Put the Offers on the Same Basis
The lowest unit price may exclude delivery, require more repairs or arrive after the work needs it. Compare compliant offers against the criteria communicated to suppliers, using the same quantity, period, tax assumptions and scope. Explain missing facts rather than assigning them a convenient zero.
This original fictional case continues the 40-box purchase specification. All boxes have passed the stated model/fit checks. All 40 complete boxes must arrive within ten calendar days after order. The organization has communicated that compliant delivery, purchase cost and evidenced maintenance requirements will inform selection. Its actual authorized purchasing role must still approve a commitment.
Calculate Acquisition Cost
All amounts are fictional USD. For this arithmetic exercise only, the applicable nonrecoverable tax is exactly 10% of goods plus delivery, with no exemption or other charge. Real tax, import and currency treatment need confirmation from the responsible owner.
| Cost or Evidence | Offer A | Offer B | Offer C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit price × 40 | 18 × 40 = 720 | 20 × 40 = 800 | 17 × 40 = 680 |
| Delivery charge | 80 | 0 | 100 |
| Tax base | 800 | 800 | 780 |
| Tax at 10% | 80 | 80 | 78 |
| Acquisition Total | 880 | 880 | 858 |
| Delivery statement | Day 8, stock not yet confirmed | All 40 on day 9, dated stock confirmation supplied | Day 14 |
Offer C has the lowest acquisition cost, but its offered delivery does not meet the ten-day requirement. Do not invent a low monetary penalty to make a missed essential deadline appear equivalent. The purchasing owner must resolve noncompliance under the stated process. If the need has genuinely changed, revise it transparently for all affected bidders rather than make an undisclosed exception for C.
Extend the View Without Pretending to Predict the Future
Suppose the organization considers three years of use. Its illustrative planning scenario allows for replacement lids based on expected handling and quoted spare availability. These amounts are assumptions, not failure-rate evidence or supplier guarantees. For this exercise they are already tax-inclusive: A 120, B 60 and C 180 USD. Collection/disposal at the end is estimated at 20 USD for each. No discounting, resale proceeds, financing, storage charge or other maintenance cost is included; the owner must check whether any are material in real use.
| Three-Year Scenario | A | B | C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquisition | 880 | 880 | 858 |
| Replacement-lid assumption | 120 | 60 | 180 |
| End-of-use collection/disposal | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Undiscounted Scenario Total | 1,020 | 960 | 1,058 |
B's scenario total is 60 USD below A's, although their acquisition totals are equal. C remains late; its scenario total does not cure that defect. The comparison explains a possible maintenance consequence, not an exact forecast of costs that will occur.
Test the Recommendation Against Uncertainty
If B's replacement-lid allowance rises from 60 to 120, B's scenario total becomes 1,020, equal to A's. The apparent cost advantage disappears. Check whether compatible spares are actually available, what the quotes cover, and whether the need could be served without owning the boxes for three years. Do not use a precise-looking total to conceal a weak assumption.
Before recommending B in this case, verify the stock confirmation, delivery terms, quoted model, conflict declarations and approval route. For A, obtain stock evidence; a delivery date unsupported by stock may be less dependable than it sounds. A dated confirmation is still not proof of future delivery. Plan how delays or shortages will be noticed and handled.
Record a Bounded Recommendation
The fictional buyer recommends B because its documented delivery meets the deadline, acquisition cost equals A's, and the stated maintenance scenario is lower. Approval remains pending the organization's required supplier, conflict, budget and contract checks. If the maintenance evidence weakens, retain the sensitivity result and explain the remaining delivery/fit reasons rather than calling B cheapest in all circumstances.
Do not change scoring weights after opening offers, convert every risk into an invented price, or assume the most expensive option is safest. Keep the comparison, source quotations and authorized decision together. Use the delivery and invoice guide if the selected supplier's actual performance differs.
Sources and Scope
UNICEF's sustainable procurement procedure, effective August 21, 2023, paragraphs 7.3 and 12.1-12.4, discusses lifecycle and landed-cost approaches. Its supplier page describes best value and fair competition. Neither source establishes this exercise's tax rate, delivery requirement, maintenance forecast or NGO purchasing authority. All offers and calculations are original fictional teaching material.