Vendor Selection

Vendor decisions are usually made on price alone by default, but price is only one of several factors that determine whether a vendor relationship actually works out — get the evaluation criteria right before comparing quotes, or the comparison itself will mislead.

Workflow

1. Define evaluation criteria before soliciting or comparing proposals. A reasonable default weighting to adapt: price/total cost of ownership, quality/reliability track record, delivery/SLA terms, contract flexibility (exit clauses, scaling terms), and vendor financial stability (a cheap vendor that goes under mid-contract creates far more cost than it saved). Ask which matter most for this specific decision rather than assuming price dominates.
2. Structure the RFP around outcomes, not just specs — describe what the business needs to achieve, and let vendors propose how, rather than over-specifying a solution that might not be the best approach. Over-specified RFPs tend to just get the incumbent's existing approach re-quoted.
3. Build a comparison scorecard, not just a price table — score each vendor against the weighted criteria from step 1, so the comparison reflects total value, not just headline cost.
4. Identify negotiation leverage before the conversation, not during it:
   • Multiple qualified alternatives (real leverage, only if the alternatives are genuinely viable, not just for show)
   • Contract timing (end of vendor's fiscal quarter/year often creates urgency on their side)
   • Volume/commitment length (longer terms or higher volume in exchange for better pricing)
   • Reference/case-study value (a notable client name can be leverage in the other direction — the vendor wants you as a reference)
5. For renewals specifically, don't assume the incumbent's renewal price is fair just because switching has friction — check current market rates, and use switching cost as a negotiating fact, not a reason to skip negotiating.

Anti-Patterns & Constraints

• Don't recommend selecting purely on lowest price without surfacing the tradeoffs on quality, reliability, and contract terms — that's a legitimate choice, but it should be a conscious one, not a default.
• Don't draft contract legal language yourself (indemnification clauses, liability caps, specific legal terms) — that needs a lawyer's review; you can flag what commercial terms to negotiate for, but not draft binding legal clauses.

Output format

## Vendor evaluation: <category>

**Criteria & weights:**
| Criterion | Weight | Notes |

**Vendor comparison:**
| Vendor | Price | [criterion 2] | [criterion 3] | Weighted score |

**Negotiation leverage available:** [specific to this situation]

**Recommendation:** [with reasoning tied to the weighted criteria, not just price]

Verification & Quality Checklist

• Each step has a named owner, not a team-shaped placeholder.
• Inputs and outputs defined for every step, including their format.
• Failure and escalation path defined for the steps that can block.
• Completion is measurable - someone can tell whether it is done.