Hana Solution LLC — Case Studies
Supplier Shortlist Validation & RFQ Governance Before Price Negotiation
Four Turkish textile suppliers. Four quotations received. Buyer planned to select on price alone. Structural benchmarking identified two OEKO-TEX scope mismatches and unstandardised RFQ parameters — before a single commercial decision was made.
Industry
Textile & Apparel — Ready-Made Garments
Buyer Region
EU & United Kingdom
Services Applied
Supplier Verification + RFQ Governance
Stage
Pre-Negotiation — Before Supplier Selection
4
Benchmarked
Structural comparison applied
2
Retained
Advanced to negotiation
2
Not Advanced
OEKO-TEX scope mismatch
1
RFQ Standardised
Before price comparison
Situation & Gap
What the buyer assumed — and what was actually there
Buyer's Assumption
Four quotations received from Turkish garment manufacturers. All four referenced OEKO-TEX Standard 100 compliance. The buyer planned to rank by unit price and select the lowest. OEKO-TEX claims were taken at face value — no scope validation had been conducted.
Structural Gap
RFQ parameters were unstandardised — payment terms, documentation requirements, and Incoterm basis differed across all four responses. OEKO-TEX certificates had not been validated for scope or currency. Two certificates covered yarn — not finished garments. Price comparison was structurally impossible and compliance exposure was undetected.
Governance Actions
What was applied — before price comparison proceeded
1
OEKO-TEX Certificate Validation
Each certificate validated via the OEKO-TEX Label Check database. Certificate number, scope (product stage and class), and validity date confirmed for all four suppliers.
2
Scope Mismatch Identification
Suppliers C and D: certificates covered yarn (Product Class II raw material) — not finished garments. Presenting yarn certification as finished garment compliance constitutes a greenwashing risk under EU Green Deal requirements.
3
RFQ Standardisation
Parameters redefined before comparison: Incoterm basis (FOB Mersin), payment term structure, documentation requirements (OEKO-TEX finished garment scope, packing list, CoO), and lead time definition standardised across all responses.
4
Structural Benchmarking
Retained suppliers benchmarked against standardised parameters — commercial terms, payment exposure, documentation completeness, counterparty clarity. Price comparison applied only after structural validation confirmed comparability.
5
Governance Decision Issued
Suppliers A and B: Retained — compliant, structurally comparable. Suppliers C and D: Not Advanced — OEKO-TEX scope mismatch, cannot supply certified finished garments on current documentation.
Key Findings
Supplier-level verification and RFQ benchmarking results
| Supplier | OEKO-TEX Scope | Certificate Status | RFQ Comparability | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier A | Finished garment — Class II confirmed | Valid — current | Comparable after standardisation | Retained |
| Supplier B | Finished garment — Class II confirmed | Valid — current | Comparable after standardisation | Retained |
| Supplier C | Yarn only — scope mismatch | Valid — wrong scope | Not applicable | Not Advanced |
| Supplier D | Yarn only — scope mismatch | Valid — wrong scope | Not applicable | Not Advanced |
Supplier A
OEKO-TEXFinished garment — Class II confirmed
CertificateValid — current
RFQComparable after standardisation
DecisionRetained
Supplier B
OEKO-TEXFinished garment — Class II confirmed
CertificateValid — current
RFQComparable after standardisation
DecisionRetained
Supplier C
OEKO-TEXYarn only — scope mismatch
CertificateValid — wrong scope
RFQNot applicable
DecisionNot Advanced
Supplier D
OEKO-TEXYarn only — scope mismatch
CertificateValid — wrong scope
RFQNot applicable
DecisionNot Advanced
RFQ Structural Benchmarking
Retained suppliers compared against standardised parameters
| Parameter | Supplier A | Supplier B |
|---|---|---|
| Incoterm | ✓ FOB Mersin | ✓ FOB Mersin |
| Payment Terms | ✓ 30% deposit / 70% BL | ✓ 30% deposit / 70% BL |
| OEKO-TEX Scope | ✓ Finished garment confirmed | ✓ Finished garment confirmed |
| Documentation | ✓ Complete | ✓ Complete |
| Lead Time | 45 days from deposit | 50 days from deposit |
| Commercial Exposure | ✓ Controlled | ✓ Controlled |
Supplier A
Incoterm✓ FOB Mersin
Payment30% deposit / 70% BL
OEKO-TEX✓ Finished garment
Docs✓ Complete
Lead Time45 days from deposit
Exposure✓ Controlled
Supplier B
Incoterm✓ FOB Mersin
Payment30% deposit / 70% BL
OEKO-TEX✓ Finished garment
Docs✓ Complete
Lead Time50 days from deposit
Exposure✓ Controlled
Decision Outcome
What happened as a result of governance
Governance decisions applied before commercial engagement
Suppliers C and D were removed from the sourcing process before any commercial engagement. Both held genuine OEKO-TEX certificates — the certificates simply did not cover the product being sourced.
The RFQ was reissued to Suppliers A and B on standardised parameters. Price comparison became structurally valid only after Incoterm, payment terms, and documentation requirements were defined consistently.
Commercial negotiation proceeded with two validated, structurally comparable suppliers. The buyer selected based on price differential within a confirmed compliance and governance framework — not on price alone.
Without structural benchmarking, the buyer's original price-only comparison would have ranked Supplier C as the most competitive option. Market placement of those garments in the EU would have constituted a compliance failure under EU Green Deal requirements.
Governance Principle
Price comparison without structural benchmarking does not produce a supplier ranking — it produces a price list. Compliance scope, payment exposure, and documentation completeness must be confirmed before price becomes a meaningful variable.
RFQ Governance
Submit Your Project Brief →
Need structured RFQ benchmarking before supplier selection?
Submit a project brief. We standardise your RFQ, validate compliance scope, and deliver a governance decision before negotiation begins.
This case study reflects the governance process, structural findings, and decision outcomes from a real buyer-side engagement. Company names, supplier identities, and commercial figures are withheld per confidentiality obligations.