A Supplier Partnering Agreement at the University of Las Vegas
Introduction The supplier partnering agreement at the University of Las Vegas case reflects the initiative of the Nevada Office Supply Company (NOSC) to become the sole supplier of office goods, not only to the University, but also to all state institutions involved in education. NOSC already is a major supplier to these institutions with approximately 50% of the business, and has provided competitive prices, good quality and service in the 15 years the company has been present in the industry. NOSC wants to go beyond and take the full 100% of the business by offering the University a series of incentives in the form of discounts and rebates. NOSC doesn’t want any
…show more content…
NOSC’s proposal, which ultimately persuades Mr. Bob Ashby not to perform a regular bidding competition process, has the potential to be illegal. Under the Sherman Act of 1890 any type of agreement or conduct that restricts trade and destroys competition, is considered illegal. “The Sherman Act rests on a legislative judgment that ultimately competition will produce not only lower prices, but also better goods and services. Section 2 stands as a vital safeguard of that competitive process. Individual firms with monopoly power can act anticompetitively and harm consumer welfare. Firms with ill-gotten monopoly power can inflict on consumers higher prices, reduced output, and poorer quality goods or services. Additionally, in certain circumstances, the existence of a monopoly can stymie innovation” ("Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of The Sherman Act" 10-11)
Even though both parties have a potential gain in this agreement, the fact that NOSC is requesting to be the education system’s sole office supplier in the growing area of Las Vegas and the State of Nevada, and most likely wants to eliminate some of the competition, makes it an illegal and unfair act against the other suppliers. The true meaning of a free market economy arises from acts that lead to healthy competition, cost reduction and better product quality. It is likely that if Mr. Ashby brings to the table other suppliers, they may be able to match or even
A monopoly is advantageous to the society and is encourages by the government if there are high fixed costs and very strong economies of scale. At the same time, it could also lead to unequal distribution of wealth; containment of consumer choice; lobbying and unethical spending.
There is just a one person who sells products or services and there are no incentives which help to break this monopoly. There are many monopoly industries in the market. In monopoly, they use patents because they don’t like if someone’s copy their inventions.
There are different types of businesses, for example, some use monopolies, trust and pools, while other eliminate competition for higher prices. As stated in “Progressive reformers regarded regulation as a cure for all sorts of socioeconomic and political problems” , “The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies that co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices, and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts” , meaning, competition is the
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act allows consumers to feel protected in our economy. Before this act was passed, consumers were subject to unfair prices, unsafe work environments, and less jobs. This legislation made it possible for consumers to
Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) “prescribes [the] policies and procedures governing competitive and noncompetitive negotiated acquisitions.” One component of negotiated acquisitions that occurs early in the acquisition process is the solicitation of proposals. FAR 15.201, titled, “Exchanges with Industry before Receipt of Proposals,” regulates the type and manner of communications, also sometimes referred to as exchanges, which can – and cannot – take place between the Government and potential suppliers prior to the receipt of a potential supplier’s proposal and the subsequent award of a contract.
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits the efforts of multiple firms to restrain trade by controlling prices and supply in a market (46 Case W. Res. 1033). In terms of a professional sports league, a
Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”
With the support of President Benjamin Harrison, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. John Sherman, a lawyer and senator from Ohio, was the author of this legislation that attempted to curb the growth of monopolies. The act declared illegal any business combination that sought to restrain trade or commerce. Penalties for violation of the act included a $5,000 fine or/and a year's imprisonment. The act was unable to achieve its original objectives.
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in part, states that “every contract, combination… or conspiracy, in the restraint of trade or commerce… is declared to be illegal.” (Sherman Act, 2006). This law provides “a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade (Northern Pacific Railway Company vs. United States, 1958; Reiter vs. Sonotone Corporation, 1979). It relies on a fundamental belief in supply and demand (Baum Research & Development Company vs. Hillerich & Bradsby, 1998).
b) Another alternative should be using the negotiation method in order to develop a “win-win” situation. A negotiating party would have to be applied, “When a long period of time is required to produce the items purchased” (p 375). In these circumstances, suitable economic price adjustment clauses must be negotiated. Opportunities for various improvements may develop, such as the new manufacturing methods, new packaging possibilities, substitute materials, new plant layouts, and new tools. Negotiation permits an examination and evaluation of all these potential improvements. Competitive bidding does not. The advantage would be assurance of a long-term business with the Company along with reasonable profit for the supplier and reasonable cost for the buyer.
Michael Stefanic, director of cost management at Owens & Minor (O&M), a medical and surgical supplies distributor and Daniel Borunda, material systems manager at Virginia Mason (VM) Medical Center came together to try to battle healthcare costs and improve the healthcare supply chain. Virginia Mason, a private non-profit healthcare organization based out of Seattle, offered both primary and specialized care and developed the Virginia Mason Production System (VMPS). The VMPS was a modified version of the Toyota Production System that helped VM work towards its goal of being a quality leader, emphasized line-level employee teamwork, and fought for a zero defect rate. The components of VMPS included value-stream mapping
What is a monopoly? According to Webster's dictionary, a monopoly is "the exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market.” Such power in the hands of a few is harmful to the public and individuals because it minimizes, if not eliminates normal competition in a given market and creates undesirable price controls. This, in turn, undermines individual enterprise and causes markets to crumble. In this paper, we will present several aspects of monopolies, including unfair competition, price control, and horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate mergers.
The subject matter of the case is presented as a negotiation between a real estate developer, Hawkins, and a possible anchor tenant, Discount Marketplace. Both parties are represented by professional negotiators: Myra Hart is representing the Hawkins Company and Genia is representing the Discount Marketplace.
Competition failure or monopoly may result from natural monopoly where it costs incurred in production becomes lower when only one firm is involved in production than several firms producing the same output. In a monopolist market under-production, higher prices become dominant contributing to market inefficiency. Winston cites cases of misuse of monopoly power can lead to market failures and sometimes may lead to acute shortage of essential commodities (130).
Negotiating is a practice that allows for two sides to reach common ground and agree upon a specific settlement or transaction. During this at times complicated process, the bargaining sides develop a measure together to move forward in their business process. As a lead negotiator of a small firm, the research and analysis of the sought after contract has to be thoroughly conveyed to the U.S. Government. The small business’s negotiating team should be very familiar with the federal negotiating team and all that the federal government is expecting from the product they desire. As there are hundreds of competitors out there, it is safe to assume that there are multiple products out there. However, the negotiating firm of the small business must use different negotiating gambits and pay particular attention to the body language and examine the language used during the entire process.