Comparing five proposals that are not comparable

You consulted five providers. You receive five documents of twenty to sixty pages, each with its own structure, vocabulary and implicit scope. Direct comparison is impossible, and the temptation is to decide on the headline price — which is precisely the least comparable figure.

Why proposals diverge

Each provider interpreted the need. One included data migration, another did not. One prices acceptance testing, another assumes you will do it. One offers six months' warranty, another three. None is lying: each filled the blanks in your specification their own way.

That is, incidentally, the best diagnostic of your document's quality: the more the proposals diverge, the more room for interpretation your specification left.

The normalisation grid

Six columns are enough. Fill it in yourself from the proposals, calling providers to close the empty cells.

1. Scope included. List of explicitly included deliverables. What is not written is not included.

2. Scope excluded. What each provider explicitly put out of scope. A provider listing no exclusions has not framed the work; that is not a good sign.

3. Effort on your side. Days expected from your teams: workshops, acceptance testing, decisions, providing environments. This item is almost always absent from proposals and represents a real cost.

4. Price, normalised to the same scope. Add to the headline price the cost of items missing in one and present in another. That is the only comparable number.

5. Contractual commitments. Warranty, fix response times, replacement clause, intellectual property, reversibility. Score each item present or absent.

6. Risks identified by the provider. A provider identifying no risks has either not studied the subject or does not want to mention them. Both hypotheses are bad.

The three questions that separate candidates

Once the grid is complete, three questions put to each finalist sort more effectively than reading the documents:

"What happens if the scope changes mid-project?" Look for a precise procedural answer — a priced change order signed before the work — not a declaration of flexibility.

"Who, by name, will work on this project, and how many people will know the file?" Ask to meet those people before signature. The gap between the pre-sales team and the assigned team is a classic problem.

"Can you send us your DPA and a completed security questionnaire this week?" The answer to that question, in speed as much as in content, discriminates more than any customer reference.

The lowest-bidder trap

In the private sector nothing obliges you to take the lowest price. Use column 4 — price normalised to the same scope — and column 3 — effort on your side. A proposal 20% cheaper that requires forty more days from your teams is not cheaper.

Document that reasoning in writing. It is what will let you justify the choice to your finance director, and it is also what will protect you if the project runs into difficulty.