Case file: 36 kV switchgear certified against a 24 kV test
A European EPC specified 36 kV switchgear. The supplier's type-test certificate covered an older 24 kV variant, not the unit on the PO.
Key finding
A 36 kV switchgear's IEC 62271-200 type-test certificate actually named a 24 kV / 2,000 A design, not the 36 kV / 2,500 A unit on the PO. At the required 2,500 A the busbar joint temperature would exceed the 65 K rise limit by ~9 K. The lab was genuine; only the scope line was wrong.
What they needed
A European EPC was fitting out a seawater-desalination plant with 36 kV metal-enclosed switchgear. The selected supplier quoted a recognised third-party type-test certificate and a short lead time. The client asked for a Remote Audit before signing the framework agreement.
Screen result: YELLOW
The certificate number resolved to a valid document. But the rated voltage on the cover page was 24 kV, not 36 kV.
Three findings
We pulled the exact certificate and the PO model and compared them line by line.
- YELLOW, rated-voltage mismatch. The IEC 62271-200 type-test certificate named a 24 kV, 2,000 A design. The PO specified 36 kV, 2,500 A. The lab was genuine and the mark real. The scope line simply didn’t cover the unit on order. A non-engineer reviewer would have seen “certified” and stopped there.
- YELLOW, temperature-rise current. The valid test had been run at 2,000 A; the contract required 2,500 A continuous. At the higher current the busbar joint temperature, extrapolated from the test’s own curve, exceeded the 65 K rise limit by roughly 9 K. Enough to age the joint prematurely in a hot, humid pump-house.
- GREEN, build quality. On the documents we could see, the earthing switch, interlocks and compartmentalization met the spec. The product was sound. Only the proof of the specific rating was missing.
The contract clause that caught it
Because the contract already required the type-test scope line to name the PO model, we drafted a one-line addendum: “Supplier warrants the submitted IEC 62271 type-test certificate names the exact 36 kV / 2,500 A model; failure to do so entitles the buyer to reject without penalty.” The supplier returned within days with a fresh certificate for the correct rating, produced by re-running the test on an existing 36 kV design in their range.
Result
No unit shipped on a mismatched certificate. The EPC closed the gap for roughly the cost of the audit and kept a supplier it actually liked.
Published with client authorization and full anonymization. EPC name, plant location and supplier identity are withheld.
Want the same risk check for your procurement? Start with a free screening.
Start a free screen