When three proposals arrive, the one with the best-designed PDF and the most confident presenter tends to win by default. A scorecard prevents that. It forces you to decide what matters before you are influenced, and to score each candidate on the same things.
The weights below are a starting point. Adjust them to your situation before you score anyone.
How the scorecard works
Each criterion gets a weight that reflects how much it matters to you, and each candidate gets a score from one to five on each criterion. Multiply score by weight, add the results, and you have a comparable total. The total is not the decision; it is a structured input to the decision.
Score every candidate on a criterion before moving to the next one. Scoring one candidate top to bottom lets a strong first impression bleed into every row.
The criteria and suggested weights
The weights below sum to 100. They reflect a typical small or midsize business hiring for an ongoing engagement. A one-off technical project would weight technical depth much higher and content much lower.
| Criterion | Weight | What a 5 looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery capacity | 12 | Named team with realistic client load and a clear monthly output |
| Strategy quality | 15 | A plan specific to your site and market, with prioritized reasoning |
| Reporting and transparency | 12 | Sample report shows outcomes, not activity; explains what did not work |
| Technical depth | 10 | Can explain crawl, indexing, and speed issues on your actual site |
| Content capability | 12 | Shows relevant samples; explains who writes and who reviews |
| Link quality and method | 12 | Describes methods openly; examples are relevant, earned links |
| Fit and communication | 10 | Responsive, plain-spoken, comfortable saying no or I do not know |
| Contract terms | 7 | Reasonable term, clear cancellation, full ownership of work product |
| Evidence and references | 10 | References confirm results and honesty; case studies are specific |
How to score each criterion
Use a simple scale. One means a serious concern or no answer. Three means adequate and unremarkable. Five means clearly strong with evidence. Avoid giving everyone a four; if you cannot tell candidates apart on a criterion, the criterion is not doing its job and you should ask a sharper question.
- Delivery capacity: ask who does the work and how many accounts they carry. Vague answers score low.
- Strategy quality: does the plan mention specific pages, competitors, or problems on your site? Generic plans score low.
- Reporting: ask for a redacted sample. If they will not share one, score a one.
- Technical depth: ask them to name one technical issue they noticed on your site during the pitch.
- Content: ask for two samples in your industry or a similar one, and ask who wrote them.
- Links: ask how links are acquired. "Proprietary network" or refusal to answer scores a one.
- Fit: notice whether they push back on anything you said. A provider who agrees with everything is selling.
- Terms: read the contract, not the summary.
- Evidence: call references and ask what went wrong.
Adjusting weights for your situation
A local service business in the East Bay competing for map results should raise the weight on local capability (fold it into strategy or add a row) and lower link weight. An e-commerce store should raise technical depth and content. A business that has been burned before should raise reporting, terms, and evidence.
Whatever you change, decide it before you read the proposals. Changing weights after scoring is just rationalizing a preference.
What to do with the results
If one candidate leads clearly, proceed to references and contract review. If two are close, hold a second call with each and ask them to critique the other's approach without naming names; the quality of their reasoning usually separates them. If everyone scores poorly, extend the search rather than settling.
Working checklist
- Weights adjusted to your situation and frozen before scoring.
- Same brief and questions sent to all candidates.
- Scored by criterion across candidates, not by candidate.
- Sample reports obtained from each candidate.
- Link acquisition method described in writing.
- References called with questions about problems.
- Scorecard saved for the six-month review.