# Supplier Performance Review: [Supplier name], [Period]

> Periodic review of one supplier: weighted KPI scorecard, trend,
> corrective actions, relationship plan and the re-evaluation decision
> required for external providers. The re-evaluation record supports
> ISO 9001:2026 clause 8.4 (control of externally provided processes,
> products and services), and the relationship plan follows the
> collaborative relationship life cycle of ISO 44001:2017 (with
> Amd 1:2024). Both standards are cited by name and clause number
> only. Replace every `[bracketed]` value and every row marked
> *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Purpose: agree facts with the supplier, decide what must improve,
  and record whether the supplier stays approved. One file per
  supplier per review period.
- Fill the KPI definitions, bands and weights (section 2) once per
  category and reuse them, so that scores are comparable over time and
  between suppliers. Then enter the period data (section 3).
- Share the data with the supplier before the meeting; spend the
  meeting on causes and actions, not on disputing numbers.
- Worked example: the fictional Corvanna Instruments Ltd reviews the
  fictional Ostrelby Castings Ltd (contract CTR-001 in
  `procurement/contract-register`) for Q3 2026. Scores are computed and
  marked *Example*.
- Related templates: Vendor Evaluation Scorecard (selection, before
  award: `business/vendor-evaluation-scorecard`), CAPA and
  Nonconformity (`compliance/capa-nonconformity`), Root Cause Analysis
  (`business/root-cause-analysis`), Carrier Scorecard for freight
  (`logistics/carrier-scorecard`), Service Level Agreement
  (`ops/service-level-agreement`), Supplier Onboarding and Due Diligence
  (`procurement/supplier-onboarding-due-diligence`).
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Record the period, the participants from both sides and the contract reviewed. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Review ID | [SPR-YYYY-QN-NNN] *Example:* SPR-2026-Q3-007 |
| Supplier | [Legal name, supplier number] *Example:* Ostrelby Castings Ltd, SUP-10233 |
| Contract | [Contract ID] *Example:* CTR-001 |
| Risk tier and cadence | [Tier, frequency] *Example:* Tier 1, quarterly |
| Period | [Start to end] *Example:* 2026-07-01 to 2026-09-30 |
| Review meeting | YYYY-MM-DD *Example:* 2026-10-21 |
| Buyer participants | [@category-manager], [@quality-engineer], [@contract-owner] |
| Supplier participants | [Names, roles] |
| Status | [Draft / Agreed with supplier / Closed] |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Data pack sent to supplier |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* Agreed actions recorded after meeting |

## 1. Summary

<!-- Guidance: Write this last. Three lines: score and trend, the main issue, the decision. -->

*Example:* Weighted score 3.00 of 5 (60%), down from 3.45 in Q2.
Delivery held at band 3, quality fell to band 2 after a porosity
defect on HSG-310 castings. Ostrelby stays approved (band B) with a
supplier corrective action request (SCAR) and a quality improvement
plan; next review in January 2027.

## 2. KPI definitions, bands and weights

<!-- Guidance: Each KPI needs a formula, a data source and bands that convert it to a 1 to 5 score. Weights must add up to 100%. Pitfall: KPIs that the supplier cannot see or influence, or that are measured from data the supplier never receives. -->

| KPI | Formula | Data source | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery (OTIF) | Order lines delivered on time and in full / order lines due | ERP goods receipts | 98% or more | 95.0 to 97.9% | 90.0 to 94.9% | 85.0 to 89.9% | below 85% | 30% |
| Quality (PPM) | Parts rejected / parts received x 1,000,000 | Incoming inspection | 250 or less | 251 to 750 | 751 to 1,500 | 1,501 to 3,000 | above 3,000 | 30% |
| Responsiveness | Panel score: quote turnaround, query response, SCAR timeliness | Buyer and quality panel | Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Weak | Poor | 15% |
| Commercial | Panel score: price adherence, cost-down ideas, invoice accuracy | Buyer and AP | Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Weak | Poor | 15% |
| Sustainability and compliance | Panel score: code of conduct conditions, certificates, emissions data | Sustainability lead | Excellent | Good | Acceptable | Weak | Poor | 10% |

Weighted score = sum of (score x weight). Overall bands:

| Band | Weighted score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| A | 4.00 to 5.00 | Preferred: first choice for new business |
| B | 3.00 to 3.99 | Approved |
| C | 2.00 to 2.99 | Conditional: improvement plan, no new business without approval |
| D | below 2.00 | Exit review |

Any single KPI scored 2 or lower triggers a SCAR, whatever the overall
band.

