirming
The classic failure is buying the cheaper offer and discovering at installation that the valves and gauges are missing, then paying a variation that exceeds the difference. The second is comparing prices at quantities the project will never reach.
Items to confirm in writing before award: the scope list item by item; the flow rating and grade; the loss at that flow; the documentation supplied; the lead time and validity; and the spare element price for future orders.
05 – What we can supply and what to send
Delta AgriFlow quotes against a written duty and returns the offer in the buyer’s own structure, so the lines can be compared without translation: compact filters, automatic disc filters, screen filters, media filters and stations.
Send six items: peak flow and allowable loss; required grade and the emitter behind it; the scope items you expect; quantity and delivery point; lead time needed; and the documentation required for handover.
The most useful habit is to compare offers line by line rather than total to total. A total hides which lines differ, and the line that differs is usually the one that matters at installation.
A second is to ask each supplier to state what is excluded. The excluded list is often longer than the included list, and it is where the real cost sits.
A third is to compare lead times as a price. On a project with a fixed planting window, a two-week delay has a cost that should be on the sheet rather than in a conversation after the award.
A fourth is to look at the spare parts line. A cheap offer with expensive or unavailable spares becomes expensive over the life of the installation, and the difference belongs in the comparison.
Finally, keep the sheet for the next project. The second comparison takes minutes instead of a week, and the buyer’s own template becomes the standard that suppliers learn to answer.
What to record at handover
A handover that consists of a working system and a verbal explanation is not a handover. Three things have to be written down: what was installed and where, what the settings are, and what the routine is. Record each offer in the same structure: duty, scope, documentation, commercial terms and service.
The commissioning check matters as much as the record. Verify the quoted flow rating and grade against the stated duty; a mismatch is a scope difference, not a price difference. A reading taken once at commissioning is worth more than a datasheet, because it describes the installation rather than the product.
Finally, hand over the commercial part as clearly as the technical part. Hand the completed sheet to whoever approves the award, because the sheet is the defence of the decision. Without it, the next order restarts from zero, and the advantage of a standard package disappears.
What to put on the comparison sheet
- Duty: flow, loss, grade
- Scope: housing, element, valves, gauges
- Documentation supplied
- Quantity basis and validity
- Lead time and delivery point
- Spare parts and warranty
A practical addition to the sheet is a column for what the offer does not state. Silence on a technical line is information: it tells you which questions to ask before the award rather than after.
Where two offers remain close after normalisation, the deciding factor is usually service: who answers a technical question in a day, and who has the spare part in the country.
Finally, record the decision reason next to the award. A one-line note explaining why the offer was chosen is the difference between a documented decision and an argument later.
06 – Questions, sources and next steps
What is the single most useful comparison line? The scope list. Once the scopes match, the prices are usually close; while they differ, the comparison is not real.
Should the cheapest offer win? Only when the scope, the duty and the terms are identical. Otherwise the comparison is between different things.
How do I compare lead times? As a cost. Put the project date, the delivery date and the consequence of a delay on the same sheet.
Where an offer looks substantially cheaper, ask for the same comparison sheet filled in by the bidder. The exercise usually reveals the difference in one page, and it avoids a negotiation based on suspicion.
Where an offer looks substantially more expensive, ask what it includes that the others do not. Sometimes the answer is documentation, spares or a longer warranty, and sometimes it is simply a higher price. Both answers are useful.
The sheet is also a record of what the market looks like at that moment. Prices move, and a comparison saved today explains a decision taken six months later.
Where a buyer has no technical background, the sheet is the document that makes the difference visible to their own finance team, which is often what the award actually depends on.
A comparison sheet is only as good as the questions it asks. If the duty line is empty, the sheet compares prices for things that may not be the same product at all.
Before you order
- Duty stated
- Scope listed
- Documents requested
- Quantity basis fixed
- Delivery date stated
- Spares priced
Where two offers differ by less than the cost of a variation, the deciding factor is usually delivery and support. The sheet makes that comparison possible instead of leaving it to impression.
A comparison that cannot be explained to a colleague is not finished. The last test of the sheet is whether someone who was not in the meeting can follow it and reach the same conclusion.
Information boundary
This article describes how the decision is structured. It is not a performance specification and does not state capacity, flow, pressure or service-life values for a specific product. Those values are confirmed per project after a written quotation; manufacturer figures cited are the published values for those products, not project commitments.
Reviewed: 2026-10-26. Next review after supplier specifications are confirmed in writing.
Sources and further reading
- Rain Bird XFA 13 mm dripline datasheet – 120 mesh filtration requirement, 50-350 kPa compensating range
- Netafim Techflow bid performance specification – 120 mesh or finer filtration, disc grades 40-200 mesh
- ISO 9912-1:2004 – Filters for micro-irrigation: classification
- ISO 18471:2015 – Verification of filtration grade
- FAO – Irrigation manual, Chapter 6: drip irrigation
Normalising offers? Send your duty and scope list through our quotation request.
