Our FR10 carton-pocket loading quote now includes presentation fixtures, guarding and training, but the control interface is still listed as customer software. I wrote the bench demonstration and apparently that has made me the support department for the finished cell. The second proposal includes software work without saying what it delivers. I can compare arm prices all afternoon; I cannot compare these two jobs until somebody says who fixes the interface, restores it and supports the person covering me.
Ask for the delivered interface and handover items by name, including who accepts them. Customer software can mean a finished, supported component supplied by you, or an unfinished job they expect you to finish. Those are not the same allowance
I would include restoration on the ordinary workshop computer, not just delivery of your source files. On a handover I supported, the source was present but the only working environment belonged to the developer's personal login. Rebuilding that was an unpriced job. Ask who provides the installation information, access arrangements and a demonstrated recovery on the intended machine.
Anil, first quote includes onsite commissioning but assumes our working interface; second has remote software commissioning, with onsite attendance excluded, so neither currently covers the job I had in mind.
Remote isn't automatically useless, Dan, but somebody competent has to be at your end and their time doesn't become free because the supplier is on a screen
You may need a priced scope-definition stage before a firm build price. I would rather see that openly than a small software allowance which nobody can explain. Its output needs to be usable for the comparison, not just another meeting
That matters more than a generous sounding support period, Farah; we've had a job bounce back as customer modification when the only customer change was the one the supplier told us to make
Nobody has defined change ownership, Farah, and Callum's remote-support point means I also need our maintainer's attendance and cover in the estimate; I've stopped putting zero against the undecided lines.
Are both proposals accepting the same incoming kits and carton presentation? Software and labour allowances will drift again if one starts with a prepared tray and the other handles your normal supply.
And price the whole order, including its changeovers. A cheaper interface might be perfectly adequate if the job is simple enough. I would not insist that both suppliers build identical software, but I would insist they cost the same work
Anil, the remote proposal assumes kits already separated into a presentation tray, while our sample description shows them as received; that preparation has no operator time against it either, so it goes onto the clarification list.
Then ask what that prepared-tray option really costs before rejecting it, because a modest bit of preparation can still beat an elaborate feeder; it just can't hide behind customer supplied
I've sent both suppliers the same incoming and finished-order description, with separate questions for preparation, onsite work, software ownership and restoration; the complete-cell comparison remains unpriced, and I'm not picking the cheaper arm line as a substitute.