Supplier Discovery, Evaluation and Selection

Introduction

Retail sourcing decisions shape margin, availability, customer experience, resilience, brand reputation and regulatory exposure. A supplier is not merely a firm that offers the lowest unit price; it is a potential operational partner whose capabilities, incentives, controls and conduct affect the entire retail value proposition. Supplier discovery, evaluation and selection therefore require a disciplined process that combines market intelligence, commercial analysis, operational due diligence, quality assurance, environmental and social assessment, cybersecurity review and multicriteria decision-making.

The central managerial challenge is to convert an uncertain supply market into a defensible choice. Buyers must identify credible suppliers, communicate requirements clearly, compare unlike proposals fairly, test actual performance where necessary and document why a selected supplier is suitable. This chapter develops an integrated process for doing so.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, the learner should be able to:

1. Distinguish among RFI, RFP and RFQ processes and select the appropriate instrument.
2. Design a sourcing process with clear specifications, governance and evaluation gates.
3. Construct and apply weighted supplier scorecards.
4. Conduct financial, operational, quality, ESG and cybersecurity due diligence.
5. Evaluate samples, trials and pilots using valid evidence.
6. Apply multicriteria decision models, including weighted scoring and threshold rules.
7. Recognise ethical, legal, technological and methodological limitations in supplier selection.

1. The Supplier-Selection Problem

Supplier selection is a constrained decision under incomplete information. At the time of selection, the buyer rarely observes true future performance. Instead, the buyer uses proxies: audited accounts, references, certifications, sample quality, delivery history, process records and responses to tender documents. These proxies may be incomplete, biased or strategically presented.

A robust process separates three questions:

• Eligibility: Is the supplier legally, financially and operationally capable of being considered?
• Suitability: How well does the supplier meet the retailer’s requirements relative to alternatives?
• Allocative choice: Given risk, cost, capacity and strategic needs, how much business should be awarded?

Eligibility is often assessed through pass/fail requirements. Suitability is commonly assessed through a weighted scorecard. Allocation may involve dual sourcing, regional segmentation, trial orders or staged contracting rather than a single winner-takes-all award.

Total Cost of Ownership

Unit price can be misleading. The buyer should consider freight, duties, inspection, tooling, inventory, failure, administration and end-of-life costs. A simplified total-cost model is:

where TCO is total cost of ownership; P is purchase price; F is freight and logistics cost; D is duties and taxes borne by the buyer; Q is expected quality-related cost; I is incremental inventory and working-capital cost; A is administration and supplier-management cost; and R is expected disruption, return or recovery cost. All terms must be expressed in the same currency and relevant time period. The model is decision-support, not an accounting identity, and its reliability depends on the quality of estimates.

Expected quality-related cost can be represented as:

where p_f is the estimated probability of failure and C_f is the financial consequence of failure. This formulation assumes a single mutually exclusive failure event. If there are several failure modes, the expected cost is the sum of each probability multiplied by its consequence, provided the costs are not double-counted.

2. Supplier Discovery and Market Intelligence

Supplier discovery is the systematic identification of potential sources that could satisfy a defined requirement. It begins before a tender is issued. Poorly defined requirements produce either too few suppliers or a large volume of irrelevant responses.

Sources of supplier intelligence

Retail buyers may use:

• industry exhibitions and professional associations;
• existing supplier referrals and reference networks;
• trade directories and validated digital marketplaces;
• customs and import records, where legally available;
• competitor and category benchmarking;
• local sourcing offices and agents;
• certification databases and audit platforms;
• technology and startup ecosystems;
• public regulatory, litigation and sanctions information.

Discovery should not be reduced to internet searching. A supplier’s apparent capability must be verified through legal identity, site location, ownership, production model, subcontracting arrangements and evidence of comparable work.

Longlist, prequalification and shortlist

A longlist is a broad set of possible suppliers. A prequalification questionnaire narrows the field using minimum requirements such as legal status, product scope, capacity, geographic reach, insurance and policy commitments. A shortlist contains suppliers invited to submit a formal proposal.

Prequalification criteria should be relevant and proportionate. Excessively demanding criteria can exclude capable small and diverse suppliers; weak criteria can expose the retailer to avoidable risk. The buyer should record the reason for excluding each applicant and apply the same rules consistently.

