Record consistently
Stable door identity + repeatable evidence pack.
Resources • findings • quote • approval
From findings → quote → approval: a repeatable workflow
A practical workflow for moving from on-site findings to a client-ready quote and approval — keeping evidence and scope joined up door-by-door.
- Inspections
- Quotes
- Approval
- Evidence
Click to enlarge
Guide summary
Convert from the record
Build quote scope from findings, not from memory.
Close the loop
Handoff to remedials with sign-off evidence attached.
Who this is for (and when to use it)
Use this when quotes and approvals are slowing down because evidence and scope are split across tools.
- Inspection teams: keep findings consistent so scope can be built repeatably.
- Commercial teams: turn findings into quote scope without losing door-level traceability.
- Project leads: keep approvals, revisions, and handoff tied to the underlying record.
Pre-visit setup (so the site day doesn’t drift)
Most “scope arguments” happen because the inspection record was ambiguous. Start clean.
- Client + property structure: create properties/floors/areas so locations stay consistent.
- Door identity: decide how door IDs are assigned and not reused.
- Checklist: make sure inspection components and quick reasons match your reporting needs.
- Inspection status: in Fire Door App, remedial quotes generated from inspection failures require the inspection to be marked Completed.
- Roles: ensure the right people can create quotes/exports, not just capture findings.
Capture findings (consistency + evidence)
A quote is only as good as the record it’s based on. Make audits and approvals boring.
- Outcome: pass/fail with consistent severity rules.
- Notes: short, factual, and door-specific.
- Photos: clear “why this failed” evidence, not just a door selfie.
- Door location: enough detail that a different person can revisit the right opening.
Convert findings into quote scope
Turn findings into a quote using the same record so scope doesn’t drift between tools.
Step 1
Group by building/area
Keep scope navigable for clients: grouped, not a flat list of door IDs.
Step 2
Use mapped line items where possible
Mapped items standardise wording and pricing; manual edits handle exceptions.
Step 3
Make assumptions explicit
If something is unknown until opened up, include a separate line item and document the assumption.
Template: assumptions / exclusions block
Use a standard “assumptions” block on every quote so approvals don’t stall on ambiguity.
- Access & opening-up: what you assumed was accessible without invasive works.
- Like-for-like: whether replacement is assumed like-for-like unless stated.
- Unknowns: how you handle “investigate/open up” items (separate line item).
- Working hours: whether work is in-hours/out-of-hours and any permit-to-work constraints.
Approval loop (PDF/email/portal expectations)
Approvals get easier when everyone is looking at the same evidence pack and the same scope list.
- One source of truth: send the quote/output from the system record, not as a retyped email.
- Evidence references: point to door IDs and findings that justify the line items.
- Decision trail: record who approved and when (workflow support, not legal advice).
Template: approval email / message
Keep the message short, and point to the record. This reduces “what is this based on?” replies.
- What changed: “Quote v2 includes items for doors FD-012 to FD-019 (photos attached per door).”
- Decision requested: accept / reject / request clarification (with a single owner).
- Assumptions: include the standard assumptions block (or link to it).
- Next step: “On approval we schedule remedials for week commencing
[W/C DATE](or next available slot).” - Access contact: “For site access and permits, please confirm the nominated contact for
[SITE].”
Handoff to remedials + scheduling
Once scope is agreed, keep the same door-level evidence trail through close-out.
- Keep work grouped: projects by building/phase reduce site friction.
- Close-out evidence: before/after photos and sign-off notes attached to the door.
- Outputs: export from the record so door lists and totals stay consistent.
Common pitfalls (where approvals stall)
Most delays happen when evidence, scope, and “final” outputs are split across tools.
- Scope without evidence: if clients can’t trace a line item to door IDs/findings, confidence drops.
- Changing scope after sign-off: if you revise, re-issue with a clear revision marker.
- Unclear assumptions: “open up / investigate” items should be explicit and priced separately.
- Multiple channels: avoid sending one list by email and a different one in the PDF/portal.
Common questions
Quick answers on quoting and approval workflows.
Do we quote before or after a remedials visit?
Most teams quote from inspection findings first, then schedule remedials once scope is agreed. For unknowns, include a clear “investigate/open up” line item and capture assumptions.
How do we avoid scope drift between the inspection and the quote?
Keep door IDs stable, attach photo evidence to each door, and convert findings into quote scope from the same record. Don’t retype scope in a separate spreadsheet.
What evidence should be attached before we send a quote?
Minimum: door identity/location, clear pass/fail outcomes, and photos that support the finding. This keeps approval conversations short and factual.
Does Fire Door App decide what work is required?
No. Fire Door App supports workflows and evidence retention; competent-person decisions and final scope remain your responsibility.
Next step
Run one joined-up workflow end-to-end.
Capture findings on site, generate a quote from the same record, and keep approval and handover evidence attached to doors.