Re: Acceptable time from walk-thru to quotation delivery

["Roland Moore" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I'm working on an Excel spreadsheet that will do that with drop-down
>boxes, etc...

Why re-invent the wheel. AMAG has such a spreadsheet already. If you get a
log in to their partner site you can get a copy.

"Cam-man" <none@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tfgju2h5t34cbhvhns8uo1vst3d32nge9n@xxxxxxxxxx
> Robert L Bass inspired greatness with:
>
>>That's true, but it doesn't always hold.  Although the client may say he's
>>in no hurry, the first bidder frequently has at least a
>>slight edge over someone whose bid comes in a few days later.  Formal
>>government bids are all opened at the same time, regardless
>>when they arrive so those aren't as sensitive, but most other clients
>>appreciate a quick response.
>
> True.
>
>
>>
>>The OP might want to develop an electronic "cheat sheet" with prices of
>>his most often-used hardware along with prices for average
>>wire runs.  That will allow him to give a rough, verbal estimate on the
>>spot which he should clearly state is only a rough
>>"guestimate".  Explain that he'll need to work on a precise bid but that
>>the figures should be within n% of the given amount.  That
>>way if an eager competitor comes in quickly with a perhaps more costly bid
>>the client is likely to wait a few days for the formal
>>proposal.
>
> I'm working on an Excel spreadsheet that will do that with drop-down
> boxes, etc...
>
>>
>>As to the maximum time, there's really no good rule of thumb for all
>>clients.  However, I've found that about half of all bids are
>>lost if I can't get out a reply in 5 days.  After a week, around 80% are
>>lost.  When I can bid within 2-3 days of the walk-through
>>or in the case of online sales (since I no longer do on-premises sales)
>>within 1 day I can close roughly 40% of the time.  Due to
>>pricing and presentation, these percentages are not likely to apply to
>>most installing dealers.  There will be a correlative
>>difference in sales -- just not on the same scale.
>
>
> Thanks.
>