Writing a lab-equipment TOR that more than one supplier can bid on

A specification that reads "analytical balance, 4 decimal places, 0.1 mg readability, 220 g capacity, 90 mm round pan, RS-232 port" looks rigorous. In practice it describes one machine on the market, and the TOR has a problem before it is even published.

This is written for both sides of that document: the officer drafting it, and the supplier deciding whether there is any point bidding.

The one rule that matters most

Section 9 of the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (opens in a new tab) prohibits writing a specification that is close to one particular brand or one particular seller. Two exceptions: where the item genuinely exists in only one brand, and where spare parts of a specific brand are required.

This does not mean specifications must be vague. Detail is necessary. What is prohibited is assembling the detail out of one model’s datasheet until exactly one bidder can qualify.

The dividing line is a single question: does this number come from the work, or from the spec sheet of the machine someone already has in mind?

How to audit your own specification

Go line by line and ask why each number is there.

1. Which test method or standard produces this value? If 0.1 mg readability is required because the analytical method demands it, cite the method. The justification is then on the record and nobody can argue with it.
2. If this line were deleted, could the work still be done? If yes, the line is a preference, not a requirement.
3. How many manufacturers meet the whole set? If you cannot answer, ask two or three suppliers — not to have them write it, but to find out how many options the draft actually leaves.
4. Are the physical dimensions genuinely required? Pan diameter, cabinet height, foot spacing — these are the numbers most often lifted straight from a catalogue and least often required by the work. If the installation space really is constrained, state the space available rather than the dimensions the machine must have.

Writing it so you get what you need without breaking the rule

Specify ranges and operating conditions instead of single values.

• Instead of "220 g capacity", write "capacity not less than 200 g".
• Instead of "0.1 mg readability", write "0.1 mg readability or finer".
• Instead of naming a calibration kit model, state the standard it must be calibrated to and the certificate required.

The clauses most often left out are the after-sales ones: warranty period, spare-parts availability, an engineer in-country, and response time to a callout. These can be specified without touching section 9, because they describe a service obligation rather than locking a brand — and in practice they filter out the bidder who disappears after delivery far better than a tightened technical spec does.

For suppliers: how to read a TOR

When a TOR arrives, the first task is not to compare it against your catalogue. It is to count the lines your product fails, and sort them into two piles: lines about the work, and lines about a model.

If you fail on the work, the product is wrong and that is the end of it. If you fail on a model detail — pan diameter in millimetres, a count of memory slots — that is a section 9 problem, and you are entitled to raise it during the comment period on the draft announcement.

Raising it works best before publication, and best of all when you propose the fix rather than the complaint. "Please amend pan diameter to not less than 80 mm so that more than one bidder can qualify" gets further than "this specification is unfair".

Paperwork, before the deadline finds you

Bidders are disqualified on documents more often than on specifications. The authorised-dealer letter from the manufacturer takes longest, because it comes from abroad and many manufacturers issue it per project rather than once. And if you are not yet registered as a government supplier in e-GP (opens in a new tab), do that first — that process has its own 15-day document deadline.

The principle underneath all of it

Section 8 of the same Act sets out four principles for public procurement: value for money, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness, and accountability. The first is the one that gets forgotten. Value for money is not lowest price, and a well-written TOR is one where the cheapest machine that cannot do the job fails at the specification stage rather than six months into service.

The legal points above were checked on 31 July 2026 against the sources listed below. This article deliberately does not state the money thresholds for each procurement method: the figures repeated on general websites could not be confirmed against the statute at the time of writing. If you need them, check the current Ministry of Finance regulation or your Provincial Treasury Office directly.