Qiqihar Feg Reiss Food Co., Ltd. Supplier Evaluation

Executive Summary

Qiqihar Feg Reiss Food Co., Ltd. is a China-based supplier located in Heilongjiang, offering skimmed milk powder and fat-filled milk powder products with listed MOQs of 600 bags and price ranges between CN¥464.84 and CN¥574.72 per unit/bag as provided. The company reports a large factory area of over 89,000㎡ and more than 80 staff, and it is marked as a verified supplier, indicating a certain level of manufacturing and supplier credibility. Its platform profile shows 1 year as a Gold Supplier, no Trade Assurance support, and listed capability tags including Finished Product Inspection, Full Customization, ODM service available, and Minor Customization. However, commercial performance data is weak or missing: past six-month order volume, transaction value, and store rating are not provided, and the review count is 0. This supplier may be suitable for buyers seeking factory-scale dairy powder supply with customization options, but commercial validation and customer feedback remain key due diligence priorities.

Detailed Analysis

1. Company Strength — 20 Points

Basis

• Factory location: Heilongjiang, China
• Factory area: 89,000+㎡
• Employees: 80+ staff
• Verified supplier: True
• Product scope provided: skimmed milk powder and fat-filled milk powder products
• MOQ: 600 bags across listed products

Elaboration

The supplier reports a very large factory area of over 89,000㎡, which indicates a substantial physical production or operational base. This is a positive factor for industrial-scale supply capability, especially for bulk food ingredient categories such as milk powder. The employee count of 80+ staff suggests an organized operating team, though it is not exceptionally large relative to the reported factory size. The supplier is also marked as a verified supplier, which strengthens the credibility of its basic company profile.

The product data shows consistency around bulk-pack milk powder products, mainly skimmed milk powder and fat-filled milk powder, with a uniform MOQ of 600 bags. This indicates that the company is positioned toward wholesale or B2B supply rather than small retail-level orders.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier demonstrates strong physical infrastructure due to the reported 89,000+㎡ factory area and verified supplier status. However, the employee scale of 80+ staff is moderate rather than large, and no additional factory certifications or audit details beyond “verified supplier” are provided. Therefore, the company appears stronger than a small basic manufacturer but does not fully reach the highest score band for a large-scale, fully validated supply chain.

Final Score

17 / 20

2. Platform & Compliance Credibility — 20 Points

Basis

• Gold Supplier: True
• Gold Supplier duration: 1 year
• Trade Assurance: False
• Verified supplier: True
• Certification / capability tags:
• Finished product inspection
• Full customization
• ODM service available
• Minor customization

Elaboration

The supplier has Gold Supplier status, but the duration is only 1 year, which means the platform history is still relatively short. The absence of Trade Assurance is an important limitation from a procurement risk-control perspective, because buyers may have fewer platform-backed transaction protections compared with suppliers that support Trade Assurance.

The supplier is marked as verified, and the presence of tags such as Finished Product Inspection and customization capabilities improves the profile’s credibility. However, no internationally recognized food safety certifications, factory audit report names, or compliance certificates are provided in the supplied data. Therefore, compliance credibility is present at a basic to moderate level, but not comprehensive.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier has some core credibility indicators, including Gold Supplier status and supplier verification. However, the Gold Supplier period is short at 1 year, and Trade Assurance is not supported. Certification information is limited to platform capability tags rather than detailed third-party certificates. This places the supplier below the strong credibility range and closer to a basic-to-moderate platform compliance level.

Final Score

12 / 20

3. Business Performance — 20 Points

Basis

• Past 6-month order volume: Insufficient Data
• Past 6-month transaction value: Insufficient Data
• Store rating: Insufficient Data
• Review count: 0

Elaboration

The available business performance data is very limited. There is no disclosed order volume for the past six months, no transaction value, and no store rating. The only available customer activity indicator is the review count, which is 0. This means there is no visible customer feedback record or transaction validation available from the provided data.

For procurement assessment, the lack of order and transaction data makes it difficult to verify market acceptance, repeat purchasing, buyer satisfaction, or actual fulfillment history through the platform. Even if the company has production capacity, the commercial performance evidence is insufficient.

