Case Study · EA to MCA E Migration

A global pharma moved off its EA without losing its leverage.

Microsoft pushed the transition from Enterprise Agreement to MCA E as an administrative inevitability. The practice treated it as a negotiation, carrying pricing protection and discount structure across the migration rather than resetting to list. This is how a forced move became a managed one.

Engagement profile

Global pharmaceutical company. EA sunset. MCA E ahead.

A global pharmaceutical and life sciences company with a large M365 and Azure estate spanning research, manufacturing, and commercial operations across multiple regions. With its Enterprise Agreement approaching the end of its life and Microsoft steering renewals toward the Microsoft Customer Agreement for Enterprise, the company faced a transition that could either preserve or quietly erode the terms it had spent years building.

Pricing protected
3 yrs
Estate
Global
Discount carried
Held
Avoided uplift
$14M
Timeline
14 wks
The situation

A transition framed as paperwork, priced as a reset.

The account team presented the move to MCA E as a routine modernization, a change of paper rather than a change of terms. The framing mattered, because a customer who treats a platform transition as administrative tends to accept the new agreement as offered. Beneath the routine language, the MCA E proposal carried subtle but expensive differences from the expiring EA: discount structures that did not automatically port, price protection that lapsed at the boundary, and commitment mechanics that worked differently than the company assumed.

The pharmaceutical company had real reasons to move carefully. Its estate was global and regulated, with data residency and validated system considerations that made any change to the underlying agreement consequential. The migration also coincided with a planned Azure expansion, which meant the new agreement would govern a larger and more strategic footprint than the one it replaced. Getting the terms wrong at the transition would compound across the entire next term.

The internal team understood the products but not the gaps between the two agreement models. A platform migration presented as inevitable is still a negotiation, and the side that calls it paperwork is the side that benefits from you believing it.

They told us it was just a new contract vehicle, same deal underneath. The practice showed us, clause by clause, that the underneath was exactly where the money was moving.Director of IT Procurement · Global pharmaceutical company
The leverage

Carrying the terms across the agreement boundary.

The engagement began by mapping the expiring EA against the proposed MCA E line by line, identifying exactly where discount structure, price protection, and commitment mechanics differed. That comparison turned an opaque transition into a concrete list of terms to defend, each one tied to a dollar consequence the company could weigh. The migration stopped being a leap into a new model and became a controlled transfer of specific protections.

With the gaps mapped, the practice negotiated the carryover explicitly. Discount levels the company had earned under the EA were written into the new agreement rather than left to reset. Price protection was negotiated across the boundary so the planned Azure expansion landed under defended rates rather than at list. Commitment mechanics were structured to fit the company's real consumption trajectory under MCA E rather than the account team's projection.

The practice timed the migration against the EA sunset so the company moved from a position of choice rather than expiry, preserving the leverage of an unsigned agreement throughout. You migrate before the clock forces you, because a deadline you control is leverage and a deadline that controls you is a discount you give away.

The Azure expansion we were planning landed under the rates we already had, not the rates we would have reset to. That single point paid for the entire engagement several times over.Director of IT Procurement · Global pharmaceutical company
The outcome

A clean migration, and roughly $14M of uplift avoided.

The company moved to MCA E with its discount structure carried forward, price protection extended across the boundary for three years, and commitment mechanics fitted to its real consumption rather than a projection. The planned Azure expansion landed under defended rates, and the analysis estimated roughly $14M in uplift and reset pricing avoided over the term against what an unmanaged transition would have produced.

Beyond the dollars, the company entered the MCA E world understanding the model it now operated under, with a documented map of its terms and a baseline it controls. The next true up and the next expansion will be negotiated by a team that knows where the leverage sits rather than one being told the move is just paperwork.

The engagement reflects the firm’s broader record across Microsoft contracts: more than $420M in cumulative client savings, over 340 engagements delivered, and an average 79 percent reduction in audit financial exposure, built on 20+ years of combined practice depth across the Microsoft estate. The figures above are verifiable on a reference call arranged through the practice.

A platform migration is a negotiation wearing a paperwork disguise.

The practice guides enterprises through the EA to MCA E transition, mapping the agreements line by line and carrying pricing and discount protection across the boundary rather than resetting to list. Two analyst calls, no pitch.