[Supplier] A supplier has good pricing but weak delivery performance. How do you evaluate whether to keep using them?

Example Answer

I would first quantify the real cost of the weak delivery performance. If we are constantly expediting, carrying extra safety stock, or missing internal deadlines because the supplier is unreliable, then the apparent savings may not be real. I want the problem measured before I decide whether this is a tolerable issue or a reason to change course.

Then I would look at whether the supplier can improve and whether the business has realistic alternatives. Sometimes the answer is to reset expectations and hold the supplier to a recovery plan. Sometimes the answer is to reduce exposure over time. The decision should be based on evidence, not irritation.

The main thing I want the interviewer to hear is that I do not make supplier decisions in a vacuum. I want the recommendation to hold up commercially and operationally, and I want stakeholders to understand why it makes sense beyond the quote sheet.

I also try to keep the internal conversation honest about what can actually be controlled. Sometimes the right move is a supplier change. Sometimes it is a stronger recovery plan or a cleaner internal requirement. The point is to avoid guesswork.

Common Poor Answer to Avoid

"If the price is good, I would probably keep them and just push them to do better."

Why it's weak

That answer is too vague. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but it does not show how the candidate would actually structure the decision.

Why this works

It shows sequencing, tradeoff awareness, and practical communication instead of generic procurement language.