Fortitude21
Home  /  Defence and government procurement

Defence and government procurement of jerry cans

How a fixed specification, documentation and a reorder cycle differ from a retail buy.

Green and olive military NATO-pattern metal jerry cans
Built to a fixed drawing, documented per shipment.

A defence or government buyer does not shop a shelf. They procure to a written specification, with documentation and a repeatable supply, and that changes what matters in a supplier.

Buying to a specification

Procurement starts from a fixed specification: the pattern, the material, the dimensions, the marking and the tests. The supplier's job is to meet the drawing every run, not to offer a near-equivalent. Consistency batch to batch is what matters, because manuals, reviews and vehicle fittings depend on the product not moving.

Structurally the buying usually happens in two stages, and knowing which one you are in changes what a supplier should be doing. A framework agreement qualifies suppliers and fixes terms and prices without committing to a quantity. Call-off orders against that framework are the actual purchases, and they can arrive for years afterwards in sizes nobody forecast. Winning the framework is winning the right to be asked; holding the specification is what turns that into orders.

The consequence is that the item bought is the item qualified, not the best item currently available. A commercial buyer would welcome a supplier arriving with a better gasket compound. A defence buyer reads the same message as notice of a deviation, and has to decide whether to requalify. That asymmetry is the single biggest cultural gap between the two kinds of customer, and it is the one that loses approved-supplier status most often.

What clears a defence auditA defence buyer expects a fixed specification, material certificates traceable to heat or batch, UN approval where dangerous goods are carried, and first-article dimensional inspection. Fixed spec
Held stable for the contract term
Traceability
Material certs to heat or batch
Approvals
UN certificate, plant named
First article
Dimensional inspection on record
The specification is fixed for the term, so a supplier changing plant mid-contract is a compliance event rather than a logistics one.

What buying to a drawing means in practice

A drawing fixes the pattern, the material grade, the metal gauge, the dimensions, the marking and the test regime. Each of those is a line the supplier meets on every run. A near-equivalent is not the same part. Training manuals reference it, crews are drilled on it, and vehicle racks and holders are cut to it, so a small change in a seam or a wall thickness ripples through the system that was built around the original. The supplier holds the drawing and reproduces it, order after order.

Holding a drawing is also a records obligation rather than a filing convenience. The controlled copy has to be identifiable by issue or revision, changes have to be traceable to an authorisation, and superseded issues have to be withdrawn from the shop floor rather than left in a folder. An auditor asking which revision built a given batch is asking a question that either has a documented answer or does not, and a factory that keeps the drawing on a shared drive usually finds out which at the worst moment.

Why the specification is frozen, and what that costs

Commercial buyers expect suppliers to improve a product over a contract. Defence and government buyers expect the opposite: the item delivered in year four must be identical to the one qualified in year one, because the whole inventory depends on parts being interchangeable and on training being valid.

That inverts the usual supplier instinct. An improvement introduced quietly, a better gasket compound or a cheaper equivalent coating, is not a favour but a deviation, and an undeclared deviation found at audit is the fastest way off an approved list. Changes go through the buyer, in writing, before production.

It also prices differently. A frozen specification means holding tooling, materials and a production route stable for years, which has a real cost and should be in the quote rather than discovered later. A supplier who bids as though this were a spot order has misread the contract.

EN 10204 certificate typesA 2.2 test report covers non-specific production. A 3.1 covers the actual batch validated by the manufacturer inspection function. A 3.2 adds an independent countersignature. 2.2 3.1 3.2 Reports test results Reports test results: suitable for 2.2 Reports test results: suitable for 3.1 Reports test results: suitable for 3.2 Tests your actual batch Tests your actual batch: not suitable for 2.2 Tests your actual batch: suitable for 3.1 Tests your actual batch: suitable for 3.2 Traceable to a heat number Traceable to a heat number: not suitable for 2.2 Traceable to a heat number: suitable for 3.1 Traceable to a heat number: suitable for 3.2 Independent of production Independent of production: not suitable for 2.2 Independent of production: suitable for 3.1 Independent of production: suitable for 3.2 Third-party countersigned Third-party countersigned: not suitable for 2.2 Third-party countersigned: not suitable for 3.1 Third-party countersigned: suitable for 3.2
Most defence and government contracts for metal containers set 3.1 as the floor. A 2.2 and a 3.1 look alike on a covering email and are not the same document, so ask which is quoted before comparing prices.

