This paper, based on a large-scale online survey of suppliers conducted by the HSE IIMS in 2017, analyzed various conflict resolution strategies in public procurement. The specific feature of this sphere is the presence of the state as the dominant party in the contractual relationship and the resulting differences in assessing the chances of protecting one’s interests in court as well as the effectiveness of judicial conflict resolution mechanisms. At the same time, we proceeded from the fact that suppliers differ not only in their practice of resolving conflict situations after the conclusion of a contract but also in the type of behavior that determines the choice of each strategy. The survey results showed that the majority of suppliers prefer to resolve conflicts in public procurement using an out-of-court negotiation with customers, while only 31% of respondents resort to judicial proceedings. In addition, 37% of respondents prefer resolving public procurement conflicts exclusively by negotiations an only 4% use only the judicial system. Approximately one third of the respondents abide by the “conflict-free” strategy and a slightly lower number of suppliers (27%) use a hybrid strategy that includes both methods of conflict resolution in public procurement. At the same time, suppliers strongly involved in public procurement with stable informal relations with customers are less likely to go to court and less often use negotiations. The paper will provide possible explanation for the revealed patterns in the behavior of suppliers.