two good demos, two different jobs

And ask who did the changing, because the invisible person straightening every puck is usually very fast in edited videos.

I wouldn't insist on preserving a poor tray just to make a fair fight. Let them propose improvements, then price the whole job. Same requirements doesn't have to mean identical hardware.

Liam and Lin, new trays are possible, but ours return from another process and would need transferring into them; that's the work I don't want vanishing from the price.

That transfer could matter more than the motion time. Does either offer include who replenishes trays and what happens when a returning tray is unsuitable?

Price a small tray-only change first. Could it help the current manual job even if you buy no robot?

Who decides whether a returning tray is unsuitable?

Hana, that question saved us a lot of fuss on a lab transfer job. We had a reject shelf but no rule for putting anything there. One shift rejected anything that rocked; another pressed it flat and carried on. Neither had been told what the downstream fixture could accept. The shelf filled up, then emptied again, and our lovely throughput figures meant very little. Nora, get that decision into the proposal before comparing the resulting counts.

Luis and Hana, our receiving operator decides now, mostly by whether the tray sits properly on its bench support; I've asked quality to define that check for the supplier brief, using Leah's identified examples.

Sara's example is exactly why I'd avoid a forced identical-demo contest. One supplier might solve the incoming variation in the fixture and another might need tighter trays. Either can be legitimate if you can live with it.

Lin, agreed on alternatives. My point was to give them the same incoming problem, not dictate their solution. Otherwise the cheaper proposal may simply omit the awkward stock.

Did anyone price the tray-only option?

Yes, Simon. A replacement tray helps manual sorting but the extra transfer still costs time. We're trialling a small set for that benefit alone, separate from the arm shortlist.

Useful even if the robot gets none of the credit.

Supplier comparison is clearer now: one offer includes new presentation trays and our transfer labour, the other includes handling from the accepted returning trays with a slower proposed cycle. Neither has demonstrated the full range yet.

Before selecting, include who maintains each presentation method and who helps when it fails. The slower arrangement may still be preferable, but an optimistic support assumption can make that comparison misleading too.

Are both layouts preserving the receiving operator's working space with those extra trays present?

Not settled, Liam; the new-tray option needs another staging position, and our operator has rejected the first proposed location because it blocks her normal return route.