Rank vendor quotes with a weighted bid tab, inspect the sample award memo, and download the CSV before leaving an email.
Current recommendation
Scores 86/100, 4 points ahead of Atlas Procurement Group, with stronger scope coverage and lower delivery risk than the lowest-price bid.
Sample decision only. Replace the vendors, scores, and risk notes before approval. Inputs stay in browser state; analytics records aggregate tool usage and the current sample winner.
| Vendor | Price | Timeline | Scope | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northstar Facilities | $26,800 | 5 wks | Includes required deliverables, two training sessions, and 60 days of post-launch support. | 86/100 |
| Atlas Procurement Group | $24,750 | 6 wks | Covers all required deliverables, but training is limited to one session. | 82/100 |
| Beacon Source Partners | $29,200 | 8 wks | Strong documentation package, but integration support is an add-on. | 72/100 |
| Score basis | 01Northstar Facilities$26,800 / 5 wksRecommended | 02Atlas Procurement Group$24,750 / 6 wks | 03Beacon Source Partners$29,200 / 8 wks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total price30 pts | 248/10 raw | 3010/10 raw | 217/10 raw |
| Scope fit25 pts | 22.59/10 raw | 208/10 raw | 17.57/10 raw |
| Delivery timeline15 pts | 13.59/10 raw | 128/10 raw | 10.57/10 raw |
| Risk controls20 pts | 189/10 raw | 126/10 raw | 168/10 raw |
| Commercial terms10 pts | 88/10 raw | 88/10 raw | 77/10 raw |
| Weighted total | 86/100 | 82/100 | 72/100 |
Northstar Facilities: Best balance of support, acceptance terms, and delivery speed for this sample scenario. This is the current sample recommendation.
Atlas Procurement Group: Lowest price, moderate support coverage, change orders billed hourly.
Beacon Source Partners: Highest cost and slowest timeline, with several exclusions to clarify.
A sample scorecard, not a universal vendor decision. Analytics records aggregate tool usage and the current sample winner, not private quote figures.
Procurement teams need to explain why the recommendation won. The memo captures the winner, the accepted tradeoff, and open checks before signing.
Northstar Facilities leads the sample with 86/100, ahead of Atlas Procurement Group at 82/100. The recommendation accepts a higher price than the low bid in exchange for stronger support, faster delivery, and cleaner acceptance terms.
| Vendor | Quoted price | Timeline | Payment terms | Scope included | Risk to resolve | Weighted score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northstar FacilitiesCurrent sample winner | $26,800 | 5 weeks | 25% upfront, 50% milestone, 25% after acceptance | Includes required deliverables, two training sessions, and 60 days of post-launch support. | Best balance of support, acceptance terms, and delivery speed for this sample scenario. | 86/100 |
| Atlas Procurement Group | $24,750 | 6 weeks | 40% upfront, balance on delivery | Covers all required deliverables, but training is limited to one session. | Lowest price, moderate support coverage, change orders billed hourly. | 82/100 |
| Beacon Source Partners | $29,200 | 8 weeks | 50% upfront, balance before final handoff | Strong documentation package, but integration support is an add-on. | Highest cost and slowest timeline, with several exclusions to clarify. | 72/100 |
Price matters, but it is not allowed to erase scope exclusions, delivery risk, weak terms, or support gaps.
Compares the full quoted cost after normalizing one-time fees, recurring fees, and included scope.
Rewards quotes that include the must-have deliverables without expensive exclusions.
Scores how well the quote matches the target implementation window.
Looks at dependencies, warranties, support, cancellation terms, and change-order exposure.
Captures payment schedule, renewal language, price lock, and quote validity.
The model is sourced and bounded: useful for organizing a decision, not a substitute for procurement, legal, or compliance review.
NIGP Global Best Practices: Evaluation Criteria
View sourceU.S. General Services Administration procurement quote review guidance
View sourceThe scoring model is a transparent sample heuristic for comparing like-for-like quotes. It is not procurement, legal, tax, or compliance advice. Replace the quotes, weights, and risk notes with your own before any approval.
The CSV download is immediate. It includes the sample vendors, scoring columns, scope fields, and risk-note fields shown on this page.
Because the lowest price often hides the highest total cost. A cheap quote with limited support, slow delivery, or excluded scope becomes change orders and delays later. The scorecard weighs price against scope, timeline, risk, and commercial terms so you can defend the tradeoff.
Each vendor gets a 1-10 score on five criteria. Each criterion has a weight that sums to 100 points. The weighted score is the raw score times the weight, totaled across all five. The same method runs for every vendor, so the comparison is apples to apples. The weights you set on this page are the exact ones used in the live ranking.
No. The three quotes are a worked sample built to show the method clearly. The point is the comparison structure, not these specific companies. The full template lets you drop in your own vendors, prices, and risk notes and score them the same way.
No. The scoring model is a transparent sample heuristic for organizing a like-for-like comparison, not procurement, legal, tax, or compliance advice. Figures were verified June 14, 2026 against the sources cited above. Always run quotes past your own approver before signing.
No. The comparison runs in your browser. Analytics records anonymous usage, the current winner, score, and whether weights were customized, but it does not store your full weight map or any private quote figures.
Need the formatted workbook version with decision-note tabs and approval fields? Leave an email and we will follow up with the spreadsheet pack.
Free first pack. No performance or approval guarantee. We only use your email to coordinate delivery.