Purpose and Introduction
This form is designed to systematically evaluate new and existing suppliers to ensure they meet operational standards, quality requirements, and business objectives. Conduct evaluations quarterly, during contract renewals, or whenever performance issues arise.
A supplier is not just a vendor — they are an extension of your kitchen's standards. The quality of what arrives at your back door determines the ceiling of what you can serve at the table. A rigorous, consistent supplier evaluation process protects your food safety, your margins, your menu integrity, and ultimately your guests.
When to conduct a supplier evaluation:
Quarterly for all active suppliers
At contract renewal or renegotiation
Within 30 days of a new supplier being onboarded
Immediately following any significant delivery failure, quality incident, or food safety concern
When a supplier requests a price increase, evaluate value comprehensively before agreeing
When considering a new supplier as an alternative or replacement
Who should complete this form:
The primary evaluator should be the head chef or kitchen manager — the person with the most direct and consistent interaction with the supplier's product. The operations manager or general manager should review and co-sign all evaluations. For high-value or strategic suppliers, the GM should be involved in the evaluation conversation directly.
Supplier Information
Company Name:
Primary Contact Person:
Contact Phone: Contact Email:
Secondary Contact (for escalations):
Secondary Contact Phone/Email:
Products / Services Supplied:
Supplier Category: ( ) Produce ( ) Protein ( ) Dairy ( ) Dry Goods ( ) Beverages ( ) Cleaning/Chemicals ( ) Equipment ( ) Other: ______
Contract Start Date: Contract Expiration Date:
Contracted Minimum Order Value (if applicable):
Contracted Delivery Schedule (days/frequency):
Evaluation Date:
Evaluation Period From: _________ To: _________
Evaluator Name:
Evaluator Title:
Previous Evaluation Score (if applicable):
Trend vs. Previous Evaluation: ( ) Improved ( ) Stable ( ) Declined ( ) First evaluation
How to Use This Template
Each section is weighted to reflect its relative importance to your operation. Score each criterion on a scale of 1–5, then calculate the weighted score using the formula provided at the end of each section. Total all weighted scores for a final score out of 100.
Where a criterion is genuinely not applicable to the supplier being evaluated, mark N/A and exclude it from the section total — adjust the section maximum accordingly.
Important:
Every score below 3 in any criterion must be accompanied by a specific written comment. A low score with no explanation is not actionable. The comments column is as important as the score itself.
Rating Scale
Score | Descriptor | Meaning |
5 | Excellent | Consistently exceeds expectations; a benchmark standard |
4 | Good | Meets expectations with occasional excellence |
3 | Satisfactory | Meets minimum requirements reliably |
2 | Below Average | Often fails to meet expectations; improvement required |
1 | Poor | Consistently fails to meet requirements; unacceptable |
N/A | Not Applicable | This criterion does not apply to this supplier |
Section 1: Product Quality (Weight: 30%)
Product quality is the most heavily weighted section because it most directly affects what reaches the guest. A supplier who delivers on time but consistently at poor quality is not a supplier worth keeping.
Criteria | Guidance Notes | Rating (1–5) | Comments / Specific Examples |
Consistency of Quality | Does the product arrive at the same standard every delivery — not just on good days? | ||
Packaging Integrity | Is the packaging always intact, undamaged, properly sealed, and appropriate for the product type? | ||
Freshness and Shelf Life | Does the product arrive with sufficient remaining shelf life to be practically usable? | ||
Product Specifications Adherence | Does what arrives match what was ordered in terms of grade, cut, size, and specification? | ||
Certifications (HACCP, Organic, Halal, Kosher, etc.) | Are all claimed certifications current, documented, and available on request? | ||
Temperature on Arrival | Are cold chain products arriving within the correct temperature range (≤5°C for chilled, ≤-18°C for frozen)? | ||
Labelling Accuracy | Are all products correctly labelled with use-by dates, allergen information, and country of origin where required? |
Section 1 Raw Score: _____ / 35 Weighted Score Calculation: (Raw Score ÷ 35) × 30 = _____ / 30
Section 1 Notes:
Section 2: Service and Delivery (Weight: 25%)
Delivery reliability is the backbone of kitchen planning. A supplier who produces excellent products but delivers unpredictably forces your team to over-order, carry excessive stock, or improvise — all of which cost time and money.
