Performance Perspectives Blog

Is your verifier requiring you to sign a restrictive contract?

by | May 26, 2017

sign here

One thing I’ve always wondered about: why do some verifiers force their clients to sign contracts that restrict them from leaving?

We have clients who had to delay coming on board because they were trapped in such contracts that made it difficult to switch. In one case, we offered special payment terms because they had already paid the other verifier for work that had to be done but wanted to leave.

We don’t require our clients to sign contracts: ever! Unless requested by the client, we use a simple agreement letter that outlines the work to be done and expectations/responsibilities of both parties. But these agreements do not constrain them from terminating the relationship at any time with no penalty.

If a client is dissatisfied, they can terminate our agreement immediately. We have no need to force them to commit to using us. And to be quite honest, in a few cases this has hurt us, as we had put in time to assist them as they moved to compliance, only to later learn that for some reason they decided to switch.

Why do we do this?

You might ask why we wouldn’t have contracts, too.

The answer is quite simple: we don’t believe our clients should have to bear the risk in the relationship. And although this has “stung us” a few times, in far more cases we have built strong and long-term relationships with our clients.

Why would a verifier require their clients to sign?

What are they afraid of? Don’t they have confidence in their services? In their personnel? In their process? In their ability to deliver? And, if a client doesn’t want to stay with them, why would they want to force them to?

If your verifier is being bought by another firm and asks you to sign an agreement before you even have the chance to work with the new firm, why do it? You have no idea what the future will hold, so why commit to something like that? What’s the benefit to you?

Why would we do this to our clients?

Wouldn’t that be unfair? What if we don’t perform? What if the verifier we assign to them does a poor job? What if there’s a personality clash? Or, what if they think they’ve found a better verifier?

Is it time to consider a new verifier?

If your verifier is requiring you to sign such a restrictive contract, perhaps you should think of switching to someone who doesn’t make such demands on their clients. Perhaps someone like The Spaulding Group?

As the #2 GIPS(R) and non-GIPS verifier, we’re trying harder than ever to grow our business and to provide the best verification services possible.

There are many reasons why you should consider our services, such as:

  • We only use senior-level verifiers, while our competitors frequently use junior (entry?) level
  • We prefer on-site verifications, while some competitors avoid visiting their clients’ offices
  • We answer our clients’ questions in a timely manner
  • Our process is timely and efficient
  • We strive for minimal, if any, turnover in staff
  • And soon, 100% of our verifiers will hold the CIPM designation.

Oh, and another thing: we don’t force our clients to sign restrictive contracts!

What do our verification clients have to say?

Consider what just a few of our clients have had to say about our services:

verification quote #1

verification quote #2

verification quote #3

verifier quote #4

To see these and other letters, please go here.

Thinking of switching to a new verifier? To get a no-obligation proposal:

click here

Free Subscription!

The Journal of Performance Measurement

The Performance Measurement Resource.

Click to Subscribe