PMP · Question #926
A supplier that the company has used for years has trouble accepting the new terms of an agile contract. They do not understand the terms in the contract and feel they should not have to sign it…
The correct answer is A. Train the supplier in agile approaches to help them understand the contract. When an incumbent supplier struggles with new agile contract terms due to a lack of understanding, the project manager should educate them on agile approaches to facilitate acceptance.
Question
A supplier that the company has used for years has trouble accepting the new terms of an agile contract. They do not understand the terms in the contract and feel they should not have to sign it because they have had a long relationship with the company. Which action should the project manager take?
Options
- ATrain the supplier in agile approaches to help them understand the contract.
- BChange contract terms and conditions to avoid losing the supplier.
- CIssue a request for proposal (RFP) to find new suppliers with agile experience.
- DAsk the team if they can do the work until there is an available supplier.
How the community answered
(71 responses)- A72% (51)
- B15% (11)
- C10% (7)
- D3% (2)
Why each option
When an incumbent supplier struggles with new agile contract terms due to a lack of understanding, the project manager should educate them on agile approaches to facilitate acceptance.
The core issue is the supplier's lack of understanding of agile terms, not necessarily an unwillingness to comply, especially given their long relationship. Providing training and education on agile principles and practices can bridge this knowledge gap, enabling them to understand and accept the contract, thereby preserving a valuable supplier relationship.
Changing contract terms without understanding the supplier's specific concerns might lead to an unfavorable agreement or avoid the root cause, and it might compromise the project's agile needs.
Immediately seeking new suppliers without attempting to resolve the issue with an existing, presumably reliable, supplier could be a premature and costly decision, potentially disrupting project timelines.
Asking the internal team to take on additional work for which a supplier was intended is a temporary workaround that can lead to resource overload, delays, and a decline in quality for the internal team's primary responsibilities.
Concept tested: Supplier relationship management; Agile contract understanding and education
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok/project-procurement-management
Topics
Community Discussion
9
Ola B.Feb 13, 2026A. If you spin up a quick sandbox and walk the supplier through a sprint or two, the agile contract terms suddenly make sense to them. Long relationship or not, training beats scrambling for a new vendor or gutting the agreement.
Brenda K.Feb 13, 2026Agreed on A, and the sandbox angle is a quick win you can spin up in minutes on exam day, just do not overthink the agile contract terms or you will burn five minutes you need for the cloud questions later.
Dervla O.Feb 17, 2026A is correct. The supplier needs to understand what they are signing, and training them on agile approaches gets at the root cause rather than just swapping vendors or watering down the terms.
Brenda K.Jan 29, 2026A is your quick win here, do not overthink it. The supplier relationship matters but you still need them to actually understand what they are signing, so training is the only option that addresses both the knowledge gap and keeps the vendor engaged. B is a trap because you never gut your contract terms just to appease someone, and C burns a trusted relationship over a solvable problem. D is a time sink to flag and revisit if you have spare minutes, because using internal team capacity as a vendor stopgap is a last resort, not a first move. Saw this exact scenario on my exam
Dervla O.Jan 30, 2026Good call on A and the B trap, but Id add that the stem word understand is doing the heavy lifting here, so train yourself to scan for verbs that map directly to a competency gap rather than a relationship problem.
Wesley A.Jan 25, 2026Got A on my second attempt. Saw this exact question, almost picked B because of the long relationship.
Luis F.Jan 28, 2026Nice, congrats on the pass! The long relationship in B is a classic trap, but I also think people overthink it because A feels too straightforward for a scenario question.
Luis F.Jan 20, 2026Leaned toward C at first, but long relationship means train them, not replace them.
Ola B.Jan 21, 2026Agreed on C, and if you want to see why it sticks, spin up a quick lab where you walk an existing model through a few retraining cycles with new data instead of swapping it out, the difference in cost and effort becomes obvious fast.