Multi-year engagement agreements — locking in the client relationship

I have a school district client in Augusta that I've audited annually for 3 years. Each year we sign a new engagement. They mentioned they'd prefer a multi-year agreement so they don't have to go through procurement every year. Would a 3-year engagement agreement with annual audit cycles be appropriate? What fee terms work for a long-term arrangement?

Multi-year agreements are excellent for building a stable practice. Albert's structure is sound. A few additional terms to include: annual rate adjustment clause so your contingency rate can increase if tariff complexity changes, a scope expansion provision if the client adds new facilities, and a performance review clause where both parties assess the relationship annually. Government and institutional clients particularly value multi-year agreements because it reduces their administrative burden.

Multi-year agreements work well for institutional clients that have procurement friction. I have a 3-year deal with a hospital in Huntsville. Structure: annual audit cycle, 35% contingency (slight discount from my standard 40% in exchange for the commitment), automatic renewal unless either party gives 90-day notice. The discount isn't huge but it rewards the client's loyalty and the guaranteed pipeline lets me plan my workload. Win-win.

Signed a 3-year agreement with the school district at 35% contingency. First year under the new agreement found $11,000 in errors across 6 buildings — more than the previous year because Georgia Power implemented new riders that created fresh optimization opportunities. The multi-year commitment means I check for tariff changes annually, which catches things a one-time audit would miss.