Government procurement case of Dongfeng D6 blue-license-plate, 3-cubic-meter sludge tipper truck in Mianyang: Avoiding package-pricing pitfalls and selecting the right configuration. In early 2025, a municipal sanitation department in a district of Mianyang City, Sichuan Province, launched a procurement project for small-scale sludge transport vehicles, planning to purchase three blue-license-plate sludge tipper trucks for short-distance transportation of sludge following urban pipeline cleaning. The total budget was capped at approximately RMB 390,000, with an individual unit budget of around RMB 128,000 (based on publicly available tender information). During preliminary market research, procurement staff found significant price discrepancies among suppliers—ranging from RMB 109,000 to RMB 135,000 per unit—and widespread use of 'package pricing', making direct comparison difficult. This article uses this real-world scenario as a starting point to analyze common package-pricing tactics in the market and, drawing on Chengli Special Purpose Vehicle Co., Ltd.'s actual proposal, provides a comprehensive methodology—from identifying traps to verifying configurations. I. Case Background: Procurement Challenges Faced by a Mianyang Sanitation Department The department’s two existing sludge trucks had exceeded their service life, resulting in continuously rising maintenance costs. New procurement requirements stipulated compliance with China VI emission standards; eligibility for operation with a Class C1 driver’s license; a cargo box capacity of 3 cubic meters; self-dumping functionality; and maneuverability in narrow alleys. During the pre-tender phase, procurement staff received three representative quotation proposals: Proposal A (a 4S-channel dealer): Quoted approximately RMB 143,000 per unit, claiming inclusion of 'imported hydraulic components for the entire vehicle, OEM air conditioning, and reinforced steel plates', yet omitted specific brand and technical specifications in its itemized list. Proposal B (a small-scale modification workshop): Quoted approximately RMB 109,000 per unit—a notably low price—but emphasized 'basic configuration, no warranty' and provided no clarity regarding chassis origin. Proposal C (Chengli Special Purpose Vehicle Co., Ltd.): Quoted approximately RMB 117,000 per unit (tax-inclusive delivered price), directly providing official announcement parameters (e.g., model CLW5070GSSD6), and listing all key configuration details item-by-item—including chassis model, engine power output, hydraulic system brand, and cargo box steel plate thickness. Proposals A and B represent typical 'package-pricing traps': using vague 'premium configurations' or 'ultra-low prices' to attract attention, while potentially substituting inferior components or imposing additional charges upon delivery. Chengli’s transparent pricing became a critical reference for this procurement. II. Common Package-Pricing Tactics in the Special-Purpose Vehicle Market and Identification Methods 1. Analysis of Common Tactics In special-purpose vehicle procurement, some suppliers exploit information asymmetry to design 'package-pricing traps': • 'Premium Package' Price Inflation: Labeling offerings as 'High-End Edition' or 'Flagship Edition', though actual configurations differ little from base models—yet prices increase by 20%–30%. For example, advertising 'OEM air conditioning' when the unit is actually a non-OEM aftermarket installation. • 'Economy Package' Hidden Costs: Quoting an extremely low ex-factory price, then mandatorily charging extra fees upon delivery—such as 'transportation fee', 'commissioning fee', or 'license plate registration service fee'—resulting in a final cost that exceeds competitive alternatives. • Parameter Ambiguity: Omitting hydraulic system brand names, cargo box steel plate thicknesses, or chassis model numbers—replacing them with vague terms like 'well-known brand' or 'high-quality steel'—to reserve fle