Write a bounded statement of work and compare three fictional suppliers with a weighted matrix, a sensitivity check and an acceptance plan.
Juniper Learning Club needs 80 printed workbooks by a fixed event date. Three fictional suppliers meet the minimum deadline. The club agrees weights before reviewing scores: quality 50%, delivery 30% and cost 20%. Scores are supplied teaching judgments on a 1–5 scale, not verified vendor performance.
| Supplier | Quality score | Delivery score | Cost score |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| B | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| C | 3 | 4 | 5 |
A statement of work describes what the buyer needs and how completion will be accepted. Define quantity, format, delivery date and evidence rather than prescribing every supplier method. Keep mandatory requirements distinct from preferences. In this exercise the written brief is a learning artifact, not an executed contract or a substitute for procurement review.
Draft the 80-workbook brief, including print specification, a sample approval and delivery acceptance.
One-page statement of work
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
A supplier could identify the quantity, deadline and three acceptance checks without guessing.
Convert an adjective such as premium into a visible paper, legibility or binding requirement.
A comparison is meaningful only when suppliers answer the same questions. Set a scoring scale and decide how unknown evidence is handled before evaluating offers. A mandatory failure must not be averaged away by a cheap price. Use a separate eligibility gate, then apply weighted preferences only to eligible proposals.
Build a response form, eligibility checklist and 1–5 scoring definitions. Mark all supplied suppliers eligible for the practice case.
Evaluation rules
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
Rules explain every score and keep mandatory failures outside the weighted calculation.
Do not use zero for missing evidence without stating what zero means.
Multiply each criterion score by its weight and sum the products. The total is a structured judgment, not a precise prediction of success. Show how a reasonable weighting change affects the decision. If two offers are close, the discussion should focus on uncertainty and evidence rather than treating a decimal difference as unquestionable truth.
Calculate the three totals with weights 50/30/20. Repeat with 30/20/50 and explain whether the choice changes.
Weighted matrix and sensitivity note
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
Baseline scores are 4.0,4.3,3.7; alternative scores are 3.6,4.2,4.2.
Check that weights total 100% and that a higher cost score means better value, not a higher price.
A selection decision is only the beginning of delivery control. Agree an owner, sample checkpoint, escalation route and receipt check. Track issues as observed facts with the next action. A supplier relationship benefits from clear expectations and proportionate follow-up, not a surprise rejection after the entire order has been produced.
Create a sample-review checkpoint and a receiving checklist for quantity, legibility and damage.
Supplier follow-through plan
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
Every checkpoint has an owner, date and action if the check fails.
Add a recovery route before the final deadline, not only a late-delivery warning.
A defensible recommendation states the decision, alternatives, assumptions and residual uncertainty. Explain why the preferred offer fits the agreed need and what evidence would change the recommendation. Keep the decision separate from actual commitment: this fictional case does not authorize an order, payment or negotiation with a real supplier.
Write a 250-word decision memo and explain how you would resolve the alternative-weight tie between B and C.
Procurement recommendation
Record your result and evidence here or in a separate file.
The memo names B under baseline weights and treats the alternative tie as unresolved, not a hidden win.
Request discriminating evidence rather than inventing a new score to force a result.
Submit the brief, response form, eligibility rules, both scored matrices, receiving plan and recommendation. Add a scenario where the cheapest supplier misses the mandatory deadline and demonstrate that it fails eligibility before scoring.
Mandatory requirements cannot be traded away through a weighted total, and no real purchase is implied.
| Criterion | Points | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence and correctness | 30 | Calculations, source use and results match the supplied case; limitations are honest. |
| Required artifacts | 30 | All five stage outputs and the capstone handoff are present and inspectable. |
| Reasoning and decisions | 20 | Choices, assumptions, alternatives and the case-specific critical condition are explained. |
| Reproducibility | 10 | A reviewer can follow the stated steps and distinguish expected from observed results. |
| Clear communication | 10 | Labels, units, structure and evidence references make the work easy to review. |
Score at least 80/100, supply every required artifact, and satisfy the path-specific critical condition. Rework missing evidence before marking complete.
A scores 5×0.5+3×0.3+3×0.2=4.0. B scores 4.3 and C 3.7, so B leads under the agreed baseline. With cost weighted 50%, B and C tie at 4.2. The tie is a reason to inspect evidence and preferences, not proof that cost alone determines the right supplier.
This develops evaluation judgment and documentation, not legal contract advice or permission to commit organizational funds.