How to Evaluate Packaging Equipment Manufacturers and Integrators

A missing interface owner, unsupported controls or an incomplete acceptance plan can turn a purchase into recurring downtime. Use the evaluation table below to turn the short answer into evidence requests for each bidder.

Mark each row with one status. This is a working tool for this page, not an industry scoring standard: a row still “to confirm” when you compare offers is a risk to price or resolve before the order, and a row the supplier will not put “in contract” is a reason to ask why.

Copyable supplier record

Copy the blank table for each bidder and retain the evidence reference. Use the Status field for “to confirm”, “evidence received” or “in contract”; this is a record, not a numerical score.

1. OEM Machine Builder vs. Systems Integrator

Decide first whether the project needs an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for one machine or a systems integrator for a line:

• OEM machine builders design and fabricate specific unit operations (for example a rotary liquid filler, an automatic carton erector or a robotic palletizer). Dealing directly with an OEM usually suits replacing a single machine on an existing line.
• Systems integrators combine machines from different OEMs, design the conveyors and accumulation between them, program line-level control, and can take contractual responsibility for overall line performance.
• The evaluation risk: A single-machine OEM offering to “integrate the whole line” needs to show conveyor, accumulation and line-balancing experience on similar lines. When an integrator quotes a line that includes other builders’ machines, ask for a breakdown that separates the bought-in machines from engineering, project management and integration scope, so you can see what you are paying for and compare offers.

Clarify line boundaries early using our packaging line integration checklist, and see where the line constraint sits before deciding who must own throughput.

Takeaway: Name the party responsible for each machine interface and overall output in the agreed scope.

2. Electrical Controls & Architecture Transparency

Controls you cannot support or change cost money every time the product, format or line changes, so settle them before the order:

1. Supportable PLC platforms: Prefer control platforms your plant can support and source parts for, such as a PLC family your maintenance team already works with. If a supplier uses its own controller, ask how spares and repairs are handled and how long they will be supported.
2. Code access: State in your Request for Quotation (RFQ) what you need: PLC and HMI project files, the right to modify them, and the documentation of the program. Some builders protect parts of their code as know-how; if so, agree escrow or a defined support arrangement in the contract rather than discovering it at handover. Programming languages for PLCs are covered by IEC 61131-3. See our PLC, HMI and motion control guide for what each part does.
3. PackML state model: If you want consistent state reporting across machines from different builders, specify the PackML state model described in ISA-TR88.00.02 and promoted by OMAC, and ask for the tag list. Its state names include Idle, Starting, Execute, Holding, Held, Suspended, Stopping, Stopped, Aborting, Aborted and Clearing; there is no “Running” or “Cleared” state, so check that the supplier’s documentation uses the standard names. Not every machine implements every state, so write which states and tags you require.
4. Safety functions: Required performance levels for safety functions come from the risk assessment for the machine (ISO 12100 gives the general method; ISO 13849-1 covers safety-related parts of control systems), not from a single category for every machine.

Takeaway: Record the supportable platform, deliverable files or agreed support alternative, and required tags before comparing offers.

3. Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) Rigor

Tie final progress payments to a signed Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) at the builder’s facility, run to a protocol agreed before the order:

• Real packaging materials: Run the test with your production containers, closures, cases, film and product or an agreed product simulant. A machine proven only on ideal samples can still jam on real flexible packaging or static-charged bottles.
• Run length and limits: Write the run duration, the speed to be demonstrated and the pass limits for jams, leakers and rejects into the protocol. Those values depend on your product, risk and line, so agree them with the supplier rather than copying a fixed rule; our FAT vs. SAT packaging equipment guide shows how to write each criterion.
• What the FAT covers: A FAT proves only the configuration that is actually present or simulated at the builder’s site. List which interfaces are tested there, with real neighboring machines or simulated signals, and which wait for the site acceptance test (SAT) with your installed utilities, upstream and downstream machines and production conditions.

Takeaway: Separate what the FAT can demonstrate from what must wait for the installed line at SAT.

4. Field Service & Lifecycle Support Verification

You will need parts and service for as long as you run the machine, so ask the supplier to state its support terms for your expected period of use, and evaluate them as part of the purchase:

Takeaway: Compare the support the contract commits to, including an on-site alternative where remote access is prohibited.

Questions to put in the RFQ

• Who carries responsibility for line output and for each interface, and how is that written in the contract?
• Which PLC and HMI platforms are used, what code and documentation will be delivered, and under what terms?
• Will the machine report PackML states and tags, and which ones?
• What does the FAT protocol cover: materials, duration, speed, limits and sign-off?
• Where is the nearest service team, what response time will be written into the contract, and what is the recommended spares list?
• How will remote support work under our OT security policy, or what is the on-site alternative?

FAQ

What if the builder will not hand over the PLC code?

Ask what it will provide instead and put it in the contract: for example, an escrow copy released if the builder stops supporting the machine, a defined list of parameters your staff may change, and the response time and price for program changes. Compare that against how often you expect to change products, formats or line equipment.

Is a builder without local service staff automatically out?

No. Compare the response the contract commits to, the spares you would hold on site, and whether your own maintenance team can be trained to handle first-line faults. A supplier that flies engineers in can still be workable if those terms are written down and fit your downtime tolerance.

Our plant does not allow remote connections. What should we ask for?

An on-site support plan: training for your technicians, a documented fault-finding guide, a spares list, and the time it takes the supplier’s engineer to reach your site. If remote access is allowed only under conditions, give the supplier your OT security requirements with the RFQ so the offer reflects them.

Should every integrated line use PackML?

Only if you need consistent state data across machines from different builders, for example for line control or performance reporting. If you do, list the states and tags you need in the RFQ and check the tag list at the FAT.

Limits of this checklist

This checklist helps compare suppliers; it does not replace your own specification, a risk assessment, your plant’s IT and OT security review, or legal review of the contract. Numbers such as run length, response time and spare-parts availability periods should come from your requirements and be written into the order.

Before signing binding commitments, structure your commercial specifications using our packaging machine RFQ checklist and model the full lifecycle spending with our packaging machine total cost of ownership guide.