Discrepancies between initial estimates and actual time spent can result in unanticipated costs, with non-chargeable hours either written off or disputed, which can strain client relationships. So, how do we strike a balance on the value for money that we promise our clients while maintaining profitability? Here are some key areas that should be considered for drafting a well-balanced and transparent fee proposal from the outset:
Management
Management work starts early, which could be several weeks before the review volume or start date is even confirmed. This includes initial scoping, project management advice, review design, forecasting, costing, preparation and planning. It also involves assistance with drafting a Review Playbook, assembling a suitable review team from various resources and establishing an appropriate infrastructure for the project.
Throughout the review, management must ensure the project stays on time and budget while monitoring resources and addressing any issues. The client should be provided ongoing support to ensure their expectations are being met while organising workstreams, producing accurate progress reports and running analyses to track review progress against quality, deadline and cost.
The role of a review manager is therefore essential from the very start to finish on any document review project. It is important that this time is adequately reflected in fee proposals.
Review
A review cannot start without an opportunity for the team to digest and understand the instructions first. A Review Playbook can be a standalone document, or part of a larger briefing pack, and its contents can vary in length and complexity from review to review. The amount of time needed by a team to read briefing materials can therefore range from anything between 1 hour to 1 week, for example. It is essential to factor in this time for each team member, including review managers, and to take into account any briefing calls and planned team meetings as well.
Quality Checks (QC)
QC is an integral part of every review, and varying degrees of QC will always need to take place from the outset of a review until its completion. It can be easy to over-engineer QC work when less experienced managers strive for perfection but lack an understanding for the QC to be effective, balanced and proportionate.
The time and resources required for QC vary by project complexity, longevity, team size, and experience. While experienced managers can estimate QC needs, precise requirements only become clear once the review begins. It may be possible to estimate time for a measured sample QC per reviewer when they reach a certain number of documents each, but reasonable contingencies must also be built in to allow for any unexpected issues to be rectified.
A well-planned QC structure supports and drives efficiency across the entire review, allowing for early identification of issues, minimizing later rework. The importance of this must not be underestimated as any quality issues that demand a deeper dive will have minimal impact on cost if identified early. For example, an initial 20% sample QC may seem efficient, but if not balanced across reviewers, it could lead to costly corrections later.
Clients expect competitive pricing and value for money when it comes to document review projects, but quality (and ultimately, our reputation) should never suffer as a result of tight budgets. Review managers use their experience-based intuition to determine how much QC, and what type of QC, is needed to strike the perfect balance on any review.
Resource
Some review teams, subject to internal capacity, will occasionally be sourced or supplemented externally. The process of hiring and onboarding temp review contractors come at an additional cost to the firm, and there may also be an extra cost on top if the client/project requires extensive background checks on the reviewers as well. While this article does not focus on client rates, matter profitability must of course be considered transparently with these costs in mind.
The more resource needed, the higher the review cost. And, again, contingencies need to be built in with additional resources in case of scheduled/planned holidays, sudden/unexpected absences, internal capacity considerations, and performance issues that could require reviewers to be replaced.
A well-considered proposal accounts for all elements of the project, beyond the review exercise itself. It balances competitive pricing and the need to maintain maximum efficiency, without sacrificing quality and the project’s overall success. To quote DWF’s CS Pricing Governance Framework, “Pricing is a combination of art, science and intuition.” I am sure you will agree that this line is especially relevant and befitting when it comes to pricing document reviews that are well – balanced, all – round.
To discuss this topic further or to gain more insights, get in touch with Ruby Moreea.