3. Choosing the Correct Sourcing Instrument

The three principal information and solicitation instruments are the RFI, RFP and RFQ. They are related but not interchangeable.

Request for Information

An RFI asks suppliers to describe capabilities, capacity, locations, technology, certifications, relevant clients, sustainability practices and potential delivery models. It should state that it is exploratory and does not necessarily constitute an offer or promise of future business.

A useful RFI avoids asking suppliers to spend heavily designing a solution that the retailer has not yet decided to procure. It should include a response format, confidentiality rules, deadline, contact protocol and evaluation purpose. RFI responses can reveal whether the initial specification is realistic.

Request for Proposal

An RFP is appropriate when the buyer wants suppliers to propose how they will meet a business outcome. It should include:

1. background and objectives;
2. scope and service or product requirements;
3. demand profile and implementation timetable;
4. mandatory compliance conditions;
5. technical response template;
6. pricing schedule and assumptions;
7. performance measures and service levels;
8. contractual principles and data requirements;
9. evaluation criteria and weights;
10. clarification, presentation, negotiation and award rules.

The RFP should distinguish mandatory requirements from desirable features. It should also identify assumptions that suppliers must price separately, preventing apparently low bids from relying on hidden exclusions.

Request for Quotation

An RFQ is most effective when the buyer can define quantity, specification, delivery point, timing, packaging, inspection method, payment terms and commercial validity. Quotes must be normalised before comparison. For example, one supplier may quote delivered duty paid while another quotes ex works. Comparing the two prices without adjusting for logistics and duties produces a false conclusion.

4. Designing a Fair and Governed Process

A professional sourcing process has stage gates:

1. business need and specification approval;
2. market discovery and prequalification;
3. issue of RFI, RFP or RFQ;
4. controlled clarification period;
5. receipt and secure opening of responses;
6. compliance screening;
7. technical and commercial evaluation;
8. due diligence and sample or pilot testing;
9. negotiation and approval;
10. contract award, onboarding and performance baseline.

The same information should be available to all invited suppliers. Material clarifications should be shared with every bidder unless confidentiality prevents this. Evaluation should be conducted by a cross-functional panel rather than one buyer acting alone. Conflicts of interest must be declared, managed and recorded.

A bid evaluation record should preserve the specification, supplier responses, scoring evidence, clarification log, approvals, rejected-bid reasons, negotiation changes and final recommendation. Documentation is not bureaucratic excess: it supports auditability, learning, legal defensibility and supplier trust.

5. Building a Weighted Supplier Scorecard

A scorecard translates strategic priorities into a structured comparison. Typical dimensions include commercial value, quality, delivery, capability, resilience, ESG, innovation, service and cybersecurity.

Let sᵢⱼ be supplier i’s score on criterion j, and let wⱼ be the weight of criterion j. If scores are placed on a common scale, the weighted total is:

where Sᵢ is the total score for supplier i, n is the number of criteria, and the weights sum to 1. If scores are expressed from 0 to 100, the total also ranges from 0 to 100 when weights sum to 1. The model assumes criteria are sufficiently independent, scores are comparable and compensating trade-offs are acceptable.

Worked example

A retailer evaluates three suppliers using four criteria. Weights are price 30%, quality 30%, delivery reliability 25% and ESG 15. Scores are out of 100.

For Supplier B:

For Supplier A, the score is 77.75; for Supplier C, it is 82.95. Supplier B ranks first, although it does not have the highest score on every criterion. This illustrates the compensatory nature of weighted scoring.

Normalising financial criteria

Where lower cost is better, a simple min–max benefit transformation is unsuitable unless direction is handled correctly. For a cost criterion, one possible transformation is:

where Cᵢ is supplier i’s comparable cost, C_max and C_min are the highest and lowest costs in the evaluated set. The lowest cost receives 100 and the highest receives 0. This method is sensitive to the alternatives included and should not replace managerial judgement. If all costs are equal, the denominator is zero and the criterion should receive the same score for all suppliers or be removed.

Thresholds and non-compensatory criteria

Weighted scoring should not allow an excellent price to compensate for a critical legal or safety failure. Establish pass/fail gates for matters such as:

• legal registration and sanctions screening;
• product safety and regulatory compliance;
• minimum financial viability;
• child-labour and forced-labour prohibitions;
• information-security requirements for sensitive data;
• minimum capacity or continuity capability.

