AKAMRITHESH K
Selected work · anonymised where appropriate

The useful part is rarely the spreadsheet. It is the decision the spreadsheet makes possible.

These examples reflect the kind of work I do across MEP procurement and estimation: make the scope comparable, make the risk visible and make the next move easier to approve.

Commercially sensitive names and project identifiers are intentionally omitted. Figures are shown only where they describe the method, not a confidential project.

Case 01 · Commercial analysis

Making two pipe-system offers genuinely comparable.

Two supplier quotations looked different because they used different product names, fitting descriptions and pipe quantity bases.

  • Rebuilt both offers into a common item structure.
  • Identified that one supplier’s pipe quantities were exactly four times the other’s, indicating a metre-versus-4-metre basis.
  • Mapped equivalent fittings while keeping angle differences and supplier-only items visible.
  • Separated quoted-scope totals from the potential like-for-like comparison.
  • Result: a negotiation-ready comparison showing a potential 7–8% price advantage, subject to technical approval.

Read full case study

Case 02 · Procurement control

Turning open LPO follow-up into a usable payment record.

When fabrication invoices arrive across different delivery periods, the commercial trail can become harder to review than the work itself.

  • Created a structured payment-certificate format for duct-fabrication open LPOs.
  • Kept invoice number, delivery order, approved amount, month and project references together.
  • Added automatic totals and approval blocks so the document could move through review without manual reconstruction.
  • Result: a repeatable control document that supports finance, procurement and project review.
Case 03 · Negotiation preparation

Preparing a negotiation around a benchmark, not a feeling.

When two commercial offers are close enough to create pressure but different enough to create uncertainty, the preparation matters.

  • Established the benchmark equivalent and the gap to the preferred commercial position.
  • Defined an opening request, a target position and a minimum acceptable movement.
  • Separated price arguments from scope, specification and delivery arguments.
  • Prepared the conversation as an exchange of value rather than a request for an unexplained discount.
Case 04 · Estimation discipline

Making the number explain itself.

A rate is easier to defend when its basis, inclusion and uncertainty are visible to the person reviewing it.

  • Use clear line descriptions instead of relying on supplier shorthand.
  • Flag missing rates, quantity mismatches and unit-basis differences before totals are compared.
  • Keep assumptions beside the calculation so the next reviewer does not have to reverse-engineer the logic.
  • Result: a clearer handover between estimation, procurement and project teams.
How I measure useful work: not by how complicated the analysis looks, but by whether a project team can make a better decision with less back-and-forth.
The operating pattern

Every good comparison follows the same discipline.

Preserve the source. Normalize the basis. Label the exceptions. Then recommend the action.

01

Source

Keep the original descriptions, quantities and supplier context available for audit.

02

Normalize

Align units, dimensions and scope before treating two numbers as competitors.

03

Challenge

Ask whether a technical or commercial difference changes what the price means.

04

Recommend

Make the preferred route, the caveats and the next action obvious.

Have a package to review?

Let’s make the comparison cleaner.