Liftbrief / Scorecard
How should each criterion be scored?
What does a score from zero to five mean?
| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Strong, mission-specific evidence; exceeds the buyer’s minimum without material unresolved qualifications |
| 4 | Better than the minimum; limited, understood and acceptable qualifications |
| 3 | Meets the buyer’s minimum with documented responsibilities and accepted limitations |
| 2 | Documented weakness requiring renegotiation or mitigation |
| 1 | Major documented weakness or exposure |
| 0 | Confirmed failure or refusal to satisfy the criterion |
| U | Unknown: insufficient evidence to assign a defensible score |
Use 2 and 4 only where the reviewer explains why the evidence falls between adjacent anchors. A sales assertion alone cannot establish a contractual protection; an unanswered question is U, not automatically 0 or 1.
What do weak, acceptable and strong proposals look like?
The following anchors are proposed buyer standards, not descriptions of any named supplier.
| Criterion and evidence to inspect | Weak: 1/5 | Acceptable: 3/5 | Strong: 5/5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Operator assurance and accountability — entity map, authorisation records, operator-selection procedure, applicable audit evidence | Documented process does not require rechecking substitute operators or aircraft | Accountable parties identified; relevant checks documented; substitution checks required | Traceable selection and revalidation process, current evidence and clear escalation for discrepancies |
| 2. Aircraft and mission suitability — configuration, baggage assessment, operator confirmation | Proposed arrangement requires a significant, unwanted compromise | Essential requirements addressed; accepted stops or airport alternatives documented | Aircraft-specific assessment covers passengers, baggage, boarding, timing and realistic alternatives |
| 3. Comparable total cost and value — quote, exclusions, charging basis, feasible comparators | Contract leaves major charges uncapped or price materially exceeds approved value without justification | Comparable base cost within budget; contingencies bounded or expressly approved | Comprehensive pricing, controlled extras and a persuasive value case against genuinely feasible alternatives |
| 4. Disruption recovery — obligations, response process, replacement funding, capability evidence | Refund-only or best-efforts arrangement with no funded fallback for a critical mission | Named escalation, recovery process and payer; limitations acceptable to this mission | Clear recovery obligations and commercial remedies, tested escalation and credible evidence relevant to the mission |
| 5. Cancellation, change and substitution protection — complete terms and priority of documents | Broad unilateral changes or heavy penalties materially conflict with buyer needs | Cancellation timetable, substitution boundaries and refund mechanics understood | Useful flexibility, buyer approval of material changes and clear remedies incorporated into the agreement |
| 6. Access and purchasing-model fit — service area, notice rules, peak calendar, usage replay | Known restrictions exclude important recurring missions | Actual mission pattern fits the rules with manageable exceptions | Fits base and stress scenarios without unnecessary commitment; exceptions explicitly priced |
| 7. Prepayment, counterparty and exit exposure — balance terms, financial evidence, custody documents, exit provisions | Large non-refundable commitment exceeds buyer tolerance or depends on implausible utilisation | Exposure within approved limits; expiry, refunds and exit conditions documented | Limited or independently substantiated protection of exposure, useful exit rights and satisfactory counterparty review |
| 8. Insurance and contractual risk allocation — coverage evidence, endorsements, indemnities, liability limits | Documented gaps or contractual obligations outside buyer risk appetite | Insurance adviser and counsel accept coverage and allocation | Coverage and contract requirements align, including substitutes and relevant third parties, with an agreed update process |
| 9. Service execution, privacy and records — contacts, service terms, workflow test, reporting | Demonstrably poor escalation, uncontrolled itinerary circulation or unreliable billing records | Responsible contacts, secure information process and usable reconciliation | Tested handoffs, disciplined access controls and accurate exception reporting linked to the booking |
| 10. Business justification and alternatives — approval memo, commercial itinerary, ground and hotel assumptions | Preference is presented as necessity; material cheaper alternatives ignored | Cash and time comparison supports the approved choice | Transparent alternatives and sensitivity analysis explain precisely why the selected solution is worth its premium |
Do not award points for aircraft age, fleet size or a safety badge in isolation. Under this methodology, points attach to relevant evidence and buyer protection—not proxies presented without context.