I guess I felt just a little bit of angst when I read in the OP
<<<The contractor would like to furnish...based on the negotiated cost to the Contractor).>>>
suspecting that all this may be going on after the competitive? bids for the project (as it turns out is in fact the case).
While I am probably some naive, one would think the contractor and any other contractors who may have bid on the work may quite possibly have been quoted a price for the pipe (in good faith) by the supplier(s)/manufacturer(s) before the bid. If prices for the pipe are now going to be "negotiated" (meaning perhaps lower?), who should now get the benefit of that savings? If the Owner ends up with the very cheapest pipe out there in every part of the system, is that best for the facility? Maybe looking at this another way, at least if somehow the Contractor is the one to profit from this special after-bid allowance (or know that it would be allowed after the bid), would that be fair to the unsuccessful bidders (who were not planning on such "negotiating" after the bid?)
While it is indeed unusual (as I think others have mentioned) to see specific sole pipe suppliers called out in specifications/with no equal allowed, at least up to recent years many Owners have however asked Contractors on bid forms to specify whose pipe (they have gotten prices for, chosen from available vendors and based their bid on?) they are going to install when/if awarded the job.
While I guess it may be increasingly so, it also takes a little getting use to to think of something as important as pipes for pipelines as a "commodity". While many standards do provide for Owners/Engineers to specify and thereafter receive from successful bidders e.g. certificates of compliance etc., unless an Owner or independent third-part inspector watches (the actual manufacture and testing etc.) these documents in actuality are really just pieces of paper that can be "manufactured", wholly dependent on the integrity/truthfullness/reputation of the vendor and those who work for same. Nevertheless, asking for the papers at least makes the manufacturer aware you really want same, as well as the quality level they reflect.
It is possible for pieces of any type of piping, including SS or anything else to occasionally or eventually have issues, and it may indeed be helpful then for an Owner to know from whence it came (if for nothing other than potential advice from the manufacture on how to deal with same). While not stainless steel pipe, I noticed that in the linked "complaint" document pointed to at the end of the page e.g. at
, that "false claims" or "a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim approved" (I guess a pipe supplier involved allegedly not doing exactly what they were supposed to do, or said/wrote they did) were apparently instrumental in what eventually prevailed in the first phase of this quite lengthy trial. It appears the industry or pipe manufacturer's latest/current spin on all this may incidentally now be at
All this being said, it is probably unrealistic in today's global manufacturing environment and marketplace to assume in specifications or otherwise that every single piece of piping in any system (and perhaps particularly for complex plant piping with a wide range of sizes of pipe?) will be available from one "domestic" manufacturer, and some mechanism or process should probably be as clearly defined as possible to make reasonable allowance in such cases.
