How do we compare two suppliers when one will not disclose its proprietary carbide recipe?

Possibly, if the offer provides the evidence the actual specification and procurement process require. Separate essential requirements from information that would merely be interesting. Confidentiality does not prove quality, and disclosure does not prove suitability. Let the authorized reviewers assess the remaining evidence rather than inventing an equivalence or an automatic exclusion.

Distinguish genuinely required specifications from unnecessary confidential detail

Identify the tender’s mandatory material requirements, required disclosures, test methods and evaluation rules. Determine whether the withheld detail is expressly required or whether the supplier can demonstrate conformity through an allowed evidence route. Do not revise the criteria informally after seeing which supplier is more open.

Use the tender-evaluation guide for broader scoring practice. This discussion concerns a specific evidence-access boundary. The buyer needs a consistent way to evaluate what is required, without asking for a complete manufacturing recipe by default or treating a confidentiality statement as a waiver of the specification.

Ask for verifiable conformance evidence and permitted independent testing

Ask the supplier to state exactly what it will provide: a controlled grade designation, property reports, applicable lot evidence or permitted independent testing. Identify any limitations on access and how the evidence can be reviewed by the authorized technical team. A generic assurance of premium quality does not close a missing mandatory result.

Have the technical authority assess whether the supplied information addresses the required characteristics and application. Multiple material factors can matter; one favourable property should not stand in for every unknown. If a composition limit is genuinely mandatory, ask how conformity to that limit can be demonstrated through a route the procurement process permits.

Where confidentiality arrangements are proposed, send them through the responsible commercial or legal review. Do not promise secrecy, accept new terms or share another bidder’s proprietary information merely to make the comparison easier. Keep each supplier’s evidence and access restrictions properly separated.

Let the procurement authority decide whether remaining evidence meets the tender without inventing equivalence

Document the evidence available for both offers against the same requirements. Mark unmet, unverified and nonmandatory items distinctly. Ask the procurement authority to decide whether clarification, an allowed alternative evidence route or exclusion is appropriate under the applicable process. This editorial workflow does not determine a bidder’s legal entitlement or change tender rules.

For the snow-plow blade material proposal, retain the approved evidence basis and material identity in the order if the proposal is selected. Define the lot documentation and change notification needed for later deliveries so the initial confidentiality decision does not become a permanent gap in acceptance.

Close the comparison with a reasoned decision about sufficiency, not a ranking based on willingness to reveal a recipe. The successful offer must meet the authorized criteria through adequate evidence. If a necessary requirement remains unverified, say so plainly rather than filling the gap with assumptions about either supplier’s technology.