When requesting bids for stainless steel process piping installation, the RFQ must define its technical scope and its commercial boundary, or the bids you receive will not be comparable. Paul Industries bids, fabricates and installs cGMP sanitary process piping nationwide, to ASME B31.3, ASME BPE and ASME Section IX. This is the checklist we wish every RFQ used.
Generic construction RFQ advice does not work for hygienic process piping. The commercial sections are the same; the technical sections are not, and the items that generic templates omit are exactly the ones that make bids incomparable. This is a checklist for requesting bids on stainless steel sanitary process piping, written from the receiving end – Paul Industries bids and installs this work across the United States.
The single most valuable thing an RFQ can do is define its scope boundary. If one bidder includes passivation, examination and qualification support and another does not, the cheapest bid is simply the one that excluded the most. Everything below exists to prevent that.
Section 1 – Technical scope: the items generic templates omit
| Specify | Say it like this | If you omit it |
|---|---|---|
| Governing codes, by number | ASME B31.3, fluid service category stated; ASME BPE; ASME Section IX | Bidders assume the cheapest applicable code and you cannot compare them |
| Material and specification | 316L to ASTM A270, heat-number traceability required | You may receive material you cannot trace, which fails 21 CFR 211.184 expectations |
| Surface finish | A stated Ra on product contact, with measurement records required | “Sanitary polish” is not a specification and prices anywhere |
| Welding method | Orbital GTAW, autogenous; manual welds identified and justified | Manual welding is cheaper and materially different |
| Weld examination | Percentage of weld IDs borescoped, and who witnesses | This is the largest single price lever in a sanitary piping bid |
| Weld documentation | Weld map and log tying every ID to welder, procedure, date, heat, result | Documentation produced retroactively is worth little |
| Coupon regime | Triggers for test coupons and whether they are retained | Silence here means no coupons |
| Passivation | ASTM A967 designation named; acceptance test stated | “Passivated” without a designation specifies nothing |
| Slope and drainability | Slope value, and a witnessed drain test as an acceptance criterion | Drawings show intent; only a drain test shows what was built |
| Dead-leg limit | L/D limit with its measurement basis | Without a basis the same fitting reads 1.5 or 3.5 and the limit is unenforceable |
| Testing | Pressure test medium, pressure, duration, and water quality if hydrostatic | Chloride-bearing test water on 316L is a real risk |
| Cleanliness at handover | Final flush and the endpoint it must meet | Otherwise handover condition is whatever the contractor decides |
Section 2 – Documentation deliverables
List these explicitly. A turnover package assembled as an afterthought is the most common source of post-completion disputes, and the cost of producing it properly is real and belongs in the bid.
- Material test reports traceable to heat number for every product-contact component
- Welding procedure specifications and procedure qualification records (ASME Section IX)
- Welder performance qualifications, current at the date of each weld
- Weld map and weld log, every weld identified
- Examination and borescope records, with images retained against weld ID
- Retained weld coupons
- Passivation record with the acceptance test result
- Slope and drain verification records
- Pressure test records
- As-built drawings and isometrics
- Instrument index with calibration certificates
Full detail on each of these and the regulation it answers to is in what a turnover package should contain.
Section 3 – Commercial and boundary items
| Item | Why it changes the price | What to state |
|---|---|---|
| Shop versus field fabrication | Shop welding is cheaper and better controlled; field welding is neither | Your expectation, or ask bidders to state their split |
| Site access and working hours | Live-plant work with restricted hours can double labor | Shutdown windows, escort requirements, permits |
| Existing conditions | Tie-ins to existing systems carry unknowns | Provide surveys; state who owns the risk of what is found |
| Scaffolding, rigging, lifts | Frequently excluded and then charged | Say explicitly whether it is in scope |
| Utilities and consumables | Argon, power, water at the workface | Who provides them |
| Commissioning support | Flushing, loop checks, assistance during start-up | In or out – this is routinely ambiguous |
| Qualification support | IQ/OQ/PQ execution or support, protocol authorship | Say which. “Validation” alone means different things to different bidders |
| Self-perform vs subcontract | Brokered welding changes accountability and documentation | Require bidders to declare it |
| Warranty | Duration and what it covers | State it, or receive different warranties you cannot compare |
Section 4 – A scope-of-work skeleton you can copy
Adapt the bracketed items. The point is not the wording but that every bidder answers the same questions.
