Supplier, venue and technical handover problems
When two suppliers each assume the other provides the livestream
Both quotations are signed, and each supplier believes the other is bringing the part of the livestream nobody has actually priced.
Opens WhatsApp with a draft you can edit before sending. Nothing is sent automatically.
The short answer
Stop both suppliers from solving the gap alone. Call them together, name each link in the livestream chain, and write down who owns each one, with the quotation line that covers it or a note that no line does.
Whoever has no line gets a formal scope question, and the organiser decides who takes it on and at what cost. Technical feasibility is for the suppliers to confirm. Contract terms are for the signatory or a legal adviser.
What is known and what is not
List what each document actually says before anyone remembers what was said in a meeting. The last column says who can settle each point.
| Known | Not yet known | Who can answer |
|---|---|---|
| What each quotation lists under video, audio, encoding, platform and internet connection | Which links in the chain appear in neither quotation | Event owner, reading both quotations side by side |
| What the brief said about the livestream and on what date | Whether either supplier was told it owned the whole chain | Event owner; supplier emails and meeting notes |
| Dates on which each supplier is booked, on site and for any test | Whether both can test together before the event | Both suppliers, in writing |
| Deposits paid and the payment terms in each contract | Whether adding scope changes price, or ends an existing agreement | Contract signatory; legal adviser for terms |
Who has authority to decide
The event owner decides who takes on the missing scope, because that is a change to what each supplier was asked to do. The budget holder decides whether the added cost is acceptable. The suppliers confirm what is technically possible with their equipment and their connection.
If one supplier says the other should have included it, that is a contract question. Collect both positions in writing and pass them to the signatory or a legal adviser, rather than judging which supplier is right.
- Allocation of the missing scope: event owner, confirmed in writing.
- Added cost: budget holder or finance committee.
- What can be done technically: each supplier, in writing.
- Who is responsible under the contracts: signatory, with legal advice where needed.
The realistic options, including stopping or scaling down
Compare the options on cost, risk and who must agree. Include a smaller livestream and no livestream.
| Option | What it involves | Consequence to weigh |
|---|---|---|
| The AV supplier takes the whole chain | Ask for a written change to the AV quotation, including platform account, encoding and connection. | One accountable party; price rises and the supplier must be able to do it. |
| The streaming supplier takes the whole chain | Ask for a revised quotation including cameras and the programme feed from the room. | One accountable party; the streaming supplier may not be set up for on-site capture. |
| Split the chain explicitly | Write a scope matrix so each supplier owns named links, with one joint test. | Lower cost, more handovers; needs a named coordinator. |
| Reduce the livestream | Stream one room, or audio and slides, and record the rest for later. | Simpler and cheaper; remote audience gets less. |
| Drop the livestream | Tell registrants the programme is in-person only and offer a recording if suppliers can provide one. | Removes the dependency; remote registrants are disappointed. |
Communications: who says what to whom
Speak to both suppliers in one meeting, then confirm in one email sent to both, so neither hears a different version. Tell the committee the options and costs before any change is signed, and tell remote registrants only once the plan is settled.
Adjust the drafts to your own facts.
- To both suppliers: on comparing the quotations, we found the following items listed by neither: [list]. Please confirm in writing by [date] whether you can include them and at what cost. No scope has been reassigned yet.
- To the committee: the livestream chain has a gap at [items]. Options are [A, B, C] with the effects below. Please confirm who approves the added cost.
- To remote registrants, if the format changes: the livestream will cover [rooms or content]. Details will be confirmed by [date].
Follow-up and preventing a repeat
- Put both quotations into the supplier quote normaliser so missing inclusions are flagged rather than treated as zero.
- Record the decision and who owns each link in a decision log.
- Add the agreed scope matrix to the handover pack for both suppliers.
- Schedule one joint technical test with both suppliers, and ask each to confirm in writing what they will bring.
- Next time, ask every supplier to list inclusions and exclusions for any shared service before signing.
Worked example · Fictional example
A hybrid forum finds a gap three weeks out
Fictional organisation and figures, written to show the level of detail that is useful.
Persatuan Fiktif Pengamal Kewangan is running a one-day forum with about 150 people on site and an online audience of a few hundred. The AV supplier quoted cameras and mixing for the room. A streaming supplier quoted the platform and online moderation.
While comparing quotations, the secretariat finds that neither lists encoding or the upload connection. Both suppliers say they assumed the other covered it. The event owner calls them together, writes a scope matrix, and the AV supplier agrees in writing to quote the missing links. The treasurer reviews the price before the change is signed.
Use this yourself
Livestream scope matrix
Fill one row per link in the chain. A blank owner column is the gap to resolve before the event.
| Link in the chain | Owner (supplier) | Quotation line or none | Written confirmation (date) | Open question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cameras and operators | ||||
| Audio feed from the room mixer | ||||
| Slides or presentation feed | ||||
| Encoder or streaming equipment | ||||
| Internet connection for upload and a backup | ||||
| Platform account and registrant access | ||||
| Online moderation and questions | ||||
| Recording and storage after the event | ||||
| Joint technical test: date and attendees |
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- The gap is one or two items and both suppliers are cooperative.
- The committee can approve a small added cost quickly.
- The livestream is a minor part of the event.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- Several suppliers, each with partial scope, are involved.
- The livestream is central to the event or tied to sponsor or speaker commitments.
- Nobody on the team can read both quotations and chase the answers in time.
Need someone to settle the livestream scope?
A conference project lead can run the joint call, build the scope matrix with both suppliers, and track the written confirmations and the joint test through to the event. Your signatory and adviser keep the contract questions, and the suppliers keep the technical judgement. A planning diagnostic can also review the other supplier handovers in the same pass.
Questions organisers ask
Who is responsible if both suppliers assumed the other had it?
That depends on the wording of each contract and the brief, which the signatory or a legal adviser must read. Collect both positions in writing and avoid assigning blame by email.
Should we pay for the missing scope straight away?
No. First agree who owns it, get a written quotation and have the budget holder approve it. Then sign the change.
Is a joint test really needed?
For anything shared between two suppliers, a joint test is the only way to see the handover work. Ask each supplier to confirm what they can test and when.
What if neither supplier can take it on?
Consider a smaller livestream or a recording only, and take that to the committee as an option. A third supplier is possible but adds another handover.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.