# MSP evaluation scorecard

Organization: [name]
Provider: [name]
Review date: [date]
Reviewers: [roles]

Editorial starting point from Bay Area Managed IT, not an industry standard.
Set weights before demonstrations. Keep the total at 100.

## Mandatory gates

| Requirement | Pass / fail / pending | Evidence | Owner / deadline |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Essential location coverage] | | | |
| [Critical platform support] | | | |
| [Acceptable ownership and access] | | | |
| [Organization-specific requirements] | | | |

A failed gate cannot be offset by a high score elsewhere.

## Anchored scale

0 = missing or contradictory evidence
1 = broad claim only
2 = documented but incomplete answer
3 = meets the requirement
4 = stronger demonstrated delivery with relevant evidence
5 = material, verified advantage

Weighted points = rating / 5 × category weight.
Example: a rating of 4 in a 25-point category earns 20 points.

| Category | Weight | Rating 0–5 | Weighted points | Evidence and unresolved questions |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Support operations | 25 | | | |
| Security ownership | 25 | | | |
| Technical and geographic fit | 15 | | | |
| Onboarding and exit | 15 | | | |
| Commercial terms | 10 | | | |
| References and account leadership | 10 | | | |
| Total | 100 | | | |

## Decision record

Selected provider: [name]
Reason and material tradeoffs: [evidence]
Cost assumptions: [scope, quantities, term]
Unresolved risks: [owner and decision]
Required contract changes: [list]
Onboarding acceptance conditions: [deliverables, owners, dates]

Score independently before discussing differences. Record why a rating changed.