| Course | OPS 395 Purchasing and Procurement (OPS/395) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Supplier selection and evaluation analysis |
| Length | about 1,016 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for OPS 395 Week 3
Four Mills, Two Contracts: Selecting and Scoring Stainless Steel Suppliers for a Laundry Equipment Maker
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
OPS/395: Purchasing and Procurement
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Fox Valley Washer Works, its bidders, scores and figures are composites written for a model paper.
The Week 2 sourcing strategy for Fox Valley Washer Works, a composite commercial washer and dryer maker in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, called for consolidating stainless steel purchases, about $21 million a year, from four suppliers to a primary and a secondary. This paper carries out the selection and sets up ongoing evaluation.
Requirements First
The category manager, Alicia Brandt, worked with engineering, quality and production to define what Fox Valley needs: Type 304 stainless steel sheet and coil in seven gauges; thickness within a tight tolerance for consistent forming; a brushed finish for visible panels; mill test certificates with every shipment; lead times of four weeks or less from order; slitting and cut-to-length service; and the ability to supply about 7,500 tons a year with 25 percent surge capacity in the spring order season. These requirements became the request for proposal.
Request for Proposal and Screening
Five suppliers responded: the two current mills, two service centers that process steel from several mills and a new importer. Ho et al. (2010) reviewed methods used for supplier selection and found that quality, delivery, price or cost, manufacturing capability, service and management were among the most frequently used criteria, and that weighted scoring approaches were common, often combined with other techniques. Fox Valley set two minimum criteria before scoring: a current quality management certification and the ability to provide mill test certificates traceable to the heat of steel. The importer could not provide traceable certificates for one of its source mills and was screened out.
Criteria and Weights
Before seeing any scores, the team set seven criteria and weights aligned with the category strategy:
Quality, 25 percent: sample test results, certification, defect history.
Delivery reliability, 20 percent: on-time record from references or past performance, lead time.
Total cost, 20 percent: base price plus surcharges under the proposed index formula, freight, processing and payment terms.
Capacity and flexibility, 10 percent: tonnage, surge ability, processing services.
Financial stability, 10 percent: credit reports and financial statements.
Technical support, 10 percent: help with forming problems and material selection.
Sustainability, 5 percent: recycled content and emissions reporting, which Fox Valley's hotel customers increasingly ask about.
The weighting reflects the strategy: steel is a competitive category, so cost matters, but quality and delivery problems would stop the forming line.
Gathering Evidence
Each bidder supplied 500 pounds of each of three gauges for forming trials. Quality engineers measured thickness and finish and ran the samples through the press line. Brandt and an engineer visited each bidder's nearest facility. Delivery data came from Fox Valley's own records for the two current mills and from three references for the service centers. Finance pulled credit reports.
A score of 4 for quality is an opinion until it is backed by a sample that went through the press.
Scores
Weighted totals on a five-point scale:
Mill A (current supplier): quality 5, delivery 4, cost 3, capacity 5, financial 5, technical 5, sustainability 4; weighted total 4.35.
Service Center C: quality 4, delivery 5, cost 4, capacity 4, financial 4, technical 3, sustainability 3; weighted total 4.05.
Mill B (current supplier): quality 4, delivery 3, cost 4, capacity 4, financial 4, technical 3, sustainability 4; weighted total 3.70.
Service Center D: quality 3, delivery 4, cost 5, capacity 3, financial 3, technical 2, sustainability 2; weighted total 3.45.
Testing the Result
Because cost-focused buyers might weight price more heavily, the team reran the scores with cost at 30 percent, quality at 20 percent and technical support at 5 percent. Mill A scored 4.15, Service Center C 4.10, Mill B 3.75 and D 3.70. The top two remained the same. Even with cost pushed to 45 percent, a weight inconsistent with the strategy, Service Center D stayed behind C. The ranking is robust.
Qualitative Factors
Some considerations did not fit neatly into scores. Mill A is part of a larger steel group, which brings financial strength but also the risk that Fox Valley becomes a small customer the group deprioritizes in a tight market. Service Center C is family-owned and about 90 miles away, and its owner offered to hold a buffer of Fox Valley's three most-used gauges at no charge during the spring peak. Brandt recorded both points alongside the scores so that the decision makers could weigh them, and they reinforced the choice of a primary-secondary split rather than a single source.
The Award
Mill A receives about 70 percent of volume as primary supplier under a three-year contract with index-based pricing. Service Center C receives about 30 percent as secondary supplier, providing a second source, faster delivery for small gauges and slitting services. Mill B, the current supplier with the weakest delivery record, will be told why it was not selected and invited to bid at the next review.
Evaluating Suppliers After the Award
Dickson (1966), in an early survey of purchasing agents, found that quality, delivery and performance history ranked among the most important factors in choosing vendors. Fox Valley's scorecard follows that emphasis, measured every quarter: quality, as rejected pounds per million received and forming defects traced to material; delivery, as the share of shipments on time and complete; cost, as actual price against the index formula and savings achieved; and responsiveness, as time to resolve problems. Each measure has a target and a color rating.
