They don't. One includes it; the other leaves it to us. Pricing our share makes the gap between the offers much smaller.

Make a shared scope table: who supplies each item, quoted cost, and any unknown allowance. Add your internal work, then compare totals for that same scope.

@ReeceBrooks0819 I'm reluctant to invent figures for unpriced items. Would entering zero with an explanatory note be a reasonable way to keep them visible?

Use 'unpriced' and flag the total as incomplete. An allowance can be a range if you've a basis for it; zero looks like free.

@ReeceBrooks0819 On my own cell estimate, acceptance attendance and recipe preparation were invisible until we listed our staff's tasks. Neither appeared on the supplier invoice.

Same omission here. Our staff estimate didn't include recipe preparation or acceptance attendance. Adding them makes the internal-work column less imaginary.

Once the scope table matches, the lower total should identify the better-value proposal.

Matching item names and totals won't settle value if the offers differ in acceptance obligations or support. A broad integration line can conceal meaningful differences.

You're right; I reduced value to price. Put acceptance conditions and support responsibilities alongside the costs before deciding which offer better meets your needs.

I'm unclear about acceptance conditions. What should those say that isn't already covered by a supplier saying the cell will work?

The work it must demonstrate, with your input variation, acceptable output and permitted operator involvement. Also who fixes shortfalls and what remains outside the supplied scope.

Our workflow map shows continuing operator replenishment at the pickup area. That means I can't describe the staffing benefit as eliminating operator involvement in the job.

@MayaBrown0910 My cell needed replenishment too. We found it useful to show the pattern of attention, because the amount of spare time alone didn't tell us what else fitted.

The proposals don't explain replenishment particularly well. Should I ask each supplier to include the expected operator involvement explicitly?

Request a description of operator replenishment duties, the indication used and the basis for the proposed staffing pattern. Any portion not demonstrated should remain an explicit assumption in your comparison.

@ReeceBrooks0819 Training scope needs that detail too. Starting a prepared job isn't the same training commitment as changeover, routine recovery and maintenance handover.