Two ship repair quotations can describe the same vessel and still price different jobs. One may include removal, workshop work and refitting; another may cover only the component repair. A lower quoted total is therefore not yet evidence of a lower cost for the work the owner actually needs.

For a technical superintendent or purchasing team, the useful comparison is a documented, like-for-like scope. This guide explains how to build that comparison after yard offers arrive. If the enquiry itself is still being assembled, start with the ship repair RFQ preparation guide; the process below begins with the returned offers rather than repeating the initial work-list checklist.

Freeze the comparison basis before reviewing totals

Identify the RFQ revision, drawing register and clarification replies that each yard used. Record the quotation date, validity and vessel condition assumed. An offer based on an earlier work list should not silently be compared with one that includes later additions.

Keep the original offer unchanged. Use a separate comparison sheet with one row per work item and a reference back to the yard’s wording. If an item is missing, mark it as unresolved rather than treating it as included or assigning a guessed price.

A practical review has three separate views: the quoted amount, the scope that amount covers, and the remaining uncertainty. Combining those views too early can make an apparently tidy total conceal an incomplete package.

Compare the complete work boundary

For each item, follow the work from access to reinstatement. Ask whether the offer covers opening up, removal, transport within the agreed boundary, workshop work, refitting, alignment or adjustment where applicable, testing and the requested records. These are comparison questions, not a claim that every repair needs the same sequence.

  • Access: Is staging, lifting or removal of adjacent equipment included, excluded or awaiting confirmation?
  • Supply: Which parts, materials and consumables are supplied by the owner, yard or another contractor?
  • Execution: What work is explicitly priced, and what depends on inspection after opening up?
  • Reinstatement: Are refitting and the agreed functional checks within the quoted boundary?
  • Evidence: Which inspection, test and completion records are identified in the offer?

For example, a pump workshop item and a complete onboard pump repair package are not equivalent merely because both contain the word “overhaul”. Resolve the boundary before drawing a commercial conclusion. Gisan’s ship repair and maintenance scope provides the service context; the vessel-specific offer must establish what is actually included.

Read quantities and charging bases together

Separate fixed-price items from unit rates, estimated quantities, allowances and work to be priced after inspection. A unit rate is not a final item cost unless the applicable quantity and measurement basis are also clear.

Where offers use different quantities or units, ask for clarification against the same marked locations and scope revision. Do not convert steel weight, treated surface area or piping length into an assumed repair total without considering the associated material, access and completion boundaries.

Keep currency, taxes or duties where applicable, payment stages and quotation validity visible in the commercial review. They should be checked against the actual offer and proposed agreement, not inferred from another yard’s terms. This is an offer-review method, not a price estimate or legal interpretation of a repair contract.

Separate shared yard services from repair items

Docking or berth use, shore services, lifting and other shared activities may be grouped outside individual repair lines. Check whether such services are included elsewhere, charged separately, shared across several jobs or excluded. Otherwise the same service can be overlooked or counted twice.

For work requiring underwater hull access, compare the stated docking basis separately from the repair items. The dry docking planning guide explains why vessel data and suitability cannot be replaced by a simple reference to deadweight. Neither an archive photograph nor a generic docking line confirms a berth, dock slot or vessel fit.

Make inspection-dependent work visible

Some findings cannot be established from the enquiry documents alone. List the work that is firm, the work subject to inspection, and the questions that need an owner, yard, equipment specialist or surveyor decision. The category matters as much as the amount shown beside it.

Ask how additional work will be identified, measured, priced and submitted for the relevant authorization. Record who may approve scope and cost on the owner’s side. Do not assume that a technical recommendation is also a commercial instruction, or that an allowance is a cap unless the parties expressly agree it.

Class or statutory requirements must be checked for the actual vessel and repair. A yard quotation alone is not evidence that a required survey, acceptance or certificate has been completed.

Compare programme assumptions, not just a promised duration

Record the arrival condition, access readiness, parts availability and inspection inputs assumed by each programme. Identify which activities depend on the same opening, lift, machinery shutdown or survey attendance. A shorter programme based on owner-supplied parts already being available is not directly comparable with one that includes procurement.

Keep the repair programme distinct from wider voyage, agency and commercial arrangements. Where a timing statement is conditional, retain that condition in the comparison sheet. This prevents a planning assumption from being presented internally as a confirmed completion commitment.

Close the review with a clarification register

Before selecting an offer, issue focused clarification questions that reference the exact work-item numbers. Keep the answers, revised pricing and programme implications together. A useful final comparison package contains the original offers, the common scope revision, the agreed clarifications and a short list of unresolved exposure.

The decision is then traceable: what was compared, what remains conditional, and which responsibilities need confirmation before work starts. No generic checklist can replace the vessel’s technical requirements or the actual agreement, but it can make gaps easier to see before they become an onboard dispute.

Discuss a defined repair package

For a Gisan Shipyard enquiry, share the vessel particulars, planned attendance window, current work-list revision and specific scope questions through the technical enquiry page. Availability, technical suitability, responsibilities and pricing require vessel-specific confirmation; this article does not offer a price, schedule or acceptance guarantee.