The verdict in three sentences
Receiving rebuild bids with a 40 % spread between cheapest and dearest is perfectly normal in Amsterdam in 2026: they don't price the same thing. The only reliable method is to normalise every bid to an identical scope, then score them on a weighted grid. A bid 30 % cheaper almost always hides 2 to 3 out-of-scope lines (content, SEO, retainer) that resurface as change orders.
Step 1: normalise the scope
Before comparing prices, bring every bid to the same content. Build a line-item checklist and tick, for each candidate, what's included.
| Line item | Bid A (low) | Bid B (mid) | Bid C (high) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custom UI design | Template | Semi-custom | Bespoke |
| Copywriting | No | 5 pages | All pages |
| SEO migration (301) | No | Yes | Yes |
| Multilingual EN/NL | No | No | Yes |
| Back-office training | No | 1 h | 3 h |
| 12-month retainer | No | 3 months | 12 months |
| Quoted price EUR | 9,000 | 14,500 | 19,000 |
Once Bid A's missing lines are re-priced (content ~EUR 3,500, SEO ~EUR 1,500, retainer ~EUR 2,400), its real cost climbs to ~EUR 16,400: it wasn't the cheapest.
Step 2: the weighted scoring grid
Score 0 to 10 per criterion, multiply by the weight, sum. The winner is never automatically the cheapest.
| Criterion | Weight | What you measure |
|---|---|---|
| Price (normalised scope) | 40 % | Full real cost |
| Comparable references | 25 % | B2B cases, hard results |
| Timeline & method | 15 % | Credible schedule |
| Retainer & warranty | 20 % | SLA, fixes, portability |
Example: Bid C, dearer on paper, scores 8.4/10 weighted versus 6.1 for A once the hidden lines are added.
Step 3: the red flags
Some gaps aren't savings but risks. Here's what should alert you in 2026.
| Signal | What it reveals | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Very low price, no detail | Fuzzy scope | Repeated change orders |
| No redirect plan | SEO ignored | Post-rebuild traffic drop |
| Timeline < 4 weeks | Underestimation | Delay and bugs |
| No B2B references | Lack of experience | Unsuitable deliverable |
| No retainer | No follow-up | Hidden cost after launch |
Mini case study
Need a professional website?
Kolonell builds websites that attract clients, optimized for the Sénégalese market. Free quote in 2 minutes.
Ines, a buyer at an industrial mid-cap in Amsterdam, receives 6 rebuild bids ranging from EUR 9,000 to 19,000. Tempted by the cheapest, she applies the method: after re-pricing the missing lines (content, SEO, retainer), the EUR 9,000 bid reaches EUR 16,400 real, versus EUR 15,200 for a complete EUR 14,000 candidate. The weighted grid picks the latter (8.1/10). By avoiding the three predictable change orders, Ines saves about EUR 2,800 and 4 weeks of delay.
FAQ
Why do bids vary so much?
Because they don't cover the same scope. Without a normalised brief, a 40 % spread mostly reflects included or excluded lines, not a difference in skill.
Should I always drop the cheapest?
No, but re-price its gaps before deciding. A low bid with full scope is excellent; a low bid with a cut scope is a change-order trap.
How many bids should I request?
Three to five is enough for a rebuild. Beyond that, comparison becomes time-consuming with no quality gain.
How do I check references?
Ask for 2-3 delivered B2B sites, their real timelines and, if possible, a client contact. A serious vendor supplies them without hesitation.
Should price weigh more than 40 %?
Rarely. Beyond that, you risk buying an unsuitable site. The remaining 60 % (references, timeline, retainer) protects your investment over time.
Let's scope your project. Send us the bids you've received and your target scope: we'll normalise, score them and hand you an objective comparison plus our own proposal. Detailed quote within 48 h. WhatsApp +221 77 596 93 33.
Mohamed Bah
Fondateur, Kolonell
Passionate about digital and entrepreneurship in Africa, Mohamed has been helping Sénégalese businesses with their digital transformation since 2020. Founder of Kolonell, he believes every SME deserves a professional and accessible online présence.
