Compressed-air leak surveys for UK factories: compare and save

No universal UK price for a compressed-air leak survey is verified in the reviewed sources, so obtain itemised quotations and compare them against a site-specific cost baseline and identical deliverables.[1][2][3][4][6]

Set the factory’s cost baseline

Published savings claims have no common verified data year or calculation methodology. Generic percentages and headline paybacks are therefore unsuitable for comparing quotations.[1][2][3][4][6]

Before approaching bidders, record:

• agreed compressed-air system operating hours;
• the electricity-cost assumption and its source;
• the period used to annualise costs; and
• the date each assumption was agreed.

Require every bidder to show how measured or estimated leakage becomes an annual cost. Suppliers report quantifying individual leaks and estimating annual waste, but the reviewed sources do not establish a standard conversion formula.[1][2][3][4]

Keep modelled existing waste, projected savings from proposed repairs and post-repair verified results separate. This allows the business case to be updated when operating hours or electricity costs change without altering the underlying survey findings.

Issue one RFQ for a live whole-site survey

Send every bidder the same request for quotation. Define the buildings, production areas, compressed-air systems, distribution pipework and points of use within scope, and require bidders to list exclusions and access restrictions.

• Specify a live ultrasonic survey: require inspection while the system is operating under agreed production conditions. Suppliers report that this non-invasive method can be used without stopping production and can inspect difficult-to-access pipework.[1][2][3][4]
• Demand quantified findings: require a precise location and estimated loss for each detected leak, rather than only an observation or photograph. Published supplier processes include quantifying leakage, estimating waste and identifying repair priorities.[1][3][4]
• Identify the equipment: ask bidders to name the ultrasonic detector or acoustic-imaging system and explain how they assess distant, small or awkward leaks. Published examples include acoustic-imaging cameras, Ultraprobe detectors with attachments and SONAPHONE ultrasonic equipment.[1][2][3]
• Require evidence of coverage: request a completed survey route or coverage record, plus an exception log for every inaccessible or unassessed area. Survey logistics and example routes form part of published leak-survey training.[5]
• Price verification before award: include post-repair verification as a separate line item, with its coverage and outputs defined. Published training includes repair documentation and post-repair activity.[5]

Do not rely on an unsupported promise to find every leak. Some vendors make completeness claims, while supplier material also acknowledges that leaks recur and that repairing every leak may be impractical.[1][2][4] The reviewed evidence provides no independently verified detection-completeness rate.

Make the tagged repair register a required deliverable

Define completion through matching physical tags and records, not merely a narrative report.

• Tag every detected leak: require a durable, numbered tag whose ID matches the report. One published process uses weatherproof tags showing the identification number, survey date and severity in litres per minute.[1]
• Specify each record: require the precise location, photograph, tag ID, estimated leak size, severity, annual-waste estimate, proposed repair and estimated repair cost. Supplier outputs can include these details, alongside priorities, proposed benefits and corrective actions.[1][3][4]
• Demand a sortable register: add fields for priority, responsible owner, target date, status and repair evidence. The reviewed sources do not establish a mandatory register format.

Make report acceptance depend on reconciliation between tags, photographs and register entries. List inaccessible or unresolved locations separately and record why a complete entry was not produced. An anonymised sample report submitted with the quotation can show whether locations are clear, photographs useful and data transferable into the factory’s maintenance workflow.

Compare quotations on scope and assumptions

Put each quotation and sample report into the same comparison matrix. Headline price alone will not reveal differences in coverage, equipment, leak-flow estimation, tagging, photography or reporting.[1][2][3][4]

Require every annual-cost or savings figure to disclose operating hours, electricity assumptions, calculation period, leak-flow method and assumed repairs. Normalise these inputs before comparing claims: vendor figures have no common verified data year or methodology, and the reviewed sources do not establish independent validation or confirmed payback periods.[1][2][3][4][6]

Request explicit VAT treatment, travel charges, cancellation terms and warranties because the reviewed sources do not verify these details or publish comparable survey fees.[1][2][3][4][6] Score report usability and verification scope alongside price; bids that omit quantification, tags, coverage evidence or a return visit are not equivalent.

