A weighted scorecard makes priorities explicit, but it does not turn judgment into objective truth. This guide shows the requirements, evidence review, scoring logic, and two scenarios that lead to different results.
1. Set minimum requirements before scoring
Define capacity, mandatory certifications, delivery constraints, data or security requirements, and contractual red lines. A supplier that fails a genuine minimum requirement should not be rescued by a high score elsewhere. Record the evidence used for each pass/fail decision.
2. Use criteria that can be evaluated consistently
The worked model uses price, scope, delivery, warranty, payment terms, and risk. Each criterion is scored from 1 to 5 using the same rule for every supplier. Replace these criteria where they do not fit your decision, and write the scoring rule before evaluating responses.
3. Weighting represents priorities, not facts
The example baseline gives price 30%, scope 25%, delivery 15%, warranty 10%, payment terms 10%, and risk 10%. A schedule-critical scenario shifts weight from price to delivery and risk. Neither scenario is objectively correct; the value is seeing whether the preferred supplier changes when priorities change.
4. Review the arithmetic and the evidence
Multiply each score by its weight and add the weighted results. Keep links or notes showing why the score was assigned. A decimal total is not proof of precision: close results should trigger a qualitative review of assumptions, missing information, and commercial risk.
5. Complete due diligence before commitment
A document scorecard does not replace reference checks, contract review, financial or operational due diligence, or a pilot where one is appropriate. Use it to structure the evidence and explain trade-offs, then complete the checks required for the value and risk of the purchase.
Reusable working resource
A scorecard with two legitimate outcomes
Scores use a 1–5 scale and are illustrative, not objective facts. Each score should be supported by a source note. Minimum requirements should be checked before weighted scoring.
| Criterion | Northline | BrightOak | Cedar |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Scope | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| Delivery | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Warranty | 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Payment | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| Risk | 4 | 2 | 5 |
Price 30%, scope 25%, delivery 15%, warranty 10%, payment 10%, risk 10%.
- Cedar: 4.30
- Northline: 3.95
- BrightOak: 3.35
Cedar’s broad scope offsets its weaker price score. The result still depends on whether its price premium fits the budget.
Price 15%, scope 20%, delivery 30%, warranty 5%, payment 10%, risk 20%.
- Cedar: 4.65
- Northline: 3.75
- BrightOak: 2.80
Cedar’s lead grows because faster delivery and lower execution risk now matter more than price.
Download and adapt the model
The XLSX contains formulas for both scenarios. Change criteria, evidence, scores, and weights to match the actual purchase. The weights must total 100%.