## 3. Scorecard for the period

<!-- Guidance: Show the raw numbers next to the score so the supplier can check them. -->

| KPI | Raw result | Score | Weight | Weighted | Previous period score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery (OTIF) | *Example:* 1,089 of 1,184 lines = 92.0% | 3 | 30% | 0.90 | 4 |
| Quality (PPM) | *Example:* 386 rejected of 214,500 received = 1,800 PPM | 2 | 30% | 0.60 | 3 |
| Responsiveness | *Example:* Quotes in 4 days on average, SCARs answered on time | 4 | 15% | 0.60 | 4 |
| Commercial | *Example:* Index-linked price applied correctly, two cost-down proposals | 4 | 15% | 0.60 | 3 |
| Sustainability and compliance | *Example:* Certificates valid, Scope 1 and 2 data supplied, Scope 3 not yet | 3 | 10% | 0.30 | 3 |
| **Total** | | | **100%** | **3.00 (60%)** | **3.45** |

```mermaid
xychart-beta
  title "Ostrelby Castings weighted score by quarter (Example)"
  x-axis ["Q4 2025", "Q1 2026", "Q2 2026", "Q3 2026"]
  y-axis "Score (1 to 5)" 1 --> 5
  line [3.60, 3.45, 3.45, 3.00]
```

*Example* note: the Q4 2025 score of 3.60 and the Q1 2026 score of
3.45 come from earlier reviews SPR-2025-Q4-007 and SPR-2026-Q1-007.

## 4. Issues and corrective actions

<!-- Guidance: Every KPI at 2 or lower gets a SCAR with root cause and verification of effectiveness. Link to the CAPA record rather than duplicating it. Pitfall: closing an action when it is done instead of when the KPI has recovered. -->

| Action ID | Issue | Root cause (supplier's analysis) | Action | Owner | Due | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCAR-2026-014 *(Example)* | Porosity on HSG-310 castings, 312 of the 386 rejects | Degassing step skipped on night shift after a staff change | Degassing added to the shift checklist with sign-off; operator retraining | Ostrelby quality manager | 2026-11-15 | PPM below 750 for two consecutive months |
| ACT-2026-031 *(Example)* | Late deliveries clustered in August | Machine outage during planned holiday period | Holiday capacity plan shared with Corvanna by end of May each year | Ostrelby operations | 2027-05-31 | OTIF at or above 95% in August 2027 |
| ACT-2026-032 *(Example)* | Scope 3 emissions data missing | No data collection from metal suppliers | Supply estimated Scope 3 category 1 data using spend-based factors | Ostrelby sustainability lead | 2027-03-31 | Data received and reviewed |

The SCAR is tracked in `compliance/capa-nonconformity`; the root cause
method is in `business/root-cause-analysis`.

## 5. Relationship plan

<!-- Guidance: For strategic suppliers, plan the relationship, not only the corrections. ISO 44001 describes eight life cycle stages: operational awareness, knowledge, internal assessment, partner selection, working together, value creation, staying together and exit strategy activation. Use the stages that apply. Pitfall: a "strategic partnership" with no joint objectives or governance. -->

| Area | Plan for the next 12 months |
|---|---|
| Joint objectives | *Example:* Reduce HSG-310 cost 4% through a design change to wall thickness, keep OTIF at or above 95% |
| Governance | *Example:* Quarterly business review with operations directors, monthly quality call |
| Value creation | *Example:* Joint design-to-value workshop in Q1 2027 (see `procurement/category-strategy`) |
| Risk and continuity | *Example:* Second tooling set for HSG-220 held at Ostrelby's second site |
| Staying together | *Example:* Annual relationship survey both ways |
| Exit strategy | *Example:* Exit plan in contract file: 6-month tool transfer, last-time buy quantities |

## 6. Re-evaluation decision

<!-- Guidance: ISO 9001:2026 clause 8.4 expects criteria for evaluation, selection, performance monitoring and re-evaluation of external providers, and retained documented information of the results and actions. This section is that record. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Decision | [Remain approved / Conditional / Exit review] *Example:* Remain approved, band B, SCAR open |
| New business allowed | [Yes / With approval / No] *Example:* Yes, except new cast parts until SCAR-2026-014 is verified |
| Decided by | *Example:* [@category-manager], [@quality-manager] |
| Date | *Example:* 2026-10-21 |
| Next review | *Example:* January 2027 |

## 7. References

<!-- Guidance: Keep the standards list short and dated. -->

| Reference | Version | Official source |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 9001, *Quality management systems, Requirements*, clause 8.4 | 2026 (sixth edition, published September 2026) | Official text: ISO, purchase or licensed access: https://www.iso.org/standard/88464.html |
| ISO 44001, *Collaborative business relationship management systems, Requirements and framework* | 2017 with Amd 1:2024; a revision (ISO/DIS 44001) is in progress | Official text: ISO and national standards bodies, purchase or licensed access: https://www.iso.org/standard/72798.html |

## Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with ISO 9001:2026 clause 8.4 and the ISO 44001:2017
relationship life cycle, cited by name, edition and clause number
only; no standard text is reproduced. Official text: ISO and national
standards bodies, purchase or licensed access via the links above.
Corvanna Instruments, Ostrelby Castings and all figures are
fictional. The text is original. Template licence: MIT.