EstiWrightScenario

Scenario: comparing three subcontractor quotes

Three cabling quotes, three scopes. Normalise them and compare on total cost, not the sticker price.

Three cabling subcontractors quote the ICT package at three different numbers — here's why you normalise scope before you compare, and how the cheapest sticker becomes the dearest quote. Related demos: Scenario: pricing an ELV package for a tower and Scenario: repricing a mid-project variation.

You send the ICT structured-cabling package to three subcontractors. The quotes come back at three prices — but they're not quoting the same thing. Compare the stickers and you'll pick the one that simply left the most out.

The quotes, as received

SubcontractorQuoteNotable exclusion
CableCoAED 288,000Excludes containment
MeshLinkAED 305,000Excludes testing & cert
GridWorksAED 322,000Full scope

Normalise to one scope

Add back what each one excluded — priced from your own catalog — so all three cover identical work. Now the comparison is real.

SubcontractorStickerAdd backNormalised
CableCoAED 288,000+46,000 containmentAED 334,000
MeshLinkAED 305,000+15,000 testing & certAED 320,000
GridWorksAED 322,000— full scopeAED 322,000

The order flips

On the sticker, CableCo looked AED 34k cheaper than GridWorks. On like-for-like scope, it's AED 12k dearer — its low number was an exclusion, not a saving. MeshLink is the genuine best value, and GridWorks a close, fully-scoped second.

A quote you haven't normalised isn't a price, it's a puzzle. Level the scope first and the cheapest sticker often turns out to be the most expensive way to buy the job.

Normalising subcontractor scope against your own take-off, so you compare on total cost, is what EstiWright makes routine.

this is EstiWright

It's in the works.

EstiWright is in development — join the waitlist for early access.