Art of the Procurement Negotiation Offer

When requesting/demanding a price reduction from a supplier, there may come a time when the supplier will ask for your target price. That request is often phrased like “How much are you willing to pay?” or “Where do we need to be to get this deal?” or “Make me an offer.” Sometimes, it’s smart to withhold your target price while, other times, it’s good to make an offer. If you’re not careful with responding, however, you may not get the best deal possible. Here are three tips for making offers in a procurement negotiation...

Tip #1: Don’t make your offer seem like a predictable negotiation tactic. Suppliers aren’t dummies. They know that it is your job to ask for price reductions. So, they try to determine whether you truly need one or if you’re just following protocol. A friend of mine once suggested in a seminar to not ask for a predictable 10% price reduction, but instead ask for an “odd” number like 11.2percent. This would make your demand seem more realistic and less like a familiar tactic that suppliers can easily identify and dismiss.

Tip #2: Be prepared for the supplier to suggest “splitting the difference.” “Splitting the difference” is a sales negotiation tactic where a supplier will respond to a price reduction offer by counter-offering half of the discount. For example, if you are asking for a 10-percent discount, the supplier will suggest splitting the difference and will make a counter-offer of a five-percent discount. Be prepared for your supplier to use this tactic and determine, in advance, whether getting half of your desired discount would be acceptable or if (and how) you want to continue negotiating for a bigger discount.

Tip #3: Predict the likelihood of scaring the supplier away. Some suppliers can be so insulted by how a procurement professional negotiates, they may decide to end the negotiation and decline the opportunity to do business. So, before making an offer, evaluate the likelihood of insulting the supplier to the point that the supplier would walk away. Assess the degree of sacrifice involved in going with the next best alternative. Then, make an offer appropriate for the risk involved.

— Reprinted with permission from the Next Level Purchasing Association.

This article originally appeared in the School Planning & Management September 2013 issue of Spaces4Learning.

About the Author

Charles Dominick, SPSM, SPSM2, SPSM3, is the president and chief procurement officer of the Next Level Purchasing Association (www.NextLevelPuchasing.com), a leading provider of procurement training and certification. He is also the lead author of The Procurement Game Plan: Strategies & Techniques for Supply Management Professionals. Prior to founding the Next Level Purchasing Association, Charles managed procurement for three leading organizations, including the University of Pittsburgh.

Featured

  • Embry-Riddle Completes Construction on Research, Lab Facility

    Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) in Daytona Beach, Fla., recently announced the end of construction on a new research and lab facility on campus. The Center for Aerospace Engineering II (CAT II) will support aerospace research and technology development and broke ground last summer.

  • Dallas ISD Voters Approve $6.2B Bond Package

    Dallas ISD voters have approved a record-setting $6.2-billion bond package that district leaders say will modernize aging campuses, eliminate portable classrooms and reshape learning environments across one of the nation’s largest school systems.

  • UCF Modernizes College of Hospitality Management

    The University of Central Florida in Orlando, Fla., recently completed a major renovation effort for the Rosen College of Hospitality Management, according to a news release. The project modernized 77,600 square feet worth of academic classrooms, teaching labs, and collaborative spaces to support both students and faculty.

  • Rethinking K-12 Schools as a Continuous Learning Experience

    Most students move through three or more separate facilities during their K-12 journey, yet the built environments they encounter at each stage have traditionally been designed in isolation, with little continuity in spatial language, learning philosophy, or physical resources. Each new school is a reset with different layouts, learning models, expectations, and ways of moving through a building. The next generation of school design is making the case that the first day of kindergarten and the last day of high school can and should feel connected through common support systems and infrastructure in the physical environment.