Two suppliers may propose the same interactive screen and quote different totals because they are pricing different work. One may include the content, software, venue test and technician throughout the event. Another may price the device and installation, leaving those items for later. Start by comparing what each proposal promises to deliver, then compare the amounts.
If you have not issued the request yet, use Archv's interactive event activation brief to define the visitor task, venue and operating requirements. This guide begins after the quotes arrive. Its job is to expose differences that a total on the first page cannot show.
Hold one visitor journey constant
Write the same required outcome at the top of both proposals: “A visitor explores three products in Arabic or English, chooses one, and can ask for a follow-up without blocking the next visitor.” Add the venue, event dates and hours, expected busy period, available power/network, and who owns approved product facts and translations. These are example inputs, not a recommended format for every event.
The journey is the unit you are buying. For each bid, trace what happens when a visitor approaches, starts, explores, finishes, leaves and the station resets. A supplier might demonstrate a polished opening animation while leaving the final content, result screen or reset outside the quoted scope. Those omissions affect both visitor experience and delivery cost.
ISO's public summary of ISO 9241-11:2018 says usability is an outcome of use, covers interactive systems and built environments, and does not prescribe a particular evaluation method. For this quote, define the actual visitors, task and venue before accepting a prototype as proof.
Mark each line included, excluded or unclear
Use included only for a written commitment with a deliverable. Use excluded when the supplier explicitly says it is outside the price. Mark silence or a vague phrase such as “full support” unclear. Ask for a written answer; do not price an unclear item as zero or assume it is excluded.
| Scope line | Evidence to request from each supplier |
|---|---|
| Visitor journey and languages | Flow or working sample showing both languages, the result and the reset. |
| Hardware and venue fit | Display, sensor, controller and mounting specification; site assumptions for light, access, power, rigging and network. |
| Content and software | Number of unique screens, media assets, revisions, integrations, and who supplies approved facts and translations. |
| Installation and verification | Build and strike hours, venue test window, person who records faults, and criteria for opening approval. |
| Live operation | Technician or host hours, spares, response contact, authority to pause a broken interaction, and extra-day rate. |
| Data and handover | Test export, destination and fields for any voluntary follow-up; delivered files, licences and future-use permissions. |
The AVIXA public description of its Audiovisual Systems Performance Verification standard says it covers when system elements are verified, how criteria and metrics are determined, and how results are reported. Its public description supports asking for a verification plan. It does not supply the project-specific pass criteria in this table; the buyer and supplier must agree those for the actual installation.
A worked comparison after two bids arrive
The following figures are invented solely to show the comparison method. They are not real quotes, Archv prices, or typical Dubai market rates. Assume a three-day exhibition with one bilingual product explorer, an optional follow-up form exported to a CRM, and a technician present throughout public opening hours.
| Required item | Proposal A | Proposal B |
|---|---|---|
| Quoted total | AED 62,000 | AED 78,000 |
| Arabic and English content adaptation | Explicitly excluded; supplier offers it for AED 8,000 | Included |
| Follow-up form and CRM export | Explicitly excluded; supplier offers it for AED 4,000 | Included |
| Technical cover for all open hours | Opening-day cover only; additional cover quoted at AED 9,000 | Included for all three days |
| Installed test at the actual venue | Unclear | Written rehearsal and test window included |
| Source files and reuse permissions | Unclear | Unclear |
| Price for confirmed common scope | AED 83,000, with two unresolved terms | AED 78,000, with one unresolved term |
The arithmetic for A is 62,000 + 8,000 + 4,000 + 9,000 = AED 83,000. It still is not a final comparable total: A has not confirmed the venue test or reuse terms, and B has not confirmed reuse terms. Request revised written proposals with those answers and the same visitor journey. If one supplier cannot price a required item, keep it in the decision as unresolved, not as a zero-cost assumption.
Price is only one decision. Ask each supplier to show one relevant delivered installation, state what their own team built, identify subcontracted work, and name the people responsible during the event. A case video can show the appearance; a walkthrough of the live operating cycle and a named reference can tell you more about delivery. Decide which differences matter to this event and record why you accepted them.
Attach an opening test to the selected quote
The selected proposal should say what happens before visitors are admitted. For the example above, a short test record could have one row for each of these checks:
- A first-time visitor starts, explores and reaches the intended result in each language without a staff prompt.
- The display and controls remain legible at the real venue's operating light level.
- A completed and an abandoned session each leave a clean start for the next visitor.
- A test follow-up reaches the agreed destination once, with the intended fields, and can be identified for removal after the test.
- The operator demonstrates recovery from a simulated controller or network failure, including what visitors see while the station is unavailable.
Record location, date, device/content version, expected result, observed result, owner and fix date beside each check. These are examples for this hypothetical product explorer, not universal technical tolerances. Archv's guides to venue-light testing, the next-visitor reset, and offline fallback can help shape the relevant checks.
Keep the queue and adjacent walking route in the venue review. The UK Health and Safety Executive's event crowd-risk guidance calls on organizers to assess movement around attractions and site suitability; it is guidance for crowd-risk thinking, not a substitute for the UAE venue's own requirements or approvals.
Choose when the supplier has answered the required scope, priced any missing work, and agreed what the installation must demonstrate before opening. Then both teams can see what the price buys and what still needs a decision.