GEO procurement

Comparing GEO proposals with a buyer's scorecard

Use six criteria, explicit evidence and a consistent scoring method to compare GEO proposals on scope, implementation, measurement and total commitment.

Published by SALIENS · Published 2026-09-20

Compare the same decision before comparing suppliers

A monitoring subscription, an audit and a managed delivery programme can all appear under a GEO label. A score is useful only after each proposal addresses the same audience, website, market, language and business question. Begin with one brief and a clear distinction between advice and implementation.

Google's supplier-selection guidance asks buyers to examine methods, relevant experience, communication and evidence, and to check GEO recommendations against its official guidance. It also warns against guaranteed first-place rankings. The scorecard below is SALIENS's suggested procurement method, not a Google certification, an industry standard or an independent ranking of agencies.

Agree essential conditions before assigning points

Decide which requirements are essential and ask each supplier for a written response. Mark each condition confirmed, unresolved or not met. Keep an unresolved essential condition open until it is answered; a high score elsewhere should not make it disappear.

For Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, Google's guidance says established SEO foundations still apply and no special AI markup is required. Eligibility does not guarantee inclusion. Ask what a proposed technical package actually changes and how completion will be checked, rather than treating a proprietary label as evidence.

Named websites, markets, languages and search or AI surfaces in scope; separately confirmed access where needed.
A factual approval process and named responsibility for website changes and publication.
An explainable method, with unsupported ranking guarantees or claimed official endorsement challenged.
Clear access requirements, reporting rights, exclusions and minimum commercial commitment.

Use the same six evidence rows for every proposal

The example weights total 100%. Change them to reflect your own brief before reviewing offers, then keep them fixed for every supplier. For each row, record a score, the exact proposal page or sample that supports it, and any unresolved question. Request anonymised examples where confidentiality prevents sharing client work.

Suggested GEO proposal scorecard — one copy per supplier
Criterion / weight	Evidence to request	Buyer record
Audience and baseline — 20%	A question set tied to your audience, with markets, languages, platforms, dates and observation conditions.	Score: ___ / 4; evidence: ___; gap: ___
Content and factual quality — 20%	A source-to-claim example, review responsibilities and a correction process for inaccurate or outdated information.	Score: ___ / 4; evidence: ___; gap: ___
Technical implementation — 15%	A sample finding linked to an affected page, proposed fix, implementation owner and acceptance check.	Score: ___ / 4; evidence: ___; gap: ___
Measurement method — 15%	A sample report that separates mentions, citations, accuracy and website outcomes, and explains its coverage and limits.	Score: ___ / 4; evidence: ___; gap: ___
Delivery and responsibilities — 15%	A deliverable register with quantities, deadlines, client inputs, approval points and ownership of each action.	Score: ___ / 4; evidence: ___; gap: ___
Cost and handover — 15%	Setup and recurring fees, minimum term, exclusions, extra work, cancellation terms and export or handover arrangements.	Score: ___ / 4; evidence: ___; gap: ___

Score the evidence, and keep missing information visible

Use the scale below consistently. Missing information is 'unrated', not proof of poor capability and not a measured zero. Send each supplier one consolidated clarification list. Do not calculate a final comparable total until every row has been assessed, and do not redistribute missing weights to inflate a partial score.

For a completed assessment, calculate each contribution as weight × score ÷ 4, then add the contributions for a total out of 100. Record the proposal version, reviewer and assessment date. The total is a decision aid: retain the underlying evidence and resolve essential conditions before selecting a supplier.

Unrated: the necessary information has not been supplied or reviewed.
0: reviewed evidence shows the stated requirement is not met.
1: the proposal acknowledges the requirement but offers only an unsupported assertion.
2: a plausible method is described, with material evidence or responsibilities still unclear.
3: relevant evidence and responsibilities address the brief, with limited clarifications remaining.
4: relevant evidence, responsibilities and acceptance checks fully address the agreed requirement.

Ask for a walkthrough of one real deliverable

Choose one priority page from your own website. Ask each shortlisted supplier to explain the problem it would investigate, the source needed to verify the facts, the proposed work, who would approve and implement it, and how completion would be evidenced. Agree whether this is a sales discussion or a separately paid assessment; do not assume a free audit is included.

If a supplier offers a dashboard, ask to follow one observation back to its question, date, interface and source. A recommendation does not prove implementation; a published page does not prove indexing; an observed mention does not prove an enquiry. Record which stage the proposed service actually covers.

Make a documented shortlist, then confirm the scope

Keep three records together: the completed scorecard, a list of essential conditions and a comparison of minimum costs. Note why the preferred offer fits your team's implementation capacity. Before commissioning work, turn material assumptions into explicit deliverables, client inputs, exclusions and review points in the written scope.

SALIENS provides GEO audits, AI visibility monitoring, content and technical improvements, and ongoing GEO delivery for UK and international organisations, including scoped English and Chinese programmes. Use this scorecard to assess a SALIENS proposal on the same basis as any other offer. Email info@oxfordintelligence.co.uk with your website, priority audiences and current brief. SALIENS is operated by Oxford Intelligence Limited; the agreed scope determines delivery, and rankings, citations and enquiries are not guaranteed.

Sources

Prepared with AI assistance using the linked sources and SALIENS service information.