The firms chief financial officer presented a plan to phase out the airlines major supplier of expendable
Question:
The firm’s chief financial officer presented a plan to phase out the airline’s major supplier of expendable supplies. He received a bid from a competing firm (Apex) to provide these supplies at an annual savings of at least $10,000. The director of maintenance disagrees with this suggestion, claiming your current supplier, Vest, has been extremely dependable and has always taken back overstock items, issuing full credit. He says, “Price isn’t everything".
The financial vice-president claims that Apex has vowed to provide even better service and an electronic data interchange to assist with billing, thus reducing lost or misplaced supplies and parts by 10%. He goes on to say, “If they don’t perform as promised, we have a 30-day cancellation clause built into the contract."
The maintenance director likes the idea of saving up to 10% but expresses concern that if it doesn’t work out with Apex, rebuilding a good relationship with Vest will take time. “Anyway, don’t we have some responsibility to suppliers as well as our other publics?"
“Not if the suppliers can’t meet the competition’s prices,” retorts the VP.
What will you do?
1. | Exemplary service pays: Keep your current supplier, Vest. | |
2. | Business is business; the bottom line is all-important: Switch to the low bidder, Apex. | |
3. | Attempt to continue to work with both suppliers, working one against the other until an even better deal emerges. |