Skip to main content
    qhsetech.com
    All templatesQuality · 2 pages · Updated 3 October 2026

    Supplier Quality Scorecard Template

    Two-page supplier scorecard: scope and period, eight measures across delivery, quality, responsiveness and documentation with the calculation printed for each, weights that total 100, a worked scoring example, example thresholds with actions, and sign-off. It relates to ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4 (clause number and title only; not reviewed by ISO).

    What's inside

    1. Scope and period — supplier name and code, buying site, period from and to, who prepared it, products or services covered, and the data sources used
    2. Measures, weighting and score — eight measures, each with its calculation, a target, the actual result, a 0 to 100 score, a weight and the weighted points; a total row that must show 100 in the weight column. Delivery: on-time delivery (20), quantity accuracy (10). Quality: lot acceptance (25), defects per million (15). Responsiveness: corrective action replies on time (10), days to close a corrective action (5). Documentation: complete documents on delivery (10), approvals and certificates current (5)
    3. Worked example of the arithmetic — an invented supplier scored on all eight measures
    4. Thresholds and actions — four example bands from approved to restricted, and an override rule
    5. Result for this period — total, previous total, status chosen, notable events
    6. Actions agreed — action, owner, due date, status, and the supplier's comments
    7. Sign-off — prepared by, reviewed by, shared with the supplier, supplier acknowledgement

    The weights, targets and bands are examples to change, not recommendations.

    What requires or shapes this record

    No law requires a supplier scorecard. In a quality management system the requirement is to decide how suppliers are chosen, watched and reassessed, to apply controls in proportion to the risk, and to tell suppliers what is required of them. A scorecard is one record that does the watching and reassessing. The clauses below explain which parts of the form come from them and which parts are your decisions.

    • ISO 9001:2015, clause 8.4 (Control of externally provided processes, products and services)

      The clause is about making sure that processes, products and services provided from outside meet requirements, and that the organisation sets criteria for choosing, monitoring and reassessing external providers and keeps records of the results. The scorecard's measures and period are one way to keep the monitoring record; the form does not say how suppliers are chosen or reassessed, so that part stays in your own procedure.

    • ISO 9001:2015, clauses 8.4.2 (Type and extent of control) and 8.4.3 (Information for external providers)

      The first ties the amount of control to the effect a supplier's output can have on your own, which is why the weights, targets and bands are left for you to set rather than fixed. The second is about telling the supplier what you require, which is why the form's introduction says to agree the measures with the supplier before the period starts.

    • ISO 9001:2026 (current edition) and the withdrawn 2015 edition

      ISO's catalogue, opened on 3 October 2026, lists ISO 9001:2026 as published (edition 6) and shows the 2015 edition as withdrawn and replaced. The clause numbers cited here are the 2015 ones because the form was built against them. The 2026 numbering was not reviewed, so check the numbers against the edition your certificate or audit uses. ISO's text is not reproduced on this page.

    Each source checked on 3 October 2026. Not legal advice; check the text in force for your site.

    Field by field

    The eight measures, their weights of 20, 10, 25, 15, 10, 5, 10 and 5, the targets and the status bands are examples. The only fixed rule on the form is that the weights add up to 100 so that the total reads as a score out of 100.

