Include who owns the safety assessment and safeguarding scope. An unpriced guarding line is not evidence that the rest of the cell covers it.

One proposal expects us to present cartons in a fixture. The other includes fixture development. I had compared their totals directly.

That customer fixture work needs people and time as well as material. Who handles changes when the carton supply varies? In our estimates that work tends to be volunteered on behalf of someone who was not in the meeting.

Can the first supplier quote the same development scope? Easier than pretending your internal estimate has the same certainty as their offer

I've asked. Both received the same scope sheet today. Internal work is listed separately with its owner, not included free.

Keep the assumptions attached when replies arrive. A fixed price for one carton condition may still leave you funding changes; I would want the acceptance examples and change boundaries visible beside the price, not hidden in the email chain.

Revised first quote arrived. With fixture development included, it is no longer the cheaper proposal. Training coverage still differs. I have withdrawn my earlier recommendation.

That is a useful correction, even before choosing. For training, compare who can do normal changeover and who is expected to respond to exceptions. A day on site can mean quite different handovers.

And leave the incomplete safeguarding scope visibly unresolved. A clearer commercial comparison does not finish that assessment.