Defend the intent. Fix the package.
The AVI-SPL design direction is defensible, but the current proposal package is not ready to defend as written. The call should align the team around AVI-SPL’s right to win: the customer came to us first, the premium design has a defensible basis, and the path forward should give leadership clear options instead of a price-defense posture.
Lower-cost all-in package.
More than CTI total before the lobby wall.
Premium lobby feature-wall scope.
Only defensible as premium outcome.
Approx. 2.48× CTI.
1. Start With the Decision
Are we defending a landmark architectural media environment, creating a right-sized AVI-SPL alternate, or building a CTI-class budget option?
Defend corrected original
Use if customer wants the rendered Welcome Center impact and Boardroom premium experience.
Right-sized AVI-SPL
Best path forward: preserve quality while reducing the biggest cost driver.
CTI-class alternate
Use if customer is primarily buying cost-controlled modernization.
2. Price Reality
AVI-SPL combined vs CTI all-in.
CTI’s full package is less than AVI-SPL Boardroom/Conference alone.
AVI-SPL lobby proposal alone is more than CTI’s entire package by roughly $78.7K.
3. Scope Proof
Largest delta driver
AVI-SPL’s lobby wall is roughly 4.5 times the display area of CTI’s all-in-one LED display.
Not invented in a vacuum
Renderings, transcript context, and follow-up confirmation support video-wall design/proposal scope.
16:9 vs 32:9 conflict
The listed dimensions and resolution are effectively 16:9; proposal language says 32:9.
4. Customer Voice Receipts
Customer came to AVI-SPL for trusted guidance
I should just reach out to one of my trusted integrators.
Why it matters: reinforces that AVI-SPL was invited in as a trusted advisor, not just another bidder.
Customer asked us to recommend the route
You tell me the best route to go and you get me numbers and what it's going to cost and we will push it up the chain.
Why it matters: shows the customer wanted AVI-SPL's design guidance and a path forward, not only a commodity quote.
The video wall originated in the renderings
The idea in the original renderings from the architect, they had this nice big video wall right here.
Why it matters: supports that the large-wall direction was tied to architectural intent, not invented after the fact.
Lobby use included meetings, press, and welcome impact
They want speakers out here... meetings... press conferences... a great video wall would look great as a nice background for that. And it's a great welcoming thing.
Why it matters: supports lobby audio and the architectural/media-experience framing of the Welcome Center.
ScreenBeam was a stated campus standard
We've standardized on the ScreenBeams... those have been our go-to... our network guys like them and they approve them.
Why it matters: explains why the Room 204 ScreenBeam omission matters.
Captioning was explicitly raised
Anything live stream for public institutions has to have captioning... the captions would also have to be on any of the displays in the room.
Why it matters: captioning is not an internal nice-to-have; it was named by the customer.
Press-conference LED validation was identified early
You do need high scan video walls and typically a controller that has genlock so you don't get the bars just going constantly on it.
Why it matters: frames LED press suitability as responsible engineering follow-through, not a late-stage objection.
The construction timeline is real
We're in construction phase, really. Like this is happening no matter what. The ball is rolling... once they get rolling, they're going to get going pretty quick.
Why it matters: reinforces urgency around proposal cleanup, option decisions, and customer re-engagement.
