How Aircraft Refurbishment Proposals Should Be Compared
Aircraft refurbishment proposals from different facilities rarely price the same job, even when they are responding to what looks like the same request for quote. Comparing them on the bottom-line number alone is the single most common mistake owners make when selecting a facility.
The lowest number on paper can easily become the most expensive project once the gaps in scope surface mid-project.
Why Proposals From Different Facilities Aren’t Apples-to-Apples
Two facilities can quote the same nominal project, say a cabin refurbishment, and mean very different things by it. One quote might include removal and reinstallation of seats as a line item; another might assume the owner arranges that separately. One might price a specific fabric allowance; another might use a placeholder pending final material selection.
Without a common scope baseline, three proposals are not really being compared against each other. They are three unrelated numbers that happen to sit on the same page.
Scope Parity: Make Sure Everyone Priced the Same Job
Before comparing dollar figures, confirm that every facility priced against the same detailed scope document: the same material allowances, the same list of components being removed and reinstalled, and the same assumptions about what is included versus billed separately.
This is tedious to set up. It is also the difference between a real comparison and three numbers that cannot be meaningfully weighed against each other.
Labor Rates, Hours and Contingency Terms
Ask for labor broken out by rate and estimated hours, not just a lump sum, and compare contingency language specifically: how change orders are priced, whether there is a cap on hourly rate increases, and how additional findings during teardown get authorized and billed.
The quotes that look cheapest up front are often the ones with the least contingency built in, which shows up later as change orders rather than in the original number.
The Hidden Interface: A Thin Proposal Becomes an Expensive Project
A proposal is a set of assumptions dressed up as a number. When a facility assumes best-case material yields, minimal hidden damage, and no schedule friction, the proposal looks attractive on the page and expensive once the aircraft is actually opened.
The commercial risk in a thin proposal is not visible at the comparison stage. It only becomes visible once work is underway and there is far less leverage to push back on the resulting change orders.
Change Order and Warranty Language
Read the fine print on how each facility defines and prices a change order, since this is where budgets most commonly overrun. Compare warranty terms on workmanship and materials too: length of coverage, what is excluded, and how disputes are resolved. These terms vary more between facilities than owners typically expect, and matter more once the aircraft is back in service.
Facility Capability and Track Record
Request references from recent projects of similar scope and aircraft type, not just general facility credentials, and ask specifically about projects that ran into complications. How the facility communicated and resolved them matters more than whether problems occurred at all, since complications are common on any substantial refurbishment.
Jet Karma’s Role
Jet Karma standardizes the scope document every facility bids against and runs this comparison in parallel across candidates, so pricing differences reflect real differences in cost rather than differences in what was actually included.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I always choose the facility with the lowest quote?
Not without confirming scope parity first. A lower number based on a narrower scope, thinner contingency, or optimistic assumptions often ends up costing more once change orders are factored in.
How many facilities should I get proposals from?
Three is a reasonable baseline for most refurbishment projects — enough to establish a real market range without making scope-parity comparison unmanageable.
What should be standardized before comparing proposals?
The scope of work itself. Sending every facility the same detailed specification is the only way to make sure price differences reflect cost differences, not differences in what is actually included.
What red flags should owners watch for when comparing proposals?
Vague line items, unusually thin contingency allowances, and pricing noticeably below the other bids without a clear scope explanation are all signs a quote may not hold once work begins.
Does the cheapest proposal usually win?
It shouldn’t, at least not automatically. The proposal that best matches the defined scope at a defensible price, with a realistic schedule and clear change-order terms, is generally the stronger choice even when it is not the lowest number.