One supplier sends a combi oven price of $14,800. Another quotes $17,100. You are about to congratulate the first supplier—until you notice that the stand, water treatment, positioning and commissioning are all somewhere outside that first number.
Compare the price of the same finished job, then decide whether each oven can do it. This guide turns three fictional quotations into a fairer comparison. The cheapest headline loses its lead. The cheapest complete package still has a question to answer.
See the three-quote comparison · Get the comparison worksheets
What exactly are all three suppliers quoting?
Write one short brief before opening the proposals. Otherwise you can spend an afternoon comparing three convincing answers to three different questions.
“We need a commercial combi oven for our busiest dinner service. Please propose the exact model and loading arrangement for our attached batch map, confirm compatibility with our existing GN 1/1 containers, and quote delivery through commissioning with every exclusion identified.”
Attach the menu tasks, simultaneous loads, container dimensions and depths, site photographs, delivery route and available service details. Use the commercial oven batch map to make the workload concrete. A photograph of an old oven and “something similar” leave too much unresolved.
For the example below, assume the operator wants a compatible stand, an agreed starter tray set, suitable water treatment, delivery and positioning, connection to verified ready services, commissioning and an operator handover. All three ovens are new electric proposals. They are fictional packages, not quotations for real models or indications of market pricing.
The $14,800 oven becomes the $18,000 package
All amounts in this example are AUD excluding GST unless stated otherwise. Each line is either priced or explicitly included. “Included” contributes $0 in the arithmetic because its cost is already inside the headline—not because the work is free. An unanswered item must stay unresolved.
| Scope line | Quote A | Quote B | Quote C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quoted headline | $14,800 | $17,100 | $16,200 |
| Compatible stand | Add $900 | Included | Included |
| Agreed starter trays | Add $400 | Included | Add $400 |
| Water-treatment package | Add $700 | Included | Included |
| Delivery and positioning | Add $350 | Included | Included |
| Connection to verified ready services | Add $500 | Add $500 | Add $500 |
| Commissioning and operator handover | Add $350 | Included | Included |
| Additions to headline | $3,200 | $500 | $900 |
| Aligned package subtotal, ex GST | $18,000 | $17,600 | $17,100 |
| Illustrative GST at 10% | $1,800 | $1,760 | $1,710 |
| Package total, including GST | $19,800 | $19,360 | $18,810 |
Scroll the table sideways to see every column.
The arithmetic for A is $14,800 + $900 + $400 + $700 + $350 + $500 + $350 = $18,000 ex GST. B is $17,100 + $500 = $17,600. C is $16,200 + $400 + $500 = $17,100.
A initially appears $2,300 cheaper than B. Once the same scope is counted, A costs $400 more ex GST. That reversal comes entirely from package inclusions; it says nothing about cooking performance or brand quality.
Why Quote C cannot win on price alone
Suppose A and B have documented a suitable loading arrangement for the operator’s essential batch, but C has only listed a nominal tray count. C is $500 cheaper than B ex GST. That saving does not resolve whether the existing deep containers can be loaded with the necessary clearance.
| Essential requirement | A | B | C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exact model and quoted options identified | Confirmed | Confirmed | Confirmed |
| Required container arrangement documented | Confirmed | Confirmed | Unresolved: loaded-tray trial required |
| Site services checked against model documentation | Confirmed for example | Confirmed for example | Confirmed for example |
| Comparable cost position | $400 above B | Lowest confirmed-scope option | $500 below B, conditional |
Scroll the table sideways to see every column.
B is the defensible provisional choice in this example. C becomes a genuine contender if the supplier demonstrates the required arrangement and confirms the price still applies. If that trial fails, remove C from this shortlist; do not compensate for an essential failure with points for cheaper accessories.
A could still justify its premium through a demonstrated capability the brief values. Ask what the extra $400 buys for this kitchen. Without that evidence, “better brand” is a preference rather than a reasoned comparison.
Keep requirements marked confirmed, conditional or failed. A blank cell is conditional. Price ranking starts only after the essential requirements are answered.
