Supplier selection on Alibaba is easy to get wrong because the decision is usually made on quoted unit price alone. This scorecard evaluates suppliers on what actually happened across completed orders, so repeat-order decisions are based on performance rather than on the original quotation.
| Criterion | Weight | Measured as |
|---|---|---|
| On-time delivery | 30% | Actual ship date vs confirmed ship date, per order |
| Quality / inspection pass rate | 30% | Orders passing third-party pre-shipment inspection without rework |
| Cost accuracy | 20% | Final landed cost vs quoted cost, including freight and duties |
| Responsiveness | 20% | Time to respond on quotations, revisions and issues |
Delivery and quality carry the heaviest weight because both directly break the downstream flow — a late or failed order pushes straight into stockout exposure.
Each criterion scored 1 to 5, then weighted.
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Consistently meets or beats commitment |
| 4 | Minor variance, no operational impact |
| 3 | Variance requiring intervention |
| 2 | Repeated variance; downstream impact |
| 1 | Failure requiring rework, re-inspection or replacement |
Weighted total = Σ (score × weight). Suppliers below 3.5 are not used for repeat orders without a documented corrective action.
Notes on use
Landed cost, not unit cost - A supplier quoting EXW at a lower unit price frequently lands higher than a DDP supplier once freight, customs and duties are counted. Cost accuracy is scored on landed cost for this reason.
Minimum three orders - A supplier is not scored on a single order — one late shipment is noise, three is a pattern.
Updated at shipment close - Scores are entered when a shipment closes, alongside the lead time actuals that feed the reorder model, so both are captured while the detail is fresh.
Client identities redacted. Framework applied to Alibaba-sourced suppliers across supplement and consumer accessory categories.