When a procurement asks for two price bases, a single unlabelled figure can conceal which response was actually supplied. The preparation task is to preserve the requested bases and their evidence separately. A cancelled UNOPS Ethiopia procurement offers a historical example. This article does not explain trade-term obligations, calculate landed cost or assess the safety of refrigerator or cold-box equipment.

The amendment added a distinct price basis

The UNOPS Addis Ababa notice, checked on 3 October 2026, is labelled cancelled. A 7 July 2025 amendment describes adding DAP columns to Form C alongside FCA. A 9 July answer states that both bases would be used in financial evaluation. The actual form and supplier quotations were not read here.

Keep each figure attached to its basis

An illustrative response record should identify the item, the requested quotation basis and the exact location of the corresponding price evidence. Do not label one figure as answering both requests unless the actual response and buyer instructions support that statement. A missing figure should remain missing rather than being estimated by the researcher.

This is a record-design recommendation, not an instruction about how to allocate shipping, taxes or risk. Those questions require the applicable documents and appropriate professional review. The article has no evidence of a current quote or actual transaction and cannot determine which option would be cheaper for a buyer.

Preserve the amended form version

If an earlier form contains fewer fields, retain its identity and mark it as the version the amendment changed. The person preparing a real response needs the authoritative current materials. A research summary should not pretend that adding a column to a homemade worksheet replaces the buyer’s official response format.

For a hypothetical review, compare whether the response addresses each requested basis and whether the supporting references refer to the same item. If the item identity differs, record the mismatch before comparing figures. This avoids an apparently tidy comparison that actually concerns different products or packages.

Separate completeness from evaluation

A record containing two labelled prices can be complete for a narrow documentation check while still requiring buyer evaluation. It does not prove compliance, suitability or value. Do not convert the historical buyer answer into a universal rule about how all financial evaluations work or which basis is preferable.

Technical and regulatory requirements are outside this article’s conclusion. A public procurement title involving cold-chain equipment does not establish a product’s certification, registration or performance. Actual commercial and technical decisions retain a human hold, including interpretation of the relevant contractual and trade conditions.

A useful but bounded result

Our editorial judgement is to preserve paired bases, item identity and document version before drawing any price comparison. The outcome is a clearer evidence record and a visible list of unanswered questions. No cost has been invented and no offer evaluated. The historical cancelled notice illustrates a documentation problem; it provides neither a current opportunity nor an assurance about a supplier’s equipment or delivery obligations.