A useful comparison puts quotations against the same requirement while retaining sources, units, quantities, currency, inclusions and conditions. You can assess AI for extracting and organising those details and highlighting gaps. Selection needs criteria set by your organisation and remains with authorised people, as does any contractual commitment.
Start with what you need to buy
Three quotations can have the same heading and cover different work. One includes delivery and assembly, another lists goods only, and a third quotes per pack. Putting their totals in adjacent columns without explaining those differences creates an unhelpful ranking.
Before reading the prices, write down the requirement: quantity, specification, delivery location, included activities and required timing. Distinguish essential requirements from preferences. An attractive price does not resolve a requirement that has not been met.
CIPS identifies value, quality and reliability among selection criteria and distinguishes value from a low price alone. Your organisation must decide which criteria apply and how much weight they carry. Source: CIPS, supplier selection.
Three fictitious quotations in one currency
This is an illustrative example, not a comparison of real suppliers. The requirement is for 100 chairs to specification S1, delivered and assembled at one site within 20 working days of ordering. All figures are in EUR, excluding tax. No assumed exchange rates, discounts or financing costs are applied.
The fictitious source records below make the table checkable. In an actual project, each reference should open the authorised version of its document.
- Quotation A, QA-11, pages 1–2: 100 S1 chairs at EUR 48.00 each; delivery EUR 200.00; assembly EUR 300.00. Proposed delivery in 15 working days; payment 30 days from invoice; quotation valid for 15 days.
- Quotation B, QB-07, page 1: 100 S1 chairs at EUR 50.00 each, including delivery and assembly. Proposed delivery in 25 working days; payment 30 days from invoice; quotation valid for 30 days.
- Quotation C, QC-03, pages 1–2: 10 packs of 10 S1 chairs at EUR 460.00 per pack; delivery EUR 150.00; assembly excluded and not priced. Estimated delivery in 10 working days, subject to confirmation; payment in advance; quotation validity not stated.
Scroll the table horizontally to read every column.
| Item | A · QA-11 | B · QB-07 | C · QC-03 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparable quantity | 100 units | 100 units | 10 × 10 = 100 units |
| Price per unit | EUR 48.00 | EUR 50.00 | 460 ÷ 10 = EUR 46.00 |
| Goods | 100 × 48 = EUR 4,800.00 | 100 × 50 = EUR 5,000.00 | 10 × 460 = EUR 4,600.00 |
| Delivery | EUR 200.00 | Included in the price | EUR 150.00 |
| Assembly | EUR 300.00 | Included in the price | Excluded; cost unavailable |
| Total of known charges | EUR 5,300.00 | EUR 5,000.00 | EUR 4,750.00; incomplete scope |
| Timing against requirement | 15 days: within the required 20 | 25 days: beyond the required 20 | Estimated 10 days: commitment unconfirmed |
| Payment and validity | 30 days; valid for 15 days | 30 days; valid for 30 days | In advance; validity to be requested |
What you can conclude, and what remains open
A costs EUR 5,300.00 for its stated scope: 4,800 + 200 + 300. B costs EUR 5,000.00 because the services are included; do not add them again. The difference between A and B is EUR 300.00, but B proposes delivery beyond the example's requirement. The responsible person must decide whether that timing is negotiable or essential.
For C, 4,600 + 150 = EUR 4,750.00 is only the sum of known charges. It is not the cost of the full requirement: assembly is missing. Do not estimate it by copying A's EUR 300.00, or treat “excluded” as “free”. Request an updated quotation or separately document how the business would cover that work, using a verified cost.
From the available information, A alone includes the scope and proposes the required timing. That is not enough to select it: quality, contractual terms and reliability still need assessment by the appropriate people. No automatic score completes those checks.
Prepare the comparison without losing the sources
You can assess collection of quotations, extraction of agreed fields and preparation of a comparison draft for delegation. Retain the original document, version, page and passage supporting each item. When a quotation is revised, show which version it replaces.
Where units differ, show both the original figure and its documented conversion. Where currencies differ, keep them separate until an approved rate, date and source are available for comparison; do not rank nominal amounts that are not comparable. Nor should similar descriptions establish technical equivalence between models.
Use clear field states: included, excluded, price stated, information missing or condition awaiting confirmation. “Delivery included” means something different from an empty cell. Likewise, indicative availability is not a confirmed commitment.
Prepare the outstanding questions before selection
The procurement output should include a short list of specific requests. In the example: can B meet the required timing, and on what terms? Can C price assembly, confirm delivery and state quotation validity? For all three, are specification S1 and any support requirements documented in the version awaiting approval?
Answers update the comparison; they do not in themselves authorise an order. Criteria, any weighting, supplier selection and contractual commitments remain with authorised people. Communications to suppliers follow agreed channels and permissions.
Keep the comparison after the purchase
The approved terms support the later comparison of the order, receipt and invoice. This process concerns quotations received from suppliers; preparing quotations for customers follows a different commercial workflow.
To assess delegation, use the first-process preparation guide: one requirement, three anonymised quotations, the desired output and a procurement reviewer. The What Digital Employee can do page describes work with information and defined activities. Access to your records and permissions need to be assessed for the actual case; you do not need to select a new platform before describing the task.