Documentation and audit

Public procurement wants a paper trail: material certificates, inspection records per shipment, and the compliance evidence for the contents and the transport. A supplier that supplies documentation as standard clears audit; one that treats it as an extra does not.

Material certificates are graded, and the grade is what a contract specifies. EN 10204 defines four types. A 2.1 declaration says the product complies and reports no test results at all. A 2.2 test report gives results, but from non-specific production rather than from your material. A 3.1 inspection certificate reports tests on the actual batch, validated by someone in the manufacturer's own inspection function who is independent of production. A 3.2 is a 3.1 countersigned by an independent inspector, typically an accredited body such as TÜV, SGS, Bureau Veritas, DNV or Lloyd's Register.

The gap that matters commercially is 2.2 against 3.1, because they look alike on a covering email and are not the same document. A 2.2 tells you what material of that grade generally does. A 3.1 tells you what your coil did, and ties it to a heat number you can trace. Most defence and government contracts for metal containers ask for 3.1 as the floor; ask which type is being quoted before comparing prices, because the difference in cost is real and so is the difference in what you are buying.

The documentation package that clears audit

The package has three parts. Material certificates, such as a mill cert, tie the steel in the can to its stated grade. Inspection records, produced per shipment, show the run was checked against the drawing. Dangerous-goods evidence covers the contents and the transport, which is where the UN packaging codes and the rules for dangerous-goods transport come in. A supplier that generates this alongside the goods gives the buyer a file that stands up to review.

The test at audit is not whether each document exists. It is whether they join up. A delivered can should trace to an inspection record, the record to a production batch, the batch to a coil, and the coil to a mill certificate carrying a heat number. Any break in that chain makes everything above it unverifiable, however impressive the individual certificates look on their own.

Which is why the marking on the can matters as much as the paperwork behind it. A batch or date code pressed or laser-marked into the body is what lets an auditor start at a shelf and work backwards. A sticker does not survive the field, and a can with no mark at all cannot be tied to anything, so the file becomes a set of documents about production in general rather than evidence about that container.

EN 10204 against what a contract asksA 2.2 test report covers non-specific production. A 3.1 covers your batch validated independently of production. A 3.2 adds a third-party countersignature. 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 States compliance States compliance: suitable for 2.1 States compliance: suitable for 2.2 States compliance: suitable for 3.1 States compliance: suitable for 3.2 Reports test results Reports test results: not suitable for 2.1 Reports test results: suitable for 2.2 Reports test results: suitable for 3.1 Reports test results: suitable for 3.2 Tests your batch Tests your batch: not suitable for 2.1 Tests your batch: not suitable for 2.2 Tests your batch: suitable for 3.1 Tests your batch: suitable for 3.2 Traceable to a heat Traceable to a heat: not suitable for 2.1 Traceable to a heat: not suitable for 2.2 Traceable to a heat: suitable for 3.1 Traceable to a heat: suitable for 3.2 Third-party signed Third-party signed: not suitable for 2.1 Third-party signed: not suitable for 2.2 Third-party signed: not suitable for 3.1 Third-party signed: suitable for 3.2
Most defence and government contracts for metal containers set 3.1 as the floor. A 2.2 and a 3.1 look alike on a covering email and are not the same document, so ask which type is quoted before comparing prices: the cost difference is real and so is the difference in what you are buying.

The NATO pattern and interchangeability

Military logistics runs on the NATO jerry can pattern precisely because it is interchangeable across makers, carriers and vehicles. A can that seats in existing racks and holders fits the existing system. Read the NATO pattern guide.

