Anglepoint Supports US Health Insurance Provider with Conga Audit and Delivers $500k Cost Avoidance
Company Profile
Providing health insurance to more than 106 million people across the US, this federation of health insurance companies is one of the largest in the world. The 34 independent and locally operated companies within the federation deliver health insurance coverage to one in three Americans across all 50 states. When one of these companies was faced with a Conga true-up to the sum of $500k they needed support to respond within a one week time frame. Anglepoint provided the expertise and manpower required to resolve the dispute and deliver $500k cost avoidance and an additional discount on a new five-year commitment.
Caught off guard with a software audit
Anglepoint were approached by this client for help when they were presented with a $500K Conga true-up in March 2022 to cover an identified overage. Conga had collected overage data for a number of months without notifying the client then with just a week’s notice, demanded payment. They needed to stall the audit, prepare and respond but, without the required level of vendor knowledge in-house, they didn’t know where they stood legally and were not prepared with the relevant data they would need.
An efficient and effective response would require an audit management process that just wasn’t in place. They had no way of clarifying which stakeholders should be involved, what information should be divulged and how to leverage this to ensure the end result wasn’t costly and damaging to the relationship with Conga, whose software was an integral part of their business management.
They were on the back foot and paying the $500k seemed like the only option. They needed help from a partner who could act quickly.
A Defined Audit Response Process
Anglepoint has a team of license experts who have the depth and breadth of knowledge covering hundreds of publishers, they have the resources on hand to support when an audit requires time-critical support.
Anglepoint’s team deployed a defined audit response process. This began with formalizing discussions with senior executives and legal counsel to highlight potential damage to the ongoing relationship with the vendor and the impact this would have on an upcoming renewal. They applied appropriate tactics to delay Conga’s demand for payment and took back control of the process for the client.
Through diligent analysis of the clients contracts Anglepoint needed to uncover potential areas that would weaken Conga’s commercial argument and put the client in a stronger negotiating position. This included the notification that should have been provided to the client outlining intent to audit and what was in scope. The allowances for user re-allocation then needed to be clarified along with payment periods. Above all, it was vital that the client would not suffer any downtime of the product that would impact the day to day running of their business operations.
Anglepoint’s team provided a clear and concise brief for the executive team involved, facilitating favorable discussions with the vendor that would deliver the best commercial and contractual agreement for the software in scope in the audit and for the planned renewal.
Retraction of audit fees and a contract discount
The experience and knowledge provided by Anglepoint’s licensing experts secured a complete retraction of the audit fees and an additional discount on a planned five-year contract. Through these carefully navigated negotiations, the client strengthened the relationship with Conga. Further intelligence from the analysis of the contracts by Anglepoint also resulted in reduced user commitments, and thus reduced cost. Anglepoint also advised on amendments to the contract language in the client’s favor to help protect them in the future – for example, what constitutes a qualifying user.
Today the client has a highly favorable five-year deal with Conga and a new governance program in place to monitor this product and mitigate the future risk of audits.
They needed to stall the audit, prepare and respond but, without the required level of vendor knowledge in-house, they didn’t know where they stood legally and were not prepared with the relevant data they would need.
