Engineering · Coordination
Quote
Compare the offer behind the price.
01
In plain English
- What it is
- A supplier comparison that shows what each offer includes, leaves out or still needs to explain.
- How it works
- You would set the requirements and add supplier offers. Quote would suggest a comparison for you to check, keeping missing answers and extras visible before you choose a supplier.
- Why it matters
- To make a purchasing decision with the full scope in view, beyond the headline price.
02
The working model
Included, excluded and unanswered are different commercial states. A blank cannot become zero.
The boundary that matters Synthetic supplier responses illustrate the proposal. A reviewed comparison does not award work or infer contractual terms.
Two paths: Standard flow and Delivery unanswered · 5 stages each
03
How it fits together
A person acts, the system checks, a result follows — and one other path, for when the check does not pass. This describes proposed responsibilities and decisions, not deployed infrastructure.
Read the diagram source
%% Director-friendly architecture. Maturity and limits are recorded in accDescr.
flowchart TB
accTitle: How Project Quote works
accDescr: Suppliers respond to the same buying requirements. Signal organises the offer terms, keeping included, excluded and unknown items distinct. The buyer verifies suggested terms against the original offers. A confirmed common basis produces a comparison; unanswered or incompatible terms need clarification. The buyer remains responsible for supplier selection. This is a proposed concept.
A(["Suppliers<br/>Quote against the same requirements"])
B("Offer terms<br/>Included, excluded or unknown")
C(["Buyer<br/>Checks the original offers"])
D{"Comparable scope<br/>and confirmed terms?"}
E("Offer comparison<br/>Differences and exclusions visible")
X("Comparison incomplete<br/>Ask suppliers to clarify")
A --> B
B -->|Suggested terms| C
C --> D
D -->|Confirmed basis| E
D -->|Missing or inconsistent| X
classDef human fill:#faf7f2,stroke:#bf8c53,color:#24211c;
classDef work fill:#ffffff,stroke:#a3a5ad,color:#25262a;
classDef decision fill:#f3efff,stroke:#967bcb,color:#30244c;
classDef result fill:#f0f6ff,stroke:#7b9dca,color:#1d365b;
classDef exception fill:#fff5ec,stroke:#ce9b63,color:#64431e;
class A,C human;
class B work;
class D decision;
class E result;
class X exception;
04
The case study
A fair comparison needs a shared scope and an honest representation of missing information.
The problem
One supplier includes delivery, another excludes it, and a third does not say. Comparing headline totals can hide the differences that determine the actual purchase.
The insight
Model unanswered, excluded, and included as different states. A missing value must remain unknown rather than quietly becoming zero.
The system
The proposed comparison links supplier responses to a versioned requirement set. It keeps quantities, pricing basis, delivery, and exclusions visible. Document extraction may suggest values, but uncertain or missing fields require confirmation before comparison.
The rationale
A clearer scope comparison helps buyers ask better follow-up questions and understand why the lowest visible total may not be the most suitable offer.
Responsibilities
- Common requirement
- Versioned scope gives each response a comparable basis.
- Supplier response
- Included, excluded, and unknown remain separate states.
- Comparison view
- Show completeness, differences, and questions before ranking.
The boundary
Quote structures the evidence; it does not infer an absent contractual commitment or automatically select a supplier.
The trade-off
Structured responses take more supplier effort than attaching a PDF. Assisted extraction can reduce that effort only if its uncertainty remains visible.
When it fails
A price field is missing
Display unknown and flag comparison completeness. Do not substitute zero or include an invented value in the total.
Suppliers use different units
Show the pricing basis and require a justified conversion before presenting normalised amounts.
The requirement changes
Keep the original response linked to its requirement revision and mark which parts need reconfirmation.
Evidence Design proposal · local demonstration uses synthetic data
05
On the design side
Comparing offers touches both the supplier roster and the money surface.