Our carton-insert loading quotes now include presentation fixtures, guarding and training, but one supplier keeps using customer scope where the other puts a price. I cannot call the first offer cheaper while nobody has priced that work. We handle boxed sensor modules; the receiving and presentation tasks are ordinary production work, not free assistance for the robot.
Preparing the incoming boxes in presentation trays. One includes a fixture and operator task; the other assumes trays arrive ready, although ours do not.
We've got that same exclusion in a comparison. Ask the cheaper supplier to price the actual incoming condition, or price your own preparation explicitly. Don't let ready trays survive as a footnote nobody owns.
The guarding allowance also needs its scope stated. Does it include the application assessment and resulting integration work, or only the physical panels shown in the drawing?
One includes assessment and integration through the named integrator; the other prices panels only and excludes the remaining work. I have asked that integrator for a separate defined proposal.
Count the presentation trays and their change parts too, especially if one offer prices a single demonstration set and the other has enough to keep production supplied.
That is another mismatch. First offer has an operator handover for our job; second offers one general session at the supplier. We need relief cover trained on the actual arrangement as well.
I'd let your own trainer cover the relief shift if that's workable, Anil, but cost their preparation and the practical checks. Supplier attendance twice isn't the only honest option.
Agreed. I am costing supplier handover to our trainer plus two local operator sessions, with the actual recovery examples included. We have the staff for that, not unlimited spare time.
And mark who updates each estimate. I have seen provisional tooling numbers become ancient simply because everyone assumed purchasing was waiting for someone else.
Tooling owns the presentation estimate, integrator owns the assessment and integration proposal, and I own the training allowance. Each line now says firm, estimate or unanswered, with the specific next answer required.
Has the second supplier priced preparing your real incoming boxes yet? That's still the bit I wouldn't let disappear behind an impressively complete spreadsheet.
They will not include it. They have confirmed that exclusion in writing, so our toolmaker's preparation concept and staff estimate sit beside their offer. Its apparent saving has nearly disappeared.
Does the remaining difference justify splitting responsibility for that presentation arrangement? A small saving can still be real, but somebody needs to own the interface when it misbehaves.
Mina, I would not automatically penalise split responsibility if their integrator accepts the combined design. Ask whether that is included before pricing a permanent coordination problem.
Jasper's right to ask. We use separately sourced change parts successfully, but only because one designer owns the assembled arrangement and its references.
The integrator has priced ownership of that combined design, and purchasing compared both complete options. We have selected the first supplier for the paid detailed-design stage: the residual difference was smaller than the added coordination work. Remaining estimates are still marked, not rolled into a pretend fixed installation price.
Useful result. Did purchasing keep the rejected option's completed comparison? It will save repeating this when somebody rediscovers the cheap arm price.