Interrogate conditional no-charge offers

Do not treat a conditional no-charge offer as an unconditionally free survey. Atlas Copco requires direct booking and says it will not invoice if it fails to identify enough energy savings to cover the check’s cost, assuming the identified leaks are repaired.[1]

Obtain written answers to these questions before booking:

• What is the normal survey price and exact qualifying savings threshold?
• Which formula, electricity price and operating hours determine estimated savings?
• What repair deadline and evidence apply?
• What happens if only some leaks are repairable or production restrictions delay the work?
• What exclusions, cancellation terms and dispute process apply?

The published offer does not disclose the survey price, precise threshold, calculation assumptions, repair timing or dispute procedure.[1] Atlas Copco separately offers a free remote leak-cost check to customers with compressors connected to Smartlink. That eligibility does not establish that a subsequent site visit is unconditionally free.[1]

Control safety, access and coverage

Agree the production state, operating conditions and survey route before the visit, matching the basis used in the quotation. Suppliers report conducting live-system inspections during normal production, but site access still needs to be agreed in advance.[1][3]

• Require the supplier’s risk assessment and method statement before arrival, plus confirmation of suitable personal protective equipment. Published supplier processes include these controls.[1][2]
• Identify hazardous areas in the RFQ and ask bidders to confirm that their equipment and working method are suitable. One supplier states that ATEX-rated ultrasonic equipment is available; this does not establish that every bidder offers it.[2]
• Nominate a site escort who can arrange access, and record every inaccessible, isolated or excluded area in the coverage-exception log.

The reviewed sources do not establish applicable UK regulations, accredited survey standards or mandatory surveyor qualifications.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Verify any proposed legal, accreditation or qualification requirement separately before including it in the specification.

Turn the findings into a repair plan

Prioritise each defect using its disclosed leak severity, estimated annual waste, expected repair cost, operational constraints and accessibility rather than an unexplained supplier ranking. Supplier reports can include severity, annual cost, repair-cost analysis and proposed priorities.[1][3][4]

• Assign an owner and completion date to each accepted repair.
• Put the survey tag ID on the work order so the technician can match the job to its location and photograph. Tagging and repair documentation are recognised parts of the process.[1][5]
• Include valves, couplings, hoses, tubes, fittings, point-of-use devices and pipe joints where relevant; Direct Air lists these as common leak locations.[4]

Keep survey-stage estimates separate from firm repair quotations. Atlas Copco says its repair quotation follows customer review of the report, while Maziak and Direct Air describe repair-cost analysis.[1][3][4] The reviewed sources verify neither standard parts and labour charges nor a universal payback period.[1][2][3][4][6]

Verify repairs before reporting savings

Require repair documentation against every tag ID, showing completion status, repair date and why any item could not be corrected. Published leak-survey training covers repair documentation and post-repair activity.[5]

• Retest repaired locations: record residual leakage and identify failed or incomplete work.
• Use consistent assumptions: apply the same operating hours, electricity-cost basis and leakage methodology used for the baseline.
• Separate the figures: report modelled pre-repair waste, projected savings and post-repair verified results separately. Do not present projected savings as achieved.
• Record exceptions: define how unresolved defects and newly discovered leaks affect acceptance. Suppliers state that new leaks develop and recommend repeat surveys or continuing monitoring and control.[1][4]

The reviewed evidence confirms no universal post-repair verification protocol, standard inspection interval or guaranteed savings percentage.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Define the verification test, required evidence and treatment of exceptions in the contract.

References

1. Air leak detection – free of charge if we don't find enough … (atlascopco.com)
2. Compressed Air Leak Survey Home Page (compressedairleaksurvey.co.uk)
3. What is an air leak survey and how do they work? (maziak.co.uk)
4. Compressed Air Leak Detection – Direct Air (directair.co.uk)
5. Compressed Air Leak Survey Online Course (uesystems.com)
6. Reducing energy costs with compressed air leak detection (pps-ltd.co.uk)