The five answers that make a quote comparable
1. Which exact oven and tray arrangement?
Record the full model code, power version, control options, tray format and quoted accessories. UNOX’s Australian range distinguishes several tray formats and gas/electric configurations; “a ten-tray combi” is not a sufficiently precise specification. Link the selected model’s data sheet to your worksheet. Manufacturer range reference.
For the workload, record the actual container depth and food height, occupied positions, required gaps and loads that must finish together. Ask the supplier to confirm the arrangement or demonstrate it with representative food and your containers. A physically fitting pan alone does not prove the required production result.
2. What does installation actually include?
Separate freight to the address, unloading, movement to the final position, assembly, connection, commissioning and removal of packaging. Name the person responsible for each stage. Record access restrictions and whether stairs, lifting equipment or after-hours attendance change the offer.
Have appropriately qualified installers compare the exact model’s installation requirements with the site. List electrical supply, water quality and treatment, water connections, drainage, operating/service clearances and extraction requirements as separate confirmations. A sales worksheet cannot establish compliance or replace model-specific installation documentation.
3. Is the water and cleaning scope complete?
Record the proposed treatment system, what site information supports it, the first consumables supplied and replacement responsibilities. Do not copy a filter choice from another venue. The UNOX CHEFTOP-X/BAKERTOP-X manual treats water treatment, washing, cleaning and maintenance as explicit operating topics; the correct requirements depend on the selected equipment. Manufacturer user manual.
4. What happens at handover—and when it stops working?
Define the commissioning record and operator training deliverables, rather than accepting a tick beside “installation”. Request written model-specific warranty terms and record service contact, geographical coverage, travel charges, callout arrangements and any exclusions. Do not assume a response time or an included maintenance visit. The same UNOX manual directs users to authorised assistance for faults; it does not establish the support terms of your Australian quotation.
5. Which commercial terms remain open?
Record quote version, expiry, payment milestones, estimated delivery, site-ready obligations and what happens if the specified configuration changes. Keep a recurring-cost list for treatment replacements, cleaning products and scheduled servicing. Compare quantities and assumptions before comparing annual totals; a low estimate built from unknown usage is not a reliable saving.
Use the worksheet before requesting the final revision
For your own supplier brief, record menu requirements, matched scope, additions, tax basis and unresolved acceptance evidence. Replace the fictional inputs with actual evidence and leave unresolved decisions visible.
- Write the same required scope against all three suppliers. Identify anything existing that you intend to reuse.
- For each line, enter a status, additional ex-GST amount, evidence reference and responsible party. Leave unknown amounts empty.
- Total the headline plus confirmed additions. List unresolved costs separately; do not hide them inside an estimate.
- Resolve essential performance and site conditions before choosing a preferred quotation.
- Ask the supplier for one revised offer consolidating agreed inclusions, exclusions and final price. Save that version with the worksheet.
Send this request with the marked-up comparison:
“Please revise your offer against the attached scope. Confirm every included line, price each addition, identify exclusions and provide the model documents supporting the loading and site requirements. Please return one consolidated quotation rather than separate email amendments.”
Browse Atlantic Equipment’s commercial combi ovens with this brief beside you. The useful outcome is a shortlist you can explain: suitable for the workload, feasible for the site, and compared on the same supplied scope.
Sources and example boundaries
Manufacturer references checked 18 October 2026: UNOX Australian combi oven range for configuration distinctions; UNOX CHEFTOP-X/BAKERTOP-X user manual, version 2.6 for water/cleaning topics and authorised fault assistance. These references are examples of the documents to request, not a specification for every combi oven.
All supplier letters, prices, inclusions and confirmation statuses in the worked example are invented for comparison training. The 10% GST calculation illustrates the example totals; use the GST treatment stated on your actual quotation. No real supplier, warranty, installation cost, lead time or cooking result is represented.
About this guide
Prepared by Atlantic Equipment. This guide helps commercial kitchen buyers turn differently packaged combi oven quotations into a documented purchasing decision. Its fictional three-quote example separates scope arithmetic from essential loading and site requirements; the worked example preserves both the numbers and the unanswered questions. Manufacturer references support the document checks, while actual suitability, installation scope and support terms must be confirmed for the selected model and venue.
