Vendor Cost Analysis & TCO

TL;DR: Performs total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis across vendor options including acquisition costs, implementation costs, operating costs, switching costs, and hidden costs. Produces normalized vendor comparison enabling evidence-based vendor selection decisions.

Principio Rector

El precio de adquisición es la punta del iceberg. TCO revela los costos ocultos: implementación, personalización, capacitación, mantenimiento, licencias recurrentes, y costo de cambio. La decisión de vendor más barata al inicio puede ser la más costosa al final. NUNCA incluir precios absolutos — solo magnitudes relativas y ratios.

Assumptions & Limits

• Assumes vendor proposals or quotes are available for comparison [PLAN]
• Assumes procurement criteria and weights are defined by stakeholders [STAKEHOLDER]
• Breaks when only one vendor option exists — TCO comparison requires ≥2 options
• Does not negotiate with vendors; analyzes proposals. Negotiation is a procurement function
• Assumes hidden cost checklist is applied to uncover undisclosed costs [SUPUESTO]
• CRITICAL: Never include absolute prices — use relative magnitudes, ratios, and FTE-months only

Usage

# Full TCO analysis across vendors
/pm:vendor-cost-analysis $ARGUMENTS="--proposals vendor-A.md,vendor-B.md,vendor-C.md"

# Sensitivity analysis on existing TCO
/pm:vendor-cost-analysis --type sensitivity --baseline tco-report.md --variables "volume,term"

# Hidden cost identification
/pm:vendor-cost-analysis --type hidden-costs --proposal vendor-A.md

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
$ARGUMENTS	Yes	Comma-separated paths to vendor proposals
--type	No	full (default), sensitivity, hidden-costs, scoring
--period	No	Analysis period in years (default 3)
--variables	No	Variables for sensitivity analysis

Service Type Routing

{TIPO_PROYECTO} variants:

• Agile: T&M vendor comparison with velocity-based value assessment; vendor team integration fit as evaluation criterion
• Waterfall: Formal TCO analysis across vendor proposals; sealed-bid comparison matrices with weighted scoring
• SAFe: Vendor evaluation for ART participation; capacity-based contract comparison; PI-aligned delivery commitment analysis
• Portfolio: Master service agreement comparison across portfolio vendors; strategic partnership TCO vs. project-by-project sourcing
• Hybrid: Mixed evaluation -- fixed-price for predictable vendor deliverables, T&M for iterative collaboration workstreams

Before Analyzing Costs

1. Read all vendor proposals to understand pricing structures [PLAN]
2. Read procurement criteria and weights agreed by stakeholders [STAKEHOLDER]
3. Glob **/contract* or **/procurement* to find existing vendor agreements [PLAN]
4. Grep for hidden cost categories (customization, training, migration, support tiers) [PLAN]

Entrada (Input Requirements)

• Vendor proposals or quotes
• Procurement criteria and weights
• Expected usage/volume projections
• Contract term and renewal expectations
• Hidden cost checklist (customization, training, migration)

Proceso (Protocol)

1. Cost category definition — Define TCO categories (acquisition, implementation, operation, exit)
2. Data normalization — Normalize vendor proposals to common basis and timeframe
3. Hidden cost identification — Identify costs not in proposals (training, customization, downtime)
4. TCO calculation — Calculate total cost per vendor over analysis period
5. Risk-adjusted TCO — Apply risk factors for vendor-specific uncertainties
6. Qualitative factors — Assess non-cost factors (support quality, roadmap, stability)
7. Scoring matrix — Apply weighted scoring across cost and non-cost dimensions
8. Sensitivity analysis — Test how vendor ranking changes with volume/term assumptions
9. Recommendation — Present recommended vendor with rationale
10. Negotiation guidance — Identify areas for cost negotiation per vendor

Edge Cases

1. Vendors too close to differentiate on cost alone — Apply qualitative factors with increased weight. Use sensitivity analysis to test ranking stability. If still tied, recommend pilot/POC [METRIC].
2. Hidden costs significantly change initial ranking — Document the finding prominently. Present both "as-quoted" and "TCO-adjusted" rankings side by side [METRIC].
3. Single-vendor dependency identified — Flag as strategic risk. Recommend multi-vendor strategy or contractual protections against lock-in. Quantify switching cost [PLAN].
4. Vendor financial stability concerns — Include vendor viability as risk factor in risk-adjusted TCO. Recommend credit check or financial health assessment [INFERENCIA].