5. Compare Outcomes, Not Vendors
Cost-controlled display package
- 163"–190" packaged/all-in-one dvLED class
- Basic signage / presentation workflow
- Lobby audio optional
- Lower architectural impact
Recommended path forward
- Smaller professional dvLED option
- Keep key Boardroom quality items
- Add Room 204 ScreenBeam
- Preserve engineering documentation and lifecycle clarity
Corrected original vision
- 29' architectural feature wall
- Lobby audio reinforcement
- Boardroom spillover
- Four 98" Boardroom displays
- Requires proposal cleanup before defense
6. Cleanup Before Re-Engage
Before resubmission
- Video wall aspect ratio conflict
- Boardroom camera count mismatch
- Room 204 control contradiction
- Room 204 ScreenBeam omission or rationale
With customer / sales
- Captioning workflow and owner
- Local voice reinforcement requirement
- Single-canvas vs multi-window lobby use
- Boardroom spillover to lobby
Technically
- LED press-conference capture suitability
- Shared Q-SYS / core dependency
- Network topology and failure modes
- Ceiling / RCP coordination
7. Customer Standards Heatmap
| Standard / Need | Customer Context | CTI | AVI-SPL | Sales Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ScreenBeam | Campus go-to / network-approved standard | Aligned | Boardroom only | Medium — easy fix |
| Epiphan cameras | Current Pearl Nexus / camera familiarity | Aligned | QSC cameras need rationale | Medium |
| Q-SYS | Customer is a Q-SYS house | Aligned | Aligned | Low |
| Captioning | Public-institution livestream and in-room display need | Unclear | Unclear | High |
| Lobby events / press | Meetings, speakers, press conferences discussed | Limited / unclear | Stronger with lobby audio | Opportunity |
| Clean aesthetics | Visible desk/cabling concepts rejected | Partial | Strong | Opportunity |
8. Right-to-Win Path Forward
Clean QA
Fix contradictions and proposal credibility issues.
Validate assumptions
Press suitability, network/core dependency, voice/captioning.
Build options
Corrected premium plus right-sized alternate.
Align internally
Sales, DE, GM, D&E agree on recommended path.
Re-engage AV Director
Bring technical stakeholder back into decision path.
Ask outcome question
Architectural impact or budget modernization?
Submit corrected options
Do not panic-discount the premium system.
9. Decisions Needed Today
Only after aspect ratio, camera count, Room 204 language, captioning, press-use, and dependencies are cleaned up.
Preserve quality while reducing the largest cost driver: lobby wall scale.
Use if leadership believes the customer is buying the lower-cost outcome.
Design Engineering, Sales, SME/vendor validation, and leadership approval.
Outcome-class framing, not vendor-price defense.
10. Backup Appendix
One-minute leadership narrative
CTI is at $192K all-in; AVI-SPL is at $477K combined. This is not an apples-to-apples low-bid comparison. CTI quoted a 163-inch all-in-one LED display; AVI-SPL quoted a roughly 29-foot architectural dvLED feature wall plus lobby audio reinforcement. The design direction is defensible, but the current documents have proposal-quality issues that need cleanup before customer re-engagement.
24-hour cleanup actions
- Correct video wall aspect ratio.
- Reconcile Boardroom camera count.
- Fix Room 204 control language.
- Add ScreenBeam to Room 204 or prepare rationale.
- Confirm LED press-conference suitability.
- Add closed-captioning requirement section.
48–72-hour response plan
- Build corrected premium proposal.
- Build right-sized video wall alternate.
- Build CTI-class budget alternate if desired.
- Create one-page visual scope comparison.
- Schedule customer scope/value alignment call.
- Request manufacturer support where appropriate.
Customer clarification questions
- Is the Welcome Center wall intended to match the architectural renderings as a signature feature?
- Should the lobby wall support press conferences as a camera-captured background?
- Is multi-window content required?
- Is Boardroom spillover to the lobby required?
- Should Room 204 follow the ScreenBeam standard?
- Should Boardroom cameras remain QSC or align to Epiphan familiarity?
- Who owns live captioning, and where must captions display?
- Is local in-room voice reinforcement required?
Source notes
- CTI: $192,428.26 total; 163-inch Absen X163 V2 AIOLED; ScreenBeam in Boardroom and Room 204; Epiphan cameras and Pearl Nexus.
- AVI-SPL Boardroom/Conference: $205,742.93 total; four 98-inch Samsung QH98C displays; QSC camera count mismatch; Room 204 lacks ScreenBeam.
- AVI-SPL Video Wall/Lobby Audio: $271,114.47 total; 25.2 ft × 14.17 ft Absen NX.18, 1500 nit, 4096 × 2304, NovaStar, 3% spares; 32:9/16:9 conflict; shared/OFE Q-SYS Core dependency.
RSM Bottom Line
We can defend the design intent, but we cannot defend the current proposal package as-is. Correct the premium option, build a right-sized AVI-SPL alternate, and move the customer conversation from price comparison to outcome class.