Our carton-placement estimate began with an arm and gripper. Now the fixtures need designing, guarding is provisional and training covers one person. The colleague who thought I had a complete price is understandably unimpressed. How do I compare two full proposals without pretending every unknown has a tidy number?
Put both against the same job boundary. Incoming carton condition, presentation, transfer, changeover, recovery and handover. Show priced items, allowances and work not yet defined separately. A blank feeding method is not the same sort of uncertainty as a few extra fitting hours.
First supplier begins with filled presentation trays. Second begins with loose cartons at the packing bench. No wonder the first looked cheaper. I had compared totals before comparing what they actually included.
Ask both to start at your real packing output. They can propose different presentation methods, but their cost needs to include getting to those neat starting positions.
Both now have the same incoming carton description. The first is pricing tray preparation. We have also asked for the application safeguarding review and defined training scope, not just guarding to suit.
How many operators and maintainers need that training, and whose time is included in the supplier price? Attendance and shift cover may remain an internal cost.
Three operators and one maintainer. Quote allowed one attendee. Our shift cover was missing too. That is now in our internal estimate rather than another argument about the supplier's day rate.
You can use ranges for uncertain fitting work if the assumptions are visible. I would not bury an undecided presentation system inside a general contingency, though. That needs a proposal before the range means much.
And include someone other than the demonstrator operating after the agreed handover. I've seen a training price cover a pleasant visit without testing whether the next shift can use the setup.
Price replacement presentation parts and their expected supply route as well. If a damaged tray stops the whole flow, the cheapest initial arrangement can leave you with expensive waiting later.
Replacement tray and finger references requested, Noah. The first supplier's preparation option is back. It needs an operator filling trays, so our running labour comparison now includes that instead of just the transfer cycle.
That is worth taking back to your colleague now. You have a more useful comparison even while the supplier still owes some prices. The missing work has a name and an owner.
Have the suppliers completed their remaining proposals, or are you still comparing a defined method with an outline? Curious whether one is actually cheaper once the boundary matches.
Not finished. Both presentation methods are defined now, but the safeguarding and full handover prices remain provisional. We agreed to keep the decision open rather than declare the larger honest estimate the losing bid.