Vendor Evaluation Matrices
Compare vendors against the same criteria, with evidence behind every score.
What you'll need
- Evaluation criteria with weights
- RFP responses from vendors
- Technical requirements
- Business requirements
- Reference check notes
Put it to work
Save these instructions in a Claude Skill or Project, or in a ChatGPT Project or Custom GPT. Add your context, run the sample prompt, and check the result against your team's standards before anyone relies on it.
Reusable playbook
Learn the method, adapt the details, then put it to work.
Start here
Reusable instruction — Claude: save as a skill file at ~/.claude/skills/operations/vendor-evaluation.md · ChatGPT: paste into a Custom GPT's instructions or a Project.
Give the AI a clear role
You are a procurement analyst who evaluates vendors objectively and thoroughly.
Bring the right context
- {{criteria_path}} - Evaluation criteria with weights
- {{requirements_path}} - Technical and business requirements
- RFP responses from vendors
- Evaluation criteria with weights
- Technical and business requirements
- Reference check notes (optional)
Run the method
Given vendor responses
- 1
Criteria Scoring
- Score each vendor on each criterion (1-5)
- Document evidence for each score
- Apply weighting to calculate totals
- Flag any non-compliant responses
- 1
Comparative Analysis
- Strengths/weaknesses by vendor
- Feature gaps
- Pricing comparison (TCO)
- Risk assessment
- 1
Recommendation
- Ranked order with rationale
- Negotiation points by vendor
- Due diligence items
04Preview the deliverableSee the shape of a strong answer before you run the workflow.
Vendor Evaluation: [RFP Name]
Vendors Evaluated: [List] Evaluation Date: [Date]
Scoring Summary
- Criterion
- Technical Fit
- Weight
- 30%
- Vendor A
- 4 (1.2)
- Vendor B
- 5 (1.5)
- Vendor C
- 3 (0.9)
- Criterion
- Pricing
- Weight
- 25%
- Vendor A
- 3 (0.75)
- Vendor B
- 4 (1.0)
- Vendor C
- 5 (1.25)
- Criterion
- [Continue]
- Weight
- Vendor A
- Vendor B
- Vendor C
- Criterion
- Total
- Weight
- 100%
- Vendor A
- 3.8
- Vendor B
- 4.2
- Vendor C
- 3.6
| Criterion | Weight | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Fit | 30% | 4 (1.2) | 5 (1.5) | 3 (0.9) |
| Pricing | 25% | 3 (0.75) | 4 (1.0) | 5 (1.25) |
| [Continue] | ||||
| Total | 100% | 3.8 | 4.2 | 3.6 |
Vendor Deep Dives
Vendor A: [Name]
Score: 3.8/5 Recommendation: Consider with negotiation
Strengths:
- [Strength with evidence]
Weaknesses:
- [Weakness with evidence]
Pricing Analysis:
- Base cost: [Amount]
- Implementation: [Amount]
- 3-year TCO: [Amount]
Risk Factors:
- [Risk and mitigation]
Vendor B: [Name]
...
Comparative Analysis
- Factor
- Technical
- Best Option
- Vendor B
- Notes
- [Why]
- Factor
- Pricing
- Best Option
- Vendor C
- Notes
- [Why]
- Factor
- Support
- Best Option
- Vendor A
- Notes
- [Why]
| Factor | Best Option | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | Vendor B | [Why] |
| Pricing | Vendor C | [Why] |
| Support | Vendor A | [Why] |
Final Recommendation
Winner: [Vendor] Rationale: [Paragraph explanation]
Negotiation Points:
- 1
[Point to negotiate]
- 2
[Point to negotiate]
Due Diligence Required:
- Reference calls
- Security review
- Legal contract review
Try this prompt
Evaluate these 3 CRM vendors against our criteria: Criteria (weighted): - Feature completeness (30%) - Integration capabilities (25%) - Pricing/TCO (20%) - Support quality (15%) - Implementation timeline (10%) Vendor responses attached: - Vendor A: vendor-a-response.pdf - Vendor B: vendor-b-response.pdf - Vendor C: vendor-c-response.pdf
Before you trust the output
- Define criteria before seeing responses (reduce bias)
- Include must-have vs. nice-to-have requirements
- Document scoring rationale for audit trail
Your next step
Want this workflow to run reliably every week?
Bring Vendor Evaluation Matrices to our free live workshop. We'll show you how to turn the reusable instructions into a working AI Agent Skill—without writing code.