Vendor Scorecard

About this template

Five criteria gathered into one score

Three sheets: ‘Dashboard’ · ‘Input data’ · ‘Usage guide’. On ‘Input data’ each row is one vendor, with eight sample companies across four item groups in rows 2-9. Twelve columns run No. · Vendor · Item group · Review period · Quality (30) · Delivery (25) · Price (20) · Tech support (15) · Compliance & safety (10) · Weighted score · Rating · Action. The number in brackets in each header is that criterion’s weight.

Filling order

1. Enter Vendor (column B) and Item group (column C). Item group is what the dashboard groups on, so a vendor spanning two groups needs a row for each. The sample uses Raw materials · Consumables · Logistics · Services.
2. Keep Review period (column D) consistent — 2026 H1 throughout in the sample.
3. Score the five criteria (columns E-I) from 0 to 100. Do not pre-multiply by the weights — score each out of 100 and let the formula apply them.

How the formulas run

• Weighted score =ROUND(E2*0.3+F2*0.25+G2*0.2+H2*0.15+I2*0.1,1). The coefficients add to 1, so the result is out of 100 too. To reweight, change these and the bracketed numbers in the headers together.
• Rating =IF(J2>=90,”A”,IF(J2>=80,”B”,IF(J2>=70,”C”,”D”))). To move the boundaries, change 90, 80 and 70 and nothing else.
• The metric cards read column J. On the sample: 8 vendors · total 650.8 · average 81.35 · highest 87.7, Softone Co., Ltd.
• Summary by item group returns Services 87.5 · Raw materials 79.95 · Logistics 79.9 · Consumables 78.05. Rank within a group first, compare groups afterward.

The criterion you cannot settle in points

Compliance & safety (column I) is where a serious industrial accident, late payment to subcontractors or a personal data breach lands — matters that cannot be closed by taking a few points off. Where there is a violation on record, drop the rating to D whatever the weighted score says, and write the reason in Action. Agreeing in writing beforehand that two consecutive rounds at D means scaling the relationship back or sourcing an alternative saves arguing about points afterward.

Fix the cycle and the evidence first

Evaluate half-yearly or quarterly, and do everyone in the same window; score vendors at different moments and the same number describes different situations. Name the evidence up front: quality from incoming inspection pass rates and complaint counts, delivery from on-time rates, price against the market for the same item, tech support from response times and site attendance. If you keep a purchase order log, the gap between due date and received date gives the on-time rate directly.

The trend table is updated by hand

‘Average weighted score by half-year’ holds 2024 H2 76 · 2025 H1 79 · 2025 H2 80 · 2026 H1 81. The four value rows are typed in; only Total 316 and Average 79 are formulas. Carry each round’s average across as you close it and you can see whether the supply base as a whole is improving. The eight sample vendors come out five B and three C with no A at all — which is itself a prompt to check whether the weighting is set too hard.

What goes wrong

• Typing the weighted score or the rating by hand — the formula is gone, and corrected scores change nothing.
• Pre-multiplying a criterion by its weight, entering 27.6 for quality. The weighting is then applied twice.
• Overwriting last round’s file. Keep a copy of each round or there is no trend to read.
• Leaving Action empty. Scores survive, the request disappears, and the next round has nothing to check improvement against.
• Writing vendor names inconsistently or in short form. Put two rounds side by side and one company reads as two.