Underneath the pattern sits the NATO Codification System, which is how an item becomes orderable across allied inventories at all. Each item gets a NATO Stock Number, and each supplier is identified by a five-character NCAGE code, the NATO Commercial and Government Entity code, without which the manufacturer cannot appear in the system. That identifier is the practical gate on defence work far more often than any technical requirement.

Manufacturers outside NATO can hold one. NCAGE codes for entities in countries that are neither NATO members nor sponsored nations are assigned and maintained by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency directly, through its codification portal, rather than by a national bureau. We are Singapore-registered, so that is the route that applies to us, and it is a registration rather than an approval. Contracting into a national programme is a separate question and is usually answered through a prime or distributor established in the buying country.

Multi-fuel and defence use

Defence and airfield operations often specify multi-fuel capability, including JP-08, which screens out consumer-grade cans. Confirm the exact fuel and any contract specification before ordering. See the fuel and gas can range for what a multi-fuel build covers.

Multi-fuel in practice means the interior tolerates the widest of the fuels rather than the commonest, and aviation kerosene is usually the one that sets the specification. It is also worth confirming what "multi-fuel" is being asked to cover in a given contract, because the phrase is used for anything from petrol and diesel to a list that includes aviation turbine fuel and a cold-weather blend. Get the list, not the adjective.

What buying to a drawing actually meansA defence order is placed against a frozen specification, and the freeze is the product being bought as much as the container is. Drawing issued
Dimensions, material, coating, marking
First article
Inspected against the drawing
Frozen
No change without a change order
Repeatable
Year three matches year one
The freeze costs money because it forbids the small substitutions that keep a commercial line cheap. That cost is the point: it is what makes the fourth box possible.

Where the tenders are actually published

Two portals cover most of the UK and EU opportunity, and both changed recently enough that older advice is wrong. In the United Kingdom, the Procurement Act 2023 went live on 24 February 2025 and made Find a Tender the central digital platform. Suppliers register once, and the core business details are reused across bids rather than retyped into every portal. Registration is free and is the precondition for bidding rather than a step you take after being shortlisted.

In the European Union, defence and sensitive security contracts run under Directive 2009/81/EC, and the notices appear on TED. The directive covers military equipment, sensitive equipment and the related works and services, and it exists because the general procurement rules fit those markets badly. What a supplier watches for are the prior information notices and contract notices, because both appear before the specification is closed and that is the only point at which a container format is still open to influence.

Neither route rewards waiting for a tender to appear. By publication the specification is usually fixed, often around an incumbent's product, and the useful work happened months earlier with the technical authority who wrote it. Our note on second sourcing covers the other way in, which is being qualified as an alternate against a specification somebody else already won.

Traceability is the part that fails audits

Most suppliers can produce a certificate. Fewer can connect a specific delivered can back to the coil it was pressed from, the batch of coating applied to it and the inspection record for that run. That chain is what an audit actually tests.

The practical requirement is that every layer carries an identifier and the layers link: material certificates traceable to heat or batch number, production records that name the batch, and marking on the product that ties a unit to its run. Any break makes the rest unverifiable, however good the individual documents look.

It matters most when something goes wrong. A defect found in service leads straight to the question of what else came from that batch, and a supplier who cannot answer it turns a contained problem into a fleet-wide one.

Which certificate answers which audit questionAn audit asks about material, process and traceability separately, and no single document answers all three. Material Process Traceability EN 10204 3.1 mill cert EN 10204 3.1 mill cert: suitable for Material EN 10204 3.1 mill cert: not suitable for Process EN 10204 3.1 mill cert: conditional for Traceability~ UN test report UN test report: not suitable for Material UN test report: suitable for Process UN test report: not suitable for Traceability First article inspection First article inspection: conditional for Material~ First article inspection: suitable for Process First article inspection: not suitable for Traceability Batch and run records Batch and run records: not suitable for Material Batch and run records: not suitable for Process Batch and run records: suitable for Traceability ISO 9001 certificate ISO 9001 certificate: not suitable for Material ISO 9001 certificate: conditional for Process~ ISO 9001 certificate: not suitable for Traceability
The traceability column is nearly empty and it is the one audits fail on. Batch records are cheap to keep and impossible to reconstruct, which is the wrong combination to discover late.

