We have a rule internally: every RFQ gets a substantive first response within four hours during business hours. Not an auto-reply. A response that shows we read the document. The reason matters: a buyer who waits a day for the first reply on an EPC enquiry has already made a procurement decision about the supplier's organisational seriousness, whether they intended to or not.

Here is what actually happens in those four hours, using a recent enquiry as the worked example: 12 shell-and-tube heat exchangers, TEMA AES configuration, design pressure on the shell side, design temperature, fluid service specified, ASME VIII Div.1 with U-stamp required, end destination Middle East.

First 30 minutes — technical parsing

One of our engineers reads the full RFQ and marks three things on the document:

• The governing standard (in this case ASME VIII Div.1 with TEMA Class R, plus the buyer's project-specific clauses)
• The critical dimensional or performance parameter (here, the thermal duty calculation and the tube-side pressure drop budget, which together drive the tube count, tube length, and shell diameter)
• Any ambiguity that will cause problems downstream (in this RFQ: the shell-side material was specified as "carbon steel" without grade; the tube material was clear; the tubesheet thickness calculation method was not specified)

Ambiguities get queued as clarification questions before we approach any factory. Sending an RFQ with three ambiguities to a Chinese fabricator returns three different interpretations and three non-comparable quotes.

Next 60 minutes — factory matching

We do not broadcast RFQs. We maintain a database of pre-qualified manufacturers segmented by product type, certification scope, current capacity, and recent performance history. For 12 heat exchangers with U-stamp requirement and Middle East destination, the shortlist is narrow: shops with current ASME U-stamp AIA in scope for shell-and-tube exchangers, with documented track record on Saudi Aramco or ADNOC end-client documentation, and with current capacity for 12 units against the buyer's required delivery window.

Next 60 minutes — preliminary feasibility

We contact the shortlisted factories directly. Three questions:

• Do you have current capacity for this scope?
• Do you hold the required certification IN SCOPE for shell-and-tube heat exchangers with U-stamp?
• What is a realistic lead time based on current order book and your raw material lead time for the specified tube and shell grades?

The answers are documented. The third question is the most diagnostic: a factory that quotes a lead time shorter than the realistic raw material procurement cycle is either subcontracting silently or hoping. Neither is what an EPC procurement function should accept.

Final 30 minutes — first response to the buyer

We send a structured reply that includes:

• Confirmation of scope understanding (in our own words, not a copy-paste of the buyer's RFQ)
• The three clarification questions from the technical parsing step, with proposed default assumptions if the buyer prefers we run with those
• The preliminary factory shortlist with brief qualification notes (without naming the factories — that is for after the buyer engages us formally)
• An indicative lead time range based on the preliminary feasibility check
• The next step: a 30-minute technical alignment call or a formal RFQ release on the resolved scope

The remaining window — QA review

The remaining time in the four-hour window is reserved for cross-checking the response with a second engineer before it goes out. A poorly worded first response on a 12-exchanger enquiry communicates a poor process. We do not send drafts.

Why this matters

This is not a unique process. It is a documented one. Most China sourcing intermediaries do not have it in writing, and on EPC procurement scopes where the procurement function is being audited internally or by the end client, the absence of a documented process is itself a non-conformance.

What we do

Meritus Technology runs the four-hour triage on every RFQ that hits our desk. If you want the one-page version of our RFQ triage process to benchmark against your own supplier evaluation workflow, we are happy to share it.

Contact: sales@meritustech.com · +86 134 8206 1802 · www.meritustech.com