The short checklist
Before selecting a proposal, confirm that it clearly identifies:
- the version of the brief, artwork and site information on which it is based;
- the proposed form, approximate dimensions, quantity and inflation approach;
- what creative development and artwork preparation are included;
- which review stages and approval evidence will be supplied;
- which accessories, operating equipment and packing are included;
- delivery scope, destination and handover point;
- installation, operation, supervision and removal responsibilities;
- site assumptions, exclusions and information still required;
- how changes after approval will affect scope, timing and cost;
- what information will be delivered before dispatch and at handover.
If a proposal does not make those points visible, a lower total does not yet mean a lower project cost or a more suitable project outcome.
Lock the comparison basis before comparing prices
Start with the same source information for every proposal. Record the brief revision, reference files, artwork status, target dimensions, quantity, destination, required in-hand date, event dates and known site conditions. If a project partner responded before a later venue update, flag that difference rather than treating the proposals as equivalent.
A useful comparison header might read:
Swipe or scroll horizontally to review every column.
| Project basis | Confirmed input | Open item |
|---|---|---|
| Campaign role | Entry landmark and photo moment | Final audience flow |
| Form | Oversized product replica | Final interpretation of small pack details |
| Scale | Approximate visual envelope | Final production dimensions |
| Quantity | One primary unit | Spare or duplicate unit decision |
| Venue | Outdoor event site, destination confirmed | Exact footprint and ground information |
| Programme | Event date and required arrival date | Installation window |
| Artwork | Current brand files supplied | Final legal and brand approval |
| Delivery | Named destination city or postcode | Final receiving party and access window |
InflatPro's guide to what information is needed for a custom inflatable quotation can be used to assemble this common input set. Unknowns may remain, but they should be labelled as unknowns. A proposal based on an assumption should not be scored as though that assumption were confirmed.
Separate the visible object from the full project scope
The finished inflatable is only one part of the project. A fair comparison should separate at least five scope layers:
- Creative interpretation — how the concept, silhouette, proportions and viewing angles are developed.
- Production definition — dimensions, artwork mapping, inflation approach, seams, access points and relevant accessories.
- Review and approval — drawings, renderings, colour or material references, production evidence and named approval gates.
- Delivery and handover — packing, labels, shipping handoff, receiving information and setup material.
- Site integration — local installation, power, anchoring or ballast, barriers, supervision, operating checks and removal.
These layers may be supplied by one team or distributed across several teams. The important point is not that one proposal must include everything. It is that the split is explicit enough for the agency to see who owns every necessary task.
Use a line-by-line proposal comparison matrix
The following matrix is designed for a project review meeting. Add project-specific rows rather than deleting difficult questions.
Swipe or scroll horizontally to review every column.
| Comparison line | What a useful proposal should state | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Brief and reference version | File names, dates or revision on which the response is based | Prevents approval against an obsolete concept |
| Intended use | Indoor/outdoor context, audience role and expected operating period | Connects the object to the actual activation |
| Form and dimensions | Proposed overall size, important visual proportions and dimensional status | Distinguishes an early envelope from a final production dimension |
| Quantity | Primary units, duplicates, alternates or spares | Avoids hidden differences between totals |
| Inflation approach | Proposed sealed-air, continuous-air or project-specific approach, subject to final review | Affects equipment, operation and site planning |
| Visual development | Included concept views, revisions and responsibility for 3D or production interpretation | Shows how the creative direction becomes a buildable form |
| Artwork preparation | Required file types, mapping work, proof stages and responsibility for final brand approval | Prevents flat artwork from being mistaken for approved curved-surface placement |
| Material or finish description | Project-appropriate description and any choices still subject to sampling or confirmation | Keeps appearance expectations separate from unsupported performance claims |
| Colour review | Reference system, physical sample route where relevant, and limits of screen-only review | Establishes a practical colour decision path |
| Included equipment | Blowers, inflation valves, repair items, storage bags, control items or other listed accessories | Makes equipment differences visible |
| Power information | Equipment ratings and connection information to be supplied after equipment selection | Gives the appointed electrical team usable input without pre-approving the site |
| Stability interface | Information to be provided for the local team's anchoring or ballast review | Clarifies that site conditions and local approval remain project-specific |
| Setup information | Drawings, sequence, crew assumptions, lifting or access needs, and operating notes where applicable | Reveals whether the installation handoff is usable |
| Venue responsibilities | Ground, structure, access, power, barriers, permits, exclusion zones and local labour | Prevents project partner and venue assumptions from conflicting |
| Delivery basis | Named delivery point, included transport stage, receiving party and excluded local charges or services | Allows a meaningful logistics comparison |
| Packing and identification | Number of packages, labels, packing method and information available before dispatch | Supports multi-item receiving and site handover |
| Review gates | Concept, developed form, artwork, pre-dispatch evidence and final handover stages | Shows when decisions become fixed |
| Change control | What counts as a change and how effect on price or programme is confirmed | Protects both agency and project partner from informal scope drift |
| Handover evidence | Packing list, setup material, equipment list and project-specific documents included | Defines what the receiving team should expect |
| Exclusions | Clear list of services, equipment, approvals and local works not included | Exposes costs that may otherwise appear later |
Do not use the matrix as a demand for identical methods. Different proposals may offer legitimate alternatives. Use it to make the consequences of those alternatives visible.
