Two replies arrive to the same request: a short proposal with a lower price and a longer one with a higher price. The first may genuinely fit your needs, or it may leave work that you will pay for later or do yourself. The total cannot tell you which explanation is correct. First establish whether the proposals purchase the same outcome.
The output here is a difference sheet for two existing proposals, rather than another requirements document or a ranking of software companies. Link every difference to a decision: add an item, accept an exclusion, request clarification or defer a feature. You can then negotiate an understood amount instead of reducing a number whose boundaries remain unclear.
Copy the commitment, rather than the heading
Read the verbs in both proposals: design, develop, integrate, configure and train. “Registration management” could mean staff entering names, employees registering themselves, or reviewing, approving and notifying applicants. Do not put all these meanings in one box simply because the headings match.
For each important function, write a short observable outcome and identify its user. Then copy the commitment from each proposal beside it, with its page reference. If no commitment appears, mark it “not clarified”; an absent item is not proof that it is free or excluded. This stops your memory of a presentation replacing the written offer.
An example: an internal course-registration portal
In a fictional example, a company wants to organize employee course registrations. The first proposal includes a request form and an administrator list. The second adds manager approval, notification integration and migration of previous records. The difference extends beyond screen count into approvals, data and external services.
The company may decide that manager approval is unnecessary for the first phase. That is a deliberate scope reduction, rather than evidence that the second proposal is overpriced. Alternatively, historical registrations may be essential on launch day. Excluding their migration then becomes a difference to price or assign to an internal team with enough time and capability.
| Required outcome | What the fictional proposals say | Clarification that closes the difference |
|---|---|---|
| Employee self-registration | The first mentions a form; the second mentions an account and request history. | Will employees sign in to track status, or receive confirmation only? |
| Manager approval | Not clarified in the first, included in the second. | Add the scope or record its exclusion and accept the operational effect. |
| Previous registration records | The first uploads a prepared file; the second prepares and reconciles a sample. | Who cleans the file, and which records will be checked? |
| Notifications | The second includes integration, without identifying the messaging provider's costs. | Separate integration fees from the provider subscription and usage. |
| Operational handover | Both mention deployment without details. | Identify accounts, environment, documentation and post-launch responsibility. |
This table demonstrates a comparison method. It does not describe Nextwave proposals or an actual quotation. Both offers could be valid under different assumptions; the buyer needs to expose the assumption that fits the business.
Use four states instead of a single included checkbox
Classify each item as included within written limits, dependent on a customer input, explicitly excluded, or not clarified. Write the boundary beside its state. “Data migration” without file types or a review owner remains incomplete, even with a tick beside it.
Do not automatically award points to the longer proposal. A short offer may be more precise if it refers to a clear scope appendix. What matters is that you and the provider can locate the same commitment without a different spoken interpretation in each meeting.
Separate a fixed amount from a calculation method
Does the total buy defined deliverables, estimate working hours, or cap only an initial phase? A discovery-stage price cannot be compared directly with a complete build. For hourly work, ask how time is approved, how progress is reported and what happens as the agreed budget approaches.
The UK government's agile contracting guidance discusses how pricing models relate to scope maturity. We use that principle to read proposals, without applying British procurement rules to contracts in Egypt or the Gulf. No pricing model removes the need to define the delivery and its review.
Record setup and operating costs separately
Make a short list covering hosting, domain, licences, paid services and support. For each item, record who pays, who owns the account, when billing starts and what could change consumption. Do not invent estimates to make two proposals look equivalent. Request an updated offer or leave the cost explicitly unknown.
Review your own inputs too: content, translation, brand assets, data preparation and design approval. They may never appear on the provider's invoice but still require internal time and decisions. Record when they will be available and how a delay affects sequencing, rather than assuming every delay belongs to one party.
Request a revised version you can decide on
Send the differences to both companies using the same questions. Ask for the answers in a dated proposal or appendix. Establish how a new request after scope approval will be handled and who explains its effect before implementation. Do not reduce the discussion to a number of “free revisions”; correcting a defect in agreed work differs from requesting an additional function.
Finish with a decision sheet showing accepted differences, risks that need closing and deferred work. Do not hide an unexplained material difference inside a combined score. Read the requirements-preparation guide if the original request is unclear, then discuss custom software development against a scope both parties can reference.
Sources and comparison limits
Checked on 3 November 2026: Atlassian's statement-of-work guidance explains deliverables and acceptance criteria, while the agile contracting guide discusses pricing and scope. The difference sheet and example are original buyer guidance, not legal advice or market pricing. The text was prepared with AI assistance and review of its content and sources.
