When Would We Decline a Solar Contract?
Why we have the Courage to Decline Solar Contracts (Sometimes)
Solar maintenance in Australia is experiencing a troubling race to the bottom. As in many sectors we find that tender processes often favour the lowest bidder regardless of capability. But when it comes to maintenance, trying to compete with these low bids without needing to compromise quality is incredibly unsustainable and so we have, at times, needed to walk away from contracts when requirements don’t align with our the value and standards that we do commit to.
Ultimately, we want the industry to understand why a low bid is in no one’s best interest. To do that, it’s important to understand why reputable maintenance providers sometimes who decline projects can help asset owners create more effective maintenance programs that attract quality partners rather than bargain-basement providers.
Recognising Unrealistic Expectations
Many tender documents contain scope requirements that sound comprehensive but prove impractical in application. We regularly encounter maintenance scopes drafted by consultants with limited field experience, creating requirements that look impressive on paper but are unworkable in practice.
Consider the increasingly aggressive SLAs we’re seeing. While quick response times are important, SLAs demanding four-hour attendance at remote sites regardless of circumstances ignore real-world constraints like travel distances, parts availability, and extreme weather events. To actually factor that kind of SLA into an agreement would require a significant premium, which is also why cookie-cutter agreements to SLAs can’t work. What we can commit to factors directly into the necessary cost of the contract.
Even more problematic are “performance guarantees” that promise specific generation outputs. Solar systems are subject to numerous variables beyond a maintenance provider’s control—weather patterns, grid constraints, and system design limitations. When contracts demand guarantees that ignore these realities, they create adversarial relationships rather than partnerships focused on optimisation.
The harsh truth is that comprehensive maintenance has real costs. When budget constraints clash with exhaustive scope requirements, something must give—and it’s usually quality, especially if the lower tender bid is the one that wins. We’ve declined contracts where it became clear that to deliver the specified scope without cutting corners, it would become unsustainable to the business health.
The Value of Local Presence and Transparency
Effective solar maintenance demands genuine local presence. The difference between a technician who can reach your site in hours versus days can be the difference between minor rectification and major system downtime.
We’re increasingly seeing maintenance providers claim “national coverage” through loosely affiliated networks of subcontractors. This arrangement obscures accountability and creates inconsistent service quality. When evaluating maintenance partners, asset owners should demand transparency about who will actually perform the work and their qualifications.
Equally important is reporting transparency. Detailed maintenance reports create accountability and provide crucial system insights. However, we’ve seen contracts demanding elaborate reporting requirements without allowing sufficient budget to support this documentation. The result? Rushed inspections focused on completing paperwork rather than identifying and addressing issues.
Data accessibility presents similar challenges. While comprehensive monitoring data is valuable, contracts sometimes demand custom integration with proprietary platforms requiring significant development resources. Effective maintenance partnerships balance information needs with practical delivery methods.
Aligning Expectations with Market Realities
The relationship between price, service quality, and long-term system performance is inescapable. When asset owners select maintenance providers solely on price, they often discover the true cost through accelerated system degradation and performance losses that far exceed any initial savings.
We recently declined a tender for 20 sites across rural Australia because the pricing structure made it impossible to conduct proper inspections at each location. The contract would have forced us to choose between losing money or providing superficial servicing. Rather than compromise our standards, we walked away—a decision that protects both our reputation and the client’s assets.
Another concerning trend is ignoring the value of remote monitoring capabilities. When effectively utilised, monitoring platforms can identify issues before they cause significant problems, reducing the need for costly emergency call-outs. Yet we see contracts that fail to incentivise this proactive approach, instead focusing exclusively on reactive maintenance.
Creating effective maintenance programs requires balancing thoroughness with practicality. The most successful partnerships we’ve established involve:
- Realistic scopes acknowledging geographical constraints
- SLAs structured to prioritise critical issues or promoting over-performance, while managing costs
- Emphasis on transparency in reporting without excessive administrative burden
- Recognition that local presence matters for responsive service
- Leveraging remote monitoring to reduce unnecessary site visits
At Industrias, we believe in long-term partnerships where we can truly understand systems, monitor wear patterns, and forecast maintenance needs accurately. This approach delivers better outcomes than transactional relationships focused solely on compliance checkboxes.
Sometimes, having the courage to decline unrealistic contracts is the strongest statement a quality provider can make. It demonstrates a commitment to standards that ultimately protect system owners’ investments and the industry’s reputation. In solar maintenance, as in most areas of life, you generally get what you pay for—and cutting corners inevitably cuts performance.