1. Confirm that the supplier has built comparable equipment before anything else
Non-standard equipment transfers experience, not just steel. A supplier that has delivered machines in the same process family already knows which tolerances drift, which structures vibrate, which sensors fail early and which maintenance access points get ignored during installation. Before reviewing any technical proposal, ask which projects in your process area the team has completed, what the machine had to achieve and how long it has been in service.
That experience also shortens the learning curve on your side. Non-standard automation equipment suppliers with a documented project history can usually explain their design conventions, wiring standards and spare-part strategy without being prompted, which is a much stronger signal than a polished quotation.
2. Review the machine concept against your own product and process data
The most common cause of a failed non-standard project is a mismatch between the machine and the parts it must actually handle. Provide dimensional drawings with tolerance stacks, material and surface information, incoming part condition, and the cycle time and yield the machine is expected to hold. Then check concept-level answers against that data:
- How are parts presented, located and clamped, and what happens when the incoming part is at the edge of tolerance?
- Which motion axes, feeders and end effectors carry the cycle time, and are they standard or bespoke?
- Where are wear parts, and what is the intended replacement interval and procedure?
- How does the machine handle changeover to the next product variant, and who is allowed to perform that changeover?
A concept that cannot answer these questions on paper will answer them during commissioning, on your floor, with your production hours at risk.
3. Test manufacturability of the machine itself
Assessability of the machine as a manufactured object is where many teams stop at price. Ask how the structure, weldments, machined bases and sheet-metal parts are specified. Standard, locally available materials and conventional machining reduce both lead time and the risk that a repair part takes weeks to arrive. Ask whether fasteners, guides, cylinders, drives and safety components come from suppliers with service coverage in your region.
Then look at the assembly sequence. Machines that can be sub-assembled, tested and adjusted in modules are usually easier to build and easier to fix later. If the design forces the maintenance technician to remove three assemblies to reach one sensor, that decision was made at the drawing stage and will be paid for repeatedly afterwards. Suppliers that run hardware testing before shipment normally present inspection records rather than promises, which is a practical way to verify this part of the process.
4. Judge integration effort, not just machine performance
Non-standard equipment almost never stands alone. It connects to conveyors, upstream and downstream machines, material handling, utilities, MES or PLC-level signalling, and safety circuits. Ask the supplier to show how their automated production line solutions handled handshakes, signal lists and utility connections on past installations, and request the interface document format they will produce for your project.
Confirm floor space, footprint including door swing and service clearance, floor loading, power and air supply, and whether your plant electricians can work with the control panel and the wiring standards used. Also confirm network and data policy: what the machine can log, how it is exported, and what your IT department will and will not allow on the line network.
5. Set verification milestones that expose problems early
The evaluation contract matters as much as the technical review. Agree in writing on the stage gates: design review with drawings, a component-level acceptance check before assembly, a factory acceptance test using your own parts, and a site acceptance test with defined run conditions. Specify who supplies the test parts, at what tolerance range, and how many consecutive parts or hours constitute a pass.
Write acceptance around measurable items: cycle time on your parts, reject and misfeed rate, uptime during the trial window, changeover time, and the consumable and wear list. If a supplier accepts these terms, they have already thought about manufacturability; if they resist, the risk sits with you.
6. Cost of ownership as an engineering measure
Compare quotations on the maintenance burden they create, not only on the invoice. Ask for the spare-parts list with prices and lead times, the wear-part replacement interval, the software and parameter backup method, and what happens to the program if the original programmer is unavailable. Confirm remote support terms, on-site response, and training hours for your own technicians and operators.
Documentation is part of manufacturability too. As-built drawings, electrical schematics, bills of material with part numbers, and an operation and maintenance manual in a language your staff read are what allow the machine to keep producing after the commissioning team leaves.
A short scoring approach for the decision meeting
Score each candidate supplier on comparable project experience, concept fit to your part data, use of standard components and serviceable parts, interface and integration documentation, acceptance-test willingness, and after-sales support terms. Weight the acceptance-test and spare-parts items higher than unit price, because those are the terms that decide whether the equipment still runs in its second year.
Where the requirement goes beyond a single machine into line integration or a new product that has never been automated, discuss the scope at an early stage. Contact PowerDe with your part drawings, target cycle time and site constraints, and request a concept review against the checks above before committing to a build.
