Kyocera
Final offer$463.62 / month
$29,208.06 over 63 months
01 / Recommendation
The recommended determination is to go with Kyocera.
Kyocera demonstrated the color quality Development needs and has a fixed payment $186.38 lower per month. This recommendation combines Caylee’s end-user evaluation with Michael’s assessment of price and service.
02 / The financial choice
Fixed cost comparison
UBEO
Final offer$650.00 / month
$40,950.00 over 63 months
$186.38 less per month with Kyocera.
That is $2,236.56 per year and $11,741.94 over the 63-month term.
UBEO confirmed it cannot lower the equipment payment or include usage without increasing the monthly total.
Both offers price 12 devices. Fixed payments shown; usage, taxes and any escalation are additional. This is the difference between the offers, not total operating cost or savings against Xerox. UBEO proposal
03 / Quality and service
Print quality and service
Print quality
Kyocera has already shown the result.
- Caylee preferred its color vibrancy and accuracy, including the standard color setting.
- The demonstration needed no trial and error or custom color-profile work.
- UBEO says Ricoh’s color can be adjusted. PCC has not seen that adjusted output.
Service and support
UBEO made a positive impression.
- Caylee had a very positive experience with UBEO’s staff and recognizes its service infrastructure.
- Ricoh handled PCC’s cardstock and glossy stock well during the earlier demonstration.
- She does not see a service advantage large enough to justify the price difference.
UBEO has strengths. Kyocera offers the stronger overall value on the experience and prices presented.
Caylee’s September 11 assessment and earlier print demonstrations.
04 / The combined assessment
Caylee and Michael’s assessment
Caylee
Development / end-user perspective“I’m still leaning toward Kyocera as the stronger overall value.”
- The output already met Development’s needs.
- UBEO’s service argument did not change her impression.
- She defers IT and contract matters to Michael.
Michael
IT / commercial assessmentAt comparable service, Kyocera is the better overall deal.
- The $186.38 monthly gap exists from day one.
- Adding paid usage later does not close that gap.
- General brand and service claims do not justify a 40% premium.
Summary of Michael’s September 8–9 emails.
Their views align on value: the quality demonstrated and the lower price favor Kyocera. The complete assessment bullets are retained in the appendix.
05 / Decision requested
Decision for management
Management is being asked to approve the vendor choice. Michael will then request Kyocera’s contract for review before signing.
- 1Choose the vendor
Barbara and the directors decide.
- 2Receive the contract
Request the selected vendor’s agreement.
- 3Review and finalize
Review the agreement before signing.
Proposed decision: Approve Kyocera as PCC’s preferred printer vendor and proceed to contract review.
Supporting material
Appendix
Caylee and Michael — complete assessment bullets
Organized by topic. Caylee’s complete September 11 assessment is included; Michael’s points come from his sent correspondence.
What the additional $186.38 buys
UBEO starts $186.38 per month higher—over 40%—before either vendor charges for a page. General claims about a competitor’s future charges do not eliminate that difference.
The request was for usage included within the existing payment to narrow the gap. Adding paid usage to the contract later does not accomplish that.
Annual service increases matter, but the comparison must use the actual written terms rather than assumed competitor increases.
Calling Ricoh “the most tried & true device in the US” without supporting data is sales rhetoric; the assertion does not justify the fixed-payment premium.
Reading the UBEO thread did little to change her impression, and she agrees with Michael’s assessment.
Even if UBEO’s statements are based in truth and data, they sound like a carefully selected justification for the price premium.
What UBEO suggests will happen with Kyocera remains hypothetical.
Print quality PCC has actually seen
Color vibrancy and accuracy matter for Development’s donor-facing materials. He asked UBEO to verify the effect of calibration or color-profile changes.
The biggest distinction is that Kyocera already demonstrated the print quality PCC needs, including at its standard color setting.
At the demonstration, that output required no trial and error, ongoing troubleshooting or specialty color-profile creation.
UBEO’s confidence that it can achieve the desired Ricoh output through adjustments is encouraging, but PCC has not actually seen that output.
Earlier in the review, he was open to another Ricoh demonstration to show the desired output and the value of UBEO’s support. The current management presentation proceeds on the demonstrations already completed.
