I cannot compare the two UR5e housing tools from part mass alone. Extended fingers, adapter and fittings are drawn but absent from the suitability explanation. Neither quote fixes the grip depth.
Can each supplier provide the complete held-load assembly, including those components and the proposed housing position, with its mass and load geometry assessed for your intended movement?
Who is defining the actual handling route and the remaining manual access? An adapter chosen only to improve the quoted load arrangement may put the tool somewhere awkward for releasing the housing or changing the nest.
Integrator with our setter. They have the source and destination nests, but the complete route still depends on the tool proposals. Both suppliers have been asked to state their assembly assumptions.
That gives the review a starting point. Keep the proposed grip depth explicit for each assembly, so the supplier's load information describes the same housing position the integrator is drawing.
Callum's distinction matters. A complete load description helps select the assembly; it still leaves the handling behaviour and people's access to be reviewed in that arrangement.
Only the load explanation is promised in the current revision. I have added holding, release and access to the common request. No selection while those are still excluded.