Assistive Chair Consultation: How to Compare Two Quotes

Aligning the two offers around the same person is the first step in any assistive chair consultation. If one proposal uses a standard seat and the other a bespoke depth, comparing the totals does not describe the same product.

Standardising the terminology avoids further confusion. “Zero Gravity”, “lift”, “Hi-Lo”, “removable armrest” and “bed” may refer to different movements or equipment; each item must be translated into what actually moves and the activity it makes possible.

Assessing Sollevita means accepting rigorous scrutiny too. The proposal must be legible in terms of measurements, fully-equipped configuration, delivery, training, spare parts and support, without automatically declaring that the most complete offer is the most suitable one.

In brief

• Comparing the total before aligning product and services produces an unreliable decision.
• The measurements must refer to the same person and appear in both quotes.
• The number of motors should be replaced with a list of the movements that are genuinely independent.
• Delivery, assembly, training, returns, warranty and spare parts must be separate line items.
• A qualitative grid helps you frame questions, but it does not crown a winner without proof and documentation.

Anonymise and prepare the documents

Removing unnecessary names, addresses, telephone numbers and health data lets you request a comparison without circulating personal information. The model, specifications and commercial terms, by contrast, must remain legible.

Gathering attachments and datasheets prevents you from assessing only the first page. The warranty, manual, delivery terms and photographs may contain details absent from the main quote.

Writing a single profile of the person prevents each seller from having worked on different figures. Height, weight, width, depth, hours seated, transfers and available space must be the same for both proposals.

Setting three priorities before the comparison keeps the decision centred on the need. A function may be technically superior yet irrelevant to the dominant activity.

First alignment: measurements and configuration

Comparing the usable width requires distinguishing the internal seat from the external footprint. A chair that is wider on the outside may offer the same internal space as a more compact structure.

Comparing the depth requires the usable figure and the method of measurement. “Standard”, “reduced” or “XL” are not enough to understand whether the back will reach the backrest.

Comparing the height means knowing whether the figure is fixed, bespoke or variable through vertical lift. The working height must not be confused with the sit-to-stand function.

Comparing the configuration requires a present/absent list. The functions included in the fully-equipped version must be spelled out and not left under the word “accessories”.

Second alignment: movements and controls

Replacing the number of motors with the axes being controlled makes the comparison more serious. Backrest, footrest, sit-to-stand, vertical lift, tilt-in-space and Push Head must be listed separately.

Checking independence clarifies whether two movements can be adjusted without following a fixed sequence. A high sales figure does not automatically guarantee more control.

Trying the handset shows whether the functions are usable by the actual person. Buttons, symbols, cable, memory and the ability to stop matter as much as the mechanics.

Requesting a continuous video of the movements avoids comparisons based on photographs of final positions. The demonstration must use the quoted configuration and not a different model.

The twelve-row grid

Assigning a rating of “complete, partial, absent, to be clarified” is often more useful than a numerical score. The final value depends on the person’s priority and not on an abstract sum of features.

Adding a “demonstration available” column distinguishes a promise from a demonstration. A function that is documented but not demonstrated calls for a further step.

Including future costs makes battery, spare parts, maintenance and excluded services visible. There is no need to estimate figures that are unavailable: it is enough to ask whether the item exists and how it is priced.

Keeping the grid alongside the quotes creates a decision trail that remains useful even after delivery.

Delivery and training: the part that is often missing

Comparing “delivery included” requires asking where the service ends. Front door, floor, room, assembly, packaging removal and commissioning are different activities.

Checking who will be present at the training avoids a theoretical service. The person, the regular caregiver and a second point of reference may have different needs.

Simulating two real activities makes the training measurable. An hour spent illustrating every function may be less useful than a trial of rising, resting and using the table.

Requesting a delivery report lets you record configuration, checks, instructions and any initial anomalies.

Warranty, returns and support: compare the text, not the heading

Reading the exclusions shows the real extent of the warranty. Improper use, wear, battery, upholstery and call-out charges may follow different rules.

Comparing returns requires timescales, conditions, logistics costs and the treatment of bespoke items. The word “returns” without a procedure cannot be compared.

Checking the support channel indicates whether the seller handles the problem directly or passes it to a third party. Both solutions can work, but responsibility and timescales must be clear.

Asking about spare parts availability and component identification completes the after-sales picture. A component that is available but cannot be fitted in your country may not solve the problem.

First-party case: the lowest quote was not comparable

Copying two offers into the grid can reveal that the cheaper proposal uses a standard seat, excludes assembly and does not specify the armrest. The difference does not necessarily indicate lower quality, but a different package.

Adding the missing services brings the totals closer, or confirms that the customer does not need them. The comparison exists precisely to avoid both the pointless overpayment and the saving that leaves a gap.

Taking the grid to the trial lets you check the most important rows. If the person does not use the Push Head or does not need the trolley, their presence must not decide the purchase on its own.

Documenting the final choice creates a useful, non-aggressive first-party example. The content shows the method, not the names of competitors.

How to recognise a manipulated comparison

Comparing the complete model with another brand’s base version produces an artificial advantage. The equipment must be equivalent before any judgements are formed.

Using a single feature as proof of superiority hides the rest of the system. Capacity, number of motors or warranty do not replace measurement, demonstration and service.

Assigning scores without explaining the person’s priority turns the grid into an advertising message. Every weighting must be justified by a real activity.

Omitting limits and figures still to be confirmed reduces credibility. A serious consultation distinguishes what is documented, what is optional and what has not yet been verified.

Before deciding: three final checks

• Check that both offers use the same measurements and the same usage scenario.
• Trial the priority functions with the actual person and with the caregiver where present.
• Obtain delivery, training, warranty, returns, support and spare parts in writing.
• Distinguish included functions from pre-fittings, accessories or future possibilities.
• Check that the offered configuration matches the rating plate and documentation.
• Choose on the basis of the priority need, not the total number of rows “won”.

Next step

Anonymise the two quotes and copy them into the twelve-row grid, marking each item as “complete, partial, absent or to be clarified”.

Send the grid and the person’s three priorities to the Sollevita team: the consultation can highlight real differences without turning into aggressive comparative advertising.

Essential references

• La Castellana, internal grid for comparing quotes and technically verifying the configuration.
• Regulation (EU) 2017/745: identity, safety, information and documentation of the medical device.
• Commercial and warranty terms applicable to the individual offers and their respective markets.
• Manuals and technical datasheets for the configurations actually quoted.