Key takeaways
- Copy the weighted scoring template below — criteria, weights, and a 1–5 scale you can adapt in minutes.
- Weight criteria before you score, and make the weights total 100% so the result is defensible.
- Score independently with two-plus evaluators to strip out individual bias.
- Evaluation feeds selection — the template produces the evidence; the decision uses it alongside negotiation and fit.
What a vendor evaluation template is
A vendor evaluation template is a structured scoring framework that assesses and compares suppliers against consistent, weighted criteria. It converts a subjective "which vendor feels right" choice into a documented, defensible decision — every vendor scored on the same scale, every criterion weighted by importance. That paper trail matters as much as the result: when a stakeholder challenges the choice, you can show exactly why one vendor won.
The template below is ready to copy into a spreadsheet. It pairs with the broader supplier evaluation process and the criteria detail in our supplier selection criteria guide — use those for depth, and use this page to get scoring today.
The vendor evaluation template
Copy this into a spreadsheet. The weights below are a sensible default for a typical goods/services purchase — adjust them to your category before scoring. Score each vendor 1–5 per criterion, multiply by the weight, and sum the weighted column for a total out of 5.
| Criterion | Weight | Score (1–5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price / total cost of ownership | 20% | __ | = score × 0.20 |
| Quality of product / service | 20% | __ | = score × 0.20 |
| Delivery & lead-time reliability | 15% | __ | = score × 0.15 |
| Financial stability | 10% | __ | = score × 0.10 |
| Technical capability / fit | 10% | __ | = score × 0.10 |
| Support & responsiveness | 10% | __ | = score × 0.10 |
| Compliance & certifications | 8% | __ | = score × 0.08 |
| Risk (ESG, cyber, concentration) | 7% | __ | = score × 0.07 |
| Total | 100% | — | Weighted total /5 |
5 = excellent / exceeds requirement · 4 = good · 3 = meets requirement · 2 = below requirement · 1 = poor / fails. Define what each score means for your specific criteria before evaluating.
How to use the template
The template is only as good as the discipline behind it. Five steps turn it from a spreadsheet into a defensible decision:
- Set weights first, for this category. A critical single-source component weights financial stability and risk higher; a commodity weights price higher. Agree weights with stakeholders before you see any vendor.
- Define each score level. Write down what a 3 versus a 5 means for "delivery reliability" so scores mean the same thing to everyone.
- Score independently. Have at least two evaluators score without seeing each other's numbers, then reconcile. This is the single biggest bias reducer.
- Document the rationale. Add a notes column. A score with no reasoning is worthless when the decision is questioned later.
- Compare weighted totals — then judge. The total ranks vendors, but it informs the decision rather than dictating it. A 4.2 with a critical risk flag may lose to a 4.0 with none.
Pre-evaluation checklist
Before you send the template to evaluators, confirm:
- Requirements and specifications are documented and agreed.
- Weights total 100% and reflect this category's risk profile.
- Score definitions are written and shared with all evaluators.
- Each vendor has submitted comparable information (same RFP/RFQ).
- Financial and risk data has been gathered, not assumed.
- At least two independent evaluators are assigned.
Get more procurement templates
Subscribe and we'll send new scoring templates, scorecards, and checklists as we publish them.
Customising the criteria by category
No single weighting fits every purchase. For a software or AI vendor, technical capability, integration, and security carry far more weight than for a commodity supplier. For a critical direct-material supplier, continuity and financial stability dominate. The template's structure stays the same; the weights and sometimes the criteria change.
When you're evaluating software or AI vendors specifically, our guide to evaluating procurement AI agents adds the security, integration, and accuracy criteria that generic templates miss, and the procurement AI buyer's guide frames the whole purchase. For ongoing supplier monitoring after selection, the supplier scorecard template is the recurring companion to this one-time evaluation.
Common mistakes to avoid
Three failure modes recur. First, setting weights after seeing vendors — this lets the result be reverse-engineered to a favourite, destroying objectivity. Second, scoring solo, which bakes in one person's bias. Third, treating the total as the decision rather than as evidence; the score should inform judgement, especially where a single criterion (a critical risk, a deal-breaking compliance gap) should override a high average. Avoiding these keeps the evaluation genuinely defensible — and connects naturally to the wider vendor management lifecycle and vendor risk assessment that follow selection.