Scoring Rationale

Because order volume, transaction amount, and store rating are missing, and the review count is 0, the supplier has very limited business validation. The score is therefore placed below the basic commercial performance range. The company may still have offline business activity, but this cannot be assumed or credited because it is not included in the provided data.

Final Score

6 / 20

4. Service Capability — 10 Points

Basis

• Response time: ≤4h
• Full customization: Listed
• ODM service available: Listed
• Minor customization: Listed

Elaboration

The supplier’s stated response time is within 4 hours, which is acceptable for B2B inquiry handling, though it is not in the highest service tier of ≤1 hour. The listed service tags show Full Customization, ODM service available, and Minor Customization, indicating that the supplier may support different levels of buyer-specific requirements based on the provided platform data.

These service capabilities are useful for buyers requiring private-label, specification adjustment, or customized packaging/product arrangements. However, no detailed evidence is provided regarding customization lead time, sample process, design support, or project management capability.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier has a reasonable response time and multiple customization-related tags, supporting a solid service capability score. However, because the response time is not within the fastest ≤1h range and detailed customization execution data is not provided, it does not qualify for the highest score band.

Final Score

8 / 10

5. Delivery Performance — 10 Points

Basis

• On-time delivery rate: 100.0%

Elaboration

The supplier reports a 100.0% on-time delivery rate. Based on the scoring standard, delivery performance above 90% falls into the highest range. This is a strong indicator within the provided dataset.

However, the data does not include the number of orders used to calculate this percentage. Since past six-month order volume is missing, the reliability of the 100.0% rate cannot be fully contextualized. A 100% rate based on a small number of transactions would carry less validation than the same percentage across a large order base, but the actual order base is not provided.

Scoring Rationale

According to the defined scoring rule, a delivery rate above 90% should receive 9–10 points. Since the provided rate is 100.0%, the supplier qualifies for the maximum score in this dimension. The lack of order-volume context should be noted as a risk, but the available delivery metric itself is excellent.

Final Score

10 / 10

6. Quality & Customer Feedback — 20 Points

Basis

• Store rating: Insufficient Data
• Review count: 0
• Finished Product Inspection: Listed
• Factory / supplier verification: True
• Trade Assurance: False

Elaboration

The supplier lists Finished Product Inspection, which is a positive quality-control indicator. It is also marked as a verified supplier, which supports basic profile credibility. These factors suggest that some quality assurance structure may be present according to the platform data.

However, customer feedback evidence is weak. There is no store rating provided, and the review count is 0. This prevents confirmation of buyer satisfaction, product consistency, complaint history, or repeat purchasing experience. For food-related bulk products such as milk powder, quality assurance is especially important, but the supplied data does not include food safety certificates, laboratory testing reports, production standards, or customer evaluations.

Scoring Rationale

The supplier receives credit for Finished Product Inspection and verified supplier status. However, the absence of store rating, the lack of customer reviews, and no detailed quality certifications or inspection documentation limit the quality confidence level. The score is therefore placed in the lower-middle range: above suppliers with no quality information at all, but below suppliers with strong ratings, large review volume, and complete quality assurance documentation.

Final Score

12 / 20

Total Score

Procurement Recommendation

Recommendation: Conditional cooperation recommended, subject to further verification.

Qiqihar Feg Reiss Food Co., Ltd. shows solid production-side potential based on its reported 89,000+㎡ factory area, 80+ staff, verified supplier status, listed Finished Product Inspection, and customization capabilities. The supplier may be suitable for buyers seeking bulk skimmed milk powder or fat-filled milk powder supply with MOQ acceptance around 600 bags and potential customization requirements.

However, the main risks are the lack of commercial validation and limited platform transaction transparency. Past six-month order volume, transaction value, and store rating are all missing, while the review count is 0. The supplier also does not support Trade Assurance, which may increase transaction risk for new buyers.

For procurement teams, this supplier is more appropriate for buyers willing to conduct additional due diligence, request product samples, verify inspection procedures, confirm food-quality documentation, and negotiate payment or third-party inspection safeguards before placing large orders. Growth potential exists due to the reported factory scale and customization capability, but current buyer-feedback evidence is insufficient for high-confidence procurement without further verification.