The Specification Decision That Carries More Risk Than Most Buyers Realise
For procurement managers, technical superintendents and fleet operators specifying equipment for vessel navigation bridges, the choice between a Type Approved product and an unapproved alternative is often presented as a cost decision. The unapproved product is cheaper. The performance claims may appear similar. The product may even look identical in photographs.
The risk assessment that should accompany that cost decision is rarely made explicit — and when it is not, procurement teams carry liability that they may not fully understand until something goes wrong.
This article sets out that risk assessment clearly. It covers what Type Approval means and what its absence means, the specific consequences of specifying unapproved marine blinds at navigation bridge windows, the points in the vessel lifecycle where unapproved products create problems, and the questions procurement teams should ask any supplier before placing an order. The framing throughout is buyer protection, not product promotion. The risks described apply to any unapproved product in this category, regardless of who supplies it.
What the Approved vs Unapproved Distinction Actually Means
Type Approval for marine window blinds and solar screens is a certification granted by a recognised marine classification society — Lloyd’s Register, DNV, ABS, RINA or equivalent — confirming that the specific product has been independently evaluated against the performance and construction standards required for use on classified vessels.
The key word is independently. Type Approval is not a manufacturer’s self-declaration that a product meets relevant standards. It is not a CE mark, a quality management certificate or an industry association membership. It is an assessment carried out by a body whose function is to certify vessel and equipment safety, whose approval carries regulatory weight with flag states, port state control authorities and marine insurers, and whose surveyors inspect vessels and their equipment at regular intervals throughout the vessel’s operational life.
An unapproved product is one that has not been through this process. It may have been manufactured to high quality standards. It may carry documentation describing its performance. But it does not have independent verification from a recognised classification society that it meets the standards applicable to navigation bridge window installations on classified vessels.
For the navigation bridge specifically — where visibility standards are mandated by SOLAS Chapter V and IMO resolutions, and where every piece of equipment is subject to classification survey scrutiny — this distinction carries practical consequences that begin at installation and continue for the operational life of the vessel.
Risk 1: Classification Survey Findings
The most immediate risk of specifying unapproved marine blinds for navigation bridge windows is classification survey exposure.
Classified vessels are subject to periodic surveys by their classification society — Lloyd’s Register, DNV, ABS, RINA or another recognised body. These surveys assess whether the vessel continues to meet the standards required to maintain its class certificate. Equipment installed on the vessel that does not meet the applicable standards, or for which required documentation cannot be provided, is a source of survey finding.
A survey finding relating to unapproved equipment at navigation bridge windows can result in any of the following consequences, depending on the severity of the finding and the classification society’s assessment:
A recommendation requiring the equipment to be replaced or its compliance documented before the next survey. A condition of class, which places a specific requirement on the owner to remedy the finding within a defined timeframe. A deficiency notice, which is recorded and may be raised with the vessel’s flag state. In serious cases involving equipment that affects navigation safety, the classification society has the authority to suspend or withdraw class, which prevents the vessel from trading legally under its class certificate until the deficiency is resolved.
The cost of a survey finding relating to unapproved bridge window equipment is not the cost of replacing the blinds. It is the cost of the survey finding itself — the potential loss of trading time, the management burden of responding to classification correspondence, the reputational risk with the vessel’s flag state and charterers, and in a worst case, the cost of operating a vessel without valid class.
Type Approved products eliminate this risk. When a procurement team specifies SOLASOLV® SOLASAFE® or SOLAROLA® screens — which hold Type Approval from Lloyd’s Register, DNV, ABS and RINA — the classification surveyor assessing the bridge window installation has independent documentary confirmation that the equipment meets the applicable standards. The approval documentation is the answer to the surveyor’s question before the question is asked.
Risk 2: Port State Control Inspection
Port state control is the system by which vessels are inspected by port authorities in the countries they visit to verify that the vessel, its equipment and its crew meet international safety standards. Port state control inspections are conducted under regional memoranda of understanding — the Paris MOU covering European and North Atlantic ports, the Tokyo MOU covering Asia Pacific, and equivalent bodies covering other regions.
Port state control inspectors have the authority to detain a vessel if they identify deficiencies that present a serious risk to safety, health or the environment, or where the vessel does not hold valid certificates. A vessel detained at a port cannot depart until the deficiency is resolved. The cost of port state control detention includes the cost of the vessel lying idle in port, the cost of cargo delays or missed charters, port dues accumulating during detention, and the reputational damage of a detention record — which is publicly searchable in port state control databases and which charterers, operators and freight customers actively check.
