If you're reading this, you're probably in the middle of procurement for a mining or cement project. Maybe you're comparing quotes for a new raptor cone crusher, or you're evaluating apron feeder specs for an expansion. The numbers are big, the deadlines are tight, and one wrong spec can cascade into delays that cost ten times the equipment price.
This checklist is for you. It's based on four years of reviewing deliverables before they reach customers—roughly 200+ unique items annually. I've rejected about 18% of first deliveries in 2024 alone due to specification mismatches, incomplete documentation, or packaging that wouldn't survive a wet season in a mine site.
Seven steps. Start at step one. Don't skip.
This sounds obvious. It isn't. I've seen purchase orders reference a PDF drawing from a month-old email while the vendor's current revision had changed the mounting flange dimensions by 12mm. Normal tolerance on flange fit is ±2mm. That mismatch cost us a $22,000 redo and delayed a SAG mill installation by three weeks.
What to do: get the current revision number in writing—on the PO, not in a separate email. Specify: 'Equipment must conform to FLSmidth drawing revision [X] dated [DATE]. Any deviation requires written approval prior to manufacture.'
Simple. Period.
I said 'standard size.' They heard 'industry standard.' Result: the gearbox mounting pattern didn't match our existing foundation. We were using the same words but meaning different things. Discovered this when the order arrived and nothing lined up.
FLSmidth equipment often gets spec'd against published catalog dimensions. But your site conditions—altitude, ambient temperature, available power—can shift what counts as 'standard' for your application. A crusher that works at 500m elevation might need derating at 4,000m.
Checklist item: Confirm the equipment specification sheet explicitly states the operating conditions it's designed for. If the spec sheet says 'standard operating conditions,' ask for the specific temperature range and altitude it was tested at.
This is where most procurement teams get tripped up. They focus on mechanical specs—capacity, power draw, dimensions—and assume the automation will just 'work with our existing system.' It won't. At least, not without integration work.
In a Q1 2024 audit, I found that 3 out of 8 automation-ready FLSmidth screens had control systems that didn't fully support the communication protocol we had assumed. The vendor claimed it was 'within industry standard.' It was technically standard—just not our standard.
What to do: get the automation interface spec in writing early. Don't wait until the equipment is on the dock. Ask for: protocol version, data points available, and any custom API requirements. If the vendor hesitates, that's a red flag.
We paid a significant premium for rush delivery on a set of gearboxes in March 2024. The alternative was missing a scheduled plant shutdown window. That window was a $15,000 event in lost production if missed.
The rush fee was $400 over standard. Worth it? Absolutely. But here's the thing—we weren't paying for speed. We were paying for certainty. The vendor committed to a specific ship date with a penalty clause if missed.
The 'standard' timeline was 'approximately 6-8 weeks.' That 'approximately' is a killer when your shutdown is scheduled for week 7. After getting burned twice by 'probably on time' promises, we now budget for guaranteed delivery when the deadline is firm.
Your call: if the delivery date is flexible, standard lead times are fine. If it's fixed, pay for certainty. The math is simple: missed deadline cost vs. premium cost.
Honestly, I'm not sure why some vendors consistently beat their quoted timelines while others consistently miss. My best guess is it comes down to internal buffer practices. But I know this: a written guarantee is worth more than a verbal promise.
This sounds like overkill until a $50,000 mill shell arrives with a dent from a forklift that wasn't supposed to be within 2 meters of it. The shipping specification was 'standard industrial packaging.' That meant plywood and straps. Not enough for ocean freight in a container with mixed cargo.
What to do: specify packaging requirements in the PO. For FLSmidth equipment: VCI (vapor corrosion inhibitor) for any machined surfaces, shock sensors on critical components, and blocking that exceeds the weight rating by at least 25%. Standard tolerance for packaging damage is zero if you specify it upfront. If you don't, it's 'your problem.'
This is the most common mistake I see. The PO says 'equipment to be in good working condition.' That's not a spec. That's a wish.
Define acceptance criteria before the order ships. For a crusher: 'As measured at factory test: capacity within ±[X] tons per hour of specified rate, power draw within ±[Y] kW, vibration levels below [Z] mm/s RMS.' For a screen: 'No more than [A]% of particles oversized at rated feed rate.'
If the vendor pushes back on specific criteria, that's a conversation you want to have before payment, not after delivery. I rejected 8,000 units in storage in 2023 because the vendor accepted a spec that was 'within industry standard' but outside our agreed tolerance. The vendor told us it was fine. It wasn't. The units had to be sent back at their cost.
This isn't pessimism. It's procurement math. Every project I've worked on that hit its equipment delivery date had at least one item that arrived later than the original estimate. The ones that failed had no buffer.
When specifying lead times: ask the vendor for their actual average delivery time for similar equipment, not the optimistic estimate. Most will give you the optimistic number by default. Get the realistic one.
Then add 10-15% for your internal buffer. Not for the vendor—for your own process. Receiving inspection, documentation review, integration testing. Those take time you never budget for.
A few patterns I've seen repeat across multiple projects:
This checklist won't prevent every problem. Nothing does. But it gives you a starting point that covers the gaps I've seen cost the most time and money. Start with step one. Don't skip. And if you find something that doesn't work in your context? That's fine—just make sure you know why before you deviate.
Discuss This Topic
If this article connects to an active wear issue at your plant, use the inquiry form to continue the conversation with our advisory team.
Tell Us What Is Wearing Fastest
Share plant stage, maintenance window, and the result you want to improve so our team can respond with a practical next step.