Which responsibilities does the manufacturer guidance distinguish?
Schneider Electric's published explanation separates the original manufacturer's design verification from the assembly manufacturer's responsibility for the completed assembly and routine verification. Its Electrical Installation Guide likewise describes routine verification for each manufactured assembly.
This is a document-request distinction, not a test procedure or a claim that the same IEC specification governs every US project. RFQ Templates is independent and is not affiliated with Schneider Electric. Confirm the actual contract, applicable standard edition, product certification and engineer-approved requirements.
Sources: Schneider Electric: Schneider Electric: What IEC 61439-1 and 2 Mean for LV Equipment Specifications, 4 March 2016, Schneider Electric: Schneider Electric Electrical Installation Guide: Distribution switchboards
What should the RFQ evidence schedule ask for?
Keep the required deliverable and its identity basis explicit. Ask the supplier to state inclusions and exceptions rather than promise a generic certificate without defining what it covers.
| Evidence item | RFQ identification | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Design basis | Assembly system and applicable reference | What design does this evidence cover? |
| Delivered assembly | Tag and supplier identifier | Which actual board is being supplied? |
| Routine record | Matching assembly reference | Is the delivered unit traceable? |
| Variation | Difference from the verified basis | Who reviewed the consequence? |
| Responsibility | Manufacturer and reviewer roles | Who supplies and accepts each record? |
| Timing | Contractual submission milestone | When must the evidence be available? |
How can a certificate count hide an evidence gap?
Illustrative example. A fictional order contains two separately identified switchboards. The return includes one design-system reference and a routine-verification record naming only Board A. A review sheet marks both boards complete because two files were received.
The file count does not establish coverage for Board B. The reviewer preserves the two actual references, records B's evidence as unresolved and requests the supplier's matching disposition. This example does not require a particular number of files: a controlled report could cover multiple assemblies if their identities and actual results are clear.
What does this schedule not authorize?
It does not select test voltages, specify how to energize a board, replace manufacturer instructions or grant shipping or installation approval. Witnessing, design verification, routine verification and contractual release can have separate requirements.
The responsible technical reviewer must assess the actual evidence and any design variations. Engineering sign-off is performed only by the registered engineer on the job. Use qualified commercial and legal review for contractual deliverable or release disputes.
Common questions
What else should the bid team know?
Does one design-system certificate identify every delivered board?
Not by itself. Reconcile its scope and the assembly-specific evidence.
Must each board always have its own separate PDF?
No. Check traceable coverage, not an invented file-count rule.
Does this page supply a routine test procedure?
No. Use the approved technical requirements and manufacturer process.