Reorder and a repeatable supply

A single good batch does not win a contract. Government and defence buyers plan on a reorder cycle, so the supply has to repeat: the same drawing, the same documentation and the same quality on the second order and the tenth. A supplier who can hold a specification across bases and over time is worth more than the lowest quote on one run.

Reorder also behaves differently from commercial repeat business in one respect worth planning for: the gap between orders can be years. Tooling has to still exist, the drawing has to still be current, the approval has to still be live and the people who know the job have to still be findable. A supplier who treats a dormant programme as closed will quote the restart as a new development, which is exactly the cost the framework was meant to avoid. Ask what happens to tooling and records between call-offs.

A common mistake

The frequent error is choosing on unit price and taking a supplier who treats documentation as an add-on, then paying for it at audit. The other version is accepting a near-equivalent that reads close on paper and then does not seat in the existing racks or match the manual. Both cost more than they save, because the system was built around the original part.

The pattern behind both is optimising a component inside a system that was designed around it. A commercial buyer can take a better part and gain. A defence or government buyer inherits racks, manuals, training and stock all built to the original, so a better part imposes a change on every one of them. Value in this channel means fitting what already exists, which is a different objective from being good.

What the NATO pattern buys a public buyerInterchangeability is the procurement argument for the pattern, and it operates at the fleet level rather than the item level. Delivered by the pattern Fits existing vehicle racks Fits existing vehicle racks: suitable for Delivered by the pattern Stacks with existing stock Stacks with existing stock: suitable for Delivered by the pattern Same spouts and caps fit Same spouts and caps fit: suitable for Delivered by the pattern Crews already know it Crews already know it: suitable for Delivered by the pattern Any particular steel gauge Any particular steel gauge: not suitable for Delivered by the pattern
Four operational wins and one warning. The pattern guarantees the interface and says nothing about what the can is made of, which is why a tender has to specify both.

How Fortitude21 fits

Our group produces metal containers to military specification, and those inspection and documentation habits carry into the range. We build to a fixed drawing across two production bases and supply the documentation with the order. Tell us the specification and volume, and see our capabilities.

Match the can to the job

Built to a fixed drawing, documented per shipment. Here is the defence-relevant line.

Your use caseRecommended canWhy this one
Multi-fuel, including JP-08 20L NATO Steel Fuel Can20L NATO Steel Fuel Can Coated steel, UN-marked, to a fixed drawing.
Potable water in the field 20L NATO Steel Water Can20L NATO Steel Water Can NATO pattern, seats in existing carriers.
Food-grade water, reused for years Stainless NATO Can — 10L / 20LStainless NATO Can — 10L / 20L AISI 304 across the wetted path.
Air-mobile, weight-critical 20L Aluminium NATO Can20L Aluminium NATO Can Same geometry at lower filled weight.

Common questions

What documentation does a defence buyer usually require?

A fixed technical specification, material certificates traceable to heat or batch, UN approval certificates where the item carries dangerous goods, dimensional first-article inspection, and a declared country of origin. The specification is fixed for the contract term, so a supplier changing plant mid-contract is a compliance event.

Why do defence contracts specify a fixed pattern?

Because interchangeability is the point. A can that fits every existing mount, rack and vehicle in the inventory has value that a better-designed but incompatible can does not. That is why the NATO pattern persists long after alternatives with better ergonomics appeared.

How long are defence reorder cycles?

Long, and scheduled rather than opportunistic. Framework agreements commonly run multi-year with call-offs against them, which favours a supplier who can hold a specification stable and prove it for the whole term over one who quotes the lowest unit price once.

References

The standards and regulations this page relies on, at their issuing body. Where a market rule is named here, check the current revision before you specify against it.

Last reviewed .

Talk to us about your fuel programme

Tell us your market, your fuel and your volumes. We come back with a specification sheet and a quotation.

Chat on WhatsApp