Supplier due diligence / evidence before claims
Verify who will contract, manufacture, test, ship and support the machine. A registration record or factory video can support one check, but neither proves the complete project capability.
Record the contracting legal entity, payment beneficiary, manufacturing site, project coordinator, FAT host and after-sales contact. If one company performs several roles, ask for that relationship in writing.
A certificate, reference or machine video is useful only when its issuer, holder, address, product scope and date can be tied to the proposed order.
Send every candidate the same bottle, cap, output, scope and site inputs. Compare how clearly each supplier identifies assumptions, deviations and missing data.
Mark each material issue verified, conditional, open or hold. Name the evidence needed, owner and closure gate so an unanswered question cannot disappear into the purchase order.
Check the contracting entity, payment beneficiary and actual assembly and FAT site separately. Then verify order-specific engineering, assembly, test and support capability; a business registration or workshop video alone does not prove every role.
Verify legal identity, bank beneficiary, relevant certificate scope, technical proposal, approved deviations, manufacturing and FAT location, document register, service responsibility and signed commercial terms against their issuing sources.
It can show selected facilities and current conditions, but it should be combined with document verification, an order-specific technical review, traceable references where available and defined FAT or independent inspection evidence.
Supplier qualification
The best supplier is not identified by a homepage claim or the lowest subtotal. Compare how each candidate converts the same buyer brief into a traceable configuration, test method, responsibility boundary and support plan.
| Decision area | Strong response | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Project fit | Supplier explains why the proposed platform fits the actual bottle, cap, water and output. | Marked-up bottle data, selected model and assumptions |
| Scope clarity | Every mechanical, utility and control handover is identified. | Included / excluded list and interface schedule |
| Performance evidence | Output is tied to a reference bottle, duration, reject rule and stable conditions. | Written FAT protocol and acceptance basis |
| Manufacturing evidence | The responsible manufacturing resource and inspection stages are transparent. | Factory identity, build milestones and inspection records |
| Lifecycle support | Parts, manuals, training, warranty and response responsibilities are specific. | Deliverables register and after-sales process |
| Commercial clarity | Price, packing, Incoterm, destination and buyer costs use the same boundary. | Signed technical and commercial proposal |
Factory audit and supplier verification
A defensible supplier decision links each important claim to a source, a project role and a closure state. Verify corporate identity and manufacturing capability separately, then test the proposed team against your actual bottle, scope and FAT requirement.
| Check | Evidence to request | Decision record |
|---|---|---|
| Contract and payment identity | Registration source, contract name, address and bank-beneficiary confirmation | Matched / explained mismatch / hold |
| Manufacturing and FAT site | Site identity, order-specific assembly/test plan and responsible team | Verified / conditional / open |
| Certificate applicability | Issuer, holder, site, scope and current status | Applicable / limited / not relevant |
| Technical capability | Controlled response to bottle, cap, output, interface and utility brief | Complies / deviates / open |
| References and support | Comparable application evidence and named service/escalation route | Verified / conditional / open |
Guides
Next procurement decision
Compare configuration assumptions, interfaces, FAT, documents, delivery and service before ranking price.