Lessons 2.1 to 2.4 each taught one part of this process: writing a fair RFQ, reading what a quotation actually states, normalising quotations onto one basis, and weighing a normalised price against lead-time and quality risk. This lesson puts all four parts together in order, on two new worked examples: a repeat of Order A's T-shirt and, for contrast, Order B's jeans, whose only fixed figure is its total FOB target of USD 9.80. This lesson mainly teaches the decision flow: carrying a comparison from a blank RFQ through to one supported recommendation.
You need: all four prior lessons of this course: writing an RFQ (2.1), reading a quotation (2.2), normalising quotations (2.3), and weighing risk (2.4).
By the end of this lesson you can:
Not covered here: what happens once a purchase order is placed with the chosen supplier, taught in the next course.
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Comparison sheet | The single working document that records an RFQ's facts, each supplier's quotation, the normalised prices, and the estimated risk, ending in one recommendation. |
| Recommendation line | The one sentence at the end of a comparison sheet stating which supplier is chosen and the main reason. |
| Sourcing decision | The final choice of which supplier to place an order with, made after price, terms and risk have all been weighed. |
| Repeat order | A new order for a style the buyer has already produced before, often with the same or a similar supplier. |
| Fixed FOB target | A total price the buyer states it is aiming for, used as a benchmark even before a full cost breakdown is agreed, as with Order B (jeans)'s USD 9.80. |
| Audit trail | The record, kept on the comparison sheet itself, of what each supplier quoted and why one was chosen, so the decision can be reviewed later. |
Each of the four prior lessons taught one link in this chain, and none of the four is a substitute for the others: a well-written RFQ does not by itself normalise the quotes that come back, and a normalised price does not by itself account for a supplier's lead-time or quality record. A complete comparison sheet keeps a record of all four steps for one order, from the six RFQ facts through to the one line stating which supplier was chosen and why, so that the decision can be checked or repeated later.
| What can differ | The shapes you will meet | Why it matters to you |
|---|---|---|
| New order versus repeat order | A repeat of Order A can reuse an existing supplier record for the risk-weighing step, as lesson 2.4 showed. A genuinely new style has no supplier history to weigh yet, so risk is assessed from qualification information instead (T13-C01). | A repeat order's comparison can move faster through step four; a new order needs more care there since no track record exists. |
| How firm the underlying cost figures are | Order A's own costing is fully fixed, fabric, trims, making, overhead and profit each stated (in the earlier fixed-cost breakdown lesson in Track 12). Order B (jeans)'s own costing breakdown is not yet fully fixed; only its total FOB target of USD 9.80 is fixed. | A comparison can still be built around a fixed total target even without every cost component broken out, as long as every supplier is asked to quote against the same target and the same six RFQ facts. |
| Export MTO order versus a hybrid sourcing pattern | An export MTO order like Order A is a one-time confirmed quantity. An agent like Meridian Sourcing, or a factory serving both export and domestic buyers, may run the same four-step comparison for a hybrid mix of one-time and repeat orders across several buyers. | The four steps do not change with the business model; what changes is how often the sheet is rebuilt versus reused for a repeat order from the same buyer. |
| Who signs off the recommendation | A merchandiser may recommend a supplier that a manager or owner still approves before the purchase order is placed. An agent's recommendation goes to the buyer it represents for the buyer's own final approval. | The comparison sheet's audit trail matters most at this point, since whoever approves the choice needs to see the same four steps the recommender used, not just the final number. |
Delta Garments already has Order A's comparison complete, from lessons 2.1 to 2.4. Its merchandising team now builds a second, parallel comparison for a new inquiry on Order B's jeans, where only the FOB target of USD 9.80 is fixed.
| Step | Order A (complete example) | Order B (jeans) (new comparison) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. RFQ | Six facts fixed and sent to 2 factories (2.1) | Six facts fixed, including target FOB of 9.80, sent to 2 factories |
| 2. Read | Quantity, inclusions, exclusions, validity checked (2.2) | Quantity (3,000 pieces), inclusions and validity checked the same way |
| 3. Normalise | Prices normalised to 3.20 and 3.13 (2.3) | Both quotations normalised to FOB terms and 3,000-piece quantity |
| 4. Weigh risk | Factory Y's delay risk estimated at 0.15/piece (2.4) | Each candidate factory's own on-time delivery record checked |
A merchandiser handling a repeat order under time pressure often assumes a familiar supplier's price can simply be compared against a new quote's headline number, skipping the reading, normalising and risk-weighing steps this course teaches because "it's the same order as before." A repeat order still needs its own comparison built fresh, since a supplier's price, its stated terms, and its own on-time delivery record can all have moved since the last time the same style was ordered. Skipping steps to save time on a routine order risks exactly the wrong-supplier outcome lessons 2.2 to 2.4 each showed a cost for.
