Disc Quote Comparison

---
name: disc-quote-comparison
description: Builds a like-for-like comparison of your scope and a cheaper quote, line by line, with what each includes and leaves out, the risks the client carries in each, and neutral questions to ask the other firm. Use for "run disc-quote-comparison", "we lost on price to an AI-first firm", "they quoted a tenth of ours", "compare my quote with theirs", "the client has a cheaper quote", "level these two bids", "is their quote the same scope as mine", part of the Claude for Winning Proposals Pack by Polar Bear.
---

# Like-for-Like Quote Comparison

## When To Use
You lost on price to a firm quoting a tenth of yours with AI, or the client just put that quote on the table. Use this to see whether the two quotes buy the same thing, and to give the client a fair way to tell.

## When Not To Use
If you do not have the other quote, or only a number, there is nothing to level; use the Objection Handling Map for the price objection. If the scope is agreed and the talk is now about your price and terms, use the Negotiation Plan.

## Inputs
- Your proposal or scope, with deliverables, timeline and terms
- The other quote as the client shared it, or the parts the client told you (mark which)
- Anything the client said about why the cheaper quote appeals
If you have none of this, I start from your scope alone, build the empty grid and mark it as a first draft for when the other quote arrives.

## Approach
Bid levelling is a procurement practice: before comparing prices, put every quote into the same line items so like is compared with like. The Harvard Program on Negotiation makes the same point about offers (pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/translate-your-batna-to-the-current-deal/): compare like for like and look past price to terms. The failure this prevents is the bitter comparison that hints the rival cuts corners; the client hears sour grapes and stops listening. Works in any chat.

## Workflow
1. Ask at most three questions: may you use the other quote (did the client share it to be compared), which version of your scope it competes with, and what the client said matters most.
2. Normalise both quotes into the same lines: deliverables, acceptance criteria, timeline, number of revisions, who does what on the client side, ownership of the work, support after delivery, price and payment terms. Add lines either quote names. Where a quote is silent, write "not stated", never a guess.
3. Per line, mark included in yours, included in theirs, and the risk the client carries if the line is missing. Write the risk as a consequence for the client, not a judgment of the other firm.
4. Check your own quote just as hard. If yours is silent or vague on a line, mark it; that is your fix, not theirs.
5. Draft neutral questions the client could ask the other firm, useful to the client whichever firm wins: "who reviews the output before it reaches us?", "what happens if the first version misses?".
6. Lay out your options: tighten your scope to match theirs and reprice it, offer a smaller option, or let it go with a gracious note. You choose; I never propose a price.

## Output Format
```markdown
# Like-for-Like Quote Comparison
**Quotes compared:** [your proposal, date] and [other quote, as shared by the client, date]
## Line by line
| Line | Your quote | Their quote | Risk the client carries if missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| [deliverable / acceptance / timeline / revisions / ownership / support / price] | [included / not stated / detail] | [included / not stated / detail] | [consequence for the client] |
## Gaps in your own quote
- [line where yours is silent or vague, and the fix]
## Questions the client could ask either firm
1. [neutral question]
## Your options
| Option | What changes | What it costs you |
|---|---|---|
| Match scope and reprice | [lines removed] | [your figure] |
| Smaller option | [what is in it] | [your figure] |
| Let it go | [the note you send] | [none] |
## Decision
[You decide by [date] which option to take, before you reply to [client contact].]
```

## Done When
- Both quotes sit in the same line items, with "not stated" wherever a quote is silent
- Every risk is written as a consequence for the client, never as a comment on the other firm
- Your own gaps are listed
- The questions would help the client even if the other firm wins

## Quality Bar
- Only facts from the two documents or what the client told you, marked as such
- No guesses about the other firm's methods, tools, people or quality
- A cheaper quote using AI is not a flaw in itself; say so if the client asks
- Never share the other quote beyond the client who gave it to you
- Facts from both documents only; the rival is never disparaged.

## Next
Run disc-objection-handling (Objection Handling Map) to prepare for the other objections.

## About the makers

This pack is made by Polar Bear, a consultancy built by ex-McKinsey founders with a dream to make AI work for People, not instead of them. We help our clients build people systems and AI-first ways of working, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).