A supplier that fails a critical threshold should not be rescued by its total score. For high-risk decisions, use a hybrid model: eligibility gates, minimum criterion scores and then weighted ranking.

6. Due Diligence Across Five Risk Domains

6.1 Financial due diligence

Financial review seeks evidence that the supplier can remain solvent, fund operations and withstand demand or disruption. Evidence may include audited financial statements, management accounts, credit reports, banking references, ownership information, insurance and details of material litigation.

Useful indicators include liquidity, leverage, profitability and cash generation. The current ratio is:

It indicates short-term coverage but does not prove liquidity; inventory may be difficult to convert into cash. A debt-to-equity ratio is:

Definitions vary by accounting framework, so comparisons require consistency. Ratios should be analysed over time and against industry context rather than treated as universal pass/fail rules. A profitable supplier can still fail because of poor cash flow, concentrated customers or excessive short-term borrowing.

6.2 Operational due diligence

Operational review examines whether the supplier can deliver the required volume, timing and flexibility. It should cover:

• production or service capacity and utilisation;
• bottleneck processes and critical equipment;
• workforce skills and turnover;
• maintenance and calibration;
• planning and inventory controls;
• subcontractors and tier-two dependencies;
• business continuity and disaster recovery;
• geographic, transport and utility risks;
• scalability during promotions or seasonal peaks.

Site visits should be evidence-led. The buyer should reconcile claimed capacity with equipment, shifts, labour, material availability and historical output. A polished tour is not a substitute for records.

6.3 Quality due diligence

Quality due diligence evaluates both outcomes and process control. Relevant evidence includes specifications, control plans, inspection records, test methods, nonconformance procedures, corrective-action history, traceability, calibration and relevant management-system certifications.

A supplier may have a certification yet weak practical control. Certifications should therefore be verified for scope, validity, site coverage and audit findings. Sample inspection should use agreed acceptance criteria. Where statistical acceptance sampling is used, the sampling plan, lot definition, inspection level and acceptance number must be specified in advance; otherwise the result is difficult to interpret.

6.4 ESG due diligence

Environmental, social and governance due diligence should address the actual risk profile of the category and geography. Topics may include energy and emissions, water, waste, hazardous substances, worker safety, wages and working hours, freedom of association, modern slavery, discrimination, business ethics, land rights and grievance mechanisms.

The buyer should distinguish policy from performance. Evidence can include permits, utility data, worker interviews, payroll records, incident logs, remediation plans and independent audits. Social audits have limitations: announced audits may miss conditions, records may be falsified and workers may fear retaliation. Responsible sourcing therefore requires repeated engagement, worker-centred mechanisms and remediation rather than automatic termination for every finding.

6.5 Cybersecurity and data due diligence

Retail suppliers increasingly process payment, customer, employee, product, logistics or proprietary data. Cybersecurity review should identify:

• what data the supplier accesses, stores or transmits;
• system boundaries and privileged users;
• identity and access management;
• encryption and key management;
• vulnerability and patch management;
• logging, monitoring and incident response;
• backup, recovery and continuity;
• subcontractor access;
• secure development practices;
• breach notification and deletion obligations.

Evidence may include independent assurance reports, penetration-test summaries, policy documents, architecture reviews and incident records. A certification is useful but does not eliminate the need to assess scope and actual control operation. Contracts should define security responsibilities, audit rights, notification timelines, data location, exit support and deletion or return of data.

7. Samples, Trials and Pilots

A sample tests whether a supplier can produce a specified item or demonstrate a proposed service. A pilot tests performance under controlled, limited operating conditions. Neither automatically predicts full-scale success.

Designing a valid evaluation

Before testing, define:

1. the hypothesis or decision question;
2. the population or operating context represented;
3. success criteria and tolerances;
4. test duration and sample size rationale;
5. roles, controls and data-collection methods;
6. failure-handling and corrective-action rules;
7. conditions for scale-up, redesign or termination.

For a product, criteria may include dimensional conformity, durability, colourfastness, packaging, safety and customer acceptance. For a service, criteria may include response time, first-time resolution, availability, accuracy and customer satisfaction.

A pilot should avoid favourable testing conditions that cannot be maintained commercially. If the supplier provides extra staff, hand-selected products or unusually close management, the result may overstate likely performance. The retailer should record deviations and assess whether results are statistically and operationally meaningful.