- Project and location. Facility, area, product or process served, regulatory context (cGMP, FSMA, USDA).
- Scope summary. Approximate footage by line size, number of tie-ins, equipment to be connected.
- Codes and standards. Named by number, with fluid service category.
- Materials. Grade, specification, traceability requirement.
- Fabrication and welding. Method, examination percentage, coupon regime, witness requirements.
- Surface treatment. Finish, passivation designation, acceptance test.
- Testing and acceptance. Pressure test, drain test, final flush endpoint.
- Documentation. The deliverable list, and when it is due relative to final payment.
- Commercial boundary. The inclusions and exclusions from Section 3.
- Schedule. Access windows, milestones, shutdown constraints.
- Bid format. Require a common breakdown so bids can be compared line by line.
The five omissions that make bids incomparable
In practice, most unexplained price spread between sanitary piping bids traces to the same short list. If you fix only five things in your RFQ, fix these.
| Omission | Effect on the bid | The fix |
|---|---|---|
| Weld examination percentage not stated | The largest single price lever – borescoping 100% versus 10% is a different job | State the percentage and who witnesses it |
| Passivation designation not named | “Passivated” can mean an ambient wipe or a full circulated treatment with coupons | Name the ASTM A967 designation and the acceptance test |
| Documentation scope undefined | Producing a real turnover package is days of work that some bidders price and others do not | List the deliverables explicitly |
| “Validation” used without qualification | Means protocol authorship to one bidder and site support to another | Say IQ/OQ/PQ execution, support, or excluded |
| Access and hours unstated | Live-plant work with escorts and restricted windows can double labor | State shutdown windows and permit requirements |
Related: how to choose a process piping contractor covers evaluating the firms that respond, and sanitary process piping cost covers what drives the number itself.
Get a single-source quote
Frequently asked questions
How do I request bids for stainless steel process piping installation?
Issue an RFQ that defines both the technical scope and the commercial boundary. Technically: name the codes by number, the material specification and traceability, surface finish, welding method, weld examination percentage, passivation designation, slope and drain acceptance, and the documentation deliverables. Commercially: state what is included and excluded, particularly scaffolding, commissioning support and qualification support. Require a common bid breakdown so responses can be compared line by line.
What should be in an RFQ for sanitary process piping?
Twelve technical items and roughly nine commercial ones. The technical set is codes by number with fluid service category, material and heat traceability, surface finish with measurement records, welding method, weld examination percentage and witness, weld documentation, coupon regime, passivation designation and acceptance test, slope with a witnessed drain test, dead-leg limit with its measurement basis, pressure testing including test water quality, and cleanliness at handover.
Why do sanitary piping bids vary so much?
Almost always because the scope boundary was left undefined, so bidders included different things. The five biggest levers are weld examination percentage, passivation designation, documentation scope, what “validation” was taken to mean, and site access assumptions. When these are unstated, the lowest bid is usually the one that excluded the most rather than the one offering the best value.
What is the difference between an RFQ and an RFP for piping work?
An RFQ asks for price against a scope you have already defined, so it suits work where you know exactly what you want built. An RFP asks bidders to propose an approach as well as a price, which suits work where the solution is still open. For sanitary piping installation with drawings in hand, an RFQ is normally correct – provided the scope really is defined, which is what the checklist above is for.
Should I require 100% weld inspection?
