An AI supplier selection agent turns the team's requirements into weighted criteria and records the weights so everyone can see them before scoring begins.
Collects supplier responses and supporting documents.
Puts prices, scope and terms into a common form.
Applies the weighted evaluation model to each supplier.
Flags missing items and unusual exceptions.
The evaluation panel discusses and selects.
Stores scores and the reason for the choice.
It scores each candidate against the criteria using quotes, documents and vendor records, and shows the evidence behind every score.
It highlights where candidates tie, where information is missing and where one option is strong on one point and weak on another.
Selection is often decided by familiarity or the loudest voice. Criteria shift after quotes arrive, and the reasoning is hard to reconstruct later.
Weights change after seeing prices, which tilts the result toward a preferred vendor.
Candidates answer different questions in different formats.
Informal favourites get the benefit of the doubt.
The reasons for the choice are lost, which causes problems in audits and disputes.
Security or financial concerns appear after the choice feels settled.
The agent records requirements and weights, agreed by the team, before looking at candidates.
It maps each candidate's quote and documents onto the same fields.
It assigns a score to each criterion and links it to the source passage.
It lays out strengths, gaps and unknowns for each candidate side by side.
It stores the criteria, scores and rationale with the final decision for later review.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison | Responses arrive in different formats and are re-keyed. | Offers are set into one comparable layout. |
| Scoring | Weights are applied inconsistently between evaluators. | The same weights are applied to every supplier. |
| Gaps | Missing answers are found late. | Unanswered requirements are listed per supplier. |
| Audit trail | Reasons for the choice live in meeting notes. | Scores and rationale are stored with the decision. |
| Bias | First impressions colour judgement. | Scores can be reviewed before names are revealed. |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier misses a mandatory requirement | mark as non-compliant and show the gap | Evaluation panel |
| Scores of two suppliers are very close | show the difference by criterion, not a single winner | Panel chair |
| Offer includes terms outside policy | highlight the exception | Procurement lead |
| Evaluator scores differ widely | flag the disagreement for discussion | Panel chair |
| Supplier has weak financial or risk data | attach the risk note to the shortlist | Risk reviewer |
| Evaluation criteria were changed mid-process | record the change and the reason | Procurement lead |
The agent shows the trade-off by criterion. The panel decides how much to weigh price.
The agent records the justification for a single-source route. A named approver signs off the exception.
The agent holds the score until the declaration is on file. Compliance decides whether the person may score.
The agent notes the submission time against the deadline. The procurement lead decides whether to accept it.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Replay a closed selection and compare the agent's scoring with the outcome.
Let it prepare comparisons while panels score as normal.
Agree template weights by category.
Apply to high-value selections once panels trust the layout.
This shows whether decisions can be explained afterwards. A low figure means the process depends on memory.
Quick answers to what people ask most about supplier selection.
Book a demoIt is the step of comparing shortlisted suppliers against defined criteria and choosing one to contract with.
No. It scores, compares and explains. The buying team makes the choice and owns it.
It records criteria and weights before scoring and ties each score to evidence. Changes to weights are logged so they can be reviewed.
It marks the gap and does not fill it with a guess. A person can then request the missing detail from the supplier.
Supplier search is the step of finding companies that could meet a stated purchasing need.
→Vendor alternatives analysis is the process of identifying other suppliers that could replace or compete with a current one.
→Price benchmarking is the comparison of what a company pays for something against comparable prices elsewhere.
→Spend benchmarking is the comparison of how much a company spends in a category or with a vendor against a reference, such as past periods, other teams or supplied market data.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
