I need to compare complete FR10 proposals for filling carton pockets with boxed mounting kits. The arm price looked manageable, then presentation fixtures, guarding and training expanded the estimate. How do I show genuine uncertainty without letting the emptiest quote look cheapest?
Compare a common task scope, with each line marked included, excluded, provisional or unpriced. Give unknowns an owner and next evidence step. Do not convert blank cells into zero or demand a fixed price for a design nobody has defined yet.
The first proposal leaves fixture development blank. The second prices a defined presentation study but not the resulting production fixture. Those are different gaps, not comparable fixture prices.
Exactly. Ask the first supplier what development stage it includes and what decision follows it. Keep the study cost separate from the eventual installation estimate.
First supplier confirmed development was excluded. Both now have the same incoming-kit and finished-carton requirements. Guarding assessment and recovery training still differ in scope.
List those differences explicitly before comparing totals. The responsible safeguarding design and the handover work need defined ownership; a general installation line may not cover either.
I have withdrawn the initial price ranking. Owner authorised a bounded presentation assessment only, with its questions and cost stated. No complete-cell purchase decision made from the partial totals.
Carry the remaining unknowns into that assessment's output. A paid study should reduce uncertainty, not make unrelated guarding and training exclusions disappear from the next estimate.