Two Vending Proposals Score Equally: Test the Decision Before Breaking the Tie
Two vending proposals finish with the same score. One offers a lower equipment price; the other appears stronger on support or site suitability. A tied total does not mean the proposals are interchangeable. It means the scoring summary has reached the limit of what it can tell you without examining the evidence behind it.
Use the tie as a prompt to clarify the decision, not an invitation to alter the scoring until a preferred supplier wins. Keep the original criteria and results. Separate essential requirements from preferences, identify uncertain answers, and ask comparable follow-up questions. This creates a decision that colleagues can understand after the purchasing meeting ends.
Check essential requirements before totals
A high total should not compensate for an essential requirement that remains unconfirmed. If the equipment must fit a particular route, support a required payment arrangement or be serviceable at agreed times, establish whether each proposal satisfies that condition. Record the evidence and any dependency on a survey or configuration change rather than awarding optimistic points.
Distinguish a confirmed failure from an unanswered question. The first may exclude a proposal under your agreed rules; the second calls for clarification. Apply the same standard to both suppliers. Do not accept a verbal assurance for one while requiring a signed specification from the other unless there is a documented reason relevant to the procurement.
Look behind the equal total
Break the score into the criteria that matter most to this site. Two equal totals may conceal very different strengths. A lower purchase price could sit alongside uncertain ongoing charges, while a convenient service arrangement might include equipment that needs further site checks. Keep costs, practical suitability and unresolved conditions visible as separate lines.
Ask whether small scoring changes would reverse the result. If changing one uncertain answer by a single point changes the winner, the decision is sensitive to that evidence. Resolve the answer before treating the total as decisive. This is different from changing the weight of a criterion after seeing the outcome simply to favour one option.
Request the same missing evidence
Send a focused clarification covering the exact unresolved points. Ask each supplier to identify the proposed configuration, included tasks, exclusions and relevant charges in writing. Where a demonstration is needed, use the same customer journey and site requirements. Retain dates and document versions so a later answer is not confused with the original offer.
Give suppliers a reasonable and consistent response process. A question about support should describe the service situation you need covered, such as access outside reception hours, rather than asking for a vague promise of excellent service. A vending proposal can be more useful when the enquiry explains the site’s real constraints and decision criteria.
Document the reason for the final choice
If the evidence still leaves a tie, use a previously agreed decision rule or record a reasoned judgement by the authorised buyer. Explain the trade-off in ordinary language. For example, one offer may meet a documented access need more clearly, while another has a lower initial price. Do not turn an uncertain advantage into a factual guarantee.
Keep the accepted scope, outstanding conditions and decision record together. A scorecard supports judgement; it does not replace checking the final order. Before commitment, ensure the quotation actually incorporates the clarifications that mattered. Otherwise a well-reasoned choice can still lead to an order that does not reflect the proposal the team believed it had selected.
For a proposal suited to your site, contact our team with the location, expected users and your main requirements.
Related guidance: Comparing Vending Proposals: Build a Scorecard Before Choosing a Supplier.
