Case studies
The same purchase, run two different ways
Each case study sets out the problem, the requirement, how it is usually handled and how VEYRA handles it. Every entry states its evidence status so a demonstration is never read as a customer result.
Evidence
What the labels mean
VEYRA does not publish customer names, customer outcomes or savings claims without written authority.
Controlled simulation — run on the VEYRA platform using demonstration organisations and constructed figures. Illustrative scenario — a worked example used to explain the mechanism, with estimated figures. Neither represents a customer outcome or a guaranteed saving.
Three quotes for 50 hard hats, none of them comparable
- The problem
- Three suppliers quote the same request at $12, $17.40 and $23 per unit. The prices look decisive, but each supplier has quoted a different standard, a different harness, a different freight basis and a different price basis.
- Requirement
- 50 hard hats to one nominated Australian standard, with a stated harness type, delivered to a single regional site within a defined window, priced ex GST with freight included.
- Current method
- Three separate email threads, three PDF quotes in three layouts, and a spreadsheet assembled by hand. The cheapest headline price is chosen because there is no practical way to normalise the offers in the time available.
- VEYRA method
- The requirement is released as structured line items with one commercial framework applied to every participant. Responses are returned against those lines, non-conformances are flagged with a reason, and freight and price basis are brought onto the same footing before any ranking is shown.
- Result
- Once normalised, the $12 offer is not the lowest total cost of supply, and one of the three offers is non-conforming on standard. The decision, the reason and the comparison are retained in the audit trail.
Basis: Worked demonstration built from typical Australian PPE quoting practice. Figures are constructed for the demonstration, not taken from a customer.
Read the full worked comparison →Nine blind offers for an underground crew PPE resupply
- The problem
- A repeat resupply keeps going to the same familiar suppliers. Smaller and Indigenous businesses are technically eligible but rarely reach the shortlist, and there is no evidence trail to show the decision was made on merit.
- Requirement
- A structured resupply requirement with quantity, size range, standard, delivery window and warranty, released to a policy-compliant supplier pool with a defined approval path.
- Current method
- A shortlist assembled from memory and existing relationships, quotes compared on headline price, and approval sought after the preferred supplier has effectively been chosen.
- VEYRA method
- A balanced pool of three Tier-1 suppliers, three small businesses and three Indigenous businesses is released to. Offers are evaluated as Supplier A through Supplier I with identity withheld, compared like for like, then approved through delegated authority before the authorised reveal.
- Result
- Nine comparable offers were evaluated without supplier identity, the award was approved at two levels, and the reveal, approval and award events were retained as an append-only record. Identity was not disclosed at any point before the authorised reveal.
Basis: Run end to end on the VEYRA platform using demonstration organisations (SA Mining Co and a fictional supplier pool). No real buyer or supplier participated.
The same item, described three different ways
- The problem
- The same bearing appears in three supplier catalogues under three part codes, three descriptions and two units of measure. Spend reporting treats them as three different products, so category spend and price movement cannot be read.
- Requirement
- Supplier catalogues and rate sheets loaded into comparable product records, with pricing kept private to each supplier and separate from any RFQ price.
- Current method
- Spreadsheets re-keyed by hand each time a price list changes, with no record of what changed, and duplicate records accumulating in the finance system.
- VEYRA method
- Each file is uploaded, mapped, validated, reviewed and approved by a person before it goes live. Suggested matches are proposed but never applied automatically, and records absent from a new file are preserved rather than deleted.
- Result
- The three descriptions resolve to one comparable item for evaluation while each supplier's pricing stays private. Catalogue Intelligence is in beta; automated matching remains subject to human approval.
Basis: Demonstration catalogue files loaded through the VEYRA catalogue import with demonstration supplier organisations.
A weekly shop where the specials hid the real cost
- The problem
- One supermarket advertises several products cheaply, so the household shops there each week, while the remainder of the trolley quietly costs more than it would elsewhere.
- Requirement
- A complete weekly list of 40 items with brand preferences, acceptable substitutions and dietary requirements, compared across nearby supermarkets.
- Current method
- Catalogue browsing and a rough mental comparison of a handful of visible specials.
- VEYRA method
- The whole list is priced at each participating retailer, including substitutions and unavailable items, with a single-store and a two-store option presented side by side.
- Result
- In the demonstration the store with the best advertised specials was not the cheapest complete basket. Pricing and availability are estimated until live retailer integrations are confirmed.
Basis: Illustrative household scenario with estimated demonstration pricing. VEYRA has no live retailer pricing feed, so totals are estimates only.
Next
See the same controls in the platform
Walk the buyer and supplier journeys, or ask us to prepare a proposal for your own procurement environment.
See a structured procurement event end to end
Request a guided demonstration and we will walk through configuration, supplier release, comparison, approval and the audit record produced.