In supplier selection the presentation files resemble one another: a wide list of languages, a long list of references, an emphasis on quality. What sets suppliers apart is whether the questions asked call for answers that can be verified.
Who will translate, and how they are chosen
The criteria by which the matching is made are asked about. The phrase "our expert team" is not an answer; when criteria and records are asked for, the difference emerges.
Who does the review
Is the review done by someone who did not do the translation and who has the same level of competence. The question is simple, but in a great many quotes its answer is not in writing.
Whether a test translation is done
A short section of your own text is the most concrete measure. When your own specialist assesses the result, the decision rests on data and not on impressions.
Who will keep the language assets
The ownership of the translation memory and the termbase is asked about at the first meeting. When it is asked later, it becomes a matter for negotiation.
How confidentiality is ensured
Is there a written undertaking with subcontractors, is access closed when the job ends, where are the files kept. These questions call for concrete answers.
What you do when there is no subject-matter expert
If the answer is "we have an expert in every field", it should arouse suspicion. Expertise deepens in a narrow field; the side that states its scope honestly is the more trustworthy.
How the process works if an error comes up
The time the correction takes, its cost and how the findings will be recorded are asked about. An answer that says there will be no errors at all carries no information.
How capacity is measured
How much work can be taken on in a busy period should be answerable with a concrete figure. A claim of unlimited capacity makes planning impossible.
Counter-view: these questions strain the relationship from the start
It may be thought that an inquisitorial start will damage trust. In practice the opposite happens: the side that gives a clear answer to a clear question removes, at the outset, most of the disputes that would arise later.
References are not enough on their own
A reference list shows past work, not the service that will be given to you. If the team and the process do not stay the same, past performance cannot be inherited.
The price is asked last
A price obtained before the scope is defined cannot be compared. A figure given before the review layer, the repetition discount and the rush terms are made clear carries no information.
The answers are obtained in writing
If what is said in the meeting does not go into the contract, only the contract applies afterwards. The difference between a declaration and an article emerges at this point.
Whether it is possible to start with a small job
Whether the supplier is open to a small first job is informative too. A structure interested only in large volume is in effect proposing to skip the stage of getting to know each other.
How continuity is ensured
Whether the same team is kept and how the context is handed over when a person changes are asked about. If the knowledge sits with a person, the relationship in effect starts from scratch when that person leaves.
Takeaway
A good selection means finding not the one who presents well but the one who gives verifiable answers. When the matching criterion, the review arrangement, the ownership of the assets and the confidentiality chain are answered in writing, the price comparison that remains becomes truly meaningful.