{"id":3457,"date":"2024-07-09T23:20:12","date_gmt":"2024-07-10T03:20:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.certitrek.com\/nlpa\/2015\/09\/14\/contract-negotiation-how-to-get-to-a-good-deal-sooner\/"},"modified":"2025-06-24T05:46:07","modified_gmt":"2025-06-24T09:46:07","slug":"contract-negotiation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.certitrek.com\/nlpa\/blog\/contract-negotiation\/","title":{"rendered":"Contract Negotiation: How To Get To A Good Deal, Sooner"},"content":{"rendered":"

Many may overlook this, but etiquette is key to a successful conclusion of contract negotiations. Some may even say etiquette would \u201csoften\u201d one\u2019s negotiation power.<\/p>\n

That is not the case.<\/p>\n

The Power of Etiquette in Contract Negotiation<\/h4>\n

What happens psychologically when the other side does not employ etiquette? Here are some examples:<\/p>\n

The Risks of Relying on Contract Templates<\/h5>\n

Contract templates and a legal department with political power can make you lazy in procurement.\u00a0 Instead of applying critical thinking to contracting efforts, you may be tempted to simply give the supplier your template.\u00a0 Bad move.\u00a0 When you do this, the likelihood is high that you\u2019ll include something \u2013 like an unreasonable insurance requirement or payment terms that are inappropriate for the industry \u2013 that doesn\u2019t apply.\u00a0 This forces the supplier to \u201ccorrect\u201d you, which essentially becomes a new negotiation.\u00a0 This is unnecessary and counterproductive.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re smart.\u00a0 You should be able to go through a contract template within an hour and, pick out the parts that are obviously not applicable to the deal, and delete them (with management and\/or legal approval, as appropriate).\u00a0 Doing so can shave weeks off of a typical negotiation and prevent the supplier from feeling that you\u2019re forcing them into a battle they didn\u2019t sign up for. For instance, platforms such as have highlighted how simplified, etiquette-driven approaches can accelerate procurement outcomes.<\/p>\n

Importance of Using “Track Changes” in Contract Negotiation<\/h5>\n

Word\u2019s \u201cTrack Changes\u201d feature makes it easy to spot changes to a contract so that you can focus your negotiation efforts on only those parts of the deal where your organization and the supplier disagree.\u00a0 The feature has become so common that it can feel sleazy to a party when it receives from the other party a revised contract that doesn\u2019t use it \u2013 especially if Word\u2019s \u201cCompare\u201d feature reveals dozens of changes!<\/p>\n

Therefore, etiquette suggests that both parties use it to help the other party identify where the discrepancies are.\u00a0 But you always have to ensure that no versions were skipped when a new \u201cTracked Changes\u201d contract comes across your email.\u00a0 If the supplier redlined a previous version, the most recent changes you negotiated may not be represented.\u00a0 And if you similarly were to ignore a supplier\u2019s changes, they would have the right to call you out and question your integrity, so be careful yourself!<\/p>\n

Ensuring Completeness and Relevance in Initial Contract Proposals<\/h5>\n

This kind of ties in with the preparation required for #1.\u00a0 Just like you should make sure that the first contract you present to a supplier should not include anything irrelevant, you should also make sure that the first contract contains everything it should<\/em> include.\u00a0 Say, when responding to your first contract submission, your supplier objects to the amount of insurance it is required to maintain and, in the next revision, you revise the insurance clause but add an unrelated and onerous liquidated damages provision that just feels wrong.\u00a0 Like why wasn\u2019t that there in the first place?\u00a0 Is it due to incompetence?\u00a0 Or is someone playing a game or being unethical?\u00a0 Don\u2019t allow yourself to appear incompetent or unethical in this regard and don\u2019t tolerate such bad etiquette from your suppliers either. Many procurement professionals on emphasize the value of transparency and completeness when it comes to first-round submissions.<\/p>\n

The Value of Direct Communication in Closing Contracts<\/h5>\n

After each part has made one revision to the original contract and the agreement is still not reached, it should be clear that emailing contracts with Tracked Changes isn\u2019t getting the deal to closure fast enough.\u00a0 In many cases, it is simply a matter of decision-makers not understanding why the other party needs the language they are asking for.\u00a0 We live in a world where it is practically a line item in everyone\u2019s job description to protect important people\u2019s time.<\/p>\n

But, sometimes, a 10-minute phone call between decision-makers can result in the understanding necessary to find common ground so that a contract can get signed.\u00a0 Insist that suppliers bring their decision-makers to the conversation and do the same yourself.\u00a0 If one party does and the other doesn\u2019t, the one that doesn\u2019t employ bad etiquette is likely the cause of unnecessary delays.<\/p>\n

Become a member<\/a><\/span>\u00a0of one of the world\u2019s largest procurement associations today.<\/span><\/p>\n

Recommended Reading<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n