Implement the following...

Quantitative

Cost Impact: Examining the cost impact involves a detailed analysis of possible expenses, potential cost savings, and the overall financial risks that may arise as a result of the issue. Understanding the cost implications is essential as it allows for proper financial planning and allocation of resources to address any financial challenges that may arise due to the issue at hand. Additionally, the cost impact assessment can provide valuable insights into potential cost$-$effective solutions or strategies that can be implemented to mitigate the financial risks posed by the issue.

Efficiency: The effect on operational efficiency and resource utilization. More thorough due diligence, including industry reports or third$-$party evaluations, could enhance supplier selection.

Negotiation and Contract Terms: Negotiate contract terms that provide a balance between price stability and flexibility. Consider options for price adjustments and exit clauses.

Market Position: The competitive advantage or disadvantage resulting from the deregulation. The steel company must understand the implications of deregulation on market position is crucial to adapt to changing market dynamics, optimize operational efficiencies, and ultimately enhance their competitive edge.

$$

Alternatives and Options

Decision Criteria

$1.$ Risk Assessment

Conduct a thorough risk assessment for each supplier, considering factors like reliability, contract terms, and regulatory risks. Assess the potential impact of these risks on the Steel Company's operations and costs.

$2.$ Cost$-$Benefit Analysis

Compare the cost savings and price stability offered by each supplier against the potential risks. Consider not only short$-$term savings but also long$-$term implications of the chosen supplier.

$3.$ Evaluate Supplier Experience

Evaluate the suppliers' experience and track record in addressing the steel company's energy needs. Their experience can help reduce risks related to reliability and market expertise.

Recommendations

$1.$ The Steel Company should continue its business partnership with Company A because of the numerous advantages it offers. It is recommended that the Steel Company choose the "Net $30"$ payment terms and make prompt payments within the $10-$day window to take advantage of the attractive early payment discount of $0\mathrm{.}3\%.$

$2.$ Company A connects the Steel Company with various energy service firms, which could lead to future multi$-$sourcing opportunities for other plants in Pennsylvania and Maryland.

$$

$3.$ The valuable energy analysis provided by Company A not only improves operational efficiency but also serves as a cost$-$saving strategy that the Steel Company should utilize.

$4.$ By maintaining a strategic collaboration with Company A$,$ the Steel Company can benefit from a diverse ecosystem of services, ultimately optimizing energy consumption and driving financial savings through increased efficiencies.

$5.$ Continue to keep in contact with Company B for future work as they could offer much of the same as Company A$.$ Given time, they could become very resourceful.

Recommendations evaluation

This recommendation focuses on optimizing the advantages of collaborating with Company A while simultaneously exploring potential opportunities associated with Company B$.$ These considerations provide a comprehensive overview highlighting the financial soundness of selecting "Net $30"$ payment terms and leveraging early payment discounts to enhance the Steel Company's financial strategy. It is crucial to ensure that the Steel Company maintains a strong cash flow to consistently benefit from these discounts, thereby maximizing cost$-$effectiveness.

Furthermore, emphasizing the possibility of multi$-$sourcing opportunities through connections with energy service firms linked to Company A is a strategic move. Evaluating the reliability and quality of these firms is essential in aligning them with the standards set by the Steel Company to ensure a seamless partnership. The practical approach of utilizing the energy analysis provided by Company A to boost operational efficiency is commendable.

Maintaining a strategic collaboration with Company A to enhance energy consumption optimization is beneficial, undoubtedly. It is advisable to establish measurable goals and key performance indicators $($KPIs$)$ to monitor and evaluate the success of this collaboration in terms of energy$-$saving achievements and financial impacts. Simultaneously, keeping an open line of communication with Company B to explore potential future opportunities is a prudent business move.