Verify supplier identity before a sourcing commitment

A quotation tells you what a seller proposes, not necessarily who stands behind it. Identity checking starts with the legal entity you would contract with and the entity that will manufacture or ship. Those names may differ, so ask for the relationship rather than assuming a brand name covers every role.

Define the requirement

Record the legal company name, registration location, business address and the person authorised to discuss the transaction. If the payee, seller and producer are different, request an explanation and supporting documents. Keep these identity details outside the technical specification so product review does not obscure the commercial counterparty.

Questions to send with the RFQ

Ask who will issue the invoice, who will perform production and who will handle after-sales issues. The U.S. Commercial Service's due-diligence guidance is a starting point for investigating a potential business partner; it does not replace your own checks of documents and references relevant to this transaction.

Review the answer

Match names across the quote, registration evidence, invoice instructions and later contract. A mismatch is a question to resolve, not proof of wrongdoing. Do not send payment or sign commitments solely because a website, company profile or email signature looks polished.

An example to adapt

For a hypothetical sourcing enquiry, a trading company may quote goods made by a separate factory. That structure can be legitimate, but the buyer should know which company is responsible for quality, warranties and delivery, and whether the factory name is an assertion that can be checked.

Decision before sending

Keep identity verification separate from supplier scoring. A technically strong sample does not answer whether the proposed contracting entity has the authority and resources to deliver. Conversely, a valid registration does not prove product capability. Assemble a small evidence file for both questions, and note gaps rather than forcing a single “approved” label too early. If payment details change after approval, treat that as a new verification event, not an administrative update.