I'd show the known subtotal, then the unresolved items underneath. Or perhaps ranges, if somebody can explain where the limits come from. A guessed allowance displayed to the penny will look more settled than it is.

Ranges won't repair different scope, Hassan. One supplier may assume hand-presented cartons while another includes the preparation fixture.

That is exactly the split. One proposal starts with an oriented carton already held in place. I had compared its total with a proposal that includes presentation.

Then I would sort that before estimating the gap. Can the first supplier price the same starting condition, or are they offering a deliberately smaller job? Both are legitimate offers, just not substitutes in your current comparison.

I sent both the same starting and finishing conditions. The first supplier will price the presentation work separately. Training now includes our specified interruption handover, not just a session duration.

Who supplies replacement presentation parts? The first fixture price doesn't tell maintenance what a damaged contact costs or who can make it.

Keep that visible, but don't hold up the basic comparison for a lifetime-cost prediction nobody can support. Separate the initial scope and known recurring provisions.

Yes, a separate line is enough for now. Sara can compare the initial offers and still say that replacement pricing is unconfirmed. That is more useful than folding an invented annual repair bill into either total.

Revised prices arrived. With presentation included, the apparently cheaper offer is higher. Both now price the same defined work; replacement-part pricing remains outside the initial comparison and visibly unconfirmed.

I have issued the corrected comparison and withdrawn the old arm-price ranking. No purchase decision yet. Louis, your training example caught a real omission in my scope, thanks.