In 2026, procurement managers are most likely to be misled by a single figure:
The lowest price on a quotation.
In mid-August, the London Metal Exchange (LME) copper market experienced renewed volatility, with spot copper prices briefly hitting $14,545 per tonne. For the low-voltage (LV) and medium-voltage (MV) electrical supply chain, this was far from just distant news about the mining industry.
From copper conductors and busbars to terminals, switchgear, and complete systems—raw material cost pressures inevitably cascade down the supply chain.
This raises the question:
When raw material costs rise but project budgets remain static, what is the procurement department’s most natural reaction?
Pressuring suppliers.
Comparing multiple bids.
Renegotiating prices.
Ultimately, awarding the contract to the lowest bidder.
On an Excel spreadsheet, this logic seems almost flawless.
However, I am increasingly convinced that:
In electrical infrastructure procurement, the most dangerous costs are often not the ones visible at the time of purchase.
Take cable connections, for example.
The unit price of terminals for traditional crimping solutions might be highly competitive.
But once the project reaches the site, shouldn’t the cost sheet also account for:
Hydraulic crimping tools?
Dies corresponding to different conductor cross-sections?
Tool maintenance, calibration, and transport?
On-site personnel training?
Rework caused by incorrect die selection, improper crimping, or installation errors?
These expenses rarely appear in the “Terminal Unit Price” column of a quotation.
Yet, they will inevitably arise during the project.
That is why I believe that when procuring electrical hardware in 2026, focusing solely on unit price is no longer sufficient.
What truly matters is comparing:
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).
Shear bolt connectors serve as a prime example.
Their value should not be viewed merely as:
“Easier installation.”
For procurement teams and EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) projects, the real significance lies in the ability to shift tasks that previously relied on specialized hydraulic tools and matching dies into an installation process governed by the product design itself.
Tightening can be performed using standard sockets or wrenches. Shear bolt connectors are designed to shear off once the predetermined tightening torque is reached.
Within specified application ranges and installation requirements, a single model can accommodate multiple conductor cross-sections.
In this context, the real calculation isn’t just about:
The price per terminal.
It’s about:
Tooling quantities, crimping die SKUs, site preparation, personnel training, installation consistency, and the risk of potential rework.
However, I also disagree with the opposite extreme:
“Shear bolt connectors are guaranteed to be more cost-effective than crimp terminals.”
Not necessarily.
In a scenario involving long-term, repetitive production at a fixed station—where hydraulic tools and dies are fully standardized and the workforce is highly skilled—traditional crimping can actually be very economical.
The true cost driver is the application scenario.
If an EPC project spans multiple sites;
Requires handling various conductor cross-sections;
Involves frequent transport of tools;
And relies on installers with varying levels of experience—
Then the lowest unit purchase price
May not result in the lowest overall project cost.
This is what I call the “Raw Material Margin Trap.”
The more expensive the raw materials, the more likely procurement is to focus on driving down the unit price.
And the greater the pressure on unit price, the easier it is to overlook costs hidden in tooling, installation, labor, rework, and quality risks.
You might save 3% on the purchase price,
But you end up shifting far greater costs and risks to the construction site.
Does that really count as saving money?
If I were a decision-maker for project procurement, I would add a column to the price comparison chart:
Installed Cost / Total Project Cost.
I wouldn’t just ask:
“Who gives me the lowest price?”
I would also ask:
“Which option results in the lowest total cost once the connection is actually completed?”
I’d love to hear about the real-world experiences of procurement, EPC, and on-site engineering professionals:
For your projects, should cable connectors be evaluated based on “unit purchase price,” or should tooling, labor, training, and rework all be factored into the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)?
#MechanicalConnector #ShearBoltConnector #CableAccessories #ElectricalProcurement #ProcurementManagement #TotalCostOfOwnership #EPC #LowVoltage #MediumVoltage #CableTermination #PowerDistribution #ElectricalEngineering #SupplyChain #SupplierManagement #CableConnection #ElectricalInfrastructure #SUNJ
