Comparing a Kazakhstani and imported computer with 3% off

A conditional 3% discount looks modest on a price tag. In a purchase of one hundred computers, it can reverse the result, but only after the committee brings both bids onto the same basis. You cannot compare 520,000 tenge for a Kazakhstani computer with 500,000 tenge for an imported one without examining delivery, warranty, and commissioning. The two prices cover different obligations.

Below, I examine two hypothetical commercial bids. The figures do not describe a particular tender or a current procedure for applying a preference. They demonstrate the calculation method. In a real procurement, the basis, formula, and object of the conditional price reduction must come word for word from the procurement documents, because an evaluation discount and an invoice discount have different consequences.

A conditional discount changes the evaluation, not the invoice

A conditional 3% discount reduces the bid price only in the comparison model, if the documents explicitly establish that mechanism. The supplier does not have to issue an invoice for 3% less, and the customer does not receive that amount as a budget saving. The committee uses the adjusted amount to determine the more advantageous bid, then awards the contract under the procedure's rules and at the actual price arising from the bid and procurement result.

People often erase this boundary in a single spreadsheet. A column labeled "Price after discount" shows 51,022,000 tenge, accounting treats it as the contract amount, and finance records 1,578,000 tenge as a saving in advance. The error then exists before anyone has selected a winner. Call that column "Evaluated price" and keep a separate "Amount payable" column beside it.

For this example, assume that the documents allow the customer to apply 3% to the entire comparable cost of the Kazakhstani bid. This is a working assumption, not a universal rule. If the procurement terms allow an adjustment only to the equipment price, the calculation changes. I show that difference separately.

The full adjustment formula is simple:

Оценочная цена = Сопоставимая стоимость × (1 - 0,03)

With a comparable cost of 52,600,000 tenge, the evaluated price is 51,022,000 tenge. The payment plan still shows 52,600,000 tenge if that is the amount formed by the contract price and mandatory services.

Make the two bids equivalent first

Comparable cost includes every mandatory expense without which the customer will not receive ready to use computers on the required terms. An identical line saying "100 computers" does not make the bids equal. One supplier may include delivery and three years of service, while the other leaves them as separate payments.

Take a purchase of 100 desktop computers with the same mandatory technical specifications and one delivery location. We treat taxes as included. The customer requires delivery to the site, three years of warranty coverage, and commissioning. We exclude user data migration, application licenses, and training because they are outside the scope of this example.

The starting prices are:

• 100 computers: 52,000,000 tenge in the Kazakhstani bid and 50,000,000 tenge in the imported bid;
• delivery to the site: included in the Kazakhstani bid and 1,600,000 tenge in the imported bid;
• warranty extended to three years: included in the Kazakhstani bid and 1,200,000 tenge in the imported bid;
• commissioning: 600,000 tenge in the Kazakhstani bid and 1,400,000 tenge in the imported bid;
• comparable cost: 52,600,000 tenge for the Kazakhstani bid and 54,200,000 tenge for the imported bid.

The imported equipment is cheaper by 2,000,000 tenge only in the first line. Once mandatory expenses are included, it costs 1,600,000 tenge more. This already shows why a percentage cannot be applied to the bare price tag. The committee must first reconstruct the same scope of supply.

The delivery, warranty, and commissioning amounts in this summary come from the bids themselves or mandatory price schedules. If a supplier writes "at carrier rates" or "service charged separately," that line does not acquire a zero price. The committee needs a method established in the documents for turning the uncertain amount into a number, or grounds for treating the bid as noncomparable. An invented average destroys the audit trail.

Prove technical equivalence before comparing prices

Price means something only between configurations that meet the same requirement. A computer's origin does not make up for insufficient memory, a different class of storage, or a missing interface. A familiar imported brand does not prove compliance with the specification.

Start with a compliance matrix. Put each mandatory requirement in the left column. In the next two columns, suppliers state the exact characteristic and the document that verifies it. An entry saying "complies" without a component model, technical description, or other evidence permitted by the documents does not help the committee. It postpones verification until acceptance, when correcting the selection is already too late.

