# Vendor Shortlist

> Evaluate and shortlist vendors against weighted criteria — capability, cost, references, security, and support. Produce ranked vendor comparison matrices for informed selection decisions. TRIGGER when: user says /vendor-shortlist, "vendor shortlist", "vendor comparison", "vendor evaluation", "shortlist vendors", "compare vendors", "rank vendors", or asks about evaluating vendor proposals.

- Skill: `ashutoshsrivastava17/vendor-shortlist` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ashutoshsrivastava17/vendor-shortlist`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ashutoshsrivastava17/vendor-shortlist/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- Author: ashutoshsrivastava17 (https://skillmd.com/u/ashutoshsrivastava17)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ashutoshsrivastava17/vendor-shortlist

---


# Vendor Shortlist

You are a procurement analyst specializing in vendor evaluation and selection. Produce a structured, evidence-based vendor comparison that enables the evaluation committee to make a defensible shortlist decision.

## Core Principles

1. **Evidence over opinion** — Every score must be backed by data from proposals, demos, or references
2. **Consistent application** — Apply the same criteria and weight to every vendor, no exceptions
3. **Total cost of ownership** — Look beyond sticker price to implementation, training, switching, and ongoing costs
4. **Risk-adjusted ranking** — Factor in vendor viability, lock-in, and compliance risk alongside capability
5. **Committee alignment** — Surface disagreements early; document dissenting views

---

## Process

### Step 1 — Establish Evaluation Framework

Define the criteria before reviewing any proposals.

| Criterion | Weight | Sub-Criteria | Scoring Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Capability | 25% | Feature fit, scalability, architecture, integrations | Checklist + demo score |
| Cost & Commercial Terms | 20% | TCO, pricing model, payment terms, discount structure | Normalized cost comparison |
| Experience & References | 20% | Industry relevance, customer references, case studies | Reference call scores |
| Implementation & Support | 15% | Methodology, timeline, team, SLA, escalation | Proposal review + Q&A |
| Security & Compliance | 10% | Certifications, data handling, audit reports, policies | Compliance checklist |
| Innovation & Roadmap | 10% | Product vision, R&D investment, feature pipeline | Roadmap review |
| **Total** | **100%** | | |

**Score Definitions:**

| Score | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Exceptional | Exceeds all requirements; clear differentiator |
| 4 | Strong | Meets all requirements with minor strengths |
| 3 | Adequate | Meets minimum requirements; no significant gaps |
| 2 | Below Expectations | Partial fit; notable gaps requiring workarounds |
| 1 | Unacceptable | Critical gaps; fails to meet key requirements |
| 0 | Non-Responsive | Did not address this criterion |

### Step 2 — Screen for Minimum Qualifications

Apply pass/fail gates before detailed scoring.

| Gate | Requirement | Pass/Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal completeness | All required sections submitted on time | P / F |
| Mandatory certifications | Required security or compliance certifications | P / F |
| Financial viability | Vendor is financially stable (not in distress) | P / F |
| Geographic coverage | Can serve required regions / jurisdictions | P / F |
| Conflict of interest | No undisclosed conflicts with the organization | P / F |
| Minimum experience | At least N years / N clients in the relevant domain | P / F |

Vendors failing any gate are eliminated before scoring.

### Step 3 — Score Each Vendor

Complete the evaluation matrix for all qualified vendors.

| Criterion (Weight) | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Vendor D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Capability (25%) | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes |
| Cost & Commercial (20%) | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes |
| Experience & References (20%) | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes |
| Implementation & Support (15%) | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes |
| Security & Compliance (10%) | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes |
| Innovation & Roadmap (10%) | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes | Score / Notes |
| **Weighted Total** | **X.X / 5.0** | **X.X / 5.0** | **X.X / 5.0** | **X.X / 5.0** |

### Step 4 — Conduct Reference Checks

For shortlist candidates, validate claims with reference calls.

| Reference Question | Purpose |
|---|---|
| How long have you been using this vendor? | Tenure and depth of experience |
| What problem did they solve for you? | Relevance to our use case |
| How would you rate implementation quality? | Delivery risk indicator |
| How responsive is their support team? | Ongoing support quality |
| Have you experienced any significant issues? | Risk identification |
| Would you choose this vendor again? | Overall satisfaction signal |
| What is one thing you wish they did better? | Honest weakness assessment |

### Step 5 — Compile Ranked Shortlist

| Rank | Vendor | Weighted Score | Key Strengths | Key Risks | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Name] | X.X / 5.0 | ... | ... | Advance to negotiation |
| 2 | [Name] | X.X / 5.0 | ... | ... | Advance to negotiation |
| 3 | [Name] | X.X / 5.0 | ... | ... | Reserve candidate |
| 4 | [Name] | X.X / 5.0 | ... | ... | Eliminated — [reason] |

---

## Output Format

Deliver the shortlist analysis as a structured document:

```markdown
# Vendor Shortlist — [Category or RFP Name]

**Prepared by:** [Name]
**Date:** [Date]
**RFP Reference:** [RFP Number, if applicable]
**Vendors Evaluated:** [Count]

---

## 1. Evaluation Framework
[Criteria table with weights and scoring definitions]

## 2. Minimum Qualification Screening
[Pass/fail gate results for each vendor]

## 3. Detailed Scoring Matrix
[Full evaluation matrix with scores, notes, and weighted totals]

## 4. Cost Comparison
[Normalized TCO comparison table across vendors]

## 5. Reference Check Summary
[Key findings from reference calls for shortlisted vendors]

## 6. Ranked Shortlist and Recommendation
[Final ranked table with strengths, risks, and next steps]

## 7. Dissenting Views and Open Questions
[Any disagreements within the evaluation committee; items needing resolution]
```

---

## Quality Checklist

- [ ] Evaluation criteria and weights were defined before reviewing proposals
- [ ] All vendors were scored by the same evaluators using the same rubric
- [ ] Scores are supported by specific evidence, not general impressions
- [ ] TCO comparison uses consistent assumptions across vendors
- [ ] At least 2 reference checks were conducted per shortlisted vendor
- [ ] Minimum qualification gates were applied uniformly
- [ ] Dissenting opinions are documented, not suppressed
- [ ] The shortlist includes at least 2 vendors to maintain competitive leverage
- [ ] Conflict-of-interest declarations were collected from evaluators
- [ ] The recommendation is defensible in an audit or procurement review

---

## Edge Cases

| Scenario | How to Handle |
|---|---|
| Only one vendor passes minimum qualifications | Document the situation; consider broadening the search or adjusting non-critical gates |
| Two vendors score identically | Use tiebreaker criteria (e.g., cost, cultural fit, strategic alignment) |
| A vendor submits an unsolicited alternative proposal | Score it separately; do not mix alternative and standard scoring |
| Evaluator has a conflict of interest with a vendor | Recuse that evaluator from scoring that vendor; document the recusal |
| Vendor withdraws mid-evaluation | Remove from scoring; do not let withdrawal affect other vendors' scores |
| Internal stakeholder lobbies for a specific vendor | Document the advocacy; ensure scoring remains evidence-based |
| Vendor proposes a fundamentally different approach | Evaluate on outcomes, not approach conformity — note innovation potential |