Updated: August 2026
Two quotations for the same vessel are almost never comparable as written. Before you can judge price, you have to normalise scope: put both on the same specification, price the exclusions, and test whether each programme is achievable. The number that remains after that exercise is the only one worth comparing.
- Normalise scope first — the same vessel, the same equipment, the same inclusions.
- Price the exclusions separately; they routinely move a total by a meaningful margin.
- Test the programme: an unachievable schedule is a hidden cost, not a benefit.
Step one: build a common specification
Take the two quotations and produce a single line-by-line list covering principal dimensions, construction method, timber species, engine and generator makes and models, tankage, electrical capacity, air-conditioning, water production, navigation and communication equipment, anchoring, tender and davits, sails and rigging, interior specification, and coatings. Then fill in what each quotation actually offers against each line.
The gaps will be immediately visible, and they are usually the explanation for the price difference. A quotation that specifies a named engine with an established regional service network is not comparable with one specifying an unnamed equivalent, and no amount of negotiation makes those two the same vessel.
Step two: price the exclusions
List everything each quotation excludes and price it independently. The usual suspects are electronics, tender and handling equipment, sails and rigging, soft furnishings, dive equipment, classification and survey fees, tonnage measurement and registration, insurance during construction, delivery voyage costs and crew, and handling of owner-supplied items.
Add these to each quotation’s headline number. It is common for the ranking to reverse at this point, because a yard quoting a fuller scope looks expensive until the comparison is complete. This exercise takes a day and is the highest-return analysis available to an owner.
Step three: test the programme
A short programme is not free. If one yard offers delivery three months earlier, ask what makes that possible: a genuinely free building position and available crew, or an assumption of no weather delay and no equipment lead time. Optimistic programmes cost real money, because owners plan crew, marketing and first charters around them.
Test the programme against the practical constraints: the wet season, the lead time on the specified engines, and the yard’s current commitments. A programme that survives those three questions is credible. One that does not should be re-priced with realistic dates before comparison.
Step four: examine the payment structure
Two quotations with the same total can have very different risk profiles. A schedule front-loaded before any physical milestone transfers risk to the owner; one tied to verifiable stages with a meaningful final tranche does not. The value of that difference is real even though it does not appear in the total.
Look also at the currency basis and at what happens to exchange movements over a two-year programme. A quotation in USD with a clear basis is easier to plan against than one where part of the scope floats against local costs without a stated mechanism.
Step five: weigh what the spreadsheet cannot hold
After normalisation, the numbers usually converge, and the decision moves to things a spreadsheet cannot capture. Which yard answered questions precisely rather than reassuringly? Which let you walk the whole site? Which showed you a delivered vessel and an owner willing to talk? Which raised a past problem before you found it? Which one, when you asked about a plank that did not fit, said it would be remade?
Those answers predict the eighteen months ahead more reliably than a price difference of a few per cent. The least expensive vessel is the one that is delivered on a programme you could plan around, without a snagging tail, by a yard that will still take your call in five years.
The reference call that settles it
After normalisation, one action outperforms all further analysis: speaking to an owner or operator of a vessel each yard delivered. Ask four questions. Was the vessel delivered close to the programme, and if not, why? How long did the snag list take to close after handover? How did the yard respond when something failed in the first year? And would they build with that yard again?
The fourth question is the one that matters, and the pause before the answer often tells you more than the answer itself. A yard that cannot supply a single contactable reference for a comparable vessel has told you something decisive, whatever its quotation says. A yard whose previous client will talk to you openly, including about the problems, is offering the best evidence available anywhere in this process.
Frequently asked questions
Should I always avoid the lowest quotation?
Not automatically, but understand why it is lowest. If it is lowest because the scope is narrower, normalise and re-compare. If it is lowest at identical scope, ask what the yard knows about its own costs that its competitors do not, and check that the programme and payment structure are not carrying the difference.
How much variation between quotations is normal?
Meaningful variation is common because scope, specification and programme assumptions differ so widely. That is precisely why normalisation matters: until both quotations describe the same vessel, the spread tells you about the documents rather than about the yards.
Can I negotiate on a shipyard quotation?
Yes, but negotiate scope and terms rather than simply pushing the number down. A yard that concedes a large price reduction without a scope change has either been over-pricing or is about to recover the difference somewhere you will not see until later.
Related reading
Working with our build desk
If you have two or more quotations in hand, we can run the normalisation exercise with you before you commit. You can reach the build desk on WhatsApp at +62 811-3941-4563 or by email at [email protected]. Construction and supervision contracts are issued by PT Komodo Galangan Nusantara; Phinisi Shipyard is a specialist maritime brand under Juara Holding Group.
