>From: dpb@bruker.com (Doug Burum)
>To: mainzv@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
>cc: ammrl@bloch.cchem.berkeley.edu
>Subject: ammrl - buying summary
>Date: Wednesday, May 25, 1994
>
>I read with interest the recently distributed "Buying a
>Spectrometer" summary that resulted from your discussion at the
>1994 ENC. In general, I think that it presents some very good
>ideas. Nevertheless, I thought you and others might benefit from
>some comments made from the point of view of an NMR vendor.
>
>First, I would like to comment that a vendor has essentially the
>same goal as the purchaser, namely to provide the optimum NMR
>solution for each specific case. It has been my experience that
>this is best accomplished if the discussions are as open and honest
>as possible.
I also stressed courtesy.
>
>I would recommend that anyone shopping for an instrument openly
>discuss with each vendor his needs, his budget, and his frank
>impressions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of all competing
>products. If the same information is provided to all vendors, this
>approach does not reduce the degree of competition. Instead, it
>ensures that each vendor makes the best offer possible.
I made these same statements in my presentation. However, I and others
disagree with you that the budget should be revealed. Some indication of
the approximate budget may be inferred by the vendor based on the
description of the desired spectrometer system. With a properly designed
RFP the customer can select the options he wants and can afford based on
the prices provided in the vendor's proposal response. Therefore, for
negotiations purposes it is very strongly to the customers advantage to not
reveal his budget.
>
>Second, I feel the subject of specifications deserves additional
>comment. Vendors typically set their published specifications
>according to the level of performance that they feel they can
>routinely achieve. Clearly, each instrument must meet a large
>number of specifications. If the installation is to proceed
>smoothly and in a reasonable amount of time, most of these
>specifications must be set at a level that can be met routinely by
>a competent installation engineer.
If the customer wants to settle for routine performance out of his
spectrometer, this is certainly reasonable. I did not want routine
performance at NHMFL and I made this point in my talk.
Naturally, the vendor can respond that they cannot guarantee a specified
performance and may (should) Propose a different one. This is the reason
for doing a Request For Proposal. The customer may still choose a vendor
even if he does not meet all of the specs.
>In many cases, there are selected areas of performance that are of
>special concern to a customer, and most vendors are willing to
>agree to stronger specifications in those areas in order to provide
>maximum benefit to the customer. However, the approach of
>routinely increasing all specifications above their published
>values is not in the best interests either of the vendor or of the
>customer. Special handling, testing, and component selection is
>often necessary in order to meet enhanced specifications, and if it
>were to become the accepted practice to increase most or all
>specifications above their published values, the result would be
>substantial increases in cost (i.e. price), delivery time and
>installation time, and a concurrent reduction in overall system
>quality.
>
>The message here is simple. Customers should feel free to ask for
>enhanced specifications in specific areas where they have a special
>need for maximum performance. However, asking for across-the-board
>increases just for the sake of negotiation, or "getting all they
>can" from the purchase, can be highly counterproductive.
>
Ditto my previous comment. Additionally, I asked for enhanced specs only
where I thought appropriate and where they could be attained.
Also I did this for the following reasons:
When I embarked on writing the 500 WB specifications which led to the
purchase of the Bruker 600 WB at NHMFL, I called Bruker, Jeol, and Varian
sales representatives and asked for a complete description of their
specifications; applications performance, computer, and rf specs. I also
posted a request for info on AMMRL e-mail. I sent two e-mail requests to
Tom Lyttle, then president of ALMA.
I received only one response; from Fred Haberle of Bruker, who
expeditiously provided extensive info on all of my requests. I also called
and talked personally with several people who were recently involved in
purchasing high field instrument. I got very littly useful info from them.
I concluded that George Gray is correct. Customers finally make their
decisions based on the color of the console. I had to do something because
now the Unity Plus and DMX consoles are the same color.
So - rather than simply describing a Bruker instrument in my RFP specs, I
changed them in a reasonable fashion. I did this in a way in which favored
Varian on some and Bruker on others. (Even so, some at Varian felt I
described a Bruker instrument. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE!!!) In my
presentation I did not suggest that anyone make arbitrary or unreasonable
enhanced specs.
An additional comment, Fred Haberle is an outstanding, knowledgable and
very helpful sales person.
>When choosing special specifications, customers should consider how
>they will be demonstrated. Many specs sound good on paper, but are
>too time consuming or virtually impossible to directly verify.
>Also, if you want a specification on a non-standard sample, be
>prepared to supply identical samples to all vendors well in advance
>of the bid so that they will have a chance to find out what level
>of performance they can agree to.
I made this point perfectly clear in my talk. I was able to provide only
two weeks to Bruker and only one week to Varian due to unforseen scheduling
problems. The vendors should be given the same amount of time (at least
four weeks) to prepare. Also, >90 % of the tests I described in my talk
took no more than 10 min for a properly prepared applications
spectroscopist. The longest test was an ~8 hour overnight 2D exp.
>
>With regard to bid requests, it can be a good idea to ask for more
>than is expected, both in quantity and performance. This allows
>the purchaser to maintain control over the instrument selection
>process. However, customers should first become familiar with the
>specific bidding regulations that apply. There are some states and
>organizations that do not allow a bidder to take ANY exceptions.
>
>Also, customers may wish to send a draft copy of the bid request to
>potential bidders for their comments. As long as all bidders
>receive the same information, this does not reduce the degree of
>competition in any way. However, it can give the vendors a chance
>to point out problems that the customer may not be aware of.
>
>The most important advice I can give regarding a demonstration is
>to remember that the purpose is to evaluate the instrument, not to
>carry out research. In my opinion, the only customer samples that
>should be analyzed during an instrument demonstration are those for
>which results have already been obtained under similar
>circumstances from an independent source. Countless demonstration
>hours are wasted each year running samples for which no result is
>possible. In other cases, one vendor's results may be much better
>than another's only because the operator made a better guess
>concerning the parameters that should be used. The demonstration
>should test the quality of the instrument, not the skill of the
>operator.
AGREED. I said several times that the goal of a demo is to test the
performance of the instrument not the applications spectroscopist and that
it is not a research opportunity.
>
>As you pointed out in your summary, preparation for a demo is
>certainly vital to its success. It can be very frustrating when a
>customer says he is not bringing any samples, and then produces
>them unexpectedly upon his arrival. Clearly, this wreaks havoc
>with any preparation that has been made.
>
AGREED. I think this falls under the catagory of simply being professional
and courteous.
>If you feel that these comments might be helpful to others, please
>feel free to distribute them.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Doug Burum
>National Product Manager, Analytical Instruments
>Bruker Instruments, Inc.
Dr. Joseph Vaughn, Manager NMR Facility
Chemistry Department
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306
Phone 904-644-3334
-9636
Fax 904-644-8281