In order to break vicious cycle of blame, procurement will need to use their negotiation and conflict management skills,adopting a collaborative and integrative approach. Your first action should be to establish the facts that led to the situation where the relationship broke down. Most day-to-day relationship between buying organisations and suppliers do not of course involve procurement staff, so you will need to consult with your business partners internally to establish their point of view of where the issue and sources of conflict are. You should also contact the supplier and get their side of the story - this is particularly to when you have previously identified the supplier as critical or otherwise important to your operations. Ideally you will be able to apply principled negotiation here, separating the people from the issue, focusing on interests and not positions,and then looking for options of mutual benefits.

Different questioning styles can be used to elicit desired responses:
Text Description automatically generated

Single-sourced relationships often involve exclusivity for a specific product (1) and a high level of trust and collaboration (3) between buyer and supplier. This type of relationship is selected for strategic procurement purposes, often involving long-term partnerships, which align with CIPS's relationship spectrum guidelines.

CIPS describes a relationship spectrum from arm's-length/transactional through collaborative/partnership, matched to spend criticality, risk, and strategic importance; analysis helps select the appropriate relationship style before and during negotiation.
Reference: CIPS L4M5 (2nd ed.), LO 3.1 - Relationship types and the relationship spectrum; alignment to sourcing/negotiation approach.

From a principled point of view, the focus of negotiation is on resolving the issue and not on winning temporary advantage over TOP through exploiting home advantage. From the principled point of view, the location and room layout should not be viewed as a source of tactical advantage and should not be used to try to gain advantage over TOP or unfairly influence them in the meeting room.
From a pragmatic point of view, not all of these elements in the ideal negotiation environment may be feasible, so the host may have to make compromises and explain these to TOP.
From a distributive point of view, the host will seek to create an advantage for themselves either explicitly or more subtly. It is arguable that any advantage gained through intentionally creating an uncomfortable environment to put short-term pressure on TOP is likely to be short-lived as TOP will likely reflect on this later and seek means to get even.
LO 2, AC 2.4