Choosing an Agency: The Scorecard Is Not the Decision
The clause most agencies ignore
Most RFPs include a sentence that agencies usually read quickly and move past.
It often sits near the end, under the terms and conditions, written like legal fine print. It says, in one form or another, that the client reserves the right to cancel the process, reject any proposal, and appoint the agency it considers most suitable, whether or not that agency has the highest score or the lowest price.
At first glance, it sounds like a protective clause. Something added by legal or procurement to protect the client, just in case.
In my experience, it can be much more than that.
It can be a lifesaver.
Why scoring is only the starting point
Discerning clients should never award their business based on numbers alone.
The technical score matters. The financial proposal matters. The process matters. They bring discipline to the selection. They help remove weak proposals. They help identify the agencies that have understood the brief, taken the assignment seriously, and shown that they have the basic capability to handle the business.
But after that, the decision becomes more complex.
Once you are looking at the final two or three agencies, you are usually no longer comparing the capable with the incapable. You are comparing different kinds of capable.
That is where judgment becomes critical.
The chemistry meeting
I have seen this happen in a major pitch for a large regional business. The client had invited a very large number of agencies. Too many, in my opinion. But the scoring process did its job. It helped narrow the list down to a final three.
One of the agencies was not the highest scoring. It was not the cheapest either. On paper, it had a strong case, but it did not have the cleanest numerical case.
The client could have simply followed the scorecard. Many would. It would have been safe, defensible, and easy to explain.
Instead, the client did something smarter.
They invited the final agencies, one by one, for what people often call a chemistry meeting.
A chemistry meeting can be a formality. It can become a polite conversation where everyone smiles, repeats the same confidence lines, and the client chooses the team that looks sharpest or speaks best in the room.
Used properly, it can be one of the most important moments in the selection process.
It is the moment where the client can ask the questions that do not always show up clearly in the scorecard. Can I trust these people with my brand? Can I work with them under pressure? Will they tell me the truth when it is uncomfortable? Will they protect the business, or simply protect the relationship?
By that stage, the final agencies had already proven they could probably do the job. The real question was different.
Who could the client build with?
What the right answer revealed
In that meeting, the client asked a direct and slightly uncomfortable question.
"Is your current team strong enough to handle a business of this scale?"
There are many ways to answer a question like that.
The expected answer would have been: yes, absolutely. We are ready. We have the experience. We know what it takes. We have done this before.
It would have sounded confident. It would have been acceptable. It may even have been partially true.
But the answer the client heard was different.
No. Not today.
Then came the important part.
"But give us the time to build the right team, and we will give you the level of partnership this business deserves."
That answer stayed with me.
It was risky. Some clients would have rejected the agency on the spot. They would have heard weakness, lack of readiness, maybe even arrogance.
This client heard something else. They heard a team that was willing to be honest before the relationship had even started. And that matters, because if an agency cannot tell you the truth in a pitch, it is unlikely to tell you the truth when the relationship is under pressure.
Chemistry can test many things. Personal fit. Seniority. Listening. Energy. Confidence. The ability to challenge without performing. In that room, at that moment, it tested exactly what the relationship needed most: courage, integrity, and commitment.
The client awarded the business to that agency.
The relationship went on for many years.
The leadership decision
I always remember that story when I see RFPs being reduced to formulas.
A scorecard is useful. It brings structure. It protects the process. It gives procurement and management a rational basis for comparison.
But the scorecard should not replace judgment.
The best technical score does not always mean the best partner. The lowest price does not always mean the best value. The most impressive pitch does not always mean the strongest working relationship.
Choosing an agency is not only a procurement decision. It is a business decision, a relationship decision, and in many cases, a leadership decision.
Because the agency you choose will see your weaknesses. It will deal with your internal pressures. It will interpret your strategy. It will challenge your assumptions. It will represent your brand in public, and sometimes help you manage moments you did not see coming.
That requires more than capability.
It requires character.
So yes, keep the scoring. Use the matrix. Compare the prices. Challenge the proposals. Eliminate the agencies that are clearly not ready.
But when you get to the final decision, do not hide behind the numbers.
Use them as input.
Then use judgment.
Need an independent view on an agency decision?
Short Pencils supports agency selection, pitch evaluation, and the governance between client and agency, with senior judgment and no stake in the outcome.
Habib Rihana is the founder of Short Pencils, an independent marcom advisory helping leadership teams, CMOs, founders, boards, and agencies make stronger marketing and communications decisions across the Levant and GCC.