How We Measure Savings — The NoSaveNoPay Methodology
How savings are measured determines the integrity of every gainshare engagement. NoSaveNoPay measures verified savings as the dollar delta between a documented baseline — countersigned by the client before negotiation starts — and the final signed contract value. No baseline is set retrospectively. No savings number is invented. Every dollar that triggers a fee is traceable to a vendor document and a client-signed memo.
This page is the public statement of the methodology. It exists so any CFO, CIO, or procurement leader can see, before signing, exactly how a number will appear on a NoSaveNoPay invoice. It complements the 25% gainshare pricing model, the sample Statement of Work, and the complete gainshare reference.
The three principles behind savings measurement
Every dollar of measured savings has to satisfy three principles. If any one fails, the dollar is removed from the savings calculation and the fee shrinks.
- Documented baseline. The baseline is one of three explicitly defined sources, agreed in writing before negotiation begins.
- Vendor-evidenced delta. The savings figure is the difference between the baseline and a vendor-executed contract. Both numbers come from documents the vendor produced, not advisor estimates.
- Client-countersigned calculation. The client's procurement lead and CFO or CIO approve the savings calculation in writing before any invoice is issued.
The three baseline sources
The baseline is the most important number in a gainshare engagement. Get it wrong and the entire fee is wrong. NoSaveNoPay uses one of three baseline sources, picked at engagement start and recorded in a baseline memo.
Vendor's first written proposal
The most common baseline. Used on renewals where the vendor has issued a formal renewal quote. Eliminates "savings inflation" because the number we negotiate down from is one the vendor itself produced.
Existing price-protection clause
Used when the renewal proposal hasn't arrived. We extrapolate renewal value from the existing contract's renewal cap (e.g. "annual increase capped at CPI + 5%"). The math is documented in the baseline memo.
Benchmarked equivalent buyer
Used for new purchases where there is no prior contract and no first proposal. Sourced from our anonymised engagement library of similarly-shaped buyers (sector, headcount, deployment scope).
Inflated first proposal
If the vendor's first proposal is materially above benchmark — e.g. an Oracle ULA renewal priced 40% above comparable buyers — we use the Benchmarked Equivalent Buyer instead. This prevents savings inflation and is noted in the baseline memo.
The savings categories that count
Not every negotiated improvement counts as savings. The engagement letter lists the seven categories that do, drawn from the same standard used in the pricing model. The list is short, specific, and identical across engagements.
- Hard-dollar price reduction — discount beyond the vendor's first offer, applied to each contract year.
- Eliminated SKUs and modules — line items removed because they are unused, duplicated, or unnecessary. Common on Microsoft EA and Oracle portfolios.
- Downgraded editions — moving from a higher tier to a lower tier where functional requirements are met by the lower tier.
- Removed or capped support uplifts — vendor-proposed annual support increases (typically 8–10%) negotiated out or capped below CPI.
- Capped annual increases — multi-year price caps embedded in the new contract, converted to dollar savings against the uncapped renewal trajectory.
- Removed minimums and true-up obligations — consumption floors and headcount floors negotiated out, converted to expected-cost-avoidance dollars.
- Avoided audit penalties — in audit defence engagements, the delta between vendor's first audit settlement demand and final settlement.
What does not count (no fee charged)
- "Better terms" with no measurable dollar value (e.g. softer indemnification language, broader audit notice). These get negotiated but trigger no fee.
- Vendor-funded credits — migration funds, MDF, training credits. These are vendor benefits, not contract savings.
- Savings against an inflated baseline. The baseline must come from one of the three documented sources, never a hypothetical.
- Items the client subsequently expanded or replaced inside the term; the fee is prorated down where this happens.
- Tax savings, FX savings, accounting-classification savings — these are not contract negotiation outcomes.
The verification workflow, step by step
The workflow is identical for every engagement. The vendor changes; the workflow doesn't.
Engagement scoping (unpaid)
We review the vendor, contract, renewal date, and proposal status. We tell you whether a real savings opportunity exists. If not, we decline.
