TSA Renegotiation
Build the model, then change the terms. Renegotiate with evidence.
Fixed-fee proposal in 48 hours. Senior team on day one. The first conversation is always free.
A useful TSA cost model does something the service catalog cannot: it ties every charge to an exit date and an escalation curve, so the buyer sees what delay actually costs. The total bill is driven less by the monthly rate than by how long each service runs, which is why a model built around exit timing is the foundation of disciplined TSA cost reduction. Built before signing, it changes the terms. Built after close, it still runs the exit.
Every TSA cost model starts from the service catalog, the schedule of services and charges attached to the agreement. The catalog is the spine: each line becomes a row in the model. The first task is to make sure the catalog is complete and granular, because a service that is bundled or missing is a cost the buyer cannot see or manage.
Granularity matters more than buyers expect. A single line for IT or finance hides the structure beneath it. Breaking the catalog down to the level where each service has its own charge, owner, and timeline is what turns a static schedule into a tool. Bundled lines should be unpicked before the model goes any further.
Once the catalog is clean, the model has its rows. The columns come next: the charge, the cost basis, the exit date, and the extension exposure. With the spine in place, the buyer can start attaching the information that makes the model predictive rather than descriptive.
For each service, the model should hold three numbers, not one. The charge the seller invoices, the true cost to provide it, and the implied mark-up between them. Most service catalogs show only the charge, which tells the buyer what it pays but nothing about whether the price is fair.
Establishing the true cost is the hard part and the valuable part. It means asking for the build up behind each charge, stripping out allocated overhead the carved out business will never use, and testing loaded rates and bundles. The gap between charge and true cost is where the negotiation lives.
With these three numbers in place, the model can flag the lines worth fighting. A service at a fair mark-up over an honest cost passes. A service with a large unexplained gap between charge and true cost is a target. The buyer no longer argues the whole bill, only the lines the model has identified.
The single most important column is the planned exit date for each service. Total TSA cost is a function of how long services run, so a model that only sums monthly charges misses the largest variable. Attaching a realistic exit date to every line turns the model into a forecast of total cost, not a snapshot of the current month.
Next to each exit date sits the extension fee curve for that service. If the exit slips, the model should show the escalating premium the buyer would pay. This is what converts a schedule date into a financial consequence and makes the cost of delay visible before it happens rather than after.
With exit dates and curves in place, the model can run scenarios. Total cost under the base plan, under a realistic three month slip, and under a worst case delay are three different numbers, and the spread between them is the buyer exposure. That spread, not the monthly rate, is what the model exists to quantify.
A list of services with independent exit dates is still incomplete, because services do not exit independently. Infrastructure gates applications, the ERP gates finance, and a cluster of services often cannot leave until a foundational migration is done. The model has to capture these dependencies or its exit dates are fiction.
Mapping the dependencies turns the cost model into an exit plan. It shows the critical path: the foundational migrations that, if they slip, drag a whole cluster of dependent services into extension territory. The buyer learns that a delay in one IT program can trigger extension fees across finance, reporting, and operations at once.
This is where the model earns its value. It tells the buyer not just what each service costs but which few milestones control the total. Focusing management attention on the critical path migrations, rather than on every line equally, is the difference between an exit that lands on plan and one that drifts into the steep end of the curve.
The most valuable version of the model exists before signing, during diligence, when the buyer still has leverage to change the terms. A model that exposes inflated charges, unrealistic exit dates, and a punishing extension curve becomes a negotiating document. Its findings can reshape the agreement itself, not just manage it.
After close, the same model becomes the operating tool for the exit. It tracks actual charges against plan, flags services drifting toward their step up dates, and keeps the critical path migrations under management attention. The model built for negotiation becomes the model that runs the program.
A buyer that builds this model once and maintains it has a single source of truth for transition cost. It connects the charges to the exit dates, the dependencies, and the curve, which is exactly the structure needed to drive cost down rather than merely report it. The model is the discipline made concrete.
A TSA cost model is a structured view of every service in the agreement, its charge, its true cost basis, its planned exit date, and the extension exposure if it slips. It turns a static service catalog into a forecast the buyer can manage, showing total cost under the base plan and under realistic delay scenarios.
The core blocks are the service catalog as the line item spine, the charge and its cost basis, the planned exit date for each service, and the extension fee curve. Layering the dependencies between services on top turns the model from a cost list into an exit plan with a price attached to delay.
Because total TSA cost is driven by how long services run, not just their monthly rate. A model that only sums monthly charges misses the largest variable: slippage into extension fees. Tying each service to an exit date and an escalation curve shows what delay actually costs and where to focus.
Before signing, while the buyer still has leverage to negotiate charges, terms, and the extension curve. A model built after close is still useful for managing the exit, but the most valuable version exists during diligence, when its findings can change the terms of the agreement itself.
Separate true cost from mark-up across sectors.
Read the article →Model the escalation curve before the exit slips.
Read the article →The cost the model has to capture beyond the service charges.
Read the article →The 90-day governance, IT, finance, HR and procurement separation plan we run on live carve-outs. Get the playbook plus the bi-weekly Day One Letter — short, signal-heavy, buyer-side.
No spam. Unsubscribe in one click. · Read the overview first →
Fixed-fee proposal in 48 hours. Senior team on day one. The first conversation is always free.
Seven buyer-side moves to exit a Transition Services Agreement on time and below budget. The mark-up, the extension-fee curve, exit sequencing, and the 11-month calendar.
A representative benchmark report on where TSA cost-plus mark-up belongs by service category, how to validate pass-throughs, and where the extension-fee curve becomes a penalty. On a representative $48M-revenue carve-out, reading the price stack the way the seller built it recovers $0.7M the headline discount never touches.
One tactic, one benchmark, or one pattern from a recent buyer-side engagement. Short. Signal heavy. Free.
Subscribe to The Day One Letter →