The aggregate read of all seventeen contracts — which checks fire, how often, and on whose paper — is the ERP contract benchmark. Every scored row behind it, document by document and check by check with the clause each finding rests on, is the open dataset.
Same standard in both: verbatim quotes, linked sources, and what we could not read named as what it is.
Utah State Board of Education — PowerSchool Group LLC
7 / 7 fired
BusinessPlus — financials, purchasing, HR/payroll|Publisher-led|19 months
- C10
The contract disclaims its own numbers: “Notwithstanding any other provision of these terms, the timeline and total hours contained in this SOW shall be regarded only as estimates.”
- C1
“Customer… is responsible for managing Customer resources, organizational change management, data conversions and interfaces from legacy systems, and user acceptance testing.”
- C3
The only quantified supplier effort in the whole document is a project manager at roughly 10 hours a week.
City of San Rafael, California — Tyler Technologies
5 / 7 fired
Tyler Munis SaaS|Publisher-led|$378,000 professional services, 1,632 quoted hours
- C6
“Implementation Hours included in this quote assume a work split effort of 70% Client and 30% Tyler.”
That implies roughly 3,250 hours of city staff time against 1,392 vendor hours — with no city staffing plan anywhere in the document.
- C7
“Should portions of the scope… be altered by the Client, Tyler reserves the right to adjust prices for the remaining scope.”
Corrected 2026-09-30: testing (C3) is now recorded as not assessable, not fired — score down from 6/7. The retrieved excerpt never reaches a clause assigning test responsibility either way; the sentence we originally used for it is about data-conversion validation, covered under C1 above.
City of Orlando, Florida — Workday, Inc.
5 / 7 fired
Workday HCM Recruiting, 16 integrations|Publisher-led|$235,830.70 fixed fee
- C1
“Workday does not provide a service to extract data”
, and “Customer is solely responsible for the extracting, transforming and loading of the data.”
Conversion iterations are out of scope.
- C2
16 integrations are counted by complexity bucket, but the integrations master list is only developed later, during Architect & Configure. Anything above 16 is the customer’s.
- C4
“Change management, internal communications, testing, and training are outside the scope of this SOW, except to the extent expressly provided herein.”
The trailing exception clause is why we re-checked it against the source: it means the exclusion is not absolute, and a buyer has to find what is expressly provided before assuming anything is covered.
City of Chandler, Arizona — Collaborative Solutions (Cognizant)
5 / 7 fired
Workday HCM, Payroll, Financials, Procurement|Integrator-led|Fixed fee, milestone invoicing
- C2
83 integrations listed — 58 integrator, 18 client, 3 placeholders — then: “integration estimates will be reviewed at completion of Architect & Configure stage. Adjustments may be required.”
- C1
“Client is responsible for extracting data from current systems”
, plus all cleanup, validation and mapping. “Client owns catch up transactions.”
City of Rapid City, South Dakota — Tyler Technologies
5 / 7 fired
Tyler Munis, five phases through CAFR|Publisher-led|Contracted days, no hours by phase
- C3
Seven test types are named. Zero hours are budgeted against them. Stress and parallel testing are city tasks.
- C2
Four interfaces are listed by name, alongside a clause stating there are “no customizations or interfaces in scope”
. The document contradicts itself.
Village of Downers Grove, Illinois — Tyler Technologies
4 / 7 fired
Tyler Munis SaaS|Publisher-led|1,768 implementation hours, $485,450 one-time professional services
- C5
Post-implementation support is 80 hours per functional area, “only billed if used”
— a rate card, not a commitment, with no defined duration and no tie to the first month-end close.
- C6
The quote states that the services actually needed “depend[] on such factors as your level of involvement in the project and the speed of knowledge transfer”
. The estimate can grow for reasons the agreement locates in the client’s own performance.
- C4
Hours are itemised by module — general ledger 152, payroll 208, utility billing 208 — but there is no change-management line item in the investment summary and no change-management deliverable in the sections of the agreement we could read.
