Inscrivez-vous ou connectez-vous pour rejoindre votre communauté professionnelle.
A. Ensure that he negotiates a prices substantially lesser than quoted by the seller
B. Ensure a fair deal with adequate risk-reward for both sides
C. Ensure that all or as many of the project risks are transferred to the vendor
D. Clearly state his authority as PM for taking decisions
for sucessful completion of contract answer B. (Ensure a fair deal with adequate risk-reward for both sides) is preferred
Most appropriate option, in my opinion is B .
If rahul uses option A he would be wrong ethically.
With regard to option C, there is nothing wrong if a PM tries to mitigate his project risks.
Negotiations should be win/win, so negotiating a price below the seller's estimate is not the best choice. A fair and equitable price will help to create a good working relationship between the buyer and the seller. Otherwise, you will pay later, through change orders.
The best answer is B..
thanks
Mr VINAY KUMAR GOSWAMI is again comes with good explanation.
Answer is B.
to deal reasonably with the vendor and try to keep the vendor of any expected and risl changes that he could tolerate
Ans: B
A: It might sound tempting but it is not the correct response becuase (A) It might damage the long term relationship with vendor. (B) Vendor may accept it the beginning but may threaten to leave at the later stage or may cause delays by attributing to reasons beyond his control.
C: If the balance between risk and reward is not maintained, it is unlikely that vendor will accept such agreement.
D: This is completely irrelevant.
B. Ensure a fair deal with adequate risk-reward for both sides.
In negetiontion , there shaould be always give and take and spirit of coperation to get the job done sharing the risk.
B. Ensure a fair deal with adequate risk-reward for both sides
My opinion is that the right answer is:
B. Ensure a fair deal with adequate risk-reward for both sides
