The first call is forty five minutes to understand the contract, the renewal calendar, the audit posture, and where the leverage actually sits. The second call is the recommendation: what we would do, in what sequence, on what timeline, and whether we are the right firm for this engagement. If the answer is no, we say so on the second call.
We hold the intake light on purpose. The work that determines whether the engagement makes sense for both sides is done quickly and without obligation.
You submit the form below. An analyst reads it within twenty four hours. If your situation is in scope for the practice, you get a calendar link the same day. If it is not, you get a referral.
Forty five minutes. We ask about the contract structure, the renewal calendar, the audit posture, the consumption picture, and the executive sponsorship. No pitch, no decks, no sales motion.
One week later. We come back with a written assessment of what we would do, in what sequence, on what timeline, and what we estimate the engagement would recover. Plus an honest read on whether we are the right firm.
If both sides decide to proceed, the engagement letter follows within two business days. Fee structure, deliverables, timeline, references. The work starts the week after.
Some inbounds are time critical. The first row in the panels below carries the highest urgency. The others reward early engagement.
The first forty eight hours determine the framing for the entire audit. Acknowledgment without scoping, raw data production, and seller brokered responses each foreclose options that will not return. If a notice has arrived this week, write today.
The highest leverage phase of an EA renewal is the consumption reconciliation and posture work that happens before the proposal is issued. Twelve months out is the right time. Six months is workable. Three months is recovery from inaction.
Azure cost optimization runs continuously, not on the renewal cadence. MACC restructuring, RI portfolio rebalancing, and hybrid benefit recovery can happen mid term. If the run rate is outrunning the plan, write before the next quarterly forecast.
M&A inheritance, divestiture, executive change. The contract you walked into is a thirty six month commitment that someone else signed. There are options at almost every point in the term. Write to understand them.
Form goes to a managing analyst, not a marketing inbox. You will hear back from a person inside one business day. The first call is forty five minutes. The recommendation is in writing.
The two best calls we ever get are the customer with twelve months until renewal and the customer who got an audit notice last Tuesday. Every other call is somewhere between the two.Managing analyst · Practice intake
Many firms describe themselves as independent Microsoft licensing advisors. Very few are. Most are resellers, LSPs, or Microsoft partners that earn revenue from contract volume, partner program incentives, co marketing funds, or referral arrangements that compromise their structural posture. The economic incentive almost always favors closing the renewal at the seller’s preferred number, because the partner’s next quarter depends on the relationship with the Microsoft account team.
Our engagement letters explicitly prohibit several activities that would compromise the independence position. We do not hold any Microsoft partner certification. We do not earn referral revenue from Microsoft or any Microsoft authorized reseller. We do not attend Microsoft partner events as a partner. We do not subcontract any portion of the engagement to a Microsoft partner or reseller. These prohibitions are contractual, not aspirational, and they apply for the duration of every engagement.
The customer’s engagement letter includes a representation from us confirming these restrictions, with explicit remedies if any restriction is violated. The customer has standing to enforce the restrictions, and the engagement is structured so the customer never has to wonder whether the analyst across the table is operating against a hidden commercial incentive.
Our compensation is structured against the engagement outcome, denominated against the contract value we negotiate against. We earn nothing from products sold or renewed, only from outcomes delivered against the customer’s contract. The incentive structure aligns with the customer’s interest at every point in the engagement.
The work product belongs to the customer. The intelligence we develop in the engagement belongs to the customer. The relationships we hold with Microsoft are professional, not commercial, and they do not bind us to any commercial outcome that favors Microsoft over the customer. This is the structural posture under which an EA renewal or an audit defense is actually adversarial to the Microsoft side, which is the only posture under which the work produces the outcomes we describe.
The practice is calibrated to enterprise Microsoft contracts above defined commercial thresholds. We are not the right firm for every Microsoft licensing question, and the second discovery call always ends with a candid recommendation on fit before the engagement letter is offered.
Annual Microsoft spend above $5M, EA or MCA E commitment, complex product mix across M365, Azure, Dynamics, and Power Platform. The renewal cycle is the highest leverage moment, and the engagement runs twelve to sixteen weeks from intake to amendment.
Any active Microsoft compliance review, SAM engagement invitation, or third party audit notice. Time sensitivity is high, and the engagement runs sixteen to twenty four weeks from notice to closure. We can engage same day on urgent notices.
Azure spend above $2M annually with MACC commitment, OpenAI consumption, or material hybrid use rights exposure. The engagement runs continuously rather than to a fixed end date, often through an advisory retainer.
Inherited Microsoft contracts following acquisition, contracts requiring restructure following divestiture, or executive transitions that change the operating model. Time sensitivity varies. The engagement runs eight to twenty weeks depending on contract complexity.
Continuous advisory engagement across the contract lifecycle for enterprises that treat Microsoft as an ongoing negotiation rather than an episodic one. Renewal cycles, audit notices, M&A events, mid term true ups, Microsoft policy changes as they happen. Median tenure across active retainers is 3.4 years.
