Both suppliers quote the aluminium housing mass as if it were the whole UR5e load, but their extended fingers, adapters and hose fittings differ; what complete information should I ask them to put against the intended fixture-loading movement?
Both also need combined mass, centre of gravity and relevant inertia information for their actual offered assemblies. Have the application integrator assess those against the intended movement and installation.
Our apparently lighter tool moved the part farther out because of its adapter. The loose-tool weight comparison missed that. Nathan, keep the complete loaded geometry with the data so nobody combines the weight of one version with the drawing of another.
Oscar, yes, both now identified; Caleb, the first supplier includes routing design, while the second leaves it to our integrator and has not reserved space on its drawing.
Then the second proposal still needs a defined routing arrangement before the complete installation can be assessed. Do not fill its missing space with the first supplier's assumptions.
We are taking the first complete proposal into application assessment and have told the second supplier exactly what is missing; no arm decision yet, but at least the two columns no longer pretend to be equally finished.
That is a usable next step. Did the assessor receive the loaded assembly data as well as the more complete drawing? The drawing discussion can easily swallow the original load question.