Corrected 2026-10-02: our original entry counted testing (C3) as a fifth fired flag at HIGH severity, reading the client’s data-validation sentence as proof the client also owned test-script writing and execution outright. Re-examined under the ownership test, that sentence is the same boilerplate found in the San Rafael and Sutter Creek records elsewhere in this library, and it never reaches a dedicated testing-responsibility clause. C3 now reads MEDIUM and is not counted; the score reduces from 5 to 4. We state that here rather than quietly changing the number.
Still the cleanest protective example in the library on price: Tyler commits that “in the event that the services are not reasonably sufficient to deliver the work agreed to, through no fault of yours, we agree to timely complete our obligations under the Agreement at no additional cost to you”
, backed by a 20% retention on each phase’s implementation and project-management invoices, released only at that phase’s go-live. Exhibit E, the statement of work itself, was not retrievable from the public packet, so the change-management finding rests on the investment summary and the agreement body.
City of Sutter Creek, California — Tyler Technologies
4 / 7 fired
Tyler ERP Pro SaaS|Publisher-led|$90,300 one-time services — 304 financials and 184 utility-billing hours at $145/hour
- C7
“the fees stated in the Investment Summary are good-faith estimates of the amount of time and materials required for your implementation. We will bill you the actual fees incurred”
— no not-to-exceed cap and no completion-at-no-additional-cost clause anywhere in the agreement, and renewal SaaS fees are billed “at our then-current rates.”
- C6
“We will not be liable for failure to meet any deadlines and milestones when such failure is due to Force Majeure or to the failure by your personnel to provide such cooperation and assistance (either through action or omission).”
Cancelling with less than four weeks’ notice makes the city liable for “daily fees associated with cancelled professional services”
and non-refundable travel.
- C5
No defined post-go-live period. The stage list shows a “Transition to Client Services”
entry with no readable duration; after that, support is the standard SaaS help desk rather than hypercare.
Corrected 2026-10-02, on two counts. Our original entry counted testing (C3) as a fifth fired flag at HIGH severity, and separately listed a sixth item labelled C10 using the sentence that is in fact this document’s fired C7 above — C10 is an informational check and has never counted in the standing score. C3’s only candidate sentence is the same data-conversion-verification boilerplate found in the San Rafael and Downers Grove records, and this document’s own statement-of-work exhibit never reaches a testing-responsibility clause at all, so C3 now reads not assessable rather than HIGH. The score reduces from 5 to 4, and the fired checks are now C4, C5, C6 and C7. A low score on that check means unread, not clean.
C4 fires as well: no change-management line item and no deliverable anywhere in the readable agreement or investment summary. Exhibit E was readable only to its table of contents. The reason to read a $90,300 contract for a city of roughly 2,500 people is that its terms are not small-city terms — they are close to word-for-word the language in the $3,506,945 Sunrise, Florida contract elsewhere in this library.
City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services — Infor (US), LLC
4 / 7 fired
Infor CloudSuite Public Sector, asset management|Publisher-led|Time and materials, 28 months
- C4
Change management is handed to a separate third-party vendor entirely; Infor’s own role is consulting hours “to support this process”
, with no OCM deliverable of its own.
- C7
“Deviations from the assumptions may result in the need for revisions to the timeline, fees and/or scope”
, and if the customer is not ready to go live, additional fees may be required.
Corrected 2026-09-30: testing (C3) reads MEDIUM, not the HIGH we originally counted — score down from 5/7. Infor writes the unit and system test scripts itself, but the customer writes the SIT and UAT scripts — a split rather than a clean assignment to either party.
Weber County, Utah — Graviton Consulting Services
4 / 7 fired
Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM and payroll|Integrator-led|$1,043,619 total
- C5
18 days of production support, 5 July to 29 July 2022, against a 1 July go-live. It ends before the first month-end close and before a full payroll month.
- C8
Final conversion, interface and report scope is set “at the conclusion of the Design stage”
— after the contract is signed and the leverage is gone.
Worth reading as a counter-example: its test design is genuinely good — a 69-day test phase, two parallel payroll cycles, a traceability report. The gap is that the effort behind it is never quantified.
