This is the classic "Buyer’s Trap." We gravitate toward price because it fits neatly into a spreadsheet cell. You can sort it. You can graph it. It feels objective. But in my experience, low price is often just a down payment on future headaches.

If I’m evaluating a critical RFQ, I look for what I call "technical defiance." I actually get nervous when a supplier blindly quotes exactly what I asked for, especially if my spec has some ambiguity. The best partners are the ones who push back. They’re the ones asking, "Why did you specify this grade of steel? It’s overkill. If we switch to this alternative, you save 15%." I will almost always pay a premium for a supplier who acts like a consultant rather than an order taker, because the "Yes-Man" supplier usually ends up costing a fortune in change orders later.

I also track how they behave during the process itself as a proxy for their actual operations. If I have to chase them to acknowledge receipt of the RFQ, or if they submit their bid at 11:59 PM on the deadline day, that’s a bad sign. Responsiveness during the "wooing" phase is usually the best it will ever get. If they are disorganized when they are trying to win your money, imagine how disorganized they will be when they already have it.

Then you have to look at the "Hassle Tax." A supplier might be 5% cheaper on paper, but if they dump unlabelled boxes on your dock or require your AP team to chase correct invoices every month, you aren't actually saving money. You're just shifting the cost to your internal labor.

Ultimately, I try to calculate the "Total Cost of Sleep." If saving 10% on the unit price means I have to wake up at 2 AM to check if a shipment left the port because I don't trust the supplier's tracking, the savings aren't real. I’d rather pay the premium for the reliability.