Template preview · Operations
Procurement decision
Compare purchase options against a transparent need and criteria.
A procurement decision record for a fictional purchase.
Sample purpose
Compare purchase options against a transparent need and criteria.
Audience: Procurement manager, Operations manager- Structure
- 4 sections
- Criteria
- 13
- Sources
- 7
- Watches
- 3
- Default approach
- Review first
Set the purpose first. Then change every section, criterion, and agent setting before anything runs.
Fictional sample
Structure and criteria
Sample content shows the shape of a useful document. Copying it is optional.
01 Review firstNeed and constraints
For this procurement decision, defines need, scope, budget, and mandatory requirements.
Criteria
- Need is measurable, such as branch Wi-Fi uptime above 99.5% and four-hour response.
- Mandatory requirements are separate from scored preferences.
- Budget ceiling and who can approve an overrun are stated.
Sources
- Coastline infrastructure requirements (fictional) api.coastlinelibrary.exampleBranch capacity and constraints.
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework nist.govSecurity requirement vocabulary.
Sample content
Coastline Library is comparing three fictional support vendors for branch Wi-Fi. Renee Cole recommends Harbor Signal after a fictional weighted review. The 12-month ceiling is $18,000; procurement must confirm references before award.
02 Review firstSupplier comparison
For this procurement decision, scores comparable offers against published criteria.
Criteria
- Every vendor is scored on the same published criteria and weights summing to 100.
- Total cost covers 12 months: fees, implementation, training and transition.
- Evaluators and declared conflicts are named.
Sources
- Coastline vendor submissions (fictional) api.coastline-procurement.exampleDated proposals.
- Coastline scoring templates (fictional) api.coastline-procurement.exampleWeights and rubric.
Watches
- Follows Need and constraints
Sample content
Vendor Service score / 50 Support score / 30 Price score / 20 Annual cost Weighted total Harbor Signal 46 27 18 16200 91 Blue Finch IT 42 24 20 14800 86 Tideway Systems 39 25 16 17900 80 03 ManualDue diligence and approvals
For this procurement decision, records checks, conflicts, and approval gates.
Criteria
- At least two references were contacted directly, not supplied only by the vendor.
- Contract terms (SLA, data return, liability cap, renewal notice) are compared with mandatory requirements.
- Each approval states approver, date and amount.
- Risks found and recusals are recorded.
Sources
- Acquisition.gov FAR acquisition.govReference for source selection and responsibility checks.
- USAspending API endpoints api.usaspending.govPublic award history for vendors with government work.
Watches
- Follows Supplier comparison
Sample content
- ☐ Renee verifies two current customer references
- ☐ Legal reviews 99.5% uptime and data-return clauses
- ☐ Do not sign until the $18,000 ceiling is confirmed
04 Review firstAward rationale
For this procurement decision, explains selection and documented trade-offs.
Criteria
- Cites the weighted scores, such as 91 against 86 points.
- Explains any departure from the top score and who re-approved.
- Trade-offs are quantified, such as $1,400 more a year for three-branch coverage.
Sources
- NZ Government procurement templates procurement.govt.nzAward report structure.
Watches
- Follows Due diligence and approvals
Sample content
Decision: select Harbor Signal at $16,200 per year, conditional on reference and contract review. Blue Finch is $1,400 cheaper but scored lower on branch coverage. Renee Cole owns the award memo due Oct 23, 2026.