Criteria | Guidance Notes | Rating (1–5) | Comments / Specific Examples |
On-Time Delivery Rate | Does the supplier arrive within the agreed delivery window consistently — not just most of the time? | ||
Order Accuracy | Does the delivered order match the purchase order in terms of items, quantities, and units? | ||
Delivery Condition | Is the product loaded, transported, and offloaded in a manner that preserves quality and cold chain integrity? | ||
Communication Responsiveness | When you call or message your rep, how quickly and usefully do they respond? | ||
Flexibility During Shortages | When a product is unavailable, does the supplier proactively notify you in advance and offer credible alternatives? | ||
Problem Resolution | When an issue arises — wrong item, damaged goods, short delivery — how quickly and fairly is it resolved? | ||
Driver and Delivery Team Conduct | Is the delivery team professional, respectful of your kitchen's hygiene protocols, and efficient at the handover point? | ||
Lead Time Reasonableness | Is the required ordering lead time practical for your kitchen's planning rhythm? |
Section 2 Raw Score: _____ / 40 Weighted Score Calculation: (Raw Score ÷ 40) × 25 = _____ / 25
Section 2 Notes:
Section 3: Cost and Financial Terms (Weight: 20%)
Price alone is not the measure of a supplier's financial value — payment terms, invoice accuracy, price stability, and credit flexibility all affect your actual cost of doing business with them.
Criteria | Guidance Notes | Rating (1–5) | Comments / Specific Examples |
Competitive Pricing | Is the pricing in line with or better than comparable market alternatives for equivalent quality? | ||
Payment Terms | Are the payment terms workable for your cash flow — net 30, COD, or credit account? | ||
Value for Money | Taking quality, service, and price together, does this supplier represent good overall value? | ||
Pricing Transparency | Are price lists clear, up to date, and communicated proactively when changes occur? | ||
Invoice Accuracy | Are invoices consistently correct — matching delivery quantities, agreed prices, and contract terms? | ||
Price Stability | Does the supplier give reasonable notice of price changes, and are increases justifiable and proportionate? | ||
Credit and Returns Policy | Is the process for claiming credits on short deliveries, damaged goods, or returns fair and efficient? |
Section 3 Raw Score: _____ / 35 Weighted Score Calculation: (Raw Score ÷ 35) × 20 = _____ / 20
Section 3 Notes:
Section 4: Compliance and Risk Management (Weight: 15%)
A supplier's compliance failures can become your liability. Food safety incidents, regulatory breaches, or supply chain disruptions that originate with a supplier can result in closures, legal exposure, or reputational damage to your business. This section assesses the risk level your supplier represents.
Criteria | Guidance Notes | Rating (1–5) | Comments / Specific Examples |
Food Safety Compliance | Does the supplier operate under a certified food safety management system (HACCP or equivalent)? Are certificates current? | ||
Regulatory Compliance | Does the supplier comply with all applicable food safety legislation, labelling regulations, and import/export requirements? | ||
Insurance Coverage | Does the supplier carry adequate product liability insurance? Have you verified this within the last 12 months? | ||
Traceability and Documentation | Can the supplier provide full batch traceability for their products in the event of a recall or complaint? | ||
Business Continuity Planning | Does the supplier have a documented plan for maintaining supply during disruptions — strikes, disasters, system failures? | ||
Allergen Information Accuracy | Is allergen information provided with products accurate, up to date, and accessible for your kitchen team? |
Section 4 Raw Score: _____ / 30 Weighted Score Calculation: (Raw Score ÷ 30) × 15 = _____ / 15
Section 4 Notes:
Section 5: Sustainability and Ethics (Weight: 10%)
Guests increasingly make dining choices based on a restaurant's sourcing values. Beyond guest expectations, sourcing from ethical and sustainable suppliers is the right thing to do — and it increasingly represents sound long-term business practice as regulatory and social pressure on the food industry grows.