Service experience and service predictions
He and Barbara liked UBEO’s overall solution, and he took Caylee’s favorable impression of its staff seriously.
UBEO makes a strong case for its service infrastructure, and she had a very positive experience with its staff during her visit.
Nothing in the thread gives her reason to believe Kyocera’s service would necessarily be inadequate, or UBEO’s so exceptional that it would justify the substantial cost difference.
Even if Kyocera’s service were only marginally better than PCC’s experience with Xerox, that would still improve everyday printing and troubleshooting.
If Kyocera performs as demonstrated, it should reduce many of the everyday printing and troubleshooting issues that currently require support.
He told Caylee he was deferring to her impression of UBEO. If she expected similar customer support and service, he agreed Kyocera was the better overall deal. UBEO’s argument sounded mostly like sales rhetoric to him.
The overall value judgment
From her experience and the Development/end-user perspective, she is still leaning toward Kyocera as the stronger overall value.
She cannot assess the backend IT experience.
She cannot assess the specific contract and service protections UBEO references.
She defers to Michael on whether those factors materially change the comparison.
She remains open to additional considerations and follow-up questions.
Detailed fixed payments and per-page rates
| Compare | Kyocera | UBEO |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment | $348.62 | $529.62 |
| Cloud software | $80.00 · 4 KCPS licenses | $120.38 · CloudStream |
| Readers / authentication + holders | $35.00 · 4 readers, 3 holders | Main reader confirmed; included |
| Monthly fixed total | $463.62 | $650.00 |
| Annualized fixed total | $5,563.44 | $7,800.00 |
| 63-month fixed total | $29,208.06 | $40,950.00 |
| Usage billing | Monthly, additional | Quarterly, actual usage additional |
The fixed-payment comparison excludes usage, taxes and escalation.
| Print type | Kyocera / page | UBEO / page | 1,000 pages: K / U |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main color | $0.0410 | $0.0500 | $41 / $50 |
| Court color | $0.0725 | $0.0500 | $72.50 / $50 |
| Main B&W | $0.0075 | $0.0070 | $7.50 / $7 |
| Court B&W | $0.0155 | $0.0070 | $15.50 / $7 |
| Kyocera MA5500ifx / UBEO Lexmark | $0.0100 | $0.0120 | $10 / $12 |
| Kyocera MA4500ix & PA4500x / UBEO Lexmark | $0.0110 | $0.0120 | $11 / $12 |
The 1,000-page examples illustrate rates, not projected volume. The last two rows compare rate categories. UBEO states a 5% annual cap on per-page service increases.
What PCC needs from its new printers
- Everyday printing
A simple secure-print queue, badge release and cloud printing at the main unit, shelter hotline, court and Bristol.
- Development’s materials
Accurate, vibrant color for donor-facing materials and stapling on the main unit.
- Scanning and office workflow
Direct scanning to OneDrive / SharePoint; Wendy retains copy/scan and ordinary network printing.
- Rollout and training
PCC / ATS control of Microsoft 365 deployment, with strong vendor involvement in user training.
Michael’s requirements from the August discussions and September configuration email.
His earlier workflow preferences also included avoiding a shared scanner account, reducing scan-to-email duplication and keeping ordinary printing simple. Mobile scan/copy across separate networks was a concern; he did not expect print quotas to be necessary.
Research behind the Ricoh brand claim
Ricoh is a credible option, but the research reviewed does not establish “the most tried & true device in the US.”
- DataMaster’s June 2025 Best Print Productivity award includes the proposed IM C4510. It supports productivity, not a US-wide claim about long-term reliability. DataMaster announcement
- Keypoint Intelligence reported zero misfeeds over 200,000 impressions for the older IM C4500 in 2019. That is a different model; zero misfeeds does not mean zero failures or service calls. Keypoint 2019 announcement
- Keypoint’s 2025 IM C3010 award praised productivity, usability, scanning and OCR accuracy. It concerns another model. Keypoint 2025 announcement
Matt’s market-share and customer-retention figures describe scale and customer relationships. They do not demonstrate a reliability advantage that explains PCC’s additional $186.38 per month.