P. H. Glatfelter Company — Accenture LLP
4 / 7 fired
ERP programme (“Project IMPACT”), platform not confirmed in the exhibit|Integrator-led|28,902 total person-days across both parties, priced by phase, not converted to hours
- C1
The responsibility table gives P. H. Glatfelter Primary responsibility for “Data cleansing and conversion”
, with Accenture only Secondary; no hours or fee are itemised to conversion inside Accenture’s 6,010-day ERP implementation total.
- C4
Change management appears only inside a general design objective — to “develop and implement the business processes, change management, and technology architecture designs”
— with no standalone deliverable, hours or fee.
- C5
“Following the go-live, Accenture will continue to provide support to the P. H. Glatfelter team with the aim of handing over support completely to P. H. Glatfelter within a period of 3 months.”
An aim, not a committed period, and not tied to a month-end close.
- C6
Glatfelter must select a third-party data-conversion provider by January 1, 2001 and have the on-site technical environment ready by June 1, 2001 — fixed dates that do not move with Accenture’s own performance.
Our first private-sector document, and the first where the integrator rather than the buyer owns real risk on two fronts: Accenture holds Primary responsibility for designing 66 named legacy interfaces, so C2 does not fire, and scope changes require “a writing executed by authorized representatives of both parties”
before Accenture owes any work on them, so C7 does not fire either. Testing (C3) reads MEDIUM and is not counted: the parties agree only to “develop mutually agreeable test procedures”
, with no Accenture hours stated. Worth noting separately — if Accenture receives no written notice of material nonconformance within 30 days of delivery, “all deliverables will be deemed accepted in full.”
NuVasive, Inc. — IBM Global Business Services
4 / 7 fired
SAP R/3, ECC 6.0 (IBM Express Solution for SAP Medical Devices)|Integrator-led|Fees, total hours and every per-role rate redacted under an SEC confidential-treatment request
- C1
“NuVasive will be responsible for extracting data from existing systems to support conversion to the new system”
, and “IBM will not be responsible for harmonizing actual data or maintaining data standards.”
- C2
Two interfaces are named in the whole document, both folded into the same combined estimate of “up to 3,330 hours of effort”
that also covers forms, reports and conversions, with no per-interface design or hours.
- C4
“Organizational Change Management is not included in the scope of IBM responsibilities. As SAP R/3 is implemented, NuVasive should anticipate and plan for organizational adjustments.”
- C6
NuVasive “will make business decisions within 48 hours”
, “will not have any co-existing corporate initiatives that will impact this project”
, and must itself procure, install and test all required hardware.
Four of the six checks we could assess fire here. The library’s first SAP document, and the first where a gap means genuinely redacted rather than clean: hypercare (C5) is not assessable because the SOW’s own “Go Live and Support” section is blacked out under the same confidential-treatment request that hides the fee table. Re-pricing (C7) does not fire — additional work above the estimated budget “must be mutually agreed”
through a change request signed by both parties. Testing (C3) reads MEDIUM for a reason that appears nowhere else in this library: IBM’s own fee table names “Test script — Write/Execute”
, “PQ”
and “Testing Lead”
as resourced roles, but every hour figure against them is redacted. Effort budgeted, not disclosed, which is not the same finding as effort never stated.
City of Sunrise, Florida — Tyler Technologies
3 / 7 fired
Tyler Munis and EnerGov, five phases|Publisher-led|$3,506,945 contract plus estimated travel
- C3
The statement of work names eight test types. The investment summary carries no testing hours and no testing fee.
- C2
Interfaces are priced as named line items, but “interface estimates… based on our understanding of the specifications you supplied”
, with additional work by change order.
Exhibit G was truncated by the source at section D.4.3, so conversion roles, testing roles, assumptions and post-live sections were not readable. The score is partial and we say so.
Wright County, Minnesota — Ciber Global, LLC (HTC Global Services)
3 / 7 fired
Oracle Fusion Cloud — Financials, HCM, Payroll, Procurement|Integrator-led|$1,819,880 fixed price
- C2
Eight interfaces are named, but “The County has decided not to procure Integration cloud service…It will be the County’s responsibility to coordinate the extract/upload data from/to legacy systems.”
- C5
“Ciber will provide 30 Days Post Go-Live for HCM and ERP (remote).”
