Compounding this is a perception that price is being given too high a weighting in the final choice of contractor and that lower-cost, lower-quality non-specialists are entering the market, particularly from Asia.

David LeBlanc, vice president of Maritime International USA, summarised one view of the market in a maritime magazine article in which he said the fender industry is undergoing a complete engineering and manufacturing overhaul. “Low-cost, low-quality manufacturers are providing ‘seemingly’ suitable alternatives to the well-established brands, forcing some known brands to compromise quality in an effort to combat the situation competitively.”

The feeling that fenders are “needed by the client, specified by the consultant and bought/fitted by the contractor” is shared by Trelleborg Marine Systems, which goes further by saying that it is the maintenance team that is best placed to say whether the fender type, design and quality was appropriate.

In practice, the end product will only ever be as good as the consultant/client specification issued to the manufacturer by the contractor. The contractor is interested in the lowest-cost product that meets the specification. If the specification is lacking in any way then compromises are made and end performance and/or service life are likely to suffer.

Mike Harrison, marketing director for Trelleborg, says that price is the overriding factor in most fender purchases.

“Most port designers are multi-disciplinary so don't necessarily have the in-depth experience of fender designs. They rely on input from reputable manufacturers in the expectation that such a company will end up supplying the fenders. Increasingly, pressure comes to supply the quality of the best manufacturer at the price of the cheapest offer, though the latter is likely to fall well short of the specification.

“With margins eroded, the big producers have to ration their design support resources. Price pressures are leading to a downward spiral in expertise as engineers become more expensive to recruit and, even then, many years of practical experience are needed to understand all of the issues involved in fender design. Presently this experience void is unfilled and getting larger.”

David LeBlanc’s article also emphasises how much weight should be put on the first stages of project design and selection.

“A well-made decision at the project’s onset will ensure that the client purchases a fendering system that will provide the necessary performance and best value not only at purchase time but also over the entire life-cycle. It is critical that any manufacturer of marine fenders provides engineering and design services throughout the design, purchase, installation and support cycle.

“With fender systems becoming larger and more complex, it is incumbent on the manufacturer to provide demonstrable evidence that they are capable of proposing and providing ‘fit for duty’ products backed by engineering.”

However, Trelleborg’s Mike Harrison says that port executives have a solution at hand by coming at the problem from a new viewpoint.

“A small change of vantage point is all that's needed. Consider fenders as a safety critical item that protect a very valuable structure, the people working on that structure and the ships which use the structure. Then reconsider the wisdom of delegating the choice and quality of fenders to a price-focused contractor.

“Should fenders be treated differently than, say, container cranes? The wrong choice of fender may lead to greater downtime of the berth, risk of damage, additional maintenance and other safety or cost factors. It is the client/operator who will ultimately benefit or suffer from the choice of fender hardware - they absolutely need to be involved in the decision process”

Other issues play a part, in particular liability on design and construct projects. Consultants issue generic or performance specifications and provided assurances are given that these have been met, the liability passes to the fender manufacturer, though many are blissfully ignorant of the consequences and costs inherent in such a liability.

“Promises are cheap to make but expensive to honour, probably well beyond the financial means of all but the largest fender manufacturers. What is the value of a guarantee of fender performance if this cannot be backed up in practice?” asks Mr Harrison.

What may now be reinforcing this point in the open market is the tougher stance insurers and shipping lines are taking towards fender performance. Today, if a ship is damaged by a fender or a shipping line receives a claim for damage caused to a fender, the insurers routinely question whether the fender itself is up to the task.

Hull damage that takes a ship out of service for even a short time can result in big claims. If the same damage results in an oil spillage then zeros quickly get added to the claim. Likewise, a berth that is closed because a fender failed to perform (a particular problem on oil and gas terminals where the loss of one fender may render the berth unsafe) may lose a lot of revenue in the weeks or months it takes to replace the fender.

If these costs were factored into the decision process by port executives for selecting fenders, the difference in cost between a low-grade and quality product would become insignificant. This will only occur if the port or operator takes an active interest in the design, selection and testing process.