How to run an annual supplier review
The same venue, AV supplier and caterer have been used for three years, and nobody has checked whether they still suit.
The short answer
Run the review once a year, shortly after your last event, using criteria agreed before the event: delivery against what was agreed, communication, problem handling, cost against the quote and fit with next year's plans. Collect evidence from the people who dealt with the supplier, then decide to keep, renegotiate or replace.
The review looks backwards at evidence. Day-to-day holds and dates sit in the event shared supplier calendar, and what went wrong across events is pulled together in event recurring failure analysis.
Agree the criteria before you score
- Delivery: did they provide what the agreement said, on time, at the stated quality?
- Communication: were questions answered, changes confirmed in writing and contacts reachable during the build-up?
- Problem handling: when something went wrong, did they tell you early and offer a fix?
- Value: how did the final cost compare with the quote, and were extras explained before they were charged?
- Fit: does the supplier suit next year's scale, format and dates, and are they available?
Gather evidence, not impressions
Ask each event owner, the on-site lead and finance to give one example for each criterion. A score with no example is an opinion. Attach the quote, the final invoice and any written changes.
| Score | Meaning | Typical response |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Met or exceeded what was agreed, no repeated issues. | Keep. Offer them early dates for next year. |
| 2 | Mostly met, with issues that were resolved. | Keep, with specific points raised in writing. |
| 1 | Issues repeated or were not resolved. | Renegotiate terms or start comparing alternatives. |
Steps for the review meeting
- Collect scorecards and evidence a week before the meeting.
- Review each supplier for ten minutes. Start with those that cost the most or cause the most dependence.
- Decide keep, renegotiate or replace, and record the reason and the owner for any follow-up.
- Send feedback to the supplier in writing, covering what worked and what must change.
- For replacements, begin comparing alternatives early enough to allow a fair process before dates are held.
Common mistakes
- Reviewing only the suppliers who caused obvious trouble. A supplier that works smoothly still deserves a check on price and fit.
- Scoring on the personal relationship rather than the delivery.
- Replacing a supplier after one bad event without checking whether the cause was your brief.
- Sending no feedback, so the supplier never learns what to fix.
Worked example · Fictional example
A venue review leads to renegotiation, not replacement
Fictional organisation and figures, for illustration only.
Persatuan Fiktif Akauntan Syarikat used the same hotel for three annual forums. Scorecards showed delivery at 3 and communication at 3, but value at 1 because two extras were charged without prior notice.
The review decided to keep the hotel and renegotiate. The secretariat asked in writing for a clause that extras need approval before they are charged, and recorded that it will start comparing two alternative venues if the clause is not agreed.
| Criterion | Score | Example of evidence | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery | 3 | Room ready on time both years | None |
| Communication | 3 | Changes confirmed in writing within the agreed time | None |
| Problem handling | 2 | Lift fault fixed but reported late | Raise at next meeting |
| Value | 1 | Two extras invoiced without prior notice | Ask for approval clause |
| Fit | 3 | Capacity suits next year's range | Request early date hold |
Use this yourself
Supplier scorecard
Complete one per supplier. Ask each person who dealt with the supplier to add one example per criterion.
| Criterion | Score 1 to 3 | Example (what happened, when) | Document reference | Action and owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery against agreement | ||||
| Communication | ||||
| Problem handling | ||||
| Value against quote | ||||
| Fit with next year's plans | ||||
| Decision: keep / renegotiate / replace | Reason: | Decided by and date: |
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- You use only a few suppliers and one person knows all of them.
- Contracts are simple and prices are easy to compare.
- Your committee already looks at supplier feedback after each event.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- Several people deal with the same supplier and nobody has a combined view.
- Suppliers are used across many events and spend is large enough to justify a comparison.
- You need a fair, documented comparison before changing a long-standing supplier.
Want the review prepared for you?
A recurring programme manager can gather evidence from event owners, complete the scorecards, prepare the comparison and take the recommendation to your committee. Supplier selection, contracts and spending stay with your organisation. The event recurring calendar capacity planner can then show how next year's supplier dates sit against your own team.
Questions organisers ask
How many suppliers should be reviewed each year?
All suppliers above a spending level your finance team sets, plus any with an unresolved issue. A short check of the rest is enough.
Should we tell suppliers they are being reviewed?
Yes, and share the criteria in advance. Suppliers can only improve against standards they know.
Can we score a supplier we used once?
Yes, with the same criteria. One event gives little evidence, so record the example and revisit after a second use.
When should we start looking for a replacement?
Once repeated issues remain after you raised them in writing, or fit no longer matches your plans. Compare alternatives early enough to allow a fair process.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.