Compare fixed prices after clarifying the test scope

What outcomes sit behind the amount?

Comparing software proposals requires a shared understanding of expected outcomes alongside price. “Workflow with tests” leaves open which cases are covered and how the delivered function will be assessed.

GOV.UK links acceptance criteria to verifiable outcomes for a user need. For proposal comparison, we suggest naming those outcomes in the scope description already.

Example: the same fixed price, differently described checks

This scenario is entirely fictional. Two suppliers quote the same fixed price for the requested internal approval function.

For every undescribed point, obtain an answer on whether and how it belongs to the agreed scope. Proposal A’s short description does not establish that these cases are excluded or charged separately. Proposal B’s fuller description does not automatically resolve every prerequisite either.

Clarify open prerequisites together

Record outcomes, expected evidence, participation and external dependencies in the same structure. A simulated interface and a demonstrated workflow with a connected system provide different evidence. That difference should be visible in both proposals.

GOV.UK’s discovery guidance recommends understanding user needs and existing constraints early. Our suggestion for comparison is to resolve open questions before selection and document the answers. Also agree how new requirements and changed assumptions will be handled.

Sources

• GOV.UK: Writing user stories

• GOV.UK: How discovery works