Steam Trap Survey: UK Plant Engineers’ Contractor Comparison

Spirax Sarco offers surveys linked to maintenance and replacement installation; Valveforce describes an independent UK survey with trap-by-trap recommendations and optional annual inspections. [1][3] Ask both contractors to commit to recording every trap they could not reach or test, rather than leaving it out of the report. [1][3] Agree those records in writing before accepting a quotation.

Compare three repair-ready deliverables

Compare tagging and inventory, individual findings and test limitations, then support for repairs. A complete inventory is useful, but ask separately for reconciliation against the plant register and evidence linked to completed repairs.

Spirax Sarco

• Tagging and inventory: Spirax Sarco says it tags the complete steam-trap population and supplies a complete inventory. [1] Request reconciliation against the existing plant register as a separate deliverable.
• Trap-level findings and test limitations: Its process includes checking application suitability and installation, ultrasonically testing traps “in operation”, and reporting detailed operating conditions for each trap. [1] Specify how inaccessible and otherwise untestable traps should be recorded.
• Support for repairs: Replacement components can be supplied and installed by the customer’s maintenance team or Spirax Sarco’s service teams. Its Steam Trap Management Contract includes regular surveys and maintenance, with traps requiring maintenance specified, supplied and installed under a fixed-price contract. [1]

Valveforce

• Tagging and inventory: Valveforce describes identification tagging and a complete inventory with location references. [3]
• Trap-level findings and test limitations: Valveforce says every trap is inspected and recorded, using “working, passing, blocked or incorrectly specified”, alongside operating conditions at survey time. Its scope includes ultrasonic testing of traps in operation. [3] Specify inaccessible and untestable entries rather than assuming those conditions fall within its status labels.
• Support for repairs: Its report includes repair, replacement and specification recommendations, calculated steam losses and ROI information intended to support maintenance prioritisation. Annual surveys under planned-maintenance contracts track condition over time. [3] Agree repair-linked post-repair evidence separately.

Ask Spirax Sarco and Valveforce to commit to formal register reconciliation, a complete untestable-record workflow and the full repair-verification record described below. [1][3] Treat these as requirements to agree, not assumptions about what either contractor omits in practice.

Require reconciliation, not just a new inventory

Ask for the survey inventory to be reconciled against the existing plant register, rather than delivered alongside it. Spirax Sarco and Valveforce describe complete inventories; request a discrepancy schedule against existing records as well. [1][3]

Make that schedule a written requirement. Request the original register reference, observed tag, confirmed location, discrepancy category, supporting note and resolution owner. Use these proposed categories, rather than treating them as either contractor’s published classifications:

• Matched asset: the register entry and observed trap agree.
• Newly discovered asset: a trap found during the survey needs adding.
• Missing or not located asset: an existing entry remains unresolved.
• Duplicate or illegible tag: identification needs correcting or confirming.
• Reported retired asset: removal still needs evidence or sign-off.

MangoApps’ reporting template includes identification fields and examples of missing, damaged and duplicate tags. It illustrates record problems, rather than offering a contractor reconciliation service. [4]

Require replacement IDs to retain links to old IDs. Keep “not located” separate from “confirmed removed”: do not authorise deletion solely because the survey did not locate an asset.

Set the acceptance test: every original register entry has a recorded disposition, every discovered trap has an ID, and unresolved discrepancies remain visible with an agreed owner.

Keep failed, inaccessible and untestable records distinct

Keep an unresolved test separate from a confirmed defect. Slate Pages explains that failed-open traps may pass live steam, while failed-closed traps may retain condensate, impair heat transfer or cause waterlogging. [5] Valveforce uses “passing” and “blocked”; request a coding legend rather than assuming these map directly to “failed open” and “failed closed”. [3]

Specify separate fields so an identifiable asset can retain an unresolved condition:

• Condition assessment: the finding, including “condition not established” where evidence is insufficient.
• Test-completion and access status: whether testing was completed and whether access or another limitation prevented assessment.

Ask both contractors to confirm this two-field classification. [1][3] Include it in the reporting specification if required.

For each untested entry, request a limitation reason, observed operating conditions, date, inspector, available evidence, follow-up action and responsible owner. MangoApps’ template supports recording access problems and limitations rather than guessing when a trap is inaccessible or obscured; it also includes inspection details, evidence and follow-up fields. [4] Make ownership an explicit addition to the specification.

Keep these entries in the unresolved list, rather than counting them as healthy or absorbing them into a failure total. Request a next action without treating an access limitation as proof of failure.

Specify a repair list maintenance can use

Make the trap-level record—not the summary failure count—the acceptance unit. The following specification draws on MangoApps’ inspection template and Slate Pages’ asset-record guidance, with ownership and priority reasoning added as purchasing requirements. [4][5]

• Identity and location: permanent asset ID, exact physical location, trap type and served application. [4][5] Require enough detail for maintenance to find the asset without reconstructing the survey route.
• Test context and evidence: inspection date, inspector, test method, operating conditions, condition code, limitations, photographs and supporting notes. MangoApps and Slate Pages support inspection evidence and limitations; Valveforce expressly includes operating conditions at survey time. [3][4][5]
• Defect and recommended action: record the finding separately from the proposed repair, replacement, investigation or retest.
• Priority and work-order linkage: require priority, its reason, assigned owner, work-order reference and follow-up status. MangoApps’ Steam Trap Survey and Tagging Report includes priority, escalation and work-order fields; Slate Pages includes next actions and follow-up records. [4][5] Add the owner and priority rationale explicitly.