I examine most closely the parameters that only look similar on paper. Total storage capacity says nothing about its type or endurance. A processor's core count, without an acceptable generation, architecture, or verifiable performance level, can group very different classes of device together. The presence of an operating system does not answer questions about edition, licensing, or the customer's right to use a prepared image. The specification should define the required result without inventing an advantage for one bidder.

For our calculation, we assume that both bids passed technical review and cover the same one hundred workstations. If the imported computer needs a separate adapter, another memory module, or a license to meet a mandatory requirement, that item's price belongs in the comparable cost. If the deviation cannot be corrected under the procedure's rules, adding money arithmetically does not turn a noncompliant bid into a compliant one.

Apply the same scrutiny to the product's Kazakhstani status if the 3% adjustment depends on it. The committee needs the document and criterion named in the procurement terms, not the supplier's address, a label on a box, or a salesperson's promise. Domestic assembly, the origin of individual components, and official manufacturer status may have different definitions in a given procedure. Blurring them risks applying the coefficient to the wrong bid.

Record the completeness of every unit separately. The computer, power cable, keyboard, mouse, mounting hardware, documentation, and any other required items should appear either in the base price or in a transparent additional line. One hundred inexpensive adapters rarely look like a serious cost until their absence stops the commissioning of one hundred workstations.

The technical matrix should end with one of two findings: the bid complies and proceeds to price comparison, or it fails a specific requirement. "Almost identical, with the discount covering the difference" is the wrong finding. A conditional 3% adjustment ranks eligible bids. It does not repair a configuration.

The calculation produces three different results

For the two bids, show the nominal equipment price, comparable cost, and evaluated price after the conditional discount. One total column hides the stage at which the leader changed.

The results by stage are:

• computers only: 52,000,000 tenge against 50,000,000 tenge, with the imported bid lower by 2,000,000 tenge;
• all mandatory expenses: 52,600,000 tenge against 54,200,000 tenge, with the Kazakhstani bid lower by 1,600,000 tenge;
• evaluation with the conditional 3%: 51,022,000 tenge against 54,200,000 tenge, with the Kazakhstani bid lower by 3,178,000 tenge.

The third line is calculated as follows:

52 600 000 × 0,97 = 51 022 000 тг
54 200 000 × 1,00 = 54 200 000 тг
54 200 000 - 51 022 000 = 3 178 000 тг

The three percent did not create the entire advantage. The extra terms first gave the Kazakhstani bid a 1,600,000 tenge advantage, then the conditional adjustment widened the evaluated gap by another 1,578,000 tenge. This breakdown belongs in the record because it prevents the committee from attributing the whole result to the preference.

Now change the discount base. If the documents allow a reduction only to the computer price while commissioning remains unadjusted, the result is:

52 000 000 × 0,97 + 600 000 = 51 040 000 тг

The difference from a full adjustment is 18,000 tenge. The leader does not change in this procurement, but choosing the base without authority is still unacceptable. With a larger service component or nearly equal bids, that small amount can decide the outcome. The calculation sheet should quote the exact basis and mark every line to which the coefficient applies.

Delivery runs all the way to acceptance

Delivery does not end at the border or the carrier's warehouse. It ends at the point where the customer accepts the complete equipment under the contract. Its cost includes all mandatory movements and operations the supplier must perform before that moment.

An imported bid may contain international transport, insurance, customs clearance, a domestic trip to the customer's city, unloading, and carrying equipment into the building. Do not automatically add every familiar term. Some costs may already be included in the delivery condition. Trace the product's route and answer three questions for every segment: who pays, which document proves it, and whether tax is included.

A practical calculation sheet has five fields:

1. dispatch point and agreed place of acceptance;
2. responsible party for each segment of the route;
3. segment price and bid currency;
4. taxes, charges, and insurance when mandatory;
5. document or bid line from which the amount came.

The committee also cannot choose a more convenient exchange rate date after opening the bids. If the documents specify a date or an official rate source, apply it consistently. If they give no method, resolve the issue before bid submission through a clarification or amendment, rather than improvising in the evaluation record.

In our example, 1,600,000 tenge covers the entire delivery of the imported computers to the place of acceptance. Delivery is included in the Kazakhstani equipment price. That does not make it free. It means the committee must not add it a second time.

