One quote says training included with no scope. Another names two days but excludes staff cover. Our internal sheet treats both as zero extra cost.

I'd ask who attends and what those days cover, Alistair. Two days with the builder operating the station may be less useful than shorter sessions where both shifts practise the approved changeover and recovery cases.

And include the production time lost while people attend. Training can be included in the invoice and still cost the workshop something.

Amara, would you buy a spare set immediately? I'd price availability and replacement lead time before making that another automatic addition to a pilot.

Not automatically, Omar; I meant expose the cover plan and its cost, which might be a spare, repair arrangement or accepted downtime rather than another complete set on day one.

That distinction helps. We're estimating a production cell, but the first order is only 163. I don't want every possible contingency bought immediately or silently left with maintenance.

For staffing, I'd use the intended order mix rather than only the initial quantity. A single first order can show the task, but it won't represent frequent changeovers if that's what follows.

Does preparation begin from your real incoming cartons? Or have the proposals already unpacked them at no cost?

One proposal starts with arranged trays. The other includes presentation fixtures but not who fills them. Neither prices the same incoming condition as our current bench.

Then agree that boundary before ranking. You can retain their current totals, but label what each buys instead of pretending the difference is a robot-price saving.

Leah's preparation question should go to the people doing that work too, because our supplier's allowance looked reasonable until the operator showed how many mixed boxes arrived between changeovers.

Amara, yes, and estimates from operators can remain estimates with their source stated. They do not need to become invented stopwatch data just because purchasing wants a comparison this week.

Rebuilt the comparison around actual incoming cartons and the same output. Internal labour allowances have named sources. Suppliers still owe preparation staffing and training scope, so neither total is final.

Has that changed which proposal appears cheaper, Alistair? Interested whether the apparent gap survives once the excluded jobs have names.

Whatever the answer, keep the unresolved lines on the summary page. Otherwise somebody will quote the old arm price and ask why the workshop made it expensive.