01 / BASIS
Pipe quantity
The pipe quantities were exactly 4× on one offer, indicating a metre-versus-4-metre pipe basis.
Case study 01 · Commercial analysis
Making two pipe-system quotations genuinely comparable.
The challenge was not adding two totals. It was understanding why the totals looked different, then building a comparison that a technical and commercial team could actually trust.
Supplier names, project identifiers and confidential commercial details are intentionally anonymised. The method and observations reflect the underlying comparison workflow.
“Before negotiating the price, make sure you know what each supplier is actually pricing.”Comparison principle
Scope first. Rate second.
The situation
Two offers. Different language. Different quantity basis.
Two supplier quotations covered a low-noise pipe and fittings package. At first glance, one quotation appeared materially higher. A closer review showed that the offers were not presented on the same basis.
One supplier used product descriptions such as “silent pipe without socket” and priced the pipe quantities at four times the other quotation. The fittings also used different terminology: “Y branch” versus “Yee”, “socket/coupler” versus “socket”, and 87° elbows versus 90° elbows.
The first job was to avoid a false conclusion.
The problem to solve
Separate scope movement from price movement.
A direct comparison of supplier totals would have mixed together at least four different issues.
02 / GEOMETRY
Elbow angle
One offer listed 90° elbows while the other listed 87° elbows — potentially comparable, but not automatically identical.
03 / SCOPE
Extra items
One quotation included reductions, blind caps, clean outs, additional Y branches and connectors outside the other quoted scope.
04 / LANGUAGE
Terminology
Yee, Y branch, reducing Yee and socket/coupler needed to be mapped by dimensions rather than name alone.
The method
Build the comparison so another person can challenge it.
The workbook kept the original source rows intact and created a separate normalized comparison view.
01
Preserve
Copied every quoted line into a raw supplier sheet without rewriting the original descriptions.
02
Map
Created a canonical item structure with size, category, quantity, unit price and equivalence status.
03
Normalize
Applied the editable 4.0 m pipe factor and used the Astral quoted quantities as the baseline.
04
Separate
Reported potential and strict comparisons while keeping supplier-only items outside the core total.
What the analysis showed
A lower potential price — with conditions attached.
After applying the apparent pipe quantity-basis conversion and mapping the comparable line items, the normalized supplier position was lower than the Astral baseline.
30 linesMapped from the detailed Astral quotation to equivalent Vesbo price lines.
4.0 m factorUsed for pipe normalization because every Vesbo pipe quantity was exactly four times Astral’s.
7–8% potentialIndicated price advantage depending on whether the 87°/90° elbow mapping is accepted.
Technical gateAngle, product standard, wall class and final UOM still require confirmation.
Before award
The questions that protect the recommendation.
The comparison is decision support, not a substitute for technical and commercial confirmation.
Verify the basis01
Are the pipes priced per metre or per 4-metre length?
Confirm the physical length, unit of measure and packing basis on the supplier offer.
Verify equivalence02
Are 87° and 90° elbows acceptable for the design?
Obtain technical datasheets and approval before including the angle-variance saving in an award recommendation.
Verify scope03
Which supplier-only accessories are actually required?
Reconcile reductions, blind caps, clean outs, branches and connectors against the approved BOQ.
Verify terms04
Are VAT, delivery, validity and payment terms aligned?
A price advantage can disappear if the commercial conditions are not compared on the same basis.
A package worth reviewing?