Independent reviewers need to reconstruct a proposal's cost logic. FFI's Norwegian study shows why scope, assumptions and change history deserve as much attention as the headline price.
Norway's FFI reported on 18 June 2026 that external quality reviewers generally assessed more uncertainty in defence investment cost estimates than the projects themselves. Its underlying study examined review reports for equipment, building and infrastructure projects from 2019 to 2025. Weaknesses included documentation, measurable objectives and aspects of project organisation. FFI's Norwegian-language summary
For suppliers, this is a reminder that a price rarely travels alone through an investment decision. A programme team may need to defend its estimate to finance staff, independent reviewers and decision-makers who were absent from the original supplier discussions. Those readers need to understand what has been priced and what could change it.
The commercial value of a well-documented proposal is therefore broader than avoiding arithmetic errors. It can reduce the effort required to compare alternatives, approve a realistic scope and manage changes after work begins.
FFI's report, numbered 26/024, examines external quality assurance within Norway's state project model. It addresses both concept selection and the subsequent project preparation stage. Its public material identifies shortcomings in explaining cost assumptions and calculations, defining verifiable objectives and recording changes, responsibilities and expected benefits. FFI's report description
These findings should not be read as a claim that every supplier estimate was wrong. The research examines project decision material and external reviews. A government investment estimate can include costs and uncertainties that no individual contractor controls.
That distinction changes how a supplier should respond. Offering a more polished sales document does little if the buyer still cannot reconcile the proposed scope with its wider project. The useful contribution is a clear account of the supplier's part of the estimate and its dependencies on other parties.
The US Government Accountability Office's March 2020 cost guide describes a structured estimating process covering purpose and scope, technical baseline, work breakdown, assumptions, data, methods, sensitivity and risk analysis, documentation and updates using actual costs. It applies these practices beyond weapons programmes, including software, infrastructure and other public investments. GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide
This is a methodological comparison, not a statement that a Norwegian supplier must follow US guidance. Together, the sources point towards a practical commercial discipline: another competent person should be able to reconstruct why the estimate has its stated value.
A spreadsheet containing a total and a contingency percentage is not necessarily enough. The reader needs the configuration, delivery schedule and assumptions that make those numbers meaningful.
Consider a hypothetical supplier proposing a sensor-data management service for several customer sites. Its base price covers a supported software release, installation at an agreed number of sites, a defined data volume and business-hours support. The customer's project may also require network changes, archive migration, operator training and a longer support window.
If those boundaries remain implicit, two apparently comparable offers can price different products. A lower number may exclude work included elsewhere. The comparison becomes more useful when each offer identifies the same baseline and explains the treatment of additional work.
The baseline should also state the maturity of the supporting information. A firm subcontractor quotation, an engineering estimate and an allowance for an undefined interface are different kinds of evidence. Presenting them separately allows the buyer to see where further discovery could materially improve confidence.
For a supplier, this can strengthen a commercial discussion without revealing every internal margin assumption. The objective is to make scope and uncertainty understandable, not to publish commercially sensitive detail indiscriminately.
An option is a defined choice: for example, an additional support year or another deployment site. Uncertainty concerns the eventual cost or effort of delivering the agreed scope.
Confusing them can distort both the budget and the sales pipeline. A maximum contract value may include choices the customer never exercises. A base price may still depend on uncertain data quality or interface work. Our explanation of contract values, options and actual spending develops the first distinction.
In the sensor-data example, an optional site has a separate commercial decision. Unknown migration effort at an already included site is a delivery uncertainty. The latter should have an identified basis: what is known about the archive, what remains to be inspected and how the result could affect effort.
This produces a more constructive negotiation than applying one unexplained uplift to every line. The buyer can fund a limited discovery task where it is useful, accept a stated assumption or modify the scope.
A delay in customer infrastructure can affect installation, staff availability and the support start date simultaneously. Treating each consequence as an unrelated event can make the estimate difficult to interpret.
The commercial response is to describe the dependency. A proposed installation window may rely on the customer supplying an approved environment by a stated point. If that condition changes, the consequences should be traceable across the affected work.
This does not require a complicated model for every small purchase. The level of analysis should match the decision. A short, explicit dependency note can be more useful than a large risk register that never informs the price or schedule.
For larger investments, separating the initial baseline from subsequent changes becomes particularly important. Otherwise an apparently poor original estimate may include additional scope approved much later, while a apparently stable estimate may conceal work removed from delivery.
A goal such as improving information access can explain the purpose of an investment but does not by itself specify a deliverable. The customer and supplier still need to establish what will be accepted.
For the example service, that might concern the agreed datasets made available, the users enabled, documented migration checks and the support arrangements transferred into service. These are commercial acceptance considerations, not claims about any particular military system.
The useful measure must also distinguish supplier performance from the wider benefit. Delivering a functioning service does not guarantee that every intended user adopts it. Adoption may depend on training, internal processes and customer leadership.
This is why proposal quality connects with the desirable, feasible and viable evidence considered in UK innovation proposals. The product, its delivery and the organisation's ability to benefit from it require related but different evidence.
A revised estimate should say what changed: quantity, configuration, schedule, underlying price evidence or allocation of responsibility. Keeping that history makes it possible to distinguish an updated assumption from an unexplained increase.
The same record can improve future bids. If migration repeatedly requires more effort than expected, the supplier can adjust discovery work or product tooling. If customer-specific training drives support cost, it can separate that service from a standard software subscription. Actual delivery then improves the next estimate.
The buyer benefits too. A traceable history supports comparison between the original investment case and the work ultimately purchased. It reduces the risk that lessons disappear when staff or contractors change.
FFI's study suggests a practical area in which suppliers can make a project easier to approve and manage. The advantage comes from being understandable under independent review, with a price connected to a defined product and realistic conditions.
That remains distinct from claiming a share of a country's total defence budget. As the SIPRI market-sizing analysis explains, broad spending figures include many activities outside a supplier's accessible market.
For a commercial team preparing its next proposal, the immediate task is narrower and more valuable: show the buyer what it is buying, how the estimate was formed, where the remaining uncertainty sits and how future changes will be recognised. A credible answer makes the proposal useful beyond the meeting in which it was first presented.
Public primary research summaries, introductory material or project descriptions reviewed on 6 September 2026. The text identifies the material reviewed and distinguishes research claims from BDI's commercial analysis. No independent technical validation or review of every full-length research chapter is claimed.
Suggest a correction