Treat assumptions and exclusions as decision data
An exclusion is not automatically a weakness. It becomes a risk when it is hidden, ambiguous or allocated to a party that has not accepted it.
For example, “installation by others” should lead to a second question: what will the installation team receive, and what competence, equipment, access and time does the proposal assume? “Power by venue” should lead to a confirmed equipment schedule, connection requirements and the venue's review process. “Anchoring by local contractor” should identify what project partner information will be available and which site facts the local responsible party must confirm.
Create an assumption register with four columns:
Swipe or scroll horizontally to review every column.
| Assumption | Owner of confirmation | Needed by | Consequence if false |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outdoor footprint is level and usable | Venue / site team | Before developed layout approval | Placement or stability plan may need revision |
| Delivery vehicle can reach the handover point | Logistics / venue | Before transport booking | Additional handling or smaller vehicle may be required |
| Required electrical connection is available | Venue electrical team | Before equipment plan is frozen | Distribution or operating plan may change |
| Brand artwork can be released by the stated date | Brand / agency | Before artwork mapping | Approval and production sequence may move |
| Local crew will handle setup | Agency / production partner | Before handover plan | Project partner attendance or added instruction may be needed |
This makes uncertainty manageable. It also stops one project partner's clearly stated assumptions from being judged more harshly than another project partner's unstated assumptions.
Compare responsibility boundaries, not only deliverables
Large activations often involve the agency, brand, inflatable project team, venue, event producer, freight partner, local installation contractor and electrical or structural specialists. A proposal should make the interfaces between those teams visible.
A simple responsibility matrix can use four labels:
- Leads: owns and coordinates the task.
- Provides input: supplies information needed by the lead.
- Reviews or approves: makes the named decision.
- Informed: receives the current information.
Apply those labels to artwork release, site survey, technical review, local approvals, power provision, unloading, installation, daily operation, weather monitoring where applicable, public-area management, removal and return or storage.
The exact duty structure depends on the country, venue and work scope. As one useful public reference, the UK Health and Safety Executive stresses the need for cooperation, coordination and clear control when several parties work at an event, and for relevant pre-construction information to reach designers and contractors. That is not a universal legal template, but it illustrates why an international proposal should not leave the site interface implicit.
For projects that need a more detailed venue input list, use the site assessment checklist for large inflatable installations. For a broader installation handoff, review InflatPro's event installation planning page.
Check the approval path and the evidence at each gate
A proposal becomes easier to manage when every approval has an object and a decision. “Client approval” is too broad. Specify what is being approved and what remains open.
Gate 1: direction
Useful evidence may include selected references, intended audience role, proposed overall scale and the features that must remain recognisable. Approval at this stage should not imply final artwork placement, production dimensions or site acceptance.
Gate 2: developed form
Useful evidence may include agreed views, a developed silhouette, key proportions, approximate dimensions and identified site interfaces. Record which details are representational and which are intended as production decisions.
Gate 3: artwork and finish
Useful evidence may include mapped artwork, logo placement, orientation, content hierarchy, colour references and physical samples where they are agreed and practical. Screen renderings help communication but should not be presented as an exact prediction of the finished physical colour.
Gate 4: production evidence
Define which photographs, video, measurements or checklist items will be reviewed before packing. The evidence should relate to agreed acceptance points. It is not a substitute for any third-party or site-specific inspection required by the project.
Gate 5: dispatch and handover
Useful evidence may include package identification, equipment or accessory list, setup information, delivery documents and named receiving contacts. For multi-location or repeat programmes, package and unit identification should follow the rollout plan rather than a single-event handoff.
If the project involves inflatable product replicas, apply the same gate logic specifically to reference control, recognisable shape, mapped artwork and acceptance evidence.
Test the onsite scope against the real venue
Proposal language such as “suitable for events” is not a site plan. Before award—or before the scope becomes difficult to change—compare each response with the known venue facts:
- indoor or outdoor location;
- usable footprint and clear height;
- public approach and circulation;
- access route, doors, lifts, loading area and handling limits;
- ground, floor or supporting conditions;
- installation and removal windows;
- power source and cable route;
- nearby structures, services and other contractors;
- local weather exposure and the event's operating plan;
- venue documentation and approval process;
- responsible onsite supervisor and escalation path.
