One starts with prepared kits. Other doesn't define preparation. I've asked both to state that boundary.

Keep a common cost breakdown with firm prices, allowances and exclusions distinguished. For each uncertain item, name who will provide the next estimate and what decision it affects; a blank cell should not be read as zero.

Split the estimates that way. Tooling and guarding still allowances; training scope not matched between suppliers.

Does training cover preparation, changeover and ordinary recovery, or just starting the demonstrated run? Whoever inherits the station will have more work than pressing start, especially if kit presentation needs judgement.

Maya's scope question can change both the initial price and ongoing support requirement. Keep those separate rather than try to hide all future assistance inside one training allowance. The same applies to fixture changes for later kit variants.

Revised requests include those tasks. Neither complete offer returned yet. Comparison stays provisional, with allowances beside each total.

Who signs off that common scope when the replies arrive? Otherwise each supplier can resolve its own exclusions and leave you comparing two different jobs again.