8. Multicriteria Decision-Making Beyond Simple Scoring

Weighted scoring is transparent and practical, but it has limitations. It assumes that a one-point gain on one criterion can compensate for a one-point loss on another according to the weights. This may be inappropriate where criteria interact or where poor performance has catastrophic consequences.

Possible extensions include:

• analytic hierarchy processes, which use structured pairwise comparisons but may suffer from judgement inconsistency;
• outranking methods, which identify whether one option sufficiently dominates another without requiring complete compensation;
• scenario analysis, which tests supplier rankings under different demand, exchange-rate or disruption assumptions;
• stochastic models, which represent uncertain cost and performance distributions;
• portfolio allocation, which selects several suppliers to balance cost, resilience and capacity.

A practical approach is sensitivity analysis. Recalculate the ranking after changing important weights or uncertain scores. If small changes reverse the result, the decision is fragile and should receive additional evidence, negotiation or risk mitigation.

For example, if Supplier B ranks first only when price has a weight above 35%, but Supplier C ranks first under all reasonable ESG and resilience weights, management should not treat the original ranking as definitive. The result indicates a values-and-risk trade-off requiring explicit decision-maker judgement.

9. Negotiation, Selection and Award Strategy

Selection does not end with ranking. The buyer should negotiate assumptions, service levels, lead times, indexation, warranties, audit rights, intellectual property, confidentiality, data protection, remediation, termination and transition assistance.

Award strategies include:

• single sourcing where scale, integration or accountability dominates;
• dual sourcing to reduce dependency and preserve competitive tension;
• regional or category segmentation;
• primary and contingency suppliers;
• staged award linked to successful pilot milestones;
• framework agreements with call-off competition.

The best choice may not be the highest-scoring supplier if the retailer’s risk appetite, capacity requirements or continuity strategy favour a portfolio. Conversely, splitting volume across many suppliers may raise cost and reduce learning. The decision should explicitly state the trade-off.

10. Applied Case: Northstar Retail’s Private-Label Coffee

The following is an illustrative case.

Background

Northstar Retail, a regional supermarket chain, plans to launch a private-label coffee range. It requires consistent flavour, ethical sourcing, recyclable packaging, reliable seasonal supply and protection of customer and sales data used in replenishment systems. Three suppliers respond to an RFP.

Problem

Supplier A offers the lowest quoted price and has strong roasting capacity but limited evidence of certified social and environmental controls. Supplier B has excellent quality records, a mature cybersecurity programme and strong ESG performance, but its capacity is close to full utilisation. Supplier C is a smaller supplier with innovative packaging and high sustainability scores, but has weaker financial reserves and no demonstrated peak-season experience.

Analysis

Northstar first applies eligibility gates: legal compliance, food-safety documentation, product traceability, modern-slavery requirements and minimum continuity planning. All three pass food-safety requirements; C receives a conditional pass on continuity because it must provide a documented contingency plan before award.

The evaluation team uses weights of price 25%, quality 30%, delivery and capacity 20%, ESG 15% and cybersecurity 10%. Scores are normalised on a 0–100 scale. B ranks first because its quality and risk controls offset its higher price. C ranks second, while A ranks third despite the lowest price.

The team then conducts a pilot involving sample approval, a controlled store launch and peak-demand simulation. A’s product meets sensory requirements but experiences packaging delays. B performs consistently but cannot immediately guarantee the full forecast. C performs well in normal demand but fails the peak simulation.

Approach and solution

Northstar awards B 70% of volume, subject to capacity expansion milestones, and A 30% as a qualified secondary source after a packaging corrective-action plan. C is retained in the innovation pipeline but is not awarded core volume. The contract includes traceability, audit, incident notification, service levels, quality remedies, responsible-sourcing commitments and a quarterly capacity review.

Outcome

The portfolio reduces dependence on one supplier while preserving quality and continuity. The decision is more expensive than selecting A alone, but the retailer judges that expected disruption and reputational exposure are lower. The case illustrates why price ranking, scorecard ranking and portfolio allocation are distinct decisions.

