Identify the legal company, factory and actual manufacturing relationship before product claims are reviewed.
Apollo NZ Global · Manufacturer qualification
Manufacturer Submission Evidence Standard.
A strong product submission is not the biggest document folder. It is a controlled set of current information that proves who makes the product, what the exact product is, which claims are supported, how it is manufactured and exported, and what support remains available after supply.
Every technical file should make it possible to understand which model, configuration and revision it supports.
Superseded or expired documents stay visible as historical context, not current proof.
A product sold internationally is not automatically compliant in every country or project.
Packaging, freight, spares and after-sales support matter alongside technical performance.
Known limits and project-dependent items strengthen a submission more than unsupported certainty.
The evidence stack
What Apollo expects to understand before relying on a product.
Not every product needs every document. Evidence depth should follow structural, safety, technical, programme and commercial risk. The table shows the baseline information and what makes a submission easier to qualify.
| Review area | Minimum useful information | What strengthens the submission |
|---|---|---|
| Product identity | Exact product family, model / SKU where used, intended applications, variants and manufacturer relationship. | A controlled model list showing which factory makes each product and which configurations the submitted evidence applies to. |
| Technical specification | Current dimensions, materials, main components, operating limits and options. | Revision-controlled technical datasheet or specification identifying the exact model and configurable boundaries. |
| Drawings | General arrangement or product drawings where geometry matters. | Current dimensional drawings plus CAD / DWG / BIM where genuinely available, with project drawings clearly separated from generic marketing diagrams. |
| Materials + finishes | Material grades, coating / finish families and key construction details. | Material certificates, finish systems, colour / texture schedules and any documented exposure limitations relevant to the product. |
| Testing + certification | List the standards, tests and certificates currently held. | Full current reports or certificates that identify the tested model, size, material, factory, test method, issuer, date and stated limitations. |
| Engineering support | State whether calculations or project engineering can be supplied. | Named engineering capability, calculation responsibility, design inputs required and sample project deliverables for the exact system type. |
| Installation + maintenance | Installation method and basic maintenance pathway. | Current installation manual, commissioning requirements where relevant, maintenance schedule, service clearances and installer / training support scope. |
| Warranty + spare parts | Written warranty period and basic claim pathway. | Warranty scope, exclusions, responsible legal entity, spare-parts availability period, replacement lead times and after-sales process. |
| Manufacturing + quality | Factory location, production process and normal lead time. | Process flow, production capacity, QC checkpoints, traceability, inspection records, non-conformance handling and third-party inspection capability. |
| Export + packaging | Export port, normal Incoterms and packaging method. | Export packing specification, crate / bundle dimensions, moisture protection, labels, container strategy, direct-project shipping and receiving assumptions. |
| Project experience | Relevant sectors and representative project scale. | Comparable references showing what was actually supplied, project location where publishable, scope, quantities / scale and evidence that the reference is genuinely comparable. |
Evidence applicability rule
Before a claim is carried forward, five questions should be answerable.
- 01Exact product?
Does the document identify the product family, model or configuration being proposed?
- 02Exact tested scope?
Are size, material, components, factory and relevant options inside the document's stated scope?
- 03Current revision?
Is the file current, dated and traceable to the version Apollo is reviewing?
- 04Credible source?
Can the issuing laboratory, certification body, engineer or manufacturer record be identified where relevant?
- 05Known limitations?
Are exclusions, tested limits, environmental conditions and project-dependent requirements visible rather than omitted?
Three submission stages
Send the right depth at the right time.
Apollo does not need a project-specific engineering package for every initial introduction. The evidence request grows only when the product and project justify deeper review.
Initial portfolio review
Enough information to establish who manufactures the product, what it is, where it is already supplied and whether Apollo should invest in deeper review.
- Legal company + factory identity
- Product family / model list
- Core specifications + current catalogue
- Export markets + lead time / MOQ
- Warranty + after-sales summary
- Representative technical and project files
Technical qualification
Used when a product appears commercially relevant and Apollo needs to determine whether its claims, documentation and support can withstand project scrutiny.
- Model-specific technical datasheets
- Drawings + material / finish information
- Applicable test reports + certificates
- Installation + maintenance documentation
- QC / manufacturing evidence
- Spare parts + warranty process
Project-specific qualification
Used only when an actual project needs evidence beyond the standard product file. Requirements depend on destination, risk, configuration and consultant brief.
- Project drawings / shop drawings
- Calculations where genuinely required
- Destination-specific evidence requests
- Samples / mock-ups where relevant
- Inspection / production hold points
- Packing, shipment + handover documents
What Apollo will not treat as sufficient proof
Common evidence problems slow qualification.
These items may still be useful background material, but they do not automatically support a public or project-specific technical claim.
A certificate or test report belongs to another model, size, material, factory or configuration and no applicability link is explained.
The file is expired, superseded or undated where revision status matters.
A marketing brochure or marketplace listing is being used as technical proof.
Only a screenshot, summary table or cropped certificate is supplied when the full source document is needed.
A third-party logo is shown without the underlying report, certificate number or verifiable scope.
Performance language such as hurricane-rated, fire-rated, compliant, certified or engineered is used without exact current evidence for the proposed system.
Project photographs are offered as proof of engineering, compliance or product performance without documented supplied scope and comparable conditions.
The supplier cannot clearly state who manufactures, engineers, warrants or supports the product after delivery.
Document control
Make the technical folder understandable without a follow-up call.
Include product / model, document type, revision or date and language where practical. Avoid folders full of names such as “certificate final new.pdf”.
Supply full reports or certificates when Apollo needs to assess scope. A cropped screenshot can hide exclusions, tested sizes and revision details.
Generic product evidence, project drawings and destination-specific calculations should remain distinguishable so one project's evidence is not reused incorrectly.
Original-language evidence can be retained, but an accurate English version or translation should be available where Apollo needs to review or publish technical information internationally.
If a new manual, drawing or certificate replaces an older one, identify the current file rather than leaving Apollo to infer which revision controls.
Do not upload trade secrets, proprietary formulas or highly sensitive project drawings through the public application unless suitable confidentiality arrangements are already in place.
Important boundary
Submission evidence is not Apollo approval.
Receiving a file does not mean Apollo has verified, certified or endorsed the product. Technical claims remain limited to the evidence actually reviewed and to the exact product, configuration and project where that evidence applies. Destination compliance and final project design remain subject to the responsible local professionals and authorities.
Prepare the submission