Chromatography Forum

Anyone heard that the manufacture declines a service contract or significantly increases the price due to frequent service requests during the past contract period? Thanks

Not specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me. Service contracts are a profit center for most manufacturers, and they price based on their expected costs.

My lab experienced just that situation. A manufacturer said we called for service too often, so they wanted to charge more for the service contract when it came time to renew. Our situation was unique in that the number of visits they claimed we had were a lot more than the number of visits we actually called for, but the situation still applies.

There are two issues involved. One is that the vendor needs to cover the cost of all the trips. A second is that a site that has frequent service calls may have other issues. The laboratory environment may cause damage to the instruments or the operators may handle the instrument in a way that causes escessive wear or failures. While a vendor will make the extra calls for an isntrument issue that results from some flaw in the instrument or expected wear, no vendor wants to take on a major repair that results from an issue that is controllable by the user. And if the vendor identifies a site as high risk for such a major failure, it is not unreasonable that they would want to be sure that they are not left holding the bag.

Service contracts will have a statement that damage resulting from misuse is to be paid for by the user - but that can be hard to resolve. In other cases, the customer will call because they can not complete a routine task and it is described as an instrument problem. The vendor may find it better to just make the repair and move on -- at least until renewal time.

Has there ever, in the whole history of chromatography, even been a supplier who offered to reduce a service contract price because of fewer than expecte calls ?

Service contracts are more or less like insurance. Currently if you have a pre-existing condition, insurance will charge you more, I guess the same goes for service contracts.

I think Don nailed it on the issues involved...

At one point we had a customer running samples in an extremely dirty matrix, and a great deal of maintenance was required. The service contract was changed over to a preventive maintenance contract, with several visits per contract period, and a discount for emergency service. This was done in cooperation with the customer, and worked out well for both sides. There was less down time due to the regularly scheduled maintenance, and even though the cost was higher there was value for the money.

It is important for the user and the company to discuss what is appropriate for the instrument(s) in question, and try to come up with the best solution to fit the application. In a harsh environment or a dirty matrix application scheduled preventive maintenance may be more appropriate than an emergency service contract.

Service contracts should not be looked at as one size fits all, user needs are different. Service contracts are priced based on expected costs incurred by the company, and it is an average based on the average instrument with the average user. An experienced operator who does routine maintenance and takes good care of the instrument will probably get less for the money than some other users; however it is a fact of life that at some point in its service life any instrument is likely to require major repairs, a turbo pump fails, a motherboard fails, a pump drive motor fails, and so on. The service contracts do generate revenue for companies that sell them, but the profit margin is not nearly as high as that for consumer electronics or cars.