Quote Comparison Matrix

About this template

A table for not choosing on price alone

Three sheets: ‘Dashboard’ · ‘Input data’ · ‘Usage guide’. ‘Input data’ holds two bid packages of four vendors each, eight rows in all: rows 2-5 a production management system build, rows 6-9 a warehouse lease and operation. Twelve columns run No. · Bid package · Vendor · Quote amount (KRW) · Lead time (days) · Price score · Quality/spec score · Lead time score · Support score · Weighted score · Rank · Notes.

Only two scores are given by a person

1. Bid package (column B) and Vendor (column C). Rows in one package must carry exactly the same package name or the comparison does not group.
2. Quote amount (column D) and Lead time (column E); the two scores follow on their own.
3. Quality/spec score (column G) and Support score (column I) are the only cells you score, 0 to 100. Record in Notes why you gave that score.

How the formulas run

• Price score =ROUND(MIN($D$2:$D$5)/D2*100,1) — the lowest quote in the package over this vendor’s, so the cheapest scores 100. Lead time score works the same way on MIN($E$2:$E$5)/E2.
• Weighted score =ROUND(F2*0.4+G2*0.3+H2*0.15+I2*0.15,1) — price 40% · quality/spec 30% · lead time 15% · support 15%. To reweight, edit these coefficients and keep them adding to 1.
• Rank =RANK(J2,$J$2:$J$5). A tie returns the same rank, so decide before you evaluate which criterion breaks one.
• The table under the dashboard shows the weighting itself — Price 40 · Quality/spec 30 · Lead time 15 · Support 15, with Total 100 as the check.

What the sample demonstrates

On the production management system build the lowest quote, Miraetech Co., Ltd. at 44,200,000, scores a full 100 on price — but quality 82, lead time 66.7 and support 75 leave it on 85.9 and third. The most expensive bid, Softone Co., Ltd. at 52,800,000, scores quality 94, lead time 100 and support 92 and finishes first on 90.5. On the warehouse package the cheapest bid, Seongjin Trading Co., Ltd., ends up fourth on 81.0. At a 40% weight on price, price alone does not turn the result over.

Decide these before the quotes arrive

A comparison only holds for quotes taken on identical terms. Fix specification, quantity, lead time, warranty period and whether VAT is included in a written request, send the same one to everyone, and standardize the deadline and format. Force quotes taken on different terms into one table and the price score turns a difference in scope into a difference in money. Set the weighting before you open the envelopes, too, or the table becomes a justification for a decision already made.

The dashboard splits by package

Summary by bid package keeps the two apart: the production management system build averages 86.45, the warehouse lease and operation 85.03. The weighted score total on the metric card, 685.9, adds unrelated packages together and means nothing, so read the per-package average and the rank. In the weighting table the four value rows are typed in and only Total 100 and Average 25 are formulas — if you reweight, change that table too.

What goes wrong

• Adding a fifth vendor without widening the ranges — $D$2:$D$5, $E$2:$E$5 and $J$2:$J$5 in columns F, H and K all have to grow.
• Entering one vendor VAT-inclusive. Its price score is skewed by 10%.
• Sorting the two packages together. The lowest-price reference is a fixed block, so reordering makes it read the wrong rows.
• Leaving no reason for rejection. When the same vendor bids again you cannot retrace the earlier call, and you have nothing to answer with if they ask why.