Example: Good vs Bad

Good example — Comprehensive TCO analysis:

Attribute	Value
Vendors compared	3 vendors across 4 TCO categories
Normalization	All proposals normalized to 3-year, 100-user basis
Hidden costs	5 hidden cost categories identified and quantified
Scoring	8-dimension weighted scoring matrix
Sensitivity	Ranking stable across ±20% volume variation
Recommendation	Vendor B recommended — lowest risk-adjusted TCO ratio

Bad example — Price comparison: "Vendor A: cheap, Vendor B: expensive." No normalization, no hidden costs, no TCO categories, no qualitative factors. Price comparison without TCO analysis favors vendors who hide costs in implementation and operations. The cheapest quote is rarely the lowest TCO.

Salida (Deliverables)

• Vendor comparison matrix (cost + non-cost dimensions)
• TCO breakdown per vendor (relative magnitudes)
• Risk-adjusted comparison
• Scoring matrix with weighted results
• Negotiation opportunity analysis

Validation Gate

• ≥2 vendors compared across ≥4 TCO categories [METRIC]
• Proposals normalized to common basis (timeframe, volume, scope) [METRIC]
• Hidden costs identified and included in TCO [METRIC]
• Weighted scoring criteria agreed by stakeholders before application [STAKEHOLDER]
• Sensitivity analysis tests ranking stability [METRIC]
• No absolute prices in output — only ratios and relative magnitudes [PLAN]
• Risk-adjusted TCO includes vendor-specific risk factors [PLAN]
• Recommendation clearly stated with rationale [PLAN]
• Evidence ratio: ≥80% [METRIC]/[PLAN], <20% [SUPUESTO]
• Negotiation opportunities identified per vendor [PLAN]

Escalation Triggers

• Vendors too close to differentiate on cost alone
• Hidden costs significantly change initial ranking
• Single-vendor dependency identified
• Vendor financial stability concerns

Additional Resources

Resource	When to Read	Location
Body of Knowledge	TCO methodology and vendor evaluation	references/body-of-knowledge.md
State of the Art	Modern vendor assessment practices	references/state-of-the-art.md
Knowledge Graph	Vendor analysis in procurement	references/knowledge-graph.mmd
Use Case Prompts	TCO analysis scenarios	prompts/use-case-prompts.md
Metaprompts	Custom vendor evaluation frameworks	prompts/metaprompts.md
Sample Output	Reference TCO report	examples/sample-output.md

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register)
• Evidence: [PLAN], [SCHEDULE], [METRIC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO], [STAKEHOLDER]
• Branding: #2563EB royal blue, #F59E0B amber (NEVER green), #0F172A dark

---

---

Sub-Agents

Cost Comparison Builder

Cost Comparison Builder Agent

Core Responsibility

Builds cost comparisons. This agent operates autonomously, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework or model.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags and quantified impacts.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related artifacts for consistency.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners and timelines.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output with executive summary, analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags and severity ratings.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Cost Optimization Advisor

Cost Optimization Advisor Agent

Core Responsibility

Identifies cost optimization opportunities. This agent operates autonomously, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework or model.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags and quantified impacts.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related artifacts for consistency.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners and timelines.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output with executive summary, analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags and severity ratings.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Rate Card Analyzer

Rate Card Analyzer Agent

Core Responsibility

Analyzes vendor rate cards. This agent operates autonomously, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework or model.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags and quantified impacts.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related artifacts for consistency.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners and timelines.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output with executive summary, analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags and severity ratings.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Tco Modeler

Tco Modeler Agent

Core Responsibility

Models total cost of ownership. This agent operates autonomously, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework or model.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags and quantified impacts.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related artifacts for consistency.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners and timelines.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output with executive summary, analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags and severity ratings.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.