    Supplier, code and period
    Why: A score only means something if the supplier and the dates are fixed. A supplier serving two of your sites needs two scorecards, or one with a stated combined scope.
    Common mistake: Overlapping periods, so one late delivery lowers two scorecards.
    Products, services and processes covered
    Why: A supplier may be excellent on one part family and poor on another. The scope line keeps one score from standing for everything.
    Common mistake: Scoring a supplier on all purchases when only one product line has delivery or quality data.
    Data sources
    Why: Names the records the numbers come from, so a disputed score can be traced to receiving records, purchase orders or the nonconformance log.
    Common mistake: Using the supplier's own shipping confirmations for delivery dates.
    On-time delivery (D1)
    Why: Counts lines, not orders, so one late line out of ten is visible. The agreed date and any early-delivery window must be fixed before the period.
    Common mistake: Measuring against the date the supplier promised after the order was placed instead of the date agreed on the order.
    Quantity accuracy (D2)
    Why: Separates a delivery that arrived on time but short or over from one that was complete. The tolerance is stated in advance.
    Common mistake: Counting an over-delivery as accurate when your process treats it as a problem.
    Lot acceptance (Q1)
    Why: The share of lots accepted at receiving without a concession is the simplest quality signal.
    Common mistake: Counting lots accepted under concession as accepted, which hides a quality problem the plant absorbed.
    Defects per million (Q2)
    Why: Rejected units divided by units received, scaled to a million, lets a high-volume supplier and a low-volume one be compared on the same footing.
    Common mistake: Dividing by units ordered, or mixing whole-lot rejections with single rejected units without saying which.
    Responsiveness (R1, R2)
    Why: Two measures: whether corrective action requests are answered inside the agreed days, and how long closure takes once it starts.
    Common mistake: Counting a reply that only says the request was received as a response.
    Documentation (M1, M2)
    Why: Deliveries that arrive with every required certificate and record, and approvals that are still in date, show whether the paperwork can be relied on.
    Common mistake: Counting certificates present without checking that they match the lot delivered.
    Target, actual and score
    Why: Each result is converted to a 0 to 100 score so different units sit on one scale. For measures where higher is better, score = actual divided by target times 100, capped at 100; where lower is better, target divided by actual.
    Common mistake: Mixing the two directions, so a result of 2,000 defects per million scores higher than 1,000.
    Weight and weighted points
    Why: The weight says how much each measure counts. Weighted points = score times weight divided by 100, and the total of those points is the supplier's score.
    Common mistake: Changing one weight and leaving the total at 95 or 110. The total row exists to catch it.
    Status bands and override rule
    Why: A score has to lead somewhere: continue, ask for an improvement plan, require a formal corrective action, or restrict. A hard override covers events a good average would hide.
    Common mistake: Taking the band from the score alone when the period included a critical nonconformance.
    Notable events, actions agreed, supplier comments
    Why: Record numbers behind the score make a conversation with the supplier factual, and the supplier's own comments are on the record.
    Common mistake: Sending the score without the events and then being unable to show the supplier which deliveries were late.

    Worked example

    IllustrativeOne period for an invented supplier, using the form's example weights

    MeasureTargetActualScore (0 to 100)WeightWeighted points
    D1 On-time delivery95%76%80.02016.0
    D2 Quantity accuracy98%98%100.01010.0
    Q1 Lot acceptance100%96%96.02524.0
    Q2 Defects per million1,0002,00050.0157.5
    R1 Corrective action replies on time80%60%75.0107.5
    R2 Days to close a corrective action3020100.055.0
    M1 Complete documents on delivery100%90%90.0109.0
    M2 Approvals and certificates current100%100%100.055.0
    Total10084.0

    A total of 84.0 falls in the example band 75 to below 90, approved with a watch: the buyer asks for an improvement plan for the lowest-scoring measures. Q2 lost 7.5 of the 100 points and D1 lost 4.0, so those two come first. The figures are invented to show the method and are not benchmarks.

    When a spreadsheet stops being enough

    A spreadsheet scorecard holds for a few suppliers and one buyer who owns the data. It breaks when delivery dates come from one system, rejects from a second and certificates from email, when two buyers calculate the same measure differently, and when a supplier disputes a score and nobody can produce the receiving records behind it.

    A software record brings the underlying records in, applies one formula to every supplier, keeps each period's score so trends are visible, and can give the supplier a view of its own result. Ask whether weights and score conversion can differ by supplier category and whether a past period is recalculated when a weight changes. The list below applies the supplier rule, a supplier-evaluation or supplier-management tag plus a sourced supplier capability; it is wider than quality scoring, so read the linked scope.

    Same rule for every product: tagged “Supplier Evaluation”, “Supplier Management”, “Supplier Data”, “Supplier Sustainability” or “Supplier Due Diligence”, with a sourced supplier capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. Documented and conditional capabilities qualify; check the linked scope before treating a module as included.

    Tekmon pays for a sponsored placement (above); its place in this list follows the same rule as every entry. How lists are ordered

    All 16 matching profiles are shown. Documentation review, not hands-on testing or a claim of compliance.

    Related guides