At a glance
Sign estimating and quoting software should help a team turn a defined production brief into a reviewable commercial record. The useful test is whether somebody can explain the scope, source figures, labour and waste assumptions, margin method, version history and release conditions without reconstructing them later.
01 / Start with scope
A number is only as reliable as the job it describes.
Capture the deliverable, quantity, dimensions, finish, evidence source and site responsibility before calculating. Mark each input as confirmed, supplied, measured or assumed. An unresolved survey or access condition belongs beside the estimate, not in somebody's memory.
This page uses one fictional illuminated fascia to explain the method. The figures are synthetic teaching inputs, not market rates, customer evidence or a recommended price.
| Scope item | Example basis | Release consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Fascia size and quantity | One fascia; customer-supplied dimensions pending survey check | Estimate may be reviewed, but not released to production |
| Face, returns and illumination | Illustrative specification; supplier cost dated for this estimate | Any component change requires a revised cost and proof check |
| Access and installation | Initial ground-access assumption | Survey must confirm access method, timing and competent review |
02 / Worked estimate
Show the calculation, its definitions and its uncertainty.
In the synthetic first estimate, materials are £720, bought-in illumination components £280, workshop labour is 18 hours at an illustrative internal rate of £38 per hour, and installation/travel is £460. Direct cost is therefore £2,144. A 12% internal overhead allocation adds £257.28, producing a £2,401.28 cost base.
The example uses gross margin on selling price—not markup on cost. At a fictional 32% target margin, £2,401.28 ÷ (1 − 0.32) gives a £3,531.29 selling basis before tax, terms and final commercial rounding. Replace every amount and commercial rule with your own current evidence.
| Estimate line | Transparent basis | Synthetic amount |
|---|---|---|
| Materials | Current illustrative supplier basis | £720.00 |
| Bought-in components | Illustrative supplier basis | £280.00 |
| Workshop labour | 18 hours × £38/hour | £684.00 |
| Installation and travel | Initial access assumption | £460.00 |
| Direct cost | Sum of the four lines above | £2,144.00 |
| Overhead allocation | 12% × £2,144.00 | £257.28 |
| Cost base | Direct cost + overhead | £2,401.28 |
| Selling basis | £2,401.28 ÷ 68% | £3,531.29 |
03 / Revise, do not overwrite
Keep the reason for each quote version visible.
The fictional survey finds that the initial access assumption is wrong. Installation rises by £320 and workshop planning adds two hours (£76). The revised direct cost is £2,540; the same stated 12% overhead method produces a £2,844.80 cost base and a £4,183.53 selling basis at the illustrative 32% margin.
Version 1 remains a superseded record. Version 2 identifies the access change, the proof version it accompanies, the assumptions that remain open and the person who accepts the commercial revision. Acceptance of a quote is not, by itself, evidence that artwork, technical review or production release is complete.
| Record | Decision | State |
|---|---|---|
| Estimate version 1 | Ground-access assumption; £3,531.29 selling basis | Superseded after survey |
| Estimate version 2 | Changed access + two planning hours; £4,183.53 selling basis | Ready for commercial review |
| Proof and production release | Confirm accepted scope, current proof and required competent checks | Separate controlled decisions |
04 / Reconcile actuals
Close the loop without rewriting history.
After the fictional job, actual direct cost is £2,571: materials £745, components £280, 19.5 workshop hours at the same £38 internal rate (£741), and £805 installation/travel. Applying the same 12% allocation for comparison gives £2,879.52—£34.72 above the revised £2,844.80 cost base.
Record the £25 material difference, £19 labour saving and £25 installation difference separately. Approved customer changes, estimating assumptions, purchasing variance, rework and operational delay are different causes. One synthetic job is a learning example, not evidence for changing a rate card.
| Comparison | Revised estimate | Synthetic actual | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct cost | £2,540.00 | £2,571.00 | +£31.00 |
| 12% allocation | £304.80 | £308.52 | +£3.72 |
| Comparable cost base | £2,844.80 | £2,879.52 | +£34.72 |
05 / Spectra status
Use the example to evaluate the workflow—not to infer a live pricing engine.
Spectra's local sample workspace demonstrates connected job context and reviewable quote records. This page does not claim that production calculation rules, acceptance controls, accounting sync or supplier pricing are verified live capabilities.
The free worksheet calculates a browser-local scenario from values you enter. A production setup would still need approved cost definitions, permissions, tax and rounding rules, revision ownership, application verification and any external provider access.
| Capability | Evidence here | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Connected quote review | Local sample workspace | Demonstrated locally |
| Costing arithmetic | Free browser-local worksheet | Utility only; not product proof |
| Production calculation engine | No verified application evidence in this slice | Not claimed |
| Accounting or supplier sync | External provider access required | Dependent / not claimed live |