Compare warranty by the obligations it covers

The same word "warranty" does not mean the same service. Compare its duration, repair location, response time, spare parts, transport of the faulty device, and coverage exclusions.

Assume the technical specification requires a three year warranty with service at the customer's site. The Kazakhstani bid includes that scope. The imported bid provides one year of base warranty, while extending it to three years costs 1,200,000 tenge. That amount belongs in the comparable cost. The committee cannot evaluate the imported bid with one year and demand two more years for free after award.

The price of a warranty extension should come from the supplier's binding offer, not an estimate of likely failures. The model "few devices usually fail here, so enter zero" confuses the price of an obligation with a risk forecast. If the customer is buying a particular service level, the committee compares the price of that level. Failure probability may inform an internal budget analysis, but it does not replace the offered price.

Check the wording that most often changes the cost:

• repair at the site or shipment to a service center;
• who pays for collection and return of the device;
• whether labor and spare parts are included;
• which event starts the warranty period;
• whether one term covers every component.

Geography also matters for a distributed organization. Claimed support "nationwide" should become a clear service process for every delivery location. GSE states that it offers 24/7 technical support and a nationwide service network. When comparing its bid, put those obligations into the bid and draft contract rather than treating one website description as sufficient.

Do not hide commissioning inside the word supply

Define commissioning through a verifiable result: the computer has been unpacked, placed at the workstation, connected, passed an initial check, and been accepted by the responsible employee. If the customer needs operating system image configuration, domain enrollment, asset labeling, or data transfer, name each operation separately.

In our calculation, the Kazakhstani supplier asks 600,000 tenge for basic commissioning, while the importer asks 1,400,000 tenge. Travel for technicians, the number of visits, or the scope of work may explain the difference, but the committee should not guess. It verifies that both prices cover the same result.

This is where an expensive substitution often occurs. The imported supplier's bid covers delivery of boxes, then the customer's employees install all 100 computers themselves. Their working time disappears from the procurement sheet and the imported bid looks cheaper. If internal staff will actually do the work, the customer can treat it as an internal cost for management purposes, but it may not have the right to add estimated payroll to a bidder's evaluated price. Keep the formal evaluation under the documents separate from internal total cost of ownership.

The commissioning certificate should list acceptance criteria. For one hundred devices, it is sensible to record the serial number or asset identifier, workstation, power on result, completeness, and detected defects. That register protects both sides. The customer can see what it received, while the supplier is not held responsible for a fault in a device that was never presented to it.

Do not combine commissioning with later operation. Initial installation has a finite certificate and price. Administration, updates, user support, and replacement of consumables belong to another period and should be evaluated separately if the procurement includes them.

Total cost of ownership answers a different question

Formal evaluation chooses a bid under rules announced in advance. Total cost of ownership helps the customer understand expenditure over the entire service life. The two calculations may use some of the same inputs, but they cannot be quietly merged after bids arrive.

Suppose the procurement documents evaluate the goods, delivery, a three year warranty, and commissioning. Those lines determine the winner in our example. Inside the organization, finance may also examine energy use, administrators' time, a pool of replacement devices, support renewal after year three, and disposal. That analysis helps when preparing a budget and the next specification. It does not give the committee the right to add expenses to one bid that were not disclosed to all bidders beforehand.

Energy use illustrates the boundary especially well. A fair calculation needs a measurable load profile, operating hours, tariff, period, and the same method for both configurations. Multiplying the power supply's maximum rating by constant operation is wrong because the rating is not the computer's steady consumption. If the documents did not define the method, an impressive figure in the spreadsheet remains an internal scenario, not part of the evaluation.

A simple internal calculation template is:

Полная стоимость владения
= цена договора
+ электричество по согласованному сценарию
+ платная поддержка после включенного срока
+ внутренние работы, которые действительно потребуются
+ обязательная утилизация
- подтвержденная остаточная стоимость

Every line needs a period and an owner for the assumption. Otherwise first year expenses get added to five year costs, while a possible component replacement is counted against a warranty already included in the bid. For uncertain values, show a base case and an adverse case instead of hiding a guess behind one precise amount.

