Red Flags When Buying Custom Automation Equipment from China

The warning signs are usually small:

• The quotation arrives before the supplier understands the process.
• The concept looks polished but assumptions are missing.
• FAT is described vaguely.
• Controls ownership is unclear.
• Support is promised verbally.
• Every technical question receives the answer “no problem.”

A Chinese supplier may be technically capable and still be wrong for the project.

Red flags should not be used to reject every supplier. They should tell the buyer what must be investigated before deposit.

1. The Quote Arrives Too Quickly

Why it matters:

The supplier may be quoting a standard machine, a previous design, or an incomplete scope.

A quick quotation can be credible when the supplier has built the same process many times. The difference is evidence.

A strong fast quotation contains:

• Relevant reference machines
• Clear assumptions
• Clear exclusions
• Major component list
• Preliminary layout
• Questions for the buyer
• Proposed test method

A weak fast quotation contains only:

• General machine description
• Attractive price
• Short delivery time
• Standard warranty
• Few technical questions

Ask:

• What assumptions did you make?
• Which parts of the design are already proven?
• Which parts require testing?
• What information could change the price?
• What is excluded?

2. The Supplier Has No Comparable Evidence

Why it matters:

The buyer may be funding first-time engineering without realizing it.

Comparable does not always mean the same finished product.

A supplier may still be suitable if it has proven the main technical functions.

For example:

• Similar feeding challenge
• Similar force-control process
• Similar vision defect
• Similar cycle time
• Similar hygiene requirement
• Similar product flexibility

Ask for:

• Machine videos
• Technical drawings
• Test records
• Installation date
• Current status
• Main problems encountered
• Changes made after delivery

3. The Supplier Only Shows Robot Demos

Why it matters:

Robot movement may be the easiest part of the project.

The real difficulty may sit in:

• Feeding
• Fixtures
• Tooling
• Process control
• Inspection
• Reject handling
• Changeover
• Line integration

Ask the supplier to demonstrate the full process risk, not only the robot path.

4. FAT Is Vague

Warning language includes:

• “Standard FAT”
• “Customer inspection before shipment”
• “Testing after machine completion”
• “Machine must run normally”
• “Acceptance according to technical agreement,” when no detailed technical agreement exists

Ask for:

• Sample plan
• Runtime
• Output
• Quality criteria
• Fault tests
• Changeover tests
• Documentation checklist
• Punch-list process

5. Controls Are Treated as a Minor Detail

Why it matters:

Mechanical design determines whether the machine can work.

Controls quality often determines whether the plant can operate and maintain it.

Ask:

• Who writes the PLC program?
• Who writes the HMI?
• Who integrates the robot and vision systems?
• Are source files included?
• How are programs backed up?
• How are alarms structured?
• What remote access is used?
• What local support exists?

6. Everything Is “No Problem”

Good suppliers can explain uncertainty.

They should be able to identify:

• Unproven process steps
• Sample risks
• Cycle-time risks
• Product-variation risks
• Interface risks
• Controls risks
• Installation risks

When every request is accepted immediately, ask:

“What are the three most likely reasons this project could fail?”

The quality of the answer is often more useful than another company presentation.

7. The Supplier Does Not Ask for Samples

This is a serious warning for:

• Feeding
• Vision
• Flexible materials
• Surface inspection
• Robotic gripping
• Labeling
• Leak testing
• Force-controlled assembly

CAD drawings do not show every production variation.

A supplier that plans to test only after the machine is built may be transferring development risk to the buyer.

8. The Concept Changes After Deposit

Some design development after deposit is normal.

The red flag appears when major scope decisions were never discussed before payment.

Examples:

• Automatic feeding becomes manual loading.
• Vision inspection becomes a simple sensor check.
• Required cycle time becomes an “estimated target.”
• Premium controls are replaced with local alternatives.
• Reject handling is removed.
• Overseas installation becomes chargeable.

The preliminary concept and key assumptions should be written before deposit.

9. Support Is Verbal

Why it matters:

Overseas machine issues can stop production while the supplier and buyer argue about responsibility.

Put the following in writing:

• Warranty period
• Response time
• Remote support method
• Supported language
• Working hours
• Included support
• Chargeable support
• Travel rates
• Spare-parts process
• Installation responsibility

10. Ownership Is Unclear

Custom automation crosses:

• Mechanical design
• Electrical design
• Tooling
• Feeding
• Controls
• Robot programming
• Vision
• Safety
• Testing
• Installation
• Support

A project can fail even when every individual supplier is capable if no one owns the interfaces.

Ask for a responsibility matrix.

For each function, identify:

• Responsible company
• Responsible engineer
• Deliverable
• Test method
• Handover requirement

Realistic Red-Flag Example

A buyer received a competitive quotation for an automatic labeling and inspection machine.

The proposal included:

• Machine frame
• Conveyor
• Label applicator
• Camera
• PLC
• Guarding

The quotation looked complete.

During technical review, several gaps appeared:

• The camera was intended only to confirm label presence, not verify printed content.
• Rejected products would stop the line instead of being automatically separated.
• Barcode data would not connect to the buyer’s system.
• Source code was excluded.
• Installation outside China was not included.
• FAT required only ten products.

None of these points were obvious in the total price.

The supplier was not necessarily dishonest. It had interpreted the project much more narrowly than the buyer.

The correct response was not immediate rejection. It was to rewrite the scope, define acceptance, and request a revised quotation.

Practical Rule

Before paying a deposit, ask:

If the machine fails during FAT, which named person at the supplier owns the correction?