Prahinski and Benton (2004) studied supplier evaluation communication and found that how buyers communicate evaluations, including collaborative and formal approaches, influenced suppliers' commitment and performance improvement. Fox Valley will review each scorecard with the supplier in a quarterly meeting, discuss causes and agree on actions, rather than simply mailing ratings.
Conclusion
Selecting stainless steel suppliers at Fox Valley began with clear requirements and minimum criteria, used seven weighted criteria set in advance and evidence from samples, visits and records and tested the result for sensitivity before awarding primary and secondary roles. A quarterly scorecard reviewed jointly with each supplier turns the selection into a continuing relationship, which Week 4's contract and negotiation plan will formalize.
References
Dickson, G. W. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. Journal of Purchasing, 2(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.1966.tb00818.x
Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009
Prahinski, C., & Benton, W. C. (2004). Supplier evaluations: Communication strategies to improve supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(1), 39-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.12.005
What the OPS 395 Week 3 instructions ask
The third OPS 395 assignment usually asks students to describe and apply a supplier selection and evaluation process. Prompts may ask for selection criteria and weights, sources of supplier information such as requests for proposal, site visits and references, a scoring method, the final selection with justification and ongoing evaluation through scorecards or performance reviews. Some versions ask students to discuss qualitative factors such as financial stability, sustainability or cultural fit. Apply the process to a real or realistic purchase, show the scoring and reasoning and support the approach with supply management research cited in APA, explaining how evaluation results will be shared with suppliers.
How this OPS 395 Week 3 example is built
In this sample the category manager runs a full selection for about $21 million a year of stainless sheet and coil. Requirements cover grade, thickness tolerance, surface finish, lead time and certification. Five suppliers answer the request for proposal; one fails the minimum quality certification. The remaining four are scored on seven weighted criteria, quality, delivery, total cost, capacity, financial stability, technical support and sustainability, using sample testing, site visits, delivery records and credit reports. Two mills score clearly ahead, and a sensitivity check shows their ranking holds when weights shift. They receive 70 and 30 percent of volume. A quarterly scorecard with four measures and a review meeting completes the plan.
OPS 395 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
The marks on this paper reward structure and evidence. Strong submissions define requirements first, set criteria and weights before scoring and explain why each weight fits the category. Graders look for minimum screening criteria, scores backed by evidence such as sample tests or site visits and a transparent calculation. Credit goes to testing the result's sensitivity, to a clear award decision and to a post-award scorecard with measures, targets and a feedback process. Research on supplier selection and evaluation strengthens the analysis. Readable scoring tables, consistent figures and careful APA references earn the last points, and a sentence on how losing bidders will be debriefed shows professionalism.
OPS 395 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
The most common weakness is scoring suppliers on price alone or adding criteria after seeing the bids. Set criteria and weights first and include total cost, not just price. Another frequent problem is scores with no evidence; a 4 for quality should rest on test results or certification, not impressions. Students also skip minimum requirements, wasting effort scoring suppliers who could not qualify. Screen first. Some papers end at the award, but selection is only the start; describe how performance will be measured and discussed. Finally, test whether a small change in weights would change the winner, and say what you would do if it did. If your weights seem arbitrary, a tutor can help you tie them to the category strategy.
Related OPS 395 sample papers
Other OPS 395 week samples
- OPS 395 Week 1: Procurement in the Supply Chain
- OPS 395 Week 2: Strategic Sourcing Approach
- OPS 395 Week 4: Negotiation and Contracts
- OPS 395 Week 5: Supplier Relationships and Risk
More BS in Business sample papers
- OPS 330 Week 3: Inventory and Supply Chain Control
- OPS 385 Week 3: Measuring and Analyzing Data
- PM 300 Week 3: Governance and Project Environments
- PM 310 Week 3: Development Approach and Life Cycle
OPS 395 Week 3 questions, answered
What does OPS 395 Week 3 usually cover?
It usually covers selecting and evaluating suppliers: requirements, selection criteria and weights, requests for proposal, site visits and scoring, the award decision and supplier scorecards for ongoing evaluation.
Where can I find a free OPS 395 Week 3 sample paper?
The Week 3 paper above selects and scores stainless steel suppliers for a laundry equipment maker and designs a scorecard; it is free to read.
What criteria are used to select suppliers?
Common criteria include quality, delivery reliability, total cost, capacity, financial stability, technical capability, service and sustainability, weighted by their importance for the category.
What is a supplier scorecard?
A regular report rating a supplier's performance on agreed measures, such as quality, on-time delivery and cost, used to discuss results and drive improvement.
Why test the sensitivity of supplier scores?
To see whether the choice depends heavily on particular weights. If a small change in weights changes the winner, the decision needs more evidence or discussion.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All OPS 395 week samples · All courses