Learning points

1. Eligibility gates prevent unacceptable risk from being hidden by a high total score.
2. Pilot evidence can change the interpretation of desk-based due diligence.
3. Capacity must be tested under realistic peak conditions.
4. ESG and cybersecurity are operational requirements, not merely reputational additions.
5. A multi-supplier award may be superior to selecting the single highest-ranked supplier.

11. Limitations, Ethics and Contemporary Developments

Supplier evaluation contains unavoidable judgement. Scores can create false precision, especially when assessors assign numbers without evidence. Weight selection can embed management bias, and supplier self-reporting can be incomplete. To mitigate these problems, define scoring anchors, require evidence, use independent review, document uncertainty and perform sensitivity analysis.

Ethically, buyers must avoid bribery, favouritism, discriminatory barriers and misuse of confidential supplier information. Suppliers should not be forced to provide unpaid intellectual property through poorly designed tenders. Small suppliers deserve proportionate requirements and reasonable payment practices. Responsible procurement also requires remediation and dialogue where improvement is feasible, rather than treating audit failure as a reason to shift harm elsewhere.

Artificial intelligence can assist with document classification, anomaly detection, adverse-media screening, spend analysis and risk prioritisation. However, AI outputs may reproduce biased data, misidentify entities, overlook local context or expose confidential proposals. Human review, explainability, access control and audit logs are essential. AI should support—not replace—accountable procurement judgement.

Contemporary sourcing is moving toward continuous supplier monitoring. External events, cyber incidents, climate exposure, sanctions and financial deterioration can arise after award. Accordingly, supplier selection should establish a baseline for ongoing performance management, not represent a one-time administrative event.

Best-Practice Checklist

• Define the business outcome before choosing the sourcing instrument.
• Separate mandatory gates from weighted preferences.
• Compare suppliers on a common commercial basis.
• Use total cost rather than unit price alone.
• Require evidence for material claims.
• Include cross-functional and independent reviewers.
• Test samples and pilots under realistic conditions.
• Assess financial, operational, quality, ESG and cyber risk together.
• Conduct sensitivity analysis on weights and uncertain assumptions.
• Document clarifications, scores, conflicts and award rationale.
• Use contracts and governance to convert selection assumptions into measurable obligations.
• Reassess supplier risk continuously after award.

Chapter Summary

Supplier discovery, evaluation and selection are structured decisions under uncertainty. RFI processes build market knowledge, RFPs obtain integrated solutions and RFQs compare defined commercial offers. Effective sourcing uses stage gates, transparent governance and evidence-based evaluation. Weighted scorecards provide a practical multicriteria model, but critical legal, safety, financial, ESG and cybersecurity requirements should operate as thresholds rather than compensating criteria. Total cost of ownership is more informative than quoted price alone. Financial, operational, quality, ESG and cyber due diligence should be proportionate to risk and supported by verifiable evidence. Samples and pilots are valuable only when their success criteria, test conditions and scale-up rules are explicit. Finally, selection may result in a portfolio or staged award rather than a single supplier, and the decision should be tested through sensitivity analysis and ongoing monitoring.

Key Terms

Supplier discovery: The systematic identification of potential suppliers.

RFI: A request used to gather market and capability information.

RFP: A request inviting suppliers to propose an integrated solution.

RFQ: A request for comparable prices against a defined specification.

Prequalification: Screening suppliers against minimum eligibility requirements.

Longlist: The broad initial population of potential suppliers.

Shortlist: Suppliers selected for detailed evaluation or tendering.

Total cost of ownership: The full relevant cost of acquiring, operating and recovering from a supply arrangement.

Weighted scorecard: A decision tool that combines criterion scores using assigned weights.

Threshold criterion: A mandatory minimum condition that cannot be offset by other strengths.

Due diligence: Systematic investigation of a supplier’s capability, risk and conduct.

Operational resilience: The ability to continue or recover critical supply activities during disruption.

Traceability: The ability to follow a product, material or transaction through relevant stages.

ESG: Environmental, social and governance considerations.

Cybersecurity due diligence: Assessment of controls protecting systems and information.

Pilot: A limited implementation used to test performance before scaling.

Sensitivity analysis: Examination of how results change when assumptions or weights change.

Dual sourcing: The deliberate use of two suppliers for a requirement.