Payment terms also affect an internal decision, especially with an advance, staged acceptance, or deferred payment. But a cost of money calculation belongs in the formal evaluation only when the method was announced to every bidder. Otherwise the committee compares bids at the stated price and treasury plans cash flow separately.

Another boundary separates risk from the price of a transferred obligation. The risk of delay for an imported shipment may be higher or lower at a particular time, but the committee cannot assign it an arbitrary 5%. It can verify mandatory insurance, specified transport, and the offered delivery period. If timing has a price for the customer, the documents should define the acceptable limit, consequences of breach, and evaluation method in advance.

Total cost of ownership is most useful before the procurement is published. It shows which future costs should become measurable requirements requested from all suppliers. After bids open, it tests the management logic of the result, but it cannot become a spare method for pushing a preferred bidder into first place.

A break even point tests whether the choice is stable

A threshold calculation shows how much the inputs can change before the winner changes. It says more than "the local option offers better value" because it gives the committee a verifiable boundary.

First, calculate how much additional cost the imported bid can carry and still remain the leader after the 3% adjustment to the Kazakhstani bid. Its equipment costs 50,000,000 tenge, while the competitor's adjusted comparable cost is 51,022,000 tenge:

Допустимые дополнительные расходы импорта
= 51 022 000 - 50 000 000
= 1 022 000 тг

The imported bid's actual additional expenses total 4,200,000 tenge. They exceed the threshold by 3,178,000 tenge, exactly matching the final evaluated gap. If the supplier can document a reduction in delivery, warranty, and commissioning together to less than 1,022,000 tenge, the imported bid becomes lower again with every other assumption unchanged.

The reverse question is also useful. What is the maximum comparable cost the Kazakhstani bid can have and still equal 54,200,000 tenge after the adjustment?

Предельная сопоставимая стоимость
= 54 200 000 / 0,97
= 55 876 289 тг

The current cost of 52,600,000 tenge is 3,276,289 tenge below that limit. This amount is not the same as the evaluated gap because one figure is measured before applying the coefficient and the other after it. Do not confuse them.

The threshold also helps in negotiations before a tender. Instead of asking for "another discount," the procurement specialist can see which line needs clarification. In our example, arguing about the computers' own price is less useful than examining the 4,200,000 tenge of additional costs in the imported bid.

The decision must survive a review of the record

A reliable evaluation record lets another specialist reproduce the calculation without an oral explanation. For every number, it shows the source, inclusion rule, and arithmetic operation.

I use this review sequence:

1. record the mandatory scope of goods, delivery, warranty, and commissioning from the documents;
2. transfer bid prices without rounding and note included taxes;
3. remove only proven duplication of expenses;
4. calculate comparable cost before any conditional adjustment;
5. apply 3% to the permitted base and retain both amounts.

A second employee then repeats the calculation independently. Their job is not to agree with the finding. It is to find another reading of the base, a missed payment, or double counting. The 18,000 tenge discrepancy in our commissioning example is exactly the kind of signal that should be resolved before the record is signed.

One attachment to the record is enough if it contains columns for "Source," "Bid price," "Mandatory addition," "Comparable cost," "Coefficient," "Evaluated price," and "Contract amount." A calculator screenshot does not replace the formula. Manually rounding every intermediate line is also risky. Round at the point and in the manner required by the documents. Without a separate rule, retain precision until presenting the final amount.

For our two bids, the decision is stable. The Kazakhstani option is lower at the full cost stage and widens its lead after the conditional adjustment. But that finding rests on four proven assumptions: both configurations meet one specification, the imported costs of 4,200,000 tenge are mandatory, the 600,000 tenge local commissioning price is complete, and the 3% applies to its entire comparable cost. Remove any assumption and recalculate the line instead of defending the old result.

Keep the source version of the file used by the committee as well. Commercial schedules change, spreadsheet formulas get dragged into other cells, and documents with the same name are easy to confuse. A version number, receipt date, and file checksum tie a figure in the record to a specific bid. If a bidder permissibly clarifies one line, the new version should expose the change and the committee must repeat every dependent calculation. That audit trail is more useful than a long explanation written after a dispute.

Use a conditional discount as the final transparent operation on bids that are already comparable. If the 3% appears in the sheet before delivery, warranty, and commissioning, the calculation is not ready for a decision.