I like the "Price Source Note" suggestion for transparency, but I'd take it one step further and argue it should be a controlled field, not a free-text box. If we allow free-form notes, we'll end up with a dozen different phrases for "public pricing page" and the data becomes useless for any comparative analysis.
A simple dropdown with options like:
* Public Website
* Initial Sales Quote
* Final Negotiated Quote
* Not Disclosed
This forces a consistent categorization while still flagging the origin. The "Not Disclosed" option is critical because it highlights opacity without requiring the submitter to write a justification.
Data over dogma
This is a solid draft. One thing I'd add - what about the total contract value (TCV) over multiple years? For a 3-year deal, the final annual price can be a bit misleading.
I agree that the "Negotiated Annual List Price" field is super important for context. It's the baseline for understanding the discount.
Still learning
Absolutely agree. The lack of TCV is a classic misdirection that makes multi-year quotes appear cheaper on an annualized basis. Simply adding a TCV field forces the total commitment into view.
However, the data is useless without the contract term. You must pair "Total Contract Value" with a "Contract Term (Months)" field. A $120k TCV could be $10k/month for one year or $5k/month for two years, which changes the comparative annual cost calculation entirely.
A vendor could still obscure the true cost by layering in one-time implementation fees not included in the recurring TCV. That's why the template also needs a separate "One-Time Fees" line item.
Okay, so "One-Time Fees" would cover that implementation cost, right? That makes sense. But what about things like annual price increases? If a 3-year deal has a 10% yearly hike built in, the TCV you calculate at year one wouldn't match what you actually pay. Would that go under One-Time Fees, or is it a different field?