Three proposals land in your inbox. One prices by the hour, one by the interaction, one by a blended monthly rate. One promises "24/7 support," another "extended coverage," a third doesn't mention hours at all until page nine. On paper, comparing them looks straightforward. In practice, most buyers end up comparing marketing language rather than substance, because each provider structures their proposal to highlight their own strengths and bury their own gaps.
Quick answer: normalise every proposal to the same four dimensions before comparing them: true cost per contact (not the headline rate), SLA commitments measured the same way, governance structure, and what's explicitly excluded. Everything else in a proposal is secondary to these four, and providers count on buyers not doing this work.
Pricing is where proposals differ most in format and most in what they don't say. A provider quoting a lower hourly rate can still end up more expensive per resolved contact if their average handling time is longer or their first-contact resolution rate is lower.
To compare fairly, convert every proposal to a single unit: fully loaded cost per successfully resolved contact. That means taking the quoted rate (per hour, per FTE, per interaction) and dividing by your expected volume and resolution rate, then adding any fees the proposal lists separately: technology licensing, onboarding, training, and management overhead.
What this looks like in practice: Provider A quotes 22 euros per hour with a promised average handling time of 6 minutes, implying roughly 3.7 euros per contact. Provider B quotes 19 euros per hour but with a 9-minute average handling time, implying roughly 2.85 euros per contact, before technology fees which Provider A included and Provider B listed separately at 0.40 euros per contact. Once normalised, Provider B is actually cheaper by around 0.45 euros per contact, the opposite of what the headline hourly rates suggested.
For the full breakdown of what outsourcing genuinely costs and how pricing models differ, see the guide to the real cost of outsourcing.
Two proposals can both promise "85% CSAT" and mean very different things. One might measure CSAT on every interaction; another might survey only a sample, or only interactions the advisor chooses to flag for feedback, which structurally inflates the score.
For every SLA in a proposal, ask three questions: what tool measures it, what sample size or coverage it's based on, and what happens contractually if the provider misses it. A proposal that states "85% CSAT target" with no measurement methodology is not comparable to one that states "85% CSAT, measured via post-interaction survey sent to 100% of contacts, reported monthly, with a service credit applied for two consecutive months of underperformance." The second is a commitment. The first is a marketing claim.
What this looks like in practice: Provider A's proposal lists a 90% CSAT target with no further detail. Provider B lists an 87% CSAT target but specifies full-population measurement and a defined penalty clause. Provider B's lower number is the more trustworthy commitment, because it's actually enforceable and measured on the full population rather than a self-selected sample.
Governance is the section providers write most generically, because it's the hardest to differentiate on paper and the easiest to promise vaguely. Look specifically for named meeting cadences (weekly operational reviews, monthly steering committees), named roles (not just "a dedicated team"), and a described escalation path.
A proposal that says "we provide regular reporting and a dedicated account manager" is telling you nothing verifiable. A proposal that says "weekly operational review with your team, monthly steering committee with joint KPI ownership, named service delivery manager with authority to approve process changes up to an agreed threshold" is telling you exactly how the relationship will run. The level of specificity in this section correlates strongly with how the relationship will actually function after signature.
For the full list of governance-related questions worth asking directly during the evaluation process, see the contact center RFP guide, which covers governance as one of its eight core sections.
The most expensive gaps in an outsourcing engagement are usually the things no proposal mentioned, because both sides assumed they were included. Build a simple exclusion list for every proposal: which channels, languages, hours, and interaction types are explicitly out of scope, and what the process is for handling something that falls outside the defined scope once the contract is live.
What this looks like in practice: Provider A's proposal doesn't mention social media moderation at all. When asked directly, the answer is that it would be a separate quote once live. Provider B's proposal explicitly states social media is out of scope for the base price but includes the incremental cost per month if added. Provider B's proposal is more expensive on paper for equivalent scope, but it removes a source of renegotiation and friction six months into the contract.
Once you've normalised the four dimensions above, build a single table with one row per provider and one column per dimension. Resist the temptation to add every detail from every proposal into this table; the goal is a clean, decision-ready view, not a full transcription of each document.
| Dimension | What to record |
|---|---|
| True cost per contact | Normalised figure, including every listed fee, not the headline rate |
| SLA commitments | Target, measurement method, sample coverage, and penalty clause |
| Governance | Named meeting cadence, named roles, described escalation path |
| Exclusions | Explicitly out-of-scope channels, languages, or interaction types, and their incremental cost |
Every proposal is written to look strong in isolation. The comparison only becomes honest once you force every provider to answer against the same fixed structure, which is exactly why a scorecard and a structured RFP matter more than reading proposals as standalone documents. For the full 25-criteria framework to formalise this comparison, see the 25 criteria for evaluating a provider. To build the RFP that generates comparable proposals in the first place, see the contact center RFP guide.
Convert every proposal to the same unit: fully loaded cost per successfully resolved contact. Take the quoted rate, divide by expected volume and resolution rate, and add every separately listed fee. A lower headline rate can still be more expensive once handling time and hidden fees are included.
Three things: how the metric is measured, what sample or coverage it's based on, and what contractual consequence follows a missed target. A specific, enforceable, full-population commitment at 85% is more trustworthy than a vague, unmeasured claim of 90%.
Look for named meeting cadences, named roles, and a described escalation path. Generic phrases like "dedicated team" or "regular reporting" without specifics usually indicate the relationship will be run informally once the contract starts.
Comparing headline pricing without normalising it, and not building an explicit exclusion list. Both mistakes surface later as unexpected costs or scope disputes rather than at the comparison stage where they're cheap to catch.
Armatis is a European specialist in customer relations and business process outsourcing (BPO), operating across multiple continents with thousands of employees serving companies of all sizes and sectors. The company designs and manages end-to-end customer service operations: multichannel contact centres, complaints handling, technical support, back-office and digitised processes. Backed by integrated technology infrastructure and the ability to adapt to any sectoral and regulatory context, Armatis helps its clients combine operational performance, quality of experience and cost control, wherever they need it.
Contact our teams to discuss your challenges and find out how we can support you
Join the leaders who trust our multilingual and technological expertise.