Published by LANDOVA Design & Planning. October 16, 2026.
Two proposals arrive for the backyard you have been planning. One appears simpler and the other includes more detail. Before comparing their totals, you need to know whether they describe the same project.
This worked example uses entirely fictional proposals, providers, and design documents. It includes no real contractor pricing or performance claims. The comparison deliberately uses scope instead of invented dollar amounts so the reasoning remains visible.
Establish the reference project
The fictional homeowner's current design is Revision 2. It includes a dining patio with selected surface S1, a connecting path, planting schedule P2, and a lighting concept whose final equipment still needs selection.
Provider A references Revision 2. Provider B references Revision 1. That difference is the first question, before either total can be treated as comparable.
The FTC advises obtaining multiple written estimates that describe the work, materials, completion date, and price. For this exercise, the first task is to align the work being described.
Read the words that are actually present
The homeowner copies the relevant scope statements into a comparison, preserving their meaning. Included, excluded, allowance, and not stated remain separate statuses.
| Scope item | Fictional Provider A | Fictional Provider B | Comparison action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design basis | Revision 2 | Revision 1 | Ask B to review Revision 2 |
| Patio surface | Selected surface S1 included | Surface allowance; selection not named | Confirm B's proposed selection and pricing basis |
| Connecting path | Included as shown in Revision 2 | Included; path matches Revision 2 | Confirm same quantities and specification |
| Lighting | Named fixtures included; installation excluded | Allowance; installation not stated | Clarify equipment and installation separately |
| Planting | Schedule P2 included | Planting excluded | Identify how omitted planting will be provided |
| Restoration | Not stated | Described work area included | Ask A for its restoration scope |
The table does not turn unanswered questions into defects. It shows where the proposals align, where they differ, and where the homeowner needs more information.
Resolve the design version first
Provider B receives the current revision with a request to identify any changes to its proposal. The homeowner does not assume that an older reference means B overlooked the revision intentionally.
If B confirms a revised basis, the comparison records the new proposal version and date. If the response remains incomplete, that row stays open.
This step matters because later comparisons depend on the baseline. A detailed product discussion cannot establish equal scope while the proposals refer to different arrangements.
Separate an allowance from a selected item
The patio row contains a named selection in A and an allowance in B. The homeowner asks B what the allowance covers, which selection it assumes, and what remains to be determined.
For lighting, both proposals need further organization. A names fixtures but excludes installation. B provides an allowance without clearly describing installation. Neither entry should be summarized simply as “lighting included.”
The homeowner asks for equipment and installation to be described separately and for the relevant provider to confirm how that work would be coordinated. A label in a comparison sheet cannot assign responsibility on its own.
Keep excluded and unstated work distinct
B explicitly excludes planting. That is known information, not a reason to accuse the proposal of hiding it. The homeowner must determine whether another scope will provide the planting or whether B should price a revised inclusion.
A's restoration scope is unstated. The appropriate action is a question, not an automatic assumption that restoration is excluded or included. Ask what work areas and conditions its response covers.
When a clarification arrives, retain it with the proposal. Update the status only as far as the answer supports. “Restoration included” may still need a description of what restoration means for the actual project.
Recompare without filling blanks with zero
After written responses, review the normalized scope and identify any remaining differences. If an item will be handled separately, show it as a separate responsibility with pricing pending until known.
Do not manufacture a comparison total by assigning zero to missing work or guessing a market price. Equally, do not assume the more detailed proposal is automatically better. The homeowner needs enough information to evaluate the actual scope, relevant provider qualifications, and fit for the project.
This exercise ends with clearer questions rather than a fictional winning bidder. That is the useful first outcome: a comparison that explains what each proposal says and what the household must resolve before deciding.
Bring the current design, both proposals, and the unanswered rows to your next planning conversation.