Criteria | Guidance Notes | Rating (1–5) | Comments / Specific Examples |
Environmental Practices | Does the supplier actively reduce their environmental footprint — energy use, water, transport, refrigerants? | ||
Ethical Sourcing | Are raw materials and ingredients sourced responsibly — fair labour practices, no exploitative supply chains? | ||
Waste Reduction Initiatives | Does the supplier have active programmes to reduce food waste, packaging waste, or returns volume? | ||
Social Responsibility | Does the supplier support local producers, employ from disadvantaged communities, or contribute to food security initiatives? | ||
Packaging Sustainability | Is the packaging recyclable, reusable, or made from sustainable materials? Is unnecessary packaging minimised? | ||
Local and Seasonal Sourcing | Where possible, does the supplier prioritise local and seasonal products, reducing food miles and supporting the local economy? |
Section 5 Raw Score: _____ / 30 Weighted Score Calculation: (Raw Score ÷ 30) × 10 = _____ / 10
Section 5 Notes:
Section 6: Relationship and Partnership Quality
This section does not contribute to the numerical score but provides critical context for the overall assessment and the decision on whether to continue, develop, or exit the supplier relationship. A supplier can score well technically but be genuinely difficult to work with — and that matters.
Criteria | Rating (1–5) | Comments |
Account Manager Quality — Is your rep knowledgeable, proactive, and genuinely invested in your success? | ||
Willingness to Negotiate — Is the supplier open to discussing pricing, terms, or customisation as your relationship develops? | ||
Innovation and New Product Awareness — Does the supplier proactively introduce you to new products, seasonal specials, or better alternatives? | ||
Responsiveness to Feedback — When you raise concerns, does the supplier take them seriously and follow up? | ||
Long-term Reliability — Based on the history of this relationship, do you trust this supplier to be there when you need them? |
Section 6 Notes:
Performance Metrics and KPIs
Use the table below to log objective, measurable data for the evaluation period. These numbers should come from your delivery records, purchase orders, and incident logs — not from memory or estimates.
Metric | Target | Actual | Met Target? | Trend vs. Last Period |
On-Time Delivery Rate | ≥ 95% | ____% | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Order Accuracy Rate | ≥ 98% | ____% | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Quality Defect / Rejection Rate | ≤ 2% | ____% | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Response Time to Inquiries | ≤ 24 hours | ____ hours | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Credit Terms Compliance | 100% | ____% | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Invoice Error Rate | ≤ 1% | ____% | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Cold Chain Compliance Rate | 100% | ____% | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Number of Formal Complaints Raised | 0 | ____ | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Number of Unresolved Issues at Period End | 0 | ____ | Yes / No | Better / Same / Worse |
Data source used for KPI completion: ______________________________
Were the records sufficient to complete all KPIs accurately?
Yes / No — If No, explain: ______________________________
Overall Score Summary
Section | Weight | Weighted Score | Max |
Section 1: Product Quality | 30% | 30 | |
Section 2: Service and Delivery | 25% | 25 | |
Section 3: Cost and Financial Terms | 20% | 20 | |
Section 4: Compliance and Risk Management | 15% | 15 | |
Section 5: Sustainability and Ethics | 10% | 10 | |
Total Weighted Score | 100% | 100 |
Overall Assessment and Classification
Total Weighted Score: _____ / 100
Score Range | Classification | Recommended Action |
90 – 100 | Excellent | Strategic partner — consider preferred supplier status and expanded relationship |
80 – 89 | Good | Reliable partner — acknowledge strengths, address minor gaps |
70 – 79 | Satisfactory | Acceptable — develop a written improvement plan with clear targets and a review date |
60 – 69 | Below Average | Significant improvement required — formal notice, 60-day improvement window |
Below 60 | Poor | Seek alternative suppliers — consider contract suspension or termination |
Classification (circle one): Excellent / Good / Satisfactory / Below Average / Poor
Incident Log for Evaluation Period
Document any specific incidents that occurred during the evaluation period that directly informed your scores. These records are important for contract discussions and potential dispute resolution.
