What are the weighted criteria?
Start with the following 100-point model. It deliberately gives more weight to family fit, total expenditure and contractual/operational suitability than to amenities or brand prestige.
Key points from this page
- Unknown is not zero, and unknown is not average.
Agree any weight changes before viewing supplier scores, and apply the same revised weights to every candidate. Essential requirements remain mandatory checks even when their weighted category is small.
| Criterion | Weight | Strong performance: typically 4–5 | Weak performance: typically 0–2 | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family fit, cabins and access | 16 | Named cabin allocation; accepted sharing arrangements; required boarding and circulation routes checked | Bed count substitutes for allocation; essential spaces inaccessible; nanny or caregiver accommodation unresolved | General arrangement, bed dimensions, access measurements, walkthrough, captain confirmation |
| Total cost and spending control | 18 | Comparable expected and higher-spend budgets; tax basis, exclusions, APA accounting and top-ups explained | Headline rate presented as total cost; unexplained tax; no operating assumptions; double-counted APA | Itemised quote, expense model, tax confirmation, payment calendar |
| Operating permissions and vessel insurance | 12 | Appropriate specialist confirms documents fit vessel, route, dates and party; operating cover evidenced | Registration treated as complete charter permission; passenger assumptions unsupported; cover unclear | Relevant certificates, permits, capacity evidence and insurance confirmation |
| Contract, disruption and charterer insurance | 12 | Actual terms reviewed; residual exposure accepted; important promises addressed; insurance assessed against the trip | Brochure promises stand alone; cancellation described vaguely; assumed refunds or universal insurance cover | Complete draft, special conditions, exposure schedule, policy wording and adviser response |
| Current crew and service capability | 10 | Named team and expected rotation; relevant references; menu and service plan address this group | Undated biographies; reliance on a previous chef; essential service responsibilities unallocated | Dated roster, captain/chef call, sample menu, permissioned references |
| Itinerary feasibility and resilience | 10 | Captain-reviewed legs, transit hours, access constraints and workable alternatives | Maximum speed used for planning; no return buffer; activities conflict with local restrictions | Route worksheet, planning speeds, fuel assumptions, alternative programme |
| Comfort and essential equipment | 6 | Required stabilisation modes, tender access, shade and connectivity examined for intended use | Generic equipment labels; essential items unavailable or unusable for these guests | Equipment schedule, operational confirmation, demonstrations where appropriate |
| Availability and embarkation logistics | 5 | Dated confirmation, option expiry/time zone, positioning and transfer plan | Listing treated as a reservation; unclear handover port; delivery plan unresolved | Central-agent confirmation, reservation terms, transfer and positioning plan |
| Broker accountability and incentives | 4 | Roles and compensation explained; alternatives justified; named escalation cover | Representation unclear; pressure to commit; recommendation rationale or remuneration withheld | Engagement/role statement, compensation disclosure, escalation contacts |
| Payment and funds handling | 4 | Authenticated recipient, independently checked instructions, documented custody/release process | Changed bank details accepted by email; unexplained beneficiary; unclear fund release | Contract/invoice reconciliation, callback record, funds-handling explanation |
| Privacy and information handling | 3 | Necessary information only; restricted access; secure transmission; retention and publicity rules agreed | Full household data circulated prematurely; uncontrolled forwarding; unclear reuse | Data-sharing map, privacy process, retention terms and consent record |
| Total | 100 |
How should the 0–5 scale work?
Use whole-number ratings with a short written reason:
- 5 — Excellent fit: fully meets the brief and provides a meaningful additional benefit or contingency.
- 4 — Good fit: meets the requirement with only minor, accepted compromises.
- 3 — Workable: meets the minimum but involves a material trade-off the principal understands.
- 2 — Weak: significant shortcomings require changes or an explicit change to the brief.
- 1 — Poor: largely unsuitable or dependent on an unagreed workaround.
- 0 — Confirmed failure: does not meet the requirement.
- U — Unassessed: information is insufficient or contradictory.
Unknown is not zero, and unknown is not average. Zero means an established failure. U means the assessment cannot yet be made.
Do not award extra points simply because a yacht is longer, newer or more expensive. Award them only when the difference improves the agreed holiday brief.
Sources cited
This page does not link to an external source directly.
All sources for Scorecard