Score a parcel auditor using evidence from a demo
Reviewed
Choose weights before viewing demos, score the same criteria for each provider, and export the comparison with the underlying evidence.
Choose weights before comparing providers
Use the six criteria in the directory. A shipper with complicated allocations may weight reporting heavily, while another buyer may prioritize recovery follow-through and account continuity. Agree on weights with the teams that will use the service. Set a criterion to zero only when it is irrelevant to this comparison. Keep any mandatory requirement outside the weighted average so a high score elsewhere cannot compensate for a missing prerequisite.
Use a common scoring scale. A low score indicates weak fit against the stated requirement, while a high score requires directly relevant evidence. Leave unknown evidence unresolved in the buyer’s notes and complete scoring once the answer is obtained. The tool requires an explicit score so blank and zero cannot be confused.
Run the same task in each demo
Give each provider the same synthetic invoice issue, reporting request and handoff question. Record whether the answer was documented, shown in a demo, or left open. Compare how the provider explains the evidence from original charge to credit, and ask how the customer can export that record. Note when a capability was described for a different plan.
Ask the buyer’s team to score independently before discussing differences. When two reviewers disagree, identify the difference in evidence or in the definition of fit. Preserve the original note and record which answer changed the final rating.
Review scores beside the proposal
The tool multiplies each score by its weight and divides the total by the sum of weights. Enter a provider and calculate to save that evaluation in the current session. Use the same weights across providers and keep the proposal and demo notes with the CSV. The result summarizes the buyer’s criteria and does not rank providers in the market.
Before making a decision, review each mandatory requirement, check the final fee basis and ask for confirmation of any promised export or responsibility. Test a different weight set to see whether the result changes when priorities change. A close result is a reason to check the evidence behind the difference rather than assuming the decimal precision is meaningful.
Keep weights and evidence with the export
The downloadable sheet records the weights, provider scores and weighted results. Save a separate note for each criterion describing the source of the score. If weights change during evaluation, recalculate the comparison for every saved provider using the same set. Label the alternate weight set so the team can reproduce both outcomes.
A mandatory requirement can be handled as a separate pass or fail check. For example, if an export is essential for finance, a high weighted score should not override a missing export. Record whether it was demonstrated, whether the agreement includes it, and whether the buyer can receive it after a transition.
Use the tool for the buyer’s own shortlist. Scores are based on entered evidence and priorities. If a provider does not meet an applicable requirement, record the gap alongside its score. Keep zero weight distinct from zero score so a criterion can be deliberately excluded without implying poor performance.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Coverage | Which carrier accounts and charge categories are included? |
| Recovery | Who files, monitors, and reconciles? |
| Reporting | Can a buyer reproduce a charge from an export? |
| Fees | Is the actual scope and fee trigger in writing? |
| Continuity | Who owns accounts, data and open cases? |
| Expertise | Who handles complex exceptions? |
Worked example (hypothetical)
In a hypothetical comparison, recovery has weight 3 and reporting weight 2, with other weights zero. A provider scored 4 for recovery and 2 for reporting receives (3 × 4 + 2 × 2) ÷ 5 = 3.20. The result changes if the buyer values reporting more.
Questions to ask
- What is a mandatory requirement?
- Which demo evidence supports each score?
- Which proposal differences are still unresolved?
- Would a different priority change the result?