What does a completed three-proposal decision board look like?
The following fictional comparison shows why the highest-looking fit score is not automatically the winner. Assume a seven-night family brief, a $290,000 total-trip ceiling and an essential step-free access requirement.
| Criterion | Weight | Proposal A | Proposal B | Proposal C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family fit/access | 16 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Cost/control | 18 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Permissions/vessel insurance | 12 | 4 | 5 | U |
| Contract/charterer insurance | 12 | 3 | 4 | U |
| Crew/service | 10 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Itinerary | 10 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Comfort/equipment | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Availability/logistics | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Broker/accountability | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Payment/funds | 4 | 5 | 5 | U |
| Privacy | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Assessed weight | 100 | 100% | 100% | 72% |
| Fit on assessed criteria | 73.6/100 | 87.4/100 | 86.9/100 | |
| Mechanical full-score range | 73.6 | 87.4 | 62.6–90.6 | |
| Documented evidence coverage | 97% | 97% | 40% |
For A and B, assume every criterion except privacy has E2/E3 evidence. For C, assume only cost, itinerary, availability, broker accountability and privacy have E2/E3 support; its attractive family, crew and equipment ratings remain supplier-stated.
| Decision item | Proposal A | Proposal B | Proposal C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expected final spend | $235,000 | $255,000 | $250,000 |
| Higher-spend scenario | $260,000 | $285,000 | $280,000 |
| Mandatory checks | Essential access fails | Pass on the stated assumptions | Permissions, contract and payment unresolved |
| Decision | Reject current proposal | Eligible for principal approval | Hold |
Why B wins: it meets the essential access requirement and has a substantially supported assessment. A’s lower cost cannot repair its access failure. C’s provisional fit is promising, but three unresolved mandatory checks prevent commitment.
B still has only $5,000 headroom against the illustrative higher-spend scenario. The principal should explicitly accept that margin or request a revised programme and reserve before approval.
For close decisions, run a sensitivity test: move five points of weight between two genuine priorities and recalculate every candidate. If the preferred yacht changes, describe the decision as preference-sensitive rather than pretending the initial ranking was definitive.
Sources cited
This page does not link to an external source directly.
All sources for Scorecard