Build a supplier clarification log that leads to a decision

Start with one question per decision gap

A clarification log connects an unanswered requirement to the person who can close it. Use it alongside the controlled RFQ and quote comparison, not as a replacement for either. Assign a stable ID and identify the supplier, component, requirement revision and source of the question.

Avoid rows such as “confirm quality and delivery.” Split them into questions that can be answered and accepted independently. For each, state the evidence needed, the answer owner, the due date agreed for the task and the decision that remains on hold.

Use explicit status and closure rules

The following is a RivetBridge working convention, not an industry-mandated workflow. Adapt the approval roles to your team.

• Open: the question and required evidence are recorded; no adequate answer has been received.
• Answered: a response exists and its source is linked, but the responsible reviewer has not accepted it.
• Blocked: another dependency prevents resolution; record that dependency and the affected commitment.
• Closed: the authorized reviewer accepted the specified evidence, recorded the date, and identified any changed baseline.
• Reopened: a new revision or conflicting evidence invalidates the earlier closure; preserve the previous decision rather than overwriting it.

Worked example: three questions before comparing enclosure quotes

Illustrative only: supplier B quotes revision A while the buyer requires revision B. The quote also leaves tooling recurrence and the lead-time starting point unclear. The table above shows three independent records; the downloadable file includes the same example and a blank record.

C-001 cannot close because sales says “same product.” Engineering needs a revision-aligned response and confirmation of any deviation. C-002 can close when purchasing accepts the identified written clarification of the tooling charge. C-003 remains open until the lead-time trigger is stated. A closed tooling question does not authorize the technical deviation or production order.

Connect the answer to cost, timing and the baseline

Record whether an answer changes the quoted price, delivery assumption, revision or acceptance plan. Where the effect is unknown, write “not quantified” rather than zero. Link to the relevant comparison row so that a revised quote does not leave the decision sheet out of date.

If engineering accepts a changed requirement, issue the controlled revision to the affected suppliers and obtain acknowledgment. Do not distribute another supplier’s confidential proposal. A clarification may require a new comparison rather than a quick status change.

Keep a usable evidence trail

Reference a stable file name, document revision, email date or controlled record location that your team can retrieve. Keep the original response as well as the reviewer’s conclusion. Avoid putting private documents or customer data into a public URL simply to make the link clickable.

Review the log at each purchasing gate: which unresolved rows could change the decision, who owns them and what commitment must wait? Prioritize those rows rather than treating a large number of closed administrative questions as proof that the supplier is ready.

Use the editable file without a new system

Download the plain-text Markdown template and edit it in a text editor or paste the fields into your existing project tool. It includes a blank record and three fictional filled examples. Keep the working file in your approved project storage; the website does not save entries, send reminders or synchronize changes.

This is a coordination aid, not an approval engine. Engineering accepts technical deviations, quality accepts its assigned evidence, purchasing confirms commercial assumptions, and legal or other specialists resolve matters outside those roles. Closing a row does not replace their authority.