1. Unclear specifications in the inquiry: an RFQ without substance
The biggest and most expensive mistake happens at the very beginning – in the RFQ.
Instead of clearly stating what they really need, many buyers send only a few details: product name (for example “skimmed milk powder”), quantity, Incoterm and approximate delivery time. Everything else is “assumed” – while in reality, nothing can be assumed.
The result: you receive five or six offers that look similar on paper, but in fact refer to completely different products – different origin, quality, functionality and market segment. Instead of choosing between comparable options, you are forced to guess.
What is most often missing in an RFQ?
Description of application (what exactly the raw material goes into), key technical parameters (for example protein, fat and moisture content, Brix for tomato paste, starch type or sweetener type), origin and standards requirements (EU / non‑EU, halal, kosher, GMP+), expected documentation (specification, COA, various declarations), as well as packaging format, storage conditions and delivery frequency.
Why is this a problem?
Because you receive prices for products that will not perform the same job in your formulation or process. Comparing only on price then becomes an illusion – you’re comparing completely different things.
How to avoid it:
It’s worth investing time to define a minimum technical specification for every key raw material. Always include application, key parameters, documentation requirements and basic logistics conditions in the RFQ. If you’re not sure what exactly to request, involve technologists and QA in RFQ preparation or ask an experienced supplier to help you jointly define a realistic specification.
A well‑written RFQ usually means fewer offers – but they are far more relevant.
2. Focusing only on the lowest price per ton
The second classic mistake is focusing solely on the lowest number in the table, per ton, without the bigger picture.
Price matters, but by itself it says nothing about yield in the process, impact on finished product quality, amount of waste, risk of downtime, or additional logistics and warehousing costs.
Two typical scenarios:
- Skimmed milk powder that is €50 cheaper per ton, but has unstable solubility or batch‑to‑batch variation, can cause more stoppages, extra adjustments and complaints than it saves in purchase price.
- Tomato paste that is cheaper per ton but has weaker color or viscosity often requires a higher dose in the recipe to achieve the same visual and organoleptic effect – in the end you pay more per kilogram of finished product.
Instead of asking “who has the lowest price per ton”, a better question is “what is our cost per kilogram of finished product with this raw material, given realistic risk and all side costs”.
How to avoid it:
Try to look at cost per function, not only per weight – cost per unit of protein, per Brix, or per effective dose in the recipe. Introduce the concept of total cost of ownership (TCO): include logistics, warehousing, shelf life, downtime risk and potential complaints into the calculation. And never switch suppliers purely on price “blindly” – always through trial batches and a period of parallel use.
A supplier who can explain this type of calculation and stand behind it is worth more than one who just drops the price.
3. Ignoring logistics and regional realities
The third mistake is choosing a supplier as if logistics did not exist or were always perfect.
In the Balkans, logistics is anything but trivial: borders, customs procedures, seasonal congestion, limited number of trucks and drivers, weather, political and regulatory factors. Yet procurement is often handled as if everything were “from warehouse to warehouse” in the same city.
The problems usually look the same:
- A supplier offers an excellent price, but the goods ship from a distant port with no regional warehouse.
- There is no plan for seasonal peaks (e.g. before the ice cream, spreads, or tomato season).
- There is no agreement on safety stocks, delivery frequency or transport mode.
- No one checks how the supplier actually operates in your region.
The result: you have an “ideal” specification and a great price – but the goods don’t arrive when you need them. Production stops, contracts are not fulfilled, and all savings disappear in the costs of delays, urgent deliveries and lost sales.
How to avoid it:
When assessing a supplier, look at price, logistics model, typical lead time and flexibility in a crisis together. Ask where the goods for your region are physically stored, how often they deliver, how they handle border delays and what they do in high‑risk periods. Include logistics and planning in the supplier selection process; don’t leave everything to commercial alone. Cooperation with a regional partner who keeps buffer stocks and understands local conditions is often more valuable than a few euros less on an EXW or FOB offer.
A supplier who is also a logistics partner often makes the difference between stable production and constant stoppages.
4. Superficial supplier qualification
The fourth mistake happens when a supplier is approved “in a hurry” because they have a good price and “some papers”.
In the food industry, the key question is not only whether the product is fine today, but whether the supplier has a system that will deliver consistent quality and sufficient volumes for years.
Typical shortcomings:
- Accepting a generic specification without serious verification.
- No standardized supplier questionnaire.
- Processes and systems are not checked – only certificates.
- Audits (even document‑based ones) for key suppliers are rare.
- The whole relationship depends on communication with a single person, with no real insight into the organization behind them.
The problem surfaces when a bigger shift happens: the supplier changes factory, raw material base or ownership, focuses on another market, or faces a technical issue. If you don’t clearly understand how they manage quality, traceability and continuity, all the risk moves to you.
How to avoid it:
Implement a clear, documented supplier qualification process for each key raw material category. Besides product specifications, request system certificates (ISO, FSSC, BRC etc.), typical COAs, allergen, GMO and origin statements, as well as information about capacity and warehousing. Distinguish between trader and manufacturer in your assessment – you need to understand both. For strategic suppliers, plan periodic reviews and, where realistic, audits (on‑site or virtual).
A serious supplier will not avoid these questions – on the contrary, it is proof for them as well that they manage the chain properly.
5. Relying on a single supplier without a plan B
The fifth mistake is perhaps the most comfortable – as long as everything works. You have one supplier, the cooperation is long‑term, you know the product, the process runs smoothly, and there is “no need to change what works”.
The problem appears when something outside your control happens: a breakdown or overhaul at the plant, ownership changes, other markets become a priority, regulations change, or wider logistics disruptions and geopolitical crises occur.
If you don’t have a qualified alternative supplier at that moment, you become a hostage to the situation. What follows are panic RFQs, quick compromises in terms of specification or conditions, excessive dependence on expensive “emergency” transport and the risk of accepting something you normally wouldn’t – neither in quality nor in price.
How to avoid it:
First, clearly map which raw materials are truly critical – those without which production stops. For each of them, it’s reasonable to have at least two qualified suppliers, even if you continue to place most of the volume with one. From time to time, test alternative sources through smaller volumes or pilot runs so that your plan B is real, not just an “idea”. And talk openly with your primary supplier about dual sourcing – a serious partner understands risk management and can help you implement it sensibly.
The goal is not to constantly switch suppliers, but to prevent a single problem in the chain from stopping your entire business.
Conclusion: turning procurement into an advantage, not a source of risk
When these five mistakes are minimized, procurement stops being just a cost center that “puts out fires” and becomes a source of stability and competitive advantage.
RFQs generate comparable offers; you don’t waste time untangling different specifications; price is viewed in the context of real cost and risk; logistics is planned instead of surprising you; and suppliers become partners in development, not just “names in an Excel sheet”.
If you want to check whether any of these five mistakes appear in your own procurement, start with three practical questions:
- For which raw materials would a delay or quality change immediately stop production?
- What does your typical RFQ really look like today and what does it actually include?
- Where do things most often “break” at the moment – in price, in quality or in delivery?
The answers to these questions already show where you have the greatest room for improvement. If you’d like, in the next article we can break down a concrete structure of an ideal RFQ for one category (for example milk powders or starches/sweeteners) that your team can start using immediately.