Dec 7, 2025
Offshore Chartering: Structured RFQs Cut Time, Cost and CO2
Offshore Chartering: Structured RFQs Cut Time, Cost and CO2
Most RFQs still look like Column A/B/C spreadsheets. Structuring requests by operations data unlocks faster matching, better vessel choices, and lower emissions.
Most RFQs still look like Column A/B/C spreadsheets. Structuring requests by operations data unlocks faster matching, better vessel choices, and lower emissions.
Column A, Column B, Column C: that’s how most offshore RFQs still arrive. The result is slow sourcing, generic day rates, and vessels mobilizing from the wrong port. In offshore, every extra 100 nm sailed is fuel burned, time lost, and a project risk quietly added. The fix isn’t more emails—it’s structured RFQs that mirror the job.
What does that look like in practice? Encode the operating box (lat/long), weather window, DP class, bollard pull, crane/deck logic, fuel type, and the realistic mobilization port. Once the RFQ carries this context, matching shifts from “who’s available” to “who can execute.” AHTS demand around Q2 installations, for example, is not just about bollard pull—it’s DP2 station-keeping near assets, deck layout for spreads, and recent DP/FMEA performance. On CTVs, adding berth windows and tide constraints to the request lets schedulers stack routes and minimize unproductive steaming.
The emerging trend: emissions data is becoming a selection filter, not an afterthought. Owners who tag HVO-ready multicats and publish consumption curves at 8/10/12 knots let charterers calculate CO2 per job—not per day. In tight North Sea slots, we consistently see DP2 and proximity beat a cheaper day rate once transit fuel and weather standby are priced into the work scope.
Takeaway: Structure the RFQ around the operation—and the right vessel will surface faster, cheaper, and cleaner.
If you’d like to discuss your offshore projects, reach us anytime at sales@seavium.com.
Column A, Column B, Column C: that’s how most offshore RFQs still arrive. The result is slow sourcing, generic day rates, and vessels mobilizing from the wrong port. In offshore, every extra 100 nm sailed is fuel burned, time lost, and a project risk quietly added. The fix isn’t more emails—it’s structured RFQs that mirror the job.
What does that look like in practice? Encode the operating box (lat/long), weather window, DP class, bollard pull, crane/deck logic, fuel type, and the realistic mobilization port. Once the RFQ carries this context, matching shifts from “who’s available” to “who can execute.” AHTS demand around Q2 installations, for example, is not just about bollard pull—it’s DP2 station-keeping near assets, deck layout for spreads, and recent DP/FMEA performance. On CTVs, adding berth windows and tide constraints to the request lets schedulers stack routes and minimize unproductive steaming.
The emerging trend: emissions data is becoming a selection filter, not an afterthought. Owners who tag HVO-ready multicats and publish consumption curves at 8/10/12 knots let charterers calculate CO2 per job—not per day. In tight North Sea slots, we consistently see DP2 and proximity beat a cheaper day rate once transit fuel and weather standby are priced into the work scope.
Takeaway: Structure the RFQ around the operation—and the right vessel will surface faster, cheaper, and cleaner.
If you’d like to discuss your offshore projects, reach us anytime at sales@seavium.com.