Choosing a supplier well means doing four things in order, every time: ask for a price with every fact stated clearly, read what actually comes back closely, adjust the numbers so they are really comparable, and weigh in how reliable each supplier has actually been across its past orders. Writing all four steps down on one sheet, ending in one sentence saying which supplier was chosen and why, means the decision can be checked or explained later, not just remembered.
A manager, needing a fast answer, asks the merchandising team to recommend a supplier for Order B (jeans) within the hour, using only the two prices already received: FOB 9.80 and FOB 9.95.
Here is what the team has been given so far:
Can the team give a fully supported recommendation within the hour on the two prices alone? Decide before opening the answer.
Not a fully supported one, no. Two facts decide this.
First, the two prices have not yet been read for quantity, inclusions, exclusions or validity, so it is not yet known whether 9.80 and 9.95 are quoted on the same basis at all; one could exclude an item the other includes.
Second, neither factory's on-time delivery or quality fault record has been checked yet, so even if the prices are confirmed comparable, a hidden risk difference could still change the recommendation, as it did for Factory Y in lesson 2.4.
The team can report the two headline prices as a preliminary figure within the hour, but should state clearly that the recommendation is provisional until the reading, normalising and risk-weighing steps are completed, likely within a day once both factories confirm the missing details.
Framed qualitatively, a provisional recommendation treated as final, if it later turns out the cheaper factory excluded a cost item or carries a weaker on-time record, forces the same decision to be reopened after some commitment, fabric booking, or supplier notification, has already been made on the incomplete comparison.
Open the Quotation comparison sheet workbook linked below. Its four tabs, "RFQ facts," "Quote reading," "Normalise," and "Weigh risk," match the four lessons of this course in order, ending in a "Recommendation" row on the last tab. Fill in the yellow "Your order" columns across all four tabs for your own new order, in order, before writing your own recommendation line.
[Download the Quotation comparison sheet](../../templates/T13-C02-quotation-comparison-sheet.xlsx)
1. What are the four steps, in order, of a complete quotation comparison?
2. Order B (jeans)'s own cost breakdown is not fully fixed, only its FOB target of USD 9.80. Can a complete comparison still be built for it?
3. A repeat order for a familiar supplier is due within the hour. Why should the full four-step comparison still be run, rather than reusing the supplier's price from the last order?
| EN | AR | FR | TR | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison sheet | ورقة المقارنة | Fiche de comparaison | Karşılaştırma tablosu | The single working document that records an RFQ's facts, each supplier's quotation, the normalised prices, and the estimated risk, ending in one recommendation. |
| Recommendation line | سطر التوصية | Ligne de recommandation | Tavsiye satırı | The one sentence at the end of a comparison sheet stating which supplier is chosen and the main reason. |
| Sourcing decision | قرار التوريد | Décision d'approvisionnement | Tedarik kararı | The final choice of which supplier to place an order with, made after price, terms and risk have all been weighed. |
| Repeat order | طلبية متكررة | Commande répétée | Tekrar sipariş | A new order for a style the buyer has already produced before, often with the same or a similar supplier. |
| Fixed FOB target | هدف سعر FOB الثابت | Objectif FOB fixe | Sabit FOB hedefi | A total price the buyer states it is aiming for, used as a benchmark even before a full cost breakdown is agreed, as with Order B (jeans)'s USD 9.80. |
| Audit trail | سجل التدقيق | Piste d'audit | Denetim izi | The record, kept on the comparison sheet itself, of what each supplier quoted and why one was chosen, so the decision can be reviewed later. |
This is the last lesson of Course 2. The next course builds on a completed, decided supplier comparison to teach what happens once a purchase order is placed with the chosen supplier. Back to the course map