Bridge window equipment that does not meet the standards confirmed by classification society approval is a potential source of port state control deficiency. The risk is not theoretical. Port state control inspectors are increasingly focused on navigation bridge equipment and the documentation that supports its compliance. A surveyor who identifies bridge window screens without Type Approval documentation and who then raises a deficiency relating to bridge visibility standards has the authority that creates a detention scenario.
Risk 3: Insurance Complications
Marine insurance policies covering hull and machinery, protection and indemnity (P&I) and cargo liability are all conditional on the vessel maintaining its class and complying with its classification requirements. When a vessel is found to have equipment that does not meet classification standards, the insurance implications depend on the specific policy terms, the nature of the non-compliance and whether the non-compliance contributed to any incident or claim.
In the event of a navigation incident — a collision, grounding, near-miss or cargo damage event — where impaired bridge visibility is identified as a contributory factor, the insurance position of an owner whose bridge windows are fitted with unapproved rather than Type Approved glare control equipment is materially different from the position of an owner whose bridge is equipped to the approved standard.
P&I clubs and hull underwriters are increasingly focused on the compliance of bridge equipment. Procurement teams who specify unapproved products and who cannot provide classification society approval documentation for that equipment are placing their vessel operators in an insurance position that the insurance market may assess unfavourably at the point of claim. The cost of that unfavourable assessment — whether it is a reduced claim settlement, an increased excess or a policy condition — is carried by the vessel owner, not by the procurement team that made the original specification decision. But the professional liability associated with that decision sits with the procurement team.
Risk 4: The Performance Gap You Cannot See Until It Matters
Beyond the compliance and documentation risks, there is a performance risk that is equally important and less frequently discussed.
A Type Approved marine blind has been tested and verified to perform to the standards claimed. The glare reduction figure, the heat rejection figure, the UV filtration figure and the outward visibility standard have all been assessed by the classification society. When the product is installed on the bridge, there is independent confirmation that it will perform as specified under the conditions for which it was approved.
An unapproved product carries no such confirmation. The performance figures quoted in marketing materials or product specifications are self-declared by the manufacturer. They may be accurate. They may have been measured using non-standard test conditions that produce more impressive numbers than standard marine test methodology would generate. They may have been produced in laboratory conditions that do not reflect the sustained heat, UV exposure and salt spray environment of a working vessel.
On a navigation bridge, the performance gap between what was claimed and what is actually delivered only becomes visible in conditions that matter most — high-glare tropical waters, dawn and dusk low-sun angles, sustained high-temperature summer passages. At that point, the crew is adapting to a product that is not performing as specified, the instruments are harder to read than they should be, and the forward visibility is more compromised than the procurement specification required.
The procurement team who saved money on an unapproved product has transferred that saving into a performance risk that the bridge crew carries every daylight watch.
The Questions Procurement Teams Should Ask Any Supplier
Before specifying marine blinds for navigation bridge windows, procurement teams should ask every potential supplier the following questions. The answers determine whether the product is suitable for the application and whether the specification decision is defensible from a compliance and liability perspective.
Which classification societies have Type Approved this product for navigation bridge window use?
The acceptable answer is one or more named classification societies — Lloyd’s Register, DNV, ABS, RINA or equivalent — with a certificate number and issue date that can be verified. A general statement of compliance with SOLAS or IMO, without naming a specific classification society and certificate, is not Type Approval.
Can you provide the original Type Approval certificate for our records?
Type Approval certificates are issued by the classification society and are specific to the product type and manufacturer. A supplier who holds genuine Type Approval can provide the original certificate. A supplier who cannot is not Type Approved, regardless of any other documentation they offer.
Under what test conditions was the performance data produced?
Standard marine test methodology for solar screens uses a free-hanging system with solar film positioned 15 millimetres from 6 millimetre thick glass. Performance figures produced under different test conditions may not be comparable to figures produced under the standard methodology. Ask for the test standard referenced in the performance data.
Is the product manufactured to a certified quality management standard?
ISO 9001:2015 or equivalent quality management certification confirms that the manufacturer has a documented, audited quality management system in place. It does not substitute for Type Approval but it provides evidence that the product is manufactured consistently to a defined standard.
How long has this product been in active use on classified vessels?
