The decision on the number of alternative vendors likely uses the same criteria used for solicitation planning. The evaluation criteria of price, understanding of need by seller, overall/life cycle cost, technical capability, management approach, and financial capacity was likely used. These factors would be taken into account as the alternative vendors are still project resources. There are likely meetings to determine whether additional budget is needed or the initial budget is a form constraint. There is also a matter of whether the specifications can be expanded to fit the alternatives as shown in the mini simulation this week.

There is also the matter of long term effect of choosing one vs multiple vendors. If there is a need to change the DSD anyways and alter the project timeline, then the drawbacks (design changes, time) of adding another vendor is reduced. Longer time, having multiple vendors vs just two vendors decreases risk of backorder and issues with procurement.

In this week's Mini-Simulation, I decided to opt for multiple backup vendors for the catheter coating material, despite the added time and cost implications of validating and verifying each vendor's product. My decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure a consistent supply chain and to mitigate risks associated with relying on a single source. Having multiple vendors can be a safeguard against potential disruptions, such as material shortages or vendor-specific issues, which could jeopardize the whole project. The initial increase in cost and time seemed a worthwhile investment to protect the project's long-term viability and maintain quality standards across the board. This approach also aligns with a broader strategy of risk management and sustainability in supply chain logistics.