An appraisal record for comparing ammonia supply at the buyer's factory gate, with commissioning, delivery, support and contractual risk kept visible.
A green-ammonia production cost is not the same as a delivered, usable input for a fertiliser factory. Electrolysis, ammonia synthesis, storage and transport consume capital and operating resources, while the buyer needs an identified quantity at the right specification, location and time.
India's Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) describes its SIGHT Mode 2A green-ammonia procurement arrangement as back-to-back purchasing and onward sale to designated fertiliser procurers. The producer is responsible for production facilities and delivery to the procurer's factory. The original 724,000-tonne-per-annum Tranche I programme and the separate 54,000-tonne-per-annum Tranche II tender published on 24 September 2026 are distinct procurement events. The separate Tranche II volume was a tender as of the cited September 2026 record. Its 54,000-tonne-per-annum figure represents procurement sought, not delivered output.
A. Define the service boundary
Decision field
Required evidence
Decision field
Required evidence
Decision field
Required evidence
Decision field
Required evidence
Decision field
Required evidence
Decision field
Required evidence
Decision field
Required evidence
| Decision field | Required evidence |
|---|---|
| Product | Green-ammonia specification and applicable certification method |
| Buyer | Named factory and defined delivery point |
| Quantity | Annual and shipment quantities, tolerances and demand profile |
| Timing | Scheduled commencement of supply, delivery windows and commissioning dependencies |
| Price basis | Quoted currency and unit, taxes, storage and transportation inclusion, escalation rules |
| Support | Incentive entitlement, eligible period, payment conditions and who receives the benefit |
| Failure | Off-specification product, delayed delivery, supply interruption and remedies |
B. Calculate a like-for-like delivered obligation
For offer i and comparison period t:
Accepted-delivery expenditure(i,t) = accepted tonnes(i,t) × contractual delivered unit price(i,t) + buyer-borne incremental costs(i,t) − buyer-received enforceable rebates(i,t).
Only include rebates if they accrue contractually to the buyer; a production incentive paid to a supplier is not automatically a buyer rebate. Include any separate costs of unloading, extra storage, contingency supply or testing only when actually borne by the buyer and absent from the price.
Where the quoted delivered price already includes supplier-funded transport, adding freight again double-counts the cost. An apparently cheap tonne that arrives late or fails specification cannot be counted as accepted input.
C. Appraise the alternatives
Test
Offer A
Offer B
Finding needed
Test
Offer A
Offer B
Finding needed
Test
Offer A
Offer B
Finding needed
Test
Offer A
Offer B
Finding needed
Test
Offer A
Offer B
Finding needed
Test
Offer A
Offer B
Finding needed
| Test | Offer A | Offer B | Finding needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contracted usable tonnes and quality | [Source] | [Source] | Comparable / not comparable |
| Delivered unit price and included services | [Source] | [Source] | Common price basis |
| Commencement and ramp assumptions | [Source] | [Source] | Time risk and evidence |
| Security of supply and replacement remedy | [Source] | [Source] | Exposure to interruption |
| Buyer-side cost and enforceable offsets | [Source] | [Source] | Adjusted delivered comparison |
| Statutory, land, power and water dependencies | [Source] | [Source] | Implementability |
D. Worked application — unresolved by design
Consider a fertiliser plant assessing two bids. Offer A quotes a lower nominal per-kilogram price but has no verified storage and route-to-factory plan. Offer B provides a complete delivery scope but its actual power-cost and scheduled commissioning evidence remain incomplete. Without matched quantities, delivery risks and price inclusions, the Framework returns INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, not an invented ranking.
The sponsor must request signed delivery terms, technical scope, commissioning plan, evidence of feedstock and energy arrangements, and treatment of failed or delayed supply. The competent procurer then applies the published tender criteria and its procurement authority. This is an independent evaluation method, not a replacement for SECI's lawful process.
Origin and scope
Developed from Deepak Yadav's Issue 3 blueprint *Beyond the Grid to Own the Molecule*. That article examines hydrogen value-chain ownership and industrial strategy. This Framework isolates the purchaser's delivered-input comparison. It is not an official SECI bid-evaluation procedure.
Sources: