Why It’s Time to Move Away from Blind Quoting in Cleaning & Hygiene Tenders
- Doug Cutter

- 6 days ago
- 3 min read

For years, our industry has treated cleaning chemicals like generic commodities—simple line items on an RFQ: degreaser, sanitizer, floor cleaner, machine detergent.On paper, they look identical. In real environments, they rarely are.
And yet, suppliers are routinely asked to quote blindly based only on brief descriptions, with no site visit and no testing. It feels efficient. It feels objective. But it often leads to the exact opposite outcome: inconsistent cleaning, product complaints, damaged surfaces, and higher long-term costs.
It’s time for the industry to rethink the habit of blind quoting. Not because suppliers want more time or more engagement—but because accuracy matters in a field where chemistry meets real-world environments.
1. Cleaning Products Are Not Commodities
Two degreasers can be chemically worlds apart:
Different alkalinity
Different surfactant systems
Different solvent content
Different foam profiles
Different risks to floor coatings
Different performance on different types of soil
The same applies to disinfectants, autoscubber detergents, hand soaps, oven cleaners, you name it.
You don’t see these differences in an RFQ line item. But you feel them on a shop floor at 5am when the surface still looks dirty—or worse, when a glossy floor turns patchy from the wrong pH.
2. The Real World Is Always Messier Than the RFQ
Every site has its own variables:
Water hardness
Soil load
Surface type
Cleaning method and tools
Labour rotation
Machine type and condition
Dilution practices
Drainage and rinsing limitations
These factors can make a “perfectly good” product fail.Only testing shows the truth.
3. Blind Quoting Creates False Comparisons
On paper, all suppliers quote on the same line items.In reality, each supplier is making different assumptions about:
Soil type
Concentration required
Frequency of use
Dilution systems
Machine compatibility
Expected outcome
So the quotes aren’t actually comparable—they’re only comparable if all the guesses happen to align. They rarely do.
Comparing blind quotes is like comparing the price of “a car” without knowing whether one supplier is quoting a hatchback and another is quoting a V6 SUV.
4. Site Testing Is Not a Sales Tactic—It’s Risk Management
A short assessment with basic on-site tests reduces risk dramatically:
The right product is matched to the right application.
Floors and surfaces are protected.
Machines don’t foam excessively or corrode.
Dilutions are correct.
Monthly spend is realistic and predictable.
Performance issues drop significantly.
This isn’t about adding steps. It’s about removing guesswork.
5. Procurement Still Wins
Many procurement teams worry that site testing will complicate the process.It actually does the opposite:
Eliminates ambiguous specifications
Ensures quotes are based on known performance
Standardises expectations
Reduces supplier-changeover risk
Creates an outcome-based, not price-based, comparison
The result?
Procurement gets cleaner data, cleaner comparisons, and cleaner buildings.
6. The Industry Should Aim for “Correct Quotes,” Not “Fast Quotes”
There’s a mantra we’ve adopted internally:
“We don’t want to be the cheapest quote—we want to be the correct quote.”
Fast, blind quotes feel efficient in the moment.But they cost more—financially, operationally, and reputationally—in the long run.
Accuracy is cheaper.Testing is cheaper.Understanding the site is cheaper.Getting it right the first time is the cheapest of all.
7. A Call for Change
If the industry genuinely wants:
Better results
More consistent hygiene
Safer environments
Lower total cost of ownership
Less waste
Fewer complaints
More meaningful partnerships
…then we need to slow down at the start to speed up the results.
Blind quoting is quick, but correct quoting is powerful.
It’s time to move towards knowledge-based quoting supported by small, simple site tests that ensure the right solution for every building, every team, and every environment.








Comments