Rarely, and requiring it without thinking is expensive. What matters more is that the percentage is stated, that it matches the fluid service category under ASME B31.3, that a named party witnesses it, and that images are retained against weld ID. A stated 20% properly documented and witnessed is worth more than an unwitnessed claim of 100%.
How do I compare bids that include different things?
Normalize them to one boundary before comparing totals. Ask every bidder for the same breakdown – fabrication, installation, examination, passivation, testing, documentation, commissioning support – then add back the items each one excluded. The comparison only becomes meaningful once every bid covers identical scope, which is why requiring a common format in the RFQ matters more than any single specification.
Do I need to specify the welding standard in the RFQ?
Yes, by number. For pharmaceutical and bioprocessing work that is ASME B31.3 with the fluid service category stated, ASME BPE, and ASME Section IX for welder and procedure qualification. For food and dairy work it is AWS D18.1 with D18.2 for discolouration acceptance. A bidder who cannot name these has probably not worked to a written specification.
When should the turnover package be delivered?
Tie it to final payment and say so in the RFQ. Documentation assembled after the crew has demobilized is harder to produce, less accurate and frequently incomplete. Requiring the package as a condition of final payment is the single most effective way to ensure records are captured contemporaneously rather than reconstructed.
Attachments the RFQ should carry
A scope narrative alone forces every bidder to make the same assumptions privately, and they will make different ones. These attachments are what turn a description into a quantifiable scope.
| Attachment | What it contains | What it prevents |
|---|---|---|
| Line list | Every line with size, service, material spec, design pressure and temperature, insulation requirement | Bidders estimating footage from drawings and arriving at different quantities |
| Tie-in list | Every connection to existing systems, with location and isolation method | The single largest source of change orders on brownfield work |
| Current drawings and isometrics | P and IDs plus isometrics where they exist | Quantity disputes after award |
| Piping specification | Material class, wall schedule, fittings, valves, gaskets by class | Bidders substituting cheaper components within a vague spec |
| Design conditions | Pressure and temperature per line or per class | Under-specified material class, which is a safety issue rather than a cost one |
| Support requirements | Support type, spacing, and whether hygienic support standards apply | Supports that create crevices or trap soil on sanitary lines |
| Test packages | How the system is divided for testing and turnover | Untestable boundaries discovered at the end of the job |
| Site constraints | Access, working hours, permits, escorts, laydown | The assumption gap that most often doubles labor |
Material specification items people leave out
Three items belong in the material section of a stainless piping RFQ and are frequently missing, each of which changes the price and one of which changes what you actually receive.
| Item | What to state | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Mill finish | Pickled, bright annealed, or mechanically polished | This is the starting surface, and it is separate from any Ra you specify for product contact. Bright annealed tube starts smoother and costs more |
| PMI scope | Whether positive material identification is required, and on what percentage | PMI verifies the alloy actually installed. Material mix-ups are rare and catastrophic, and PMI is the only check that catches them |
| Heat number traceability | Required, and recorded per weld | What 21 CFR 211.184 relies on, and what makes a later material query answerable |
Tie-ins: define the boundary or own the risk
Tie-ins to existing systems are where brownfield projects lose their budgets, because the conditions behind an existing flange are unknown until it is opened. The RFQ should state, for every tie-in, five things: the boundary (where the contractor scope starts and stops), the isolation method and who provides it, the schedule window in which the system can be down, inspection and testing requirements at the joint, and who is responsible for return to service.
That last item is the one omitted most often and disputed most bitterly. If the contractor breaks into a line, who is accountable for the system working correctly afterwards – and for the product made through it? State it at RFQ stage, because after the fact it is a negotiation rather than a specification.
Responsibility matrix: the fastest way to make bids comparable
If you include only one thing from this page, include this. Ask every bidder to complete the same matrix. It surfaces the scope boundary explicitly instead of leaving it buried in exclusions nobody reads.
| Activity | Owner – state one |
|---|---|
| Detailed design and isometrics | Owner / engineer / contractor |
| Material supply – pipe, tube and fittings | Owner / contractor |
| Material supply – valves and instruments | Owner / contractor |
| Shop fabrication | Contractor / third party |
| Field installation | Contractor |
| Weld examination and borescope | Contractor / independent third party |
| Witnessing of examination | Owner / QA / third party |
| Pressure testing | Contractor |
| Passivation | Contractor / specialist subcontractor |
| Insulation and coatings | Contractor / others / excluded |
| Supports and hangers | Contractor / others |
| Isolation and lockout for tie-ins | Owner / contractor |
| Return to service after tie-in | Owner / contractor |
| Flushing and cleanliness verification | Contractor |
| Commissioning support | Contractor / excluded |
| IQ/OQ/PQ execution | Owner / contractor / consultant |
| Turnover documentation | Contractor |
| Final acceptance and punchlist closeout | Owner |
A bidder who returns this matrix fully completed has read the scope. A bidder who returns it partly blank has told you where the change orders will come from.
Sending this RFQ out?
We bid, fabricate and install cGMP sanitary process piping nationwide to ASME B31.3, ASME BPE and Section IX, and we answer every item on the checklist above. See sanitary process piping and our contractor scope, or add us to your bid list.
What should an RFQ for stainless steel process piping include?
A comparable bid set requires you to state the code and edition, material grade and specification, surface finish designation, weld examination level and who judges acceptance, passivation standard and verification method, the documentation package and its index to your IQ checklist, site access and shutdown constraints, and who is responsible for correcting a failed qualification test. Omitting examination level and documentation scope is why two bids for the same work differ by so much.
Writing a specification that gets comparable bids
Most bid comparisons fail because the specification left the expensive parts implicit. State these explicitly and the bids become comparable; leave them out and the cheapest bid is simply the one that assumed the least.
| Specify | Why bids diverge without it | What to write |
|---|---|---|
| Code and edition | Different codes, different examination | “ASME B31.3, [edition]” and “ASME BPE, [edition]” |
| Material grade and specification | 316L vs 304 is a real cost difference | Grade, specification, and heat-number traceability required |
| Surface finish designation | “Polished” means nothing | The ASME BPE SF designation, and whether electropolished |
| Examination level | Borescoping every weld vs sampling 10% is a large cost delta | Percentage examined, method, and who judges acceptance |
| Passivation | Frequently assumed to be included, frequently is not | Standard, chemistry, verification method, documentation |
| Documentation package | The single biggest hidden variable | Contents list, and that it is indexed to your IQ checklist |
| Who corrects a failed qualification test | Determines who carries the risk | State it plainly in the contract |
| Site constraints | Access, shifts, live-plant working, shutdown windows | Be specific — it changes the labor model |
| Requalification scope | Often larger than the physical work | Define what will need requalifying |
| Spares and turnover | Wear items and handover expectations | List them |
The single highest-value line to add to any specification: “the contractor shall supply a turnover index mapping every document to the IQ checklist item it satisfies.” It costs nothing, it is trivially auditable, and it separates contractors who document as they build from those who assemble paperwork afterwards.
How do you write a process piping specification that gets comparable bids?
State explicitly the things that are usually left implicit: code and edition, material grade and specification with heat-number traceability, the ASME BPE surface finish designation rather than the word polished, the examination level including percentage and who judges acceptance, the passivation standard and verification method, the contents of the documentation package, who corrects a failed qualification test, site constraints including shift patterns and live-plant working, the requalification scope, and spares. Without those, the cheapest bid is simply the one that assumed the least.
What single line should every cGMP contractor specification include?
A requirement that the contractor supply a turnover index mapping every document to the IQ checklist item it satisfies. It costs nothing to specify, it is trivially auditable at handover, and it separates contractors who document as they build from those who assemble paperwork retroactively. Since qualification stalls on documentation far more often than on hardware, it is the highest-value line available in a specification.