Score capability, quality, lead time, price and risk with user-controlled weights and explicit gaps.
Start by treating hard capability as a gate. Maximum sheet size, supported file format, finishing process or minimum resolution can make a provider unsuitable regardless of how attractive its price is. Record those facts first, then use quality, lead-time, price and risk scores to compare the providers that remain plausible.
The default weighting favors capability and quality because a cheap quote is not useful when the provider cannot reproduce the job. Change the entered scores only when you have evidence such as a written specification, measured delivery performance or documented quality history.
The result is deliberately a planning score rather than a universal vendor rating. A provider can be excellent for one process and a poor fit for another, so keep the score tied to the current job and revision.
A low-cost provider that cannot meet size, format or process requirements should not win merely because its weighted price score is high.
Quality, lead time and price weights stay editable so the ranking reflects the job rather than an opaque algorithm.
Only performance values entered or recorded by the user are used; the tool does not fabricate provider ratings.