Date | Incident Type | Description | Resolution | Resolved? |
Yes / No | ||||
Yes / No | ||||
Yes / No | ||||
Yes / No |
Strengths and Areas for Improvement
Key Strengths (be specific — general statements are not useful for supplier feedback):
Areas Requiring Improvement (include specific incidents or data where possible):
Critical Issues (any item that, if unresolved, could result in contract termination or immediate supplier change):
Supplier Improvement Plan (Complete if score is below 80 or if critical issues are identified)
A Supplier Improvement Plan (SIP) is a formal, documented commitment from the supplier to address specific deficiencies within a defined timeframe. It protects your business by creating a clear record of expectations and consequences.
Issue Identified | Required Improvement | Target Date | Supplier Acknowledgement | Review Date |
Yes / No | ||||
Yes / No | ||||
Yes / No |
Has this SIP been shared with and acknowledged by the supplier?
Yes / No Date shared with supplier: _______________________
Supplier representative who acknowledged: _______________________
Action Plan and Recommended Strategy
Immediate Actions Required (within 7 days):
Short-Term Actions (within 30 days):
Recommended Strategy (tick one):
( ) Continue Partnership — Supplier meets or exceeds expectations across all key areas
( ) Monitor Performance — Acceptable overall, but specific areas require tracking at next review
( ) Develop an Improvement Plan — Formal SIP to be issued with a specific timeline and milestones
( ) Seek Alternative Suppliers — Begin sourcing process for a replacement or backup supplier immediately
( ) Suspend or Terminate Contract — Critical issues or consistent failure; escalate to GM and legal/procurement
Rationale for recommended strategy:
Next Formal Review Date: _______________________ Interim Check-In Date (if on improvement plan): _______________________
Follow-Up Actions:
Supplier Comparison Register (Optional but recommended)
If you are evaluating this supplier against known alternatives, use this register to compare your active and prospective suppliers at a glance.
Supplier Name | Category | Last Score | Classification | Contract Expiry | Notes |
Preferred Supplier (highest score in category): _______________________ Backup Supplier identified? Yes / No — If Yes: _______________________
Supporting Documentation Checklist
Attach or confirm the availability of the following documents before finalising this evaluation:
( ) Delivery records and signed delivery notes for the evaluation period
( ) Quality inspection or receiving reports
( ) Customer or kitchen complaint records linked to this supplier's products
( ) Invoice and payment history
( ) Communication logs (emails, WhatsApp, call records where relevant)
( ) Supplier certification documents (HACCP, organic, halaal, etc.) — confirm expiry dates are current
( ) Insurance certificates — confirm coverage is adequate and current
( ) Contract terms and conditions — confirm no material changes have occurred
( ) Previous evaluation forms for trend comparison
( ) Any formal correspondence related to complaints or improvement plans
Approval and Authorisation
Role | Name | Signature | Date |
Evaluator | |||
Kitchen Manager / Head Chef | |||
Operations Manager | |||
General Manager | |||
Supplier Representative (for SIP acknowledgement only) |
A Note on Supplier Relationships
The best supplier relationships are partnerships — not simply transactional arrangements where you order, and they deliver. Suppliers who understand your kitchen, your standards, and your values will go further for you when things go wrong. That kind of relationship is built through consistent communication, fair and honest feedback, and treating your suppliers with the same professionalism you expect from them.
Use this evaluation as a tool for that conversation — not just as a document filed away after a tick-box exercise. Share relevant parts of the evaluation with your supplier. Tell them where they excel. Tell them — clearly and specifically — where they fall short. A supplier who receives honest, structured feedback is far more likely to improve than one who never hears from you until you cancel the contract.
Your supply chain is only as strong as your weakest supplier. Evaluate diligently, communicate openly, and always have a backup plan.
Form Version: 2.0 | Last Updated: _____________ | Next Scheduled Review: _____________ This document is confidential and should be stored securely. Retain completed evaluations for a minimum of three years or in accordance with applicable procurement and food safety regulations.