---
id: KB-CR-014
url: https://app.codecontract.io/help/use-cases-by-role/negotiating-with-the-history-in-front-of-you
idioma: en
categoria: casos-por-rol
subcategoria: compras
audiencia: usuario
nivel: intermedio
actualizado: 2026-08-13
tambienEn: [es]
relacionados: [KB-CR-002, KB-IC-005]
citadoPor: [KB-IC-013]
---

# Negotiating with the history in front of you

_What changes a contract renewal: not the market price, but what happened this year._

**Responde a:** preparing a supplier negotiation · data for a contract renewal · evaluating a supplier with data · arguments for price negotiation

Most renewals are negotiated with two data points: last year's price and a general feeling about whether the supplier is doing well. That feeling is usually dominated by the most recent event, which rarely represents the year.

## What to bring

| Data | What it lets you say |
| --- | --- |
| The year's incidents, dated | "Three delays in August", not "you're unreliable" |
| Documentary response time | If they have to be chased, it costs you |
| How often an exception was granted | What you let through, which counts too |
| And what went well | It gives you something to ask for, not just complain about |

> [!IMPORTANT]
> The fourth changes the tone of the whole conversation. A negotiation that only lists failures produces defensiveness; one that acknowledges what worked and names two specific things gets commitments that hold.

## How to prepare in twenty minutes

1. **Open the supplier's file and look at the year** — Not your memory of the last two months.
2. **Count, do not judge** — "Four late deliveries out of thirty-six" is a fact; "you're unreliable" is a debatable opinion.
3. **Pick two things you want changed** — Two. Nobody commits to five.
4. **And decide what you offer in exchange** — Volume, payment terms, exclusivity. Without that it is a complaint, not a negotiation.

> [!WARNING]
> Beware recency bias. If there was a serious problem three weeks ago, it will dominate the meeting even if the rest of the year was flawless. Looking at the whole year is precisely what stops you renegotiating badly over one case.

## What the supplier should also be able to show

**En corto**

- How often you asked for something with an impossible deadline.
- How many scope changes came from your side.
- And how long you took to approve what they delivered.

If both sides have that data, the conversation is much shorter and considerably fairer. And if only one side has it, that side negotiates better.

> [!NOTE]
> Recording incidents in the supplier's file when they happen takes a minute and is the only thing that makes this preparation possible. Reconstructing them in December from email is not.

**What if they are a sole supplier?**

The history still helps: not to switch, but to agree how you work together.

**Should the data be shown to them?**

Almost always yes: it turns an argument about perceptions into one about facts.

**How often should suppliers be reviewed?**

At renewal, and mid-year for the critical ones.

## Ejemplos

**A buyer enters a renewal convinced the supplier is failing, based on a recent incident.**

- Looks at the full year: four incidents in thirty-six deliveries
- Asks for two specific changes and offers payment terms

→ Closes the renewal with concrete commitments instead of an argument about perceptions.

**Negotiation happens without knowing how often the supplier failed.**

- Checks their history before the meeting

→ The conversation happens with data.

**The supplier claims they always deliver on time.**

- Shows the delivery history

→ The argument closes by looking.

**Two suppliers are compared by eye.**

- Checks both histories

→ The comparison is honest.

**A contract is renewed without reviewing the year.**

- Reviews the history before renewing

→ Renewal is decided on a basis.

**The supplier asks for a price rise without justification.**

- Cross-checks against what was delivered and missed

→ The negotiation starts from facts.