A product with a multi-decade service record on classified vessels has been subject to classification survey scrutiny across that period. If surveyors had identified compliance concerns, the product would not still be in service. A product with no service record or a short one offers no equivalent evidence of compliance in practice.
SOLASOLV® Type Approved marine solar screens hold approval from Lloyd’s Register, DNV, ABS and RINA, have been in active service on classified vessels since 1987 and are manufactured at Solar Solve’s UK facility in South Shields to ISO 9001:2015 quality management standards. For full Type Approval documentation and product specifications, visit the SOLASAFE product page.
What Specifying Type Approved Products Does for Procurement Teams
The compliance argument for specifying Type Approved products is sometimes framed as a regulatory obligation. It is also a professional protection argument.
Procurement teams who specify Type Approved products from recognised suppliers can demonstrate, at any point during the vessel’s operational life, that their specification decision met the applicable standard at the time the specification was made. The documentation exists. The classification society approval exists. The quality management certification exists. If a survey finding, port state control inspection or insurance investigation ever raises questions about the bridge window equipment, the procurement team’s position is defensible.
Procurement teams who specify unapproved alternatives to save cost are carrying a residual liability that cannot be fully transferred to the cheaper supplier. If the unapproved product fails a survey, creates an insurance complication or contributes to a navigation incident, the specification decision that installed it becomes relevant — and it is the procurement team’s decision to defend.
The cost differential between a Type Approved product and an unapproved alternative is rarely as significant as it appears when the full risk profile is considered. The cost of a survey finding, a port state control detention or an insurance complication measured against the upfront saving on the product cost invariably reverses the economics of the unapproved specification decision.
For guidance on specifying correctly for your vessel type, fleet requirements and classification society, visit the Solar Solve marine or contact the Solar Solve team to discuss your specific requirements. Technical documentation including Type Approval certificates is available on request from the technical information.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the difference between a Type Approved marine blind and an unapproved one?
A: A Type Approved marine blind has been independently evaluated by a recognised marine classification society — such as Lloyd’s Register, DNV, ABS or RINA — and confirmed to meet the performance and construction standards required for use on classified vessels. An unapproved product carries no such independent verification. Performance claims on unapproved products are self-declared by the manufacturer and have not been assessed by a classification society.
Q: Can unapproved marine blinds cause a vessel to fail a classification survey?
A: Yes. Equipment installed on classified vessels that does not meet the applicable standards and for which required documentation cannot be provided is a source of survey finding. Consequences range from a recommendation requiring documentation to a condition of class requiring replacement, and in serious cases, suspension of class. Type Approved products provide the documentation that resolves this risk before the survey.
Q: Do unapproved marine blinds affect vessel insurance?
A: Potentially yes. Marine insurance policies are conditional on the vessel maintaining its class and complying with its classification requirements. In the event of a navigation incident where impaired bridge visibility is a factor, the insurance position of a vessel fitted with unapproved rather than Type Approved equipment may be assessed unfavourably at the point of claim.
Q: Which classification societies have Type Approved SOLASOLV® screens?
A: SOLASOLV® screens — including SOLASAFE® and SOLAROLA® — hold Type Approval from Lloyd’s Register, DNV, ABS and RINA. SOLASOLV® is the only marine anti-glare screen product in the world to hold Type Approval from all four of these leading classification societies simultaneously.
Q: What questions should a procurement team ask before specifying marine blinds?
A: Ask which classification societies have Type Approved the product, request the original Type Approval certificate with a certificate number that can be verified, ask under what test conditions the performance data was produced, confirm whether the product is manufactured to ISO 9001:2015 or equivalent, and ask how long the product has been in active service on classified vessels. A supplier who cannot answer these questions clearly is not offering a genuinely Type Approved product.
Q: Is a cheaper unapproved product worth the risk saving?
A: When the full risk profile is considered, rarely. The cost of a classification survey finding, a port state control detention or an insurance complication significantly exceeds the upfront cost saving on an unapproved product. Procurement teams who specify unapproved products to save cost are also carrying a professional liability that cannot be transferred to the cheaper supplier if the specification decision later becomes the subject of investigation.
Q: Can a procurement team verify a supplier’s Type Approval claim independently?
A: Yes. Type Approval certificates are issued by the classification society and are specific to the product and manufacturer. The certificate number can be verified directly with the classification society — Lloyd’s Register, DNV, ABS or RINA — who can confirm whether the approval is current and covers the product being specified.
