Manufacturers pursue legitimate sales interests. Their statements must not be accepted unchecked. That is not an accusation but a statement of market dynamics. Every OEM, every yard and every system integrator must sell to survive. The result is product descriptions and project presentations that emphasise technical strengths and downplay limitations.
In an industry undergoing a fundamental technological shift, this is particularly problematic. The number of claim categories has multiplied over the past five years. "Future-ready", "net-zero-capable", "drop-in compatible", "best-in-class efficiency" — each of these terms sounds convincing, but their technical substance ranges from robust to misleading.
The problem is compounded by competitive pressure among OEMs. When one engine manufacturer announces a new dual-fuel platform with impressive efficiency figures, the competitor must follow — even if their technology has not yet reached the same maturity level. The superintendent who must prepare an investment decision on the basis of these claims faces the challenge of distinguishing marketing from engineering.
Promises about future-ready, low-risk retrofit or full compliance readiness. These three categories are the most common pitfalls in current procurement practice.
"Future-ready" suggests that a system can be adapted to future regulatory requirements without significant changes. In reality, nobody knows what IMO regulations will look like in 2035 or 2040. A system can at best be "adaptable based on today's knowledge". The difference between "future-ready" and "adaptable based on today's knowledge" is not semantics but an investment decision.
"Low-risk retrofit" is a relative term that is meaningless without a reference framework. Low-risk compared to what? Compared to a newbuild? Compared to an alternative conversion? Compared to continued conventional operation? Without that context, the claim cannot be evaluated.
"Full compliance readiness" implies that no further regulatory measures will be required after the conversion. In a regulatory environment that tightens every two to three years, that is a bold commitment. A more honest term would be "compliant with currently known requirements".
Challenge system boundaries, measurement conditions, class assumptions and spare-part availability. A structured questionnaire is the most effective tool for testing vendor claims for robustness. The following questions have proven valuable in practice:
System boundaries: Where exactly does the commitment end? When an OEM promises "full methanol conversion capability", does that include the tank installation? Fuel supply up to the injector nozzle? The leakage detection system? The control software? Every system boundary not explicitly defined becomes a point of contention during the project.
Measurement conditions: Under which conditions were the stated performance data obtained? Test-bed conditions (ISO reference, 25 degrees C, 1013 mbar, clean filters) differ substantially from actual operating conditions (40 degrees C engine room, fouled air filters, aged injectors). The gap between test bed and reality can amount to 5 to 12 % in fuel consumption.
Class assumptions: Which classification society and which version of the rules underpin the claim? A design approved by Bureau Veritas in 2023 need not automatically be accepted by Lloyd's Register in 2026. Harmonisation between societies is not yet complete for new technologies.
Spare-part availability: How is the supply chain for critical components structured? Are there second sources? What are the lead times for injectors, sensors and control modules? A system with excellent performance but a 16-week lead time for replacement injectors represents an operational risk for the operator.
Reference projects: Which comparable installations are already running? For how many operating hours? Under which conditions? "References available on request" is not a robust statement. It becomes robust only with specific vessel names, operating hours and documented performance data.
It brings claims onto a common assessment framework. When an operator has three OEM quotations for a dual-fuel conversion on the desk, comparison based on the manufacturers' own data is virtually impossible. Each OEM uses different measurement conditions, different system boundaries and different cost breakdowns. An independent consultant can normalise these quotations — bring them onto a uniform basis for comparison.
The result is a decision matrix that presents technical performance, costs, risks and long-term operational implications uniformly. The operator can then decide on the basis of comparable figures rather than comparing apples with oranges.
Independent verification has a second effect: it signals to the supplier that the operator is technically informed. Experience shows that the quality of vendor statements improves noticeably once it becomes known that an independent consultant is reviewing the data. This is not a confrontation mechanism but a quality-assurance instrument that benefits both sides.
To understand why vendor claims are so difficult to evaluate, an analysis of the typical structure helps. A vendor claim usually comprises three layers:
Layer 1 — Hard facts: Technical data measured under defined conditions. Performance diagrams, consumption curves, emission values. This layer is verifiable, but only if the measurement conditions are transparent.
Layer 2 — Qualified statements: Projections based on hard facts but qualified with assumptions. "Under optimal operating conditions, the system achieves a 15 % CO2 reduction." The qualification "under optimal operating conditions" is often omitted in presentations or hidden in the fine print.
Layer 3 — Marketing layer: Interpretations and positioning without technical substance. "Best-in-class", "industry-leading", "game-changing". These terms sound convincing but are neither measurable nor contractually binding.
The art of vendor scrutiny lies in identifying and verifying Layer 1, testing the assumptions behind Layer 2 and consistently ignoring Layer 3. In practice, many vendor documents blend the three layers so skilfully that even experienced technical managers do not immediately recognise the difference.
A practicable assessment framework for vendor claims comprises four steps:
1. Claim extraction: Extract all quantifiable statements from the vendor documents and capture them in a uniform table.
2. Assumption check: For each statement, identify the underlying assumptions. Where assumptions are missing or unclear, request clarification from the vendor and document the response.
3. Normalisation: Convert all statements to uniform conditions — same reference temperature, same load profiles, same operating hours. Only then are comparisons possible.
4. Risk assessment: For each statement, assess how robust it is under actual operating conditions. Discount test-bed values, incorporate experience data from comparable installations.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting