Vendor Evaluation Skill

Vendor Evaluation Skill

Produces a structured vendor evaluation framework — from defining criteria through to a scored comparison and recommendation.

Required Inputs

• What you are procuring
• Vendors being evaluated (minimum 2)
• Key decision criteria (if known)
• Decision makers
• Budget range
• Timeline to decide

Output Structure

1. Evaluation Criteria and Weights

Category	Weight	Rationale
Functional fit	[%]	Does it do what we need?
Commercial terms	[%]	Price, flexibility, payment
Implementation	[%]	How hard to get started?
Support and SLA	[%]	What happens when things go wrong?
Security and compliance	[%]	Meets regulatory requirements?
Vendor stability	[%]	Will this company exist in 3 years?
References	[%]	Who else uses this?

Weights must total 100%.

2. Scoring Rubric

• 5: Exceeds requirements — clear best-in-class
• 4: Meets requirements — fully satisfies with minor gaps
• 3: Partially meets — notable gaps requiring workarounds
• 2: Significant gaps — would require workarounds
• 1: Does not meet — cannot satisfy requirement

3. Vendor Scorecard

Criterion	Weight	[Vendor A]	Weighted	[Vendor B]	Weighted	[Vendor C]	Weighted
Functional fit	[%]	/5		/5		/5
[Continue...]
Total	100%		/5		/5		/5

4. Key Questions for Every Vendor

Functional: Walk through [most critical use case]. What can your product not do that customers ask for? Commercial: What is included vs add-ons? Contract minimum term and notice period? Price protection at renewal? Implementation: Typical implementation for our size? What do you need from our team? Support: SLA for critical issues? Support included vs charged extra? Security: ISO 27001 / SOC 2 certified? Where is data stored? Breach notification process?

5. Reference Check Questions

• How long using [vendor]? Implementation surprises? Support responsiveness? One thing you wish you had known? Would you choose them again?

6. Recommendation

Recommended vendor: [Name] | Score: [X/5] Rationale: [Specific strengths that matter for this decision] Key risks: [Risk and mitigation] Conditions: [Contract terms to negotiate before signing] Runner-up: [Vendor and why they lost]

Quality Checks

• Evaluation criteria weights total 100%
• Scoring rubric is defined before scoring vendors (not post-hoc)
• Reference check questions are included
• Recommendation includes risks and conditions, not just a winner
• Runner-up rationale explains why they lost (enables future conversations)
• Contract terms to negotiate are specified

Anti-Patterns

• Do not weight all evaluation criteria equally — the scorecard must reflect the relative importance of each criterion
• Do not evaluate vendors only on features — security, support, contract terms, and financial stability matter too
• Do not produce a recommendation without explaining why the runner-up lost — this enables future vendor conversations
• Do not skip contract terms to negotiate — identifying leverage points is part of the procurement decision
• Do not recommend a vendor without stating the conditions under which the recommendation would change

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Help me evaluate vendors for [procurement]"
• "Create a vendor scorecard for [software/service]"
• "Compare [Vendor A] vs [Vendor B] for [use case]"