Key takeaways
- Match the requested supply scope before comparing amounts.
- Keep product and additional components visible.
- Check that included fees are not added again.
- Treat a cost ranking as conditional on technical and commercial acceptance.
Identify the local service context
PPA's regulations directory includes a separate ship-repair area regulation and charges category.
For a vessel considering supply during a repair-related Piraeus call, the buyer should identify the actual location and attendance assumptions. The public directory does not establish that fuel supply is permitted during a particular repair activity or that the supplier's terms cover every local service.
The comparison should use confirmed scope from the relevant parties. Avoid applying a generic port assumption to a proposal whose pricing depends on a more specific arrangement.
Normalise the quotation fields
Set out the requested product specification, quantity basis, currency, proposed window and payment conditions. Record any difference before calculating a ranking.
If one response includes a service and another excludes it, request the missing information or show the unresolved component. Do not hide incompleteness by entering zero.
Check whether a charge is already included in the quoted total. Double-counting can make a complete offer look worse than a partial one.
| Comparison field | Review question |
|---|---|
| Product basis | Do both responses address the same approved request? |
| Quantity | Is the same quantity or range being priced? |
| Location and window | Are the attendance assumptions comparable? |
| Included components | What is inside the quoted amount? |
| Additional components | Which amounts or conditions remain outside it? |
| Commercial status | Are the responses indicative, firm or accepted? |
Work through a fictional all-in comparison
This is an entirely ILLUSTRATIVE comparison for 400 tonnes, with equivalent product, location, window and payment scope assumed solely for the exercise. It describes no supplier or live Piraeus price.
Offer A uses a fictional product amount of USD 620 per tonne and a separate delivery component of USD 1,200. Its simplified total is 400 × 620 + 1,200 = USD 249,200, equivalent to USD 623 per tonne.
Offer B uses USD 618 per tonne, a separate delivery component of USD 2,200 and a separate attendance component of USD 800. Its total is 400 × 618 + 2,200 + 800 = USD 250,200, equivalent to USD 625.50 per tonne.
Under these invented, non-overlapping components, B is USD 1,000 higher despite its lower product unit amount. The arithmetic assumes no other costs within the simplified model and is script-checked. These figures are not quotations, benchmarks or recommended buying levels.
The example demonstrates a method, not a procurement recommendation. Actual responses may have different scope, conditions or unresolved components that prevent a fair numerical ranking.
Keep the current comparison traceable
Authorised comparison record: not provided; obtain current verified information. For a current transaction, .
Store the original responses and explain any adjustments used to place them on a common basis. A reviewer should be able to distinguish supplier terms from an analyst's hypothetical allowance.
If comparable information is unavailable, record that limitation. Do not manufacture an all-in figure simply because the comparison table expects one.
Fictional case: the lower unit indication changes rank
A fictional buyer initially shortlists the response with the lower product unit indication. During review, the team notices that the other response includes an attendance component that the shortlisted response lists separately.
The buyer requests clarification and reconstructs the comparison on a common scope. The ranking changes, but the team still checks the proposed window, payment terms and responsible technical acceptance before making a decision.
The useful lesson is to compare the same commercial object. A ranking based on unlike inclusions can reward an incomplete presentation rather than a better proposal.
Review conditions beyond the total
Keep validity, quantity tolerance, cancellation or variation conditions visible in the decision record, using the actual wording and appropriate review. Do not assume that an arithmetically lower total makes every other term equivalent.
Confirm the chosen supply case with the responsible vessel and local teams. A quotation comparison cannot establish operating permission or product suitability.
When handing over the selected response, retain the breakdown and open questions. The receiving team will need that basis to understand a later revised charge or invoice difference.
Common mistakes
Avoid comparing product-only and all-in figures, entering zero for an unknown exclusion or adding a fee already included. Do not conceal a different delivery location inside a footnote.
A cost ranking should show its assumptions and acceptance dependencies clearly.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub supports agentic, AI-assisted operations with a human in control.
Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Is the lower unit indication always the lower total?
No. Reconcile included and additional components on the same quantity and delivery basis before comparing the modelled totals.
What if an excluded component has no amount?
Request clarification or show the comparison as incomplete. Zero is not a substitute for missing evidence.
Can the illustrative figures be used for procurement?
No. They are invented solely to demonstrate arithmetic. Obtain current authorised responses for the actual supply case.
Does the lowest comparable total determine selection?
It informs the commercial review. Actual terms, product acceptance, delivery feasibility and the responsible approvals still need consideration.