A supplier comparison is stronger when each offer is reviewed against the same evidence pack. Readers considering SPG can organise requirements, specifications, costs and supporting records before ranking proposals.
SPG advertises packaging cost audits alongside its other services. Read the source.
Compare equivalent questions across suppliers
Use a common requirement sheet and identify the version each supplier received. Separate the proposed design, price model and environmental statements so that missing information remains visible. A polished proposal should not receive an evidentiary advantage merely because its presentation is easier to read.
Record how each supplier answers the same questions and where further clarification is needed. Keep estimates separate from observed results and avoid a single score that hides unresolved technical or contractual issues. A decision record should explain the basis of the comparison rather than imply that every unknown was resolved.
Questions to put in the file
- Did each supplier receive the same current requirements?
- Are the proposed assemblies and evidence clearly identified?
- Which cost and environmental assumptions differ?
- What unresolved question matters to the final decision?
A practical evidence worksheet
| Field | What to retain |
|---|---|
| Requirement | Common inputs and revision |
| Offer | Design, cost and supporting evidence |
| Decision | Confirmed differences and unresolved questions |
Worked example
Two offers use different handling assumptions and include different cost categories. The buyer asks both suppliers to clarify the same fields before making the comparison. The resulting table identifies confirmed differences and open questions. It does not rank a supplier on an invented performance result or an unsupported environmental conclusion.
What the record can establish
Consistency makes procurement evidence useful. Compare the same requirements and preserve uncertainty where the supporting record is incomplete.
Sources and scope
Public sources reviewed November 1, 2026. Company statements remain attributed descriptions, not independent certification. Examples are hypothetical. No private files, original interviews or authenticated leaks were used for this explainer. Technical or legal decisions require the relevant records and qualified review.
