Why "Always Get Three Quotes" Is Bad Advice for Industrial Packaging

I think the standard advice to "always get three quotes" for industrial packaging is often a waste of time and money, and can even lead to worse outcomes. I'm not saying you should never shop around. But as someone who's reviewed specs and signed off on deliveries for roughly 200+ unique packaging items annually over the last four years, I've seen this rule-of-thumb backfire more often than it helps. It prioritizes a simplistic view of cost over the complex reality of quality, reliability, and total ownership.

The Hidden Cost of Vendor Evaluation

It's tempting to think that getting three quotes is just a few extra emails. But the reality is a proper vendor evaluation for industrial packaging isn't free. You're spending engineering or quality team hours to create detailed, comparable specs. You're waiting for sales teams to loop in their technical experts. That's time not spent on production or other projects.

In our Q1 2024 quality audit, I tracked the time spent on a sourcing project for a new intermediate bulk container (IBC) line. From initial RFQ to final decision, it took 42 person-hours across three departments. The price difference between the top two bidders was 1.8%. We spent over $3,000 in internal labor to potentially save $900 on the initial order. The numbers said to just pick one and move on. My gut said we needed the competitive check. Turns out my gut was wrong—the exercise was a net loss on that transaction.

Specs Are Rarely "Apples-to-Apples"

Here's the biggest flaw in the three-quote logic: it assumes you're comparing identical things. With industrial packaging, you almost never are. A steel drum isn't just a steel drum. Is it hot-dipped galvanized or electroplated? What's the exact gauge of the steel body? What's the lining material (epoxy, phenolic, fluoropolymer) and its mil thickness? Is the closure system UN-certified for your specific hazardous material?

I've seen quotes where Vendor A's "comparable" 55-gallon drum was $5 cheaper than Vendor B's. But Vendor A's spec called for a 1.2mm body vs. Vendor B's 1.5mm. Vendor A used a standard epoxy lining, while B's quote included a more chemical-resistant phenolic. The "cheaper" drum wasn't the same product. If you just go by price, you're not buying smarter; you're buying blind. The industry standard for steel thickness tolerance might be +/- 0.05mm, but that small difference can impact stacking strength dramatically. You can't see that on a quote.

The Value of an Established Relationship (It's Not Just About Price)

People assume the vendor relationship is purely transactional. What they don't see is what that relationship is worth during a crisis. In 2022, we had a production line go down because a pallet of composite IBCs failed a pressure test—a defect that wasn't visible on arrival. We'd sourced that batch from a new, low-cost vendor we found during a "three-quote" exercise.

Our primary vendor, the one we'd used for years and maybe paid a 3% premium to, had capacity tied up. But their sales rep called their plant, found a small window, and rushed a replacement batch to us in 72 hours. That relationship, built on consistent business, saved us a week of downtime. The cost of that downtime? Roughly $22,000 per day. The "savings" from the new vendor evaporated instantly. An established vendor knows your quality expectations, your facility, your people. That has a tangible value you can't put on an RFQ.

"But Doesn't Competition Keep Prices Honest?"

This is the expected pushback. And yes, periodic market checks are healthy. I'm not advocating for a single, unchallenged supplier forever. The key is how you do it.

Instead of running a full three-quote circus for every order, we do this: we maintain a primary vendor for each packaging category (drums, IBCs, containerboard). Once a year, we do a deep, formal bid for one category. We invest those 40+ hours to get truly comparable specs. We use that bid not necessarily to switch, but to validate our primary's pricing and to have a qualified backup. For everything else, we rely on our relationship and the knowledge that our pricing is in the ballpark. It's strategic, not robotic.

When You *Should* Get Multiple Quotes (The Honest Limitation)

My stance isn't "never get multiple quotes." That'd be reckless. Here's when you absolutely should:

• For a new, major product line: If you're launching a new chemical process that needs a specialty container, you need to explore the market.
• When your volumes change dramatically: Doubling your order quantity? That reopens negotiations and justifies the evaluation effort.
• If you sense complacency: Slip in quality, lagging service—time to test the waters.
• For commoditized, simple items: Standard corrugated boxes? Basic stretch film? Here, the "three-quote" rule might work because the specs are truly simple and comparable. But even then, consider your total annual spend with a vendor. Consolidating might get you a better deal than piecemeal quoting.

If you're doing small, repeat orders of a well-understood packaging item with a reliable vendor, the "three quotes" ritual is likely costing you more than it saves. You're optimizing for unit price instead of total cost, which includes your time, risk of defects, and value of reliable supply.

Bottom Line: Think Like a Quality Manager, Not a Purchasing Robot

So, I'm not saying throw out all competitive bidding. I'm saying the mindless "always get three" rule is bad advice. It oversimplifies a complex decision into a price comparison. It ignores transaction costs, specification nuances, and the real value of supplier relationships.

As a quality manager, my job is to ensure what arrives works, lasts, and protects our product. The cheapest option on paper rarely does that best. Invest your time in building a deep, transparent relationship with one or two great vendors. Do strategic market checks, not tactical ones for every order. Your bottom line—and your sanity—will thank you. Trust me on this one.