The proposal does not need to answer facts that the venue has not provided. It should identify the missing inputs and state which parts of the solution remain provisional because of them.
Electrical and temporary works are good examples. Official event guidance from the UK HSE asks organisers to consider site layout, power requirements, environmental conditions, operating timetable, cable routing and isolation when planning temporary electrical installations. Its temporary works guidance notes that temporary works require systematic coordination through design, selection, installation, checking, use and removal. Local rules may differ, but the procurement lesson is consistent: a proposal should name the site-dependent decisions and the competent party who will close them.
Compare commercial totals only after normalising scope
Once the matrix is complete, create three totals for each proposal:
- Included project partner scope — everything explicitly included in the offered total.
- Known project additions — local labour, venue services, freight stages, electrical distribution, handling, access equipment or other items the agency can already identify.
- Unresolved exposure — important items that are still provisional, excluded without an owner, or dependent on missing site information.
This does not require inventing a price for every unknown. The unresolved column is a decision signal. A proposal with a slightly higher visible total but a controlled approval route and clear site handoff may be easier to deliver than a lower total with major unallocated interfaces. The right choice depends on the campaign, programme, team and risk tolerance—not a universal rule.
Also compare payment milestones and the decisions attached to them. A useful schedule links commercial commitments to defined scope or approval stages. It should not imply that an aesthetic approval also accepts an unresolved site condition.
Look for these proposal red flags
Pause and ask for clarification when a response:
- quotes from a mood image without recording dimensions, use or site context;
- describes artwork as final when only a low-resolution reference was supplied;
- combines the inflatable, accessories, transport and installation into one undefined line;
- promises outdoor operation without asking for the site, operating plan or local review path;
- uses “standard power” without identifying the equipment that will determine the load;
- includes installation but does not define location, access, crew, equipment or working window;
- excludes installation without defining the handover information for the local team;
- presents an early rendering as proof of final appearance or engineering acceptance;
- does not identify the revision limit or change-control route;
- leaves delivery destination, receiving party or delivery basis unclear;
- lists documents without saying whether they are standard product information, project-specific deliverables or third-party work;
- treats every responsibility gap as the client's problem instead of naming the information needed to close it.
Red flags are prompts for a better-defined response. They are not automatic proof that a project partner cannot deliver the project.
Run a 45-minute agency comparison review
Use this meeting structure after the first proposal round:
Minutes 0–10: confirm the common basis
Read the current brief, site facts, programme and unresolved client decisions. Remove superseded files from the working pack.
Minutes 10–25: compare the high-impact scope lines
Review dimensions, quantity, inflation approach, artwork path, approval gates, accessories, delivery and site responsibilities. Mark differences before discussing preference.
Minutes 25–35: allocate the interfaces
Name the lead for venue information, local approval, power, stability review, unloading, installation, operation and removal. Record every unaccepted responsibility.
Minutes 35–40: test the programme
Check when artwork, venue data, approvals and dispatch information must be available. A final event date alone is not a workable programme.
Minutes 40–45: issue one clarification list
Send each project partner a concise list of material questions. Ask for a revised scope table or addendum so the answer becomes part of the proposal record.
This review produces a defensible recommendation without pretending that every creative project can be reduced to a score.
Questions to ask before award
Use these questions in a clarification call:
- Which brief, reference and artwork revisions form the basis of your proposal?
- Which dimensions are approximate, and when will production dimensions be fixed?
- What creative development and artwork preparation are included?
- What will we review at each approval stage?
- Which equipment, accessories and packing items are included?
- What information will be supplied for the venue and local technical teams?
- Which site conditions have you assumed?
- Who is expected to unload, install, connect, operate, supervise and remove the installation?
- Which delivery stage and handover point are included?
- How are changes after concept or artwork approval documented?
- What evidence will be available before dispatch?
- What remains provisional until the venue or local specialists respond?
Prepare a project for review
InflatPro supports agencies and brand teams evaluating premium custom inflatable projects, including product replicas, characters and mascots, branded environments, art forms, stage installations and commercial seasonal displays.
To request a project review, share:
- the campaign purpose and intended audience moment;
- reference images, sketches or current creative direction;
- approximate dimensions, quantity and preferred viewing angles;
- event date, required in-hand date and destination city or postcode;
- indoor or outdoor venue context and available site information;
- artwork status and brand-approval route;
- expected delivery, installation and local-team responsibilities;
- any proposal questions, venue forms or scope table already in use.
Request a Project Review. Open decisions can remain open when they are clearly identified.
