Procurement · supplier review · FY26 H1

Two suppliers are carrying avoidable risk

Nordvik and Calder both score below threshold on responsiveness while holding single-source positions. That combination, not the raw score, is what needs a decision.

Scored 05 Sep 2026
5 suppliers · 5 dimensions
Panel: 3 reviewers
01

Scores

Exhibit 1

Supplier scorecard, weighted

Meridian and Orbis clear every threshold. Nordvik fails responsiveness; Calder fails both responsiveness and cost.

Supplier Delivery
30%
Quality
25%
Cost
20%
Responsive
15%
Compliance
10%
Weighted Standing

Scored 1–5 by three reviewers independently, then averaged; spread above 1.5 points is flagged rather than averaged away. Threshold is 3.0 on any single dimension. Weights agreed by the category board 14 Feb 2026 and unchanged since.

02

Where the gaps are

Exhibit 2a

Weighted score

Exhibit 2b

Dimension averages

Responsiveness is the weakest dimension across the whole panel, not a single supplier's problem. That points at our own intake process.

03

Rubric

A scorecard without its rubric is an opinion in a grid. You will be challenged on these definitions, so they are stated.

Delivery — 30%

5 — on time and in full, every order, no expediting. 4 — one late line, self-reported before the due date. 3 — occasional slippage inside the tolerance window. 2 — repeated slippage requiring expediting cost. 1 — missed commitments causing downstream stoppage.

Quality — 25%

Defect rate against the agreed AQL, plus whether non-conformances are reported by the supplier or discovered by us. Self-reporting is scored higher than a clean record found by inspection.

Cost — 20%

Total landed cost against benchmark, not unit price. A cheaper unit that arrives late scores worse than a dearer one that does not.

Responsiveness — 15%

Time to a substantive answer on a technical query. 5 — same working day. 3 — within three days. 1 — needs chasing. Measured from our ticket log, not from supplier self-assessment.

Compliance — 10%

Certification currency, audit findings closed within the agreed window, and subcontractor disclosure. Binary failures here override the weighted score entirely — see the standing column.

How disagreement is handled

Where reviewer spread exceeds 1.5 points the cell is marked SPREAD and the panel re-scores together. Averaging a genuine disagreement hides it.