Prospect loves the contingency model but wants to cap my fee at $25,000 regardless of how much I find. Their concern is that if I find a massive error, my percentage fee could be "disproportionate." My standard fee is 40% of first-year savings. If I find $100,000 in annual savings, my fee would be $40,000 — they want it capped at $25,000. Should I agree?
Member Community
Enter your email to read this discussion
You're reading the AAUBA Member Forum — where Certified Utility Bill Auditors share case studies, tariff strategies, and industry insights.
Free to read. Enter your email to continue.
No spam. We'll send you one welcome email about CUBA certification. Unsubscribe any time.
Client wants to cap my fee — should I agree?
I'd counter with a sliding scale instead of a hard cap. Something like: 40% on the first $50,000 in savings, 30% on savings between $50,000 and $100,000, and 20% on savings above $100,000. This addresses their concern about proportionality while still rewarding you fairly for larger finds. A hard cap at $25,000 removes your incentive to dig deep once you've found $62,500 in savings.
Karen's sliding scale is the right compromise. Never agree to a hard cap because it limits your upside while your downside (finding nothing and earning zero) stays the same. The sliding scale is fair to both parties — the client pays a lower marginal rate on larger findings, and you still have an incentive to find every dollar. If the prospect insists on a hard cap despite the sliding scale offer, they're telling you they don't value your work. Walk away.
Proposed the sliding scale. Client agreed immediately — said it made more sense than the cap. Thanks for the suggestion Karen. Would have left money on the table with the cap.