A large city negotiates a multi-year volume commitment for Microsoft 365 with Microsoft under organizational volume licensing terms. Which pricing model fits that relationship?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Big cities buying lots of seats for years usually land in an enterprise agreement. It is the volume-commitment channel, not a hallway handshake or a free forever SKU.
Full Explanation
A large city negotiating a multi-year volume commitment for Microsoft 365 with Microsoft under organizational volume licensing terms fits an enterprise agreement structured for organizational volume licensing. EA is the commercial model MS-900 associates with large negotiated commitments rather than tiny consumer-style purchases.
A walk-up kiosk cash purchase for one month of consumer Xbox Game Pass only is not an organizational Microsoft 365 EA. An unsigned hallway handshake with no commercial agreement is not a licensing model. A free community edition that removes all seat counts forever misstates how Microsoft 365 organizational licensing works.
Exam caveat: public sector may use specific enrollment programs; fundamentals still contrast EA versus CSP versus direct. Operational check: confirm the city’s Microsoft 365 seats and terms appear under the EA enrollment in admin/billing documentation and that renewal dates and true-up processes are owned by procurement. In municipal Microsoft 365 fundamentals scenarios, always map the business need to the named capability, reject distractors that describe a different pillar, and verify the control in the admin portal before telling leadership the risk is closed.