Baseline memo drafted
We propose one of the three baseline sources and the underlying dollar number. The memo cites the vendor document or benchmark used.
Client countersigns baseline
Procurement lead + CFO or CIO countersign the baseline memo. Only then is the engagement letter executed and negotiation kicked off.
Negotiation against baseline
Senior negotiator runs the deal. Every counter-offer, redline, and concession is logged against the baseline categories.
Contract signed; savings calculated
Savings = Baseline Value − Signed Contract Value, broken down by category. The calculation is shared with the client in a savings memo.
Client-approved invoice
Client procurement + finance approve the savings memo. Invoice (25% of approved savings) is issued, aligned to vendor payment schedule.
The audit-right clause
Every engagement letter contains an audit-right clause. With 30 days' written notice, the client may audit the verified savings calculation. NoSaveNoPay must produce the baseline memo, the vendor's first written proposal (or the benchmarked equivalent buyer reference), and the executed vendor agreement. The clause exists because the integrity of the savings number is what the entire gainshare model rests on — and we want clients to know they can test it any time.
In practice, the audit right has been invoked exactly twice in our engagement history; both times the calculation was confirmed unchanged. The deterrent value of the clause has outweighed its usage, which is the point.
Multi-year contracts and fee timing
For multi-year contracts, savings equal total baseline value minus total signed contract value. The 25% fee applies to total savings but is invoiced in instalments aligned to the client's vendor payment schedule. If Oracle invoices in three equal annual instalments, the NoSaveNoPay fee is split across three matching annual instalments. The client never pays the fee ahead of the savings landing. Read more in how gainshare fees are calculated.
Why this matters for buyer trust
Performance-based pricing only works if the performance number is trustworthy. The methodology is the integrity layer. Without a documented baseline, the gainshare model collapses into "we'll measure savings against something flexible and invoice you." That isn't a model — that's a billing engine. The methodology page is published precisely so that anyone evaluating NoSaveNoPay against the alternatives — UpperEdge, House of Brick, NPI, internal procurement — can see the integrity boundary before signing.
Ready to see the methodology applied to your contract?
Send us your renewal date, vendor, and approximate contract value. We'll come back with a proposed baseline source, a savings estimate, and the exact methodology that would apply to your engagement.
Get a Free Savings Estimate → View Sample SOWMethodology FAQ
What is the savings baseline?
The savings baseline is the documented dollar amount that NoSaveNoPay's negotiation result is measured against. It is one of three sources: the vendor's first written proposal, the renewal value implied by the existing contract's price-protection clause, or a benchmarked equivalent buyer. The baseline is countersigned by the client before negotiation starts.
How are savings verified?
Savings are verified using three documents: the baseline memo countersigned at engagement start, the vendor's first written proposal, and the executed contract. The delta between baseline and executed contract is the verified savings. The client's procurement and finance teams approve the calculation before invoicing.
Can the client audit the savings calculation?
Yes. Every engagement letter includes an audit-right clause. With thirty days' written notice, the client may audit the verified savings calculation. NoSaveNoPay must make available the baseline memo, the vendor's first written proposal, and the executed agreement supporting the calculation.
What if the vendor's first proposal is artificially inflated?
If the vendor's first written proposal contains terms or pricing significantly above benchmark, we use a Benchmarked Equivalent Buyer reference as the baseline instead. The benchmark is sourced from our anonymised engagement library of similarly-shaped buyers. This prevents savings inflation and is documented in the baseline memo.
How do you handle multi-year contracts in the savings calculation?
For a multi-year contract, savings equal total baseline value (sum of baseline years) minus total signed contract value (sum of signed years). The 25% fee applies to total savings, invoiced in instalments aligned to the client's vendor payment schedule so cash flow stays in sync.
Are soft outcomes like better terms counted as savings?
No. Only outcomes with a measurable dollar value count. Improvements to indemnification language, audit clauses, or termination rights are negotiated but do not generate a fee. Vendor-funded migration credits, MDF, and training credits are likewise excluded from the savings calculation.