Agree priority rules around service impact, escalation needs, estimated loss and unresolved uncertainty—not monetary loss alone. Set response expectations with the contractor rather than assuming universal repair deadlines.

Valveforce’s remedial recommendations, loss calculations and ROI support prioritisation; Spirax Sarco offers maintenance and replacement support. [1][3] Use these as starting points for the agreed work-order record, not substitutes for it.

Before award, request a completed sample trap record and an editable handover format. Make compatibility with the maintenance system an acceptance check rather than assuming a particular export format or CMMS integration.

Agree what repeat surveys must prove

Distinguish a later condition observation, a test linked to a completed repair, and verification of savings. Specify these as separate deliverables rather than treating an annual resurvey as proof of all three.

Valveforce says annual surveys track performance and condition over time; Spirax Sarco offers regular surveys and maintenance through its management contract. [1][3] Ask both contractors to commit to the complete repair-verification chain below and agree a methodology for verifying realised savings. [1][3]

For each repaired trap, request a linked record containing:

• The original defect record and work-order reference.
• The repair date and note, retaining the asset ID or cross-referencing its replacement.
• The post-repair test date, method, operating conditions and result.
• Any unresolved limitation and the next action before closure.

This is a recommended acceptance specification, not a description of either contractor’s standard report. Slate Pages’ guidance includes repair notes, follow-up dates and post-repair test results alongside asset IDs, inspection methods and access limitations. It is an asset-record platform, not evidence of either contractor’s deliverables. [5]

Agree how comparisons will handle changed operating conditions and traps remaining untestable. Require later entries to preserve unresolved defects and explain limitations rather than silently closing them. Recording limitations and triggering follow-up instead of guessing is also the approach in MangoApps’ template. [4]

Keep acceptance of a repair result separate from acceptance of claimed site energy or bill savings.

Separate calculated losses from verified savings

Use calculated losses to help prioritise repairs, not as a promise of lower bills. Valveforce describes steam losses calculated using actual operating costs; using an actual cost input does not establish that the steam quantity was directly measured. [3]

Keep three outcomes distinct in the specification: calculated loss, based on stated inputs; measured loss, supported by an identified measurement method and records; and verified post-repair savings, demonstrated against an agreed baseline rather than inferred from a repaired trap.

Valveforce’s standard 1-inch trap illustration assumes 10 kg/hour, 8,760 operating hours/year and £40/tonne, producing an annual loss of 87.6 tonnes costing £3,504. This is an assumption-based illustration, not a forecast for another plant; Valveforce says actual losses vary with trap design, pressure differential and operating conditions. [3]

Its separate claim of approximately £750/year for a 15 mm thermodynamic trap is not directly comparable: the cited page does not state that figure’s loss-rate, operating-hours or steam-cost assumptions. [3]

Require each estimate to show its loss-rate basis—measured or assumed—alongside operating hours, steam cost, relevant operating conditions and uncertainty. Keep estimated avoidable cost clearly labelled in the repair list, even when site-specific costs are used.

For verified savings, agree the baseline, measurement boundary, comparison period, treatment of changes in production or operating conditions, and reporting method separately. Make acceptance depend on that evidence, not on adding up the survey’s calculated losses.

Choose on scope and request comparable quotations

Shortlist against the package required, then put the reporting requirements into the written scope:

• Spirax Sarco: suited to buyers seeking a survey linked to replacement supply and installation, or regular surveys and maintenance through its fixed-price Steam Trap Management Contract. [1]
• Valveforce: suited to an independent UK survey with trap-level recommendations and optional annual surveys through a planned-maintenance contract. [3]

Ask Spirax Sarco and Valveforce for monetary survey prices, minimum terms, warranties, cancellation and refund terms; Spirax Sarco’s fixed-price description is not a monetary quotation. [1][3] Ask for those terms rather than ranking the services on an assumed price.

Request like-for-like quotations separating the initial survey, register reconciliation, access-related follow-up, remedial work and post-repair testing. These are proposed quotation headings, not claims about either contractor’s charging structure.

Leakshooter’s diagnostic equipment, MangoApps’ reporting template and Slate Pages’ asset-record platform support testing or recordkeeping; they are not equivalent outsourced UK survey packages. [2][4][5]

Use the sample report to check the agreed fields, discrepancy list, untestable entries, defect-code legend, prioritised actions, work-order references and repair-linked retest evidence. Check the assumptions behind loss and savings calculations separately.

If a bidder cannot confirm a requested deliverable, record it as an exclusion or priced clarification. Choose on the agreed scope, not the polish of the summary.

References

1. Steam Trap Survey & Management | UK | Spirax Sarco (spiraxsarco.com)
2. Steam Trap Surveys « Leakshooter Ultrasonic Leak Detector (leakshooter.co.uk)
3. Steam Trap Survey | Testing | Audit | Report (theforcegroup.co.uk)
4. Steam Trap Survey and Tagging Report Template — Cut Energy Loss | MangoApps (mangoapps.com)
5. Steam Trap Inspection at Heating Season Startup | Slate Pages (slatepages.com)