ERP and HCM activate in different months, and 30 days reaches neither a month-end close for one nor two payroll cycles for the other.
- C6
A single-site assumption pushes any rollout to other offices onto the County, end users are assumed to have basic PC skills already, and Ciber disclaims responsibility for “the software or the software environment provided by Oracle”
entirely.
Our best counter-example on three checks at once. Ciber states its own conversion hours — “Ciber has allocated up to 480 hours for this effort”
— the first document in this library where an integrator quantifies its own conversion effort, so C1 does not fire. A named Change Management Plan, Communication Plan and Change Readiness Assessment Document are priced SOW deliverables, so C4 does not fire. And the change-order process defaults to deferring an unactioned County request rather than deeming it accepted, so C7 does not fire. Testing (C3) reads MEDIUM and is not counted: Ciber leads the test plan and initial scripts, but execution is joint with the County, with no Ciber-specific hours broken out of the fixed price.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Florida — AST
2 / 7 fired
Oracle Cloud ERP|Integrator-led|$8,283,150 not-to-exceed services
The strongest commercial terms in the set — payment per accepted deliverable, 90% on acceptance with 10% retainage. Exhibits A, B and C were not published, so scope, hours, conversion, integration and testing are unassessed. A low score here means unread, not clean.
Warnaco Inc. — SAP America, Inc.
2 / 7 fired
mySAP Business Suite (SAP NetWeaver)|Publisher-led|$1,555,400 net licence fee plus $264,418 annual maintenance; the services-fee exhibit could not be retrieved
- C4
“Warnaco shall retain ownership and responsibility for the timely delivery of the organizational change management function.”
No SAP-owned change-management deliverable appears anywhere in the readable text.
- C6
“the fees and timeline set forth herein shall be subject to change if the Licensee Responsibilities are not performed in a timely and appropriate manner”
, and scope is “frozen during the Business Blueprint phase.”
Two of the four checks we could assess fire. This is the library’s first contract where SAP itself delivers rather than an integrator, and a full signature block is present, dated December 1, 2004 — but four exhibits that would carry the numbers (Scope, Timeline, Fees, Change Order form) could not be retrieved after six separate targeted fetch attempts on this 550KB-plus filing. C1, C2, C5 and C7 are recorded as not assessable, not as clean. Testing (C3) reads MEDIUM: business users run acceptance testing “supported by SAP Consultants”
, a guidance role rather than outright silence, but SAP states no hours either way.
University of Arkansas System — buyer’s model statement of work
2 / 7 fired
Workday Financial Management|Buyer-drafted template|No hours
Not a vendor contract, and excluded from our vendor comparisons. It is here because it shows what a buyer asks for before a vendor answers.
Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. — PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1 / 7 fired
J.D. Edwards Financial, Distribution, Demand Planning|Integrator-led|$1,768,358 fee estimate, 9,878 hours, time and materials
- C6
“In calculating and approving the fee estimate in this Agreement, the parties have assumed that the Prior Work meets appropriate standards for the efficient performance of the PwC Services.”
The Prior Work is a preceding phase run by another firm; if that assumption is wrong, the client absorbs the rework.
The most protective document in this library, and the one to hold up against the rest: PwC owns data conversion, owns Integrated Test Cycles 1 and 2 and the stress test itself, and sells change management as a named deliverable set — training courses and schedule, a “Go-Live Promotion and Communications Plan”
and an “Ownership Transition Plan”
— rather than as a role. Six of seven checks do not fire. We could not locate a second independent source to cross-check this document the way we did for others here; completeness rests on internal consistency rather than a second fetch, and we say so rather than presenting it as equally verified.
This section now shows all seventeen public ERP contracts in our library as of 2 October 2026 — sixteen written by the supplier, nine of those by the software publisher implementing its own product and seven by a third-party integrator, plus one buyer-drafted model contract kept as a named comparator and excluded from every supplier split — and, below, the three questions we have answered from them so far. The aggregate analysis is on the benchmark page and every scored row is in the open dataset. All of it lives at the same standard: verbatim quotes, linked sources, what could not be read named as what it is, and corrections stated plainly when we get something wrong — two of the entries above carry one made today.