{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02717391304347826, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005434782608695652, 'mean_word_length': 4.625954198473282, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Materials managers caught in sudden vendor crackdown on sharing.

Not long ago, Scott Frost received a supply-chain consulting contract containing a clause that would require him to pay up to $10 million in damages to a certain vendor if he failed to keep that vendor’s prices to himself. As a former materials manager and now practice manager for HFS Consultants in Oakland, CA, Frost didn’t care for those terms. So, before signing the contract, he carefully lined out the clause about the $10 million. The vendor agreed to the change, and Frost got the job. The incident illustrates how on one hand, vendors are becoming more aggressive in their quest for price confidentiality, and on the other, how good business sense still rules.