Federal, state, and local government, regulated financial services, regulated healthcare, and certain critical infrastructure. The contract framework and the compliance posture differ materially from commercial sector engagements. We staff these engagements with analysts who have direct experience in the regulatory context.
Engagement fees are structured against the contract value we negotiate against and the engagement timeline, not against billable hours. The customer knows what the engagement costs at signature, and the cost does not drift on hour creep or scope expansion.
Most engagements are priced as fixed fee against the defined deliverable set and timeline. The customer receives the deliverables at the agreed price, regardless of how many hours the analyst team invests. The fee is paid in defined installments tied to engagement milestones, not on a monthly retainer cadence.
The fixed fee structure aligns the analyst team incentive with engagement efficiency. We do not benefit from prolonging the engagement, and we do not benefit from expanding scope. We benefit from delivering the agreed work product on the agreed timeline and reaching the engagement’s defined exit criteria.
For engagements where the recovery is large and defensible against a clear baseline (EA renewals against a Microsoft proposed quote, audit settlements against a preliminary finding), a portion of the fee can be structured as a success share against the documented outcome. The structure is transparent, capped, and disclosed in the engagement letter.
The success share component is optional. Some customers prefer fully fixed fee for budget predictability. Some customers prefer the success share structure because it aligns the analyst team incentive with the recovery outcome. Both structures produce the same work product. The choice is operational rather than substantive.
Every engagement operates under a mutual confidentiality agreement that protects the customer’s contract terms, consumption data, internal forecasts, and competitive posture. The agreement is in place before the first analyst call, and the protections apply to the analyst team, the practice leadership, and any sub analysts engaged on the work.
The customer’s contract terms, pricing, concession bands, structural language, audit posture, consumption telemetry, organizational structure, executive sponsorship, and competitive alternatives analysis are all covered by the confidentiality agreement. The protection applies during the engagement, after the engagement closes, and across any follow on retainer relationship.
The agreement is mutual. The intelligence we share with the customer (peer concession bands, Microsoft policy intelligence, internal seller incentive structures) is equally protected. The customer cannot disclose our analysis to third parties without explicit consent, and we cannot disclose the customer’s information to anyone outside the engagement team without the same consent.
Reference calls are available on request, with explicit consent from the referencing customer. We do not publish a client list. We do not name engagement specifics on the website or in proposals. Anonymized engagement outcomes appear in our materials, with enough detail to be credible and not enough detail to identify the customer.
When a prospective customer requests references, we provide three to five names selected against the prospect’s situation (similar vertical, similar contract size, similar engagement type). Each reference has agreed to take the call, and each is held by the same confidentiality agreement that protects every other client in the practice.
The discovery call is structured around five questions that determine whether the practice can produce a meaningful outcome on the timeline available. The questions are direct, the analyst documents the answers in real time, and the conversation closes with an agreement on what the recommendation call will cover one week later.
The first question is the contract picture. What does the customer hold today across M365, Azure, Dynamics, and Power Platform. What anniversary dates apply. What is the current annual commitment, and what is the current actual consumption against that commitment. These are the inputs that determine whether the upcoming renewal is a high leverage moment or a low leverage one.
The second question is the audit picture. Any active compliance review, any SAM engagement invitation in the last twenty four months, any deal desk conversation that mentioned compliance findings. The audit picture is often more material than the renewal picture, and it always shapes the timeline and the engagement structure.
The third question is the executive picture. Who sponsors this work at the executive level. Is procurement leading the negotiation or is a business unit. Is the CFO engaged. Is the audit committee informed. The internal alignment determines whether the work product can actually be executed against, or whether the engagement will produce strong recommendations that the customer cannot act on.
The fourth question is the calendar. When does the customer need a recommendation. What is the renewal date or the audit response deadline. What internal milestones (budget cycle, board meeting, fiscal year end) constrain the timeline. The calendar tells us what engagement structure fits and what is impossible.
The fifth question is the alternative picture. Has the customer considered Google Workspace, AWS, or another non Microsoft scenario. Is there appetite for a credible competitive posture. Without an honest answer here, the negotiation engagement cannot produce concession at the bands we describe.
The recommendation call is preceded by a short written assessment, typically four to six pages, that captures what we heard on the discovery call and what we propose to do about it. The document includes the engagement scope, the proposed timeline, the deliverable set, the fee structure, the team allocation, and the recommended sequence of work.
Crucially, the document also includes a candid assessment of fit. If the practice is not the right firm for the engagement, the document says so and explains why. If the timeline is too short to produce the recommended outcome, the document says so and explains what is realistic. If the customer’s internal alignment is the binding constraint, the document says so and suggests preconditions that would make the engagement viable.
The customer receives the document the morning of the recommendation call. The call walks through the document and answers questions. The decision to proceed (or not) happens at the end of the call or in the days that follow. No follow up sales motion. No second pitch. The decision is informed and clean.