Corrective action: A structured response intended to eliminate the cause of a detected problem.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What is the principal difference between an RFI, an RFP and an RFQ?
2. Why should critical compliance requirements be treated as threshold criteria?
3. Define total cost of ownership and identify four components that may be included.
4. What evidence might be examined during cybersecurity due diligence?
5. Why can a supplier pilot produce misleadingly positive results?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a retailer should design a governed supplier-selection process from market discovery to contract award.
2. Discuss the advantages and limitations of weighted supplier scorecards.
3. Explain how financial, operational, quality and ESG due diligence complement one another.
4. Compare single sourcing, dual sourcing and portfolio allocation in terms of cost, resilience and managerial complexity.
5. Discuss the ethical risks in supplier evaluation and propose controls to manage them.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A supplier has the lowest price but fails the retailer’s minimum cybersecurity requirement. Using the concepts in this chapter, recommend how the evaluation should proceed and justify your answer.
2. Construct a weighted scorecard for selecting a private-label apparel supplier. State at least five criteria, assign weights summing to 100%, identify two threshold requirements and explain your scoring anchors.
3. Two suppliers have nearly identical weighted scores, but one has highly uncertain financial information and the other has a slightly higher cost. Propose an evidence-gathering and decision process, including sensitivity analysis and possible award structures.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which sourcing instrument is primarily intended to gather market and supplier capability information before a formal tender?

A. RFI

B. RFP

C. RFQ

D. Purchase order

Correct Answer: A. RFI

Question 2

Why are critical safety or legal requirements commonly treated as threshold criteria?

A. They make price irrelevant in every sourcing decision.

B. They prevent unacceptable failure from being offset by strengths elsewhere.

C. They guarantee that the supplier will perform perfectly.

D. They eliminate the need for supplier audits.

Correct Answer: B. They prevent unacceptable failure from being offset by strengths elsewhere.

Question 3

In a weighted scorecard, what must normally be true of the weights when scores are intended to remain on the same scale?

A. Each weight must exceed 1.

B. All weights must be identical.

C. The weights should sum to 1, or 100%.

D. The largest weight must be assigned to price.

Correct Answer: C. The weights should sum to 1, or 100%.

Question 4

A retailer calculates total cost of ownership. Which item is most clearly relevant beyond the quoted purchase price?

A. The buyer’s personal preference

B. Expected cost of product failures and returns

C. The supplier’s advertising slogan

D. An unrelated competitor’s revenue

Correct Answer: B. Expected cost of product failures and returns

Question 5

What is a major limitation of relying only on a supplier certification?

A. Certifications can never be independently verified.

B. A certification may not cover the relevant site, scope or actual operating performance.

C. Certifications always increase product defects.

D. Certification eliminates the need for specifications.

Correct Answer: B. A certification may not cover the relevant site, scope or actual operating performance.

Question 6

Which activity best tests whether a supplier can perform under realistic operating conditions before full scale-up?

A. A controlled pilot with predefined success criteria

B. A verbal promise from the sales representative

C. A comparison of company logos

D. An unrecorded factory conversation

Correct Answer: A. A controlled pilot with predefined success criteria

Question 7

For a cost criterion using min–max cost scoring, which supplier receives the highest score when all other conditions are equal?

A. The supplier with the highest comparable cost

B. The supplier with the lowest comparable cost

C. The supplier with the oldest facilities

D. The supplier with the longest proposal

Correct Answer: B. The supplier with the lowest comparable cost

Question 8

What is the main purpose of sensitivity analysis in supplier selection?

A. To conceal uncertainty from decision-makers

B. To determine whether rankings change under reasonable assumptions

C. To guarantee that every supplier receives the same score

D. To replace all qualitative judgement

Correct Answer: B. To determine whether rankings change under reasonable assumptions

Question 9

Which statement best describes an RFP?

A. It requests only a unit price for a completely fixed specification.

B. It invites suppliers to propose how they will meet a defined business need.

C. It is used only after a contract has been terminated.

D. It is a financial audit of the buyer.

Correct Answer: B. It invites suppliers to propose how they will meet a defined business need.

Question 10

Why might a retailer select a dual-supplier arrangement rather than the single highest-scoring supplier?

A. To remove all supplier-management work

B. To balance resilience, capacity and competitive tension against additional complexity

C. To ensure that no supplier is evaluated

D. To guarantee the lowest possible unit price

Correct Answer: B. To balance resilience, capacity and competitive tension against additional complexity