Agency vetting scorecard

Score each finalist against the same weighted criteria and attach evidence to every score. The scorecard supports a decision; it does not replace reference checks, contract review, or judgment about unresolved risk. Set the weights before proposals arrive so a strong sales meeting cannot change what matters.

Use an evidence scale instead of a yes-or-no claim

Rate each criterion from 0 to 3:

0: Missing. The proposal does not address the criterion or conflicts with the brief.
1: Asserted. The candidate makes a claim without usable evidence or a specific plan.
2: Supported. The candidate provides relevant evidence, named owners, and a workable plan.
3: Demonstrated. The evidence is relevant and verifiable, the reasoning addresses constraints, and the team explains how it will learn and adapt.

Multiply the rating by the weight, then divide by 3. This produces the points earned for that row.

Adjust these weights before the evaluation

Criterion	Suggested weight	Evidence to review
Strategic and audience fit	20	Diagnosis, audience rationale, research plan, and assumptions
Team and governance	15	Named roles, involvement, quality review, backup, and escalation
Relevant work evidence	15	Samples, exact contribution, starting point, timeframe, and result limits
Execution and learning	15	Work plan, target rationale, transparent activity, feedback, and adaptation
Measurement	10	Objective, baseline, outputs, outtakes, outcomes, impact, and causal limits
Scope and commercials	10	Deliverables, exclusions, fee, expenses, term, change control, and exit
Ethics, conflicts, and security	10	Disclosures, safeguards, subcontractors, paid-media labeling, and rights
Working fit	5	Responsiveness, clarity, constructive challenge, and access to the delivery team
Total	100

Change the weights when the assignment requires it. A crisis-readiness selection may increase specialist experience, security, and availability. A founder-positioning project may increase working fit, interview craft, and voice preservation. Record the reason for each change.

Hard gates sit outside the total

A high score should not override a material ethics, legal, security, or conflict problem. Define the disqualifiers before selection. Examples include undisclosed paid placement presented as independent coverage, a material misrepresentation, refusal to address a direct conflict, or security terms that fail company requirements.

The PRSA Code of Ethics provides an external reference for accuracy, disclosure, conflicts, safeguarding confidences, and fair dealing. The company's counsel, security owner, and procurement process should set the contractual gates that apply to the engagement.

Resolve uncertainty before choosing

Keep a note beside each score with its source: proposal section, work sample, report, team interview, reference, or contract language. Use reference calls to test delivery behavior and sample reports to test measurement. Do not award full points for a promise that remains absent from the scope.

There is no universal passing score. Compare totals, hard gates, unresolved questions, and sensitivity to different reasonable weights. Document the decision and the evidence that would trigger a review after work begins.