|
Booklet:
Outsourcing
Technology Services
Section: Risk
Management
Subsection:
Contract
Issues
|
| |
|
|
Action
Summary 
After
selecting a service provider, management should negotiate a contract that
meets their requirements. The RFP and the service provider’s response
can be used as inputs to this process. The contract is the legally binding
document that defines all aspects of the servicing relationship. A written
contract should be present in all servicing relationships. This includes
instances where the service provider is affiliated with the institution.
When contracting with an affiliate, the institution should ensure the
costs and quality of services provided are commensurate with those of
a nonaffiliated provider. The contract is the single most important control
in the outsourcing process. Because of the importance of the contract,
management should:
| |
Verify
the accuracy of the description of the outsourcing relationship in
the contract; |
| |
Ensure
the contract is clearly written and contains sufficient detail to
define the rights and responsibilities of each party comprehensively;
and |
| |
Engage
legal counsel early in the process to help prepare and review the
proposed contract. |
Examples
of contract elements that should be considered include:
Scope
of Service. The contract should clearly describe the
rights and responsibilities of the parties to the contract. Considerations
should include:
|
| |
Descriptions
of required activities, timeframes for their implementation, and assignment
of responsibilities. Implementation provisions should take into consideration
other existing systems or interrelated systems to be developed by
different service providers (e.g., an Internet banking system being
integrated with existing core applications or systems customization); |
| |
Obligations
of, and services to be performed by, the service provider including
software support and maintenance, training of employees, or customer
service; |
| |
Obligations
of the financial institution; |
| |
The
contracting parties’ rights in modifying existing services performed
under the contract;
and |
| |
Guidelines
for adding new or different services and for contract re-negotiation. |
Performance Standards. Institutions should include performance
standards that define minimum service level requirements and remedies
for failure to meet standards in the contract. For example, common
service level metrics include percent system uptime, deadlines for
completing batch processing, or number of processing errors. Industry
standards for service levels may provide a reference point. The
institution should periodically review overall performance standards
to ensure consistency with its goals and objectives. Also see the
Service Level Agreements section in this booklet.
|
Security and Confidentiality. The contract should address
the service provider’s responsibility for security and confidentiality
of the institution’s resources (e.g., information, hardware).
The agreement should prohibit the service provider and its agents
from using or disclosing the institution’s information, except
as necessary to or consistent with providing the contracted services,
and to protect against unauthorized use (e.g., disclosure of information
to institution competitors). If the service provider receives nonpublic
personal information regarding the institution’s customers,
the institution should verify that the service provider complies
with all applicable requirements of the privacy regulations. Institutions
should require the service provider to fully disclose breaches in
security resulting in unauthorized intrusions into the service provider
that may materially affect the institution or its customers. The
service provider should report to the institution when intrusions
occur, the effect on the institution, and corrective action to respond
to the intrusion, based on agreements between both parties. |
|
Controls. Management should consider implementing contract
provisions that address the following controls:
|
| |
Service
provider internal controls; |
| |
Compliance
with applicable regulatory requirements; |
| |
Record
maintenance requirements for the service provider; |
| |
Access
to the records by the institution; |
| |
Notification
requirements and approval rights for any material changes to services,
systems, controls, key project personnel, and service locations; |
| |
Setting
and monitoring parameters for financial functions including payments
processing or extensions of credit on behalf of the institution; and |
| |
Insurance
coverage maintained by the service provider. |
Audit. The institution should include in the contract the
types of audit reports it is entitled to receive (e.g., financial,
internal control, and security reviews). The contract should specify
the audit frequency, any charges for obtaining the audits, as well
as the rights of the institution and its regulatory agencies to
obtain the results of the audits in a timely manner. The contract
may also specify rights to obtain documentation of the resolution
of any deficiencies and to inspect the processing facilities and
operating practices of the service provider. Management should consider,
based upon the risk assessment phase, if it can rely on internal
audits or if there is a need for external audits and reviews.
For services involving access to open networks, such as Internet-related
services, management should pay special attention to security. The
institution should consider including contract terms requiring periodic
control reviews performed by an independent party with sufficient
expertise. These reviews may include penetration testing, intrusion
detection, reviews of firewall configuration, and other independent
control reviews. The institution should receive sufficiently detailed
reports on the findings of these ongoing audits to assess security
adequately without compromising the service provider’s security.
|
Reports. Contractual terms should include the frequency
and type of reports the institution will receive (e.g., performance
reports, control audits, financial statements, security, and business
resumption testing reports). The contracts should also outline the
guidelines and fees for obtaining custom reports.
|
Business Resumption and Contingency Plans. The contract
should address the service provider’s responsibility for backup
and record protection, including equipment, program and data files,
and maintenance of disaster recovery and contingency plans. The
contracts should outline the service provider’s responsibility
to test the plans regularly and provide the results to the institution.
The institution should consider interdependencies among service
providers when determining business resumption testing requirements.
The service provider should provide the institution a copy of the
contingency plan that outlines the required operating procedures
in the event of business disruption. Contracts should include specific
provisions for business recovery timeframes that meet the institution’s
business requirements. The institution should ensure that the contract
does not contain any provisions that would excuse the service provider
from implementing its contingency plans.
|
Sub-contracting and Multiple Service Provider Relationships.
Some service providers may contract with third parties in providing
services to the financial institution. Institutions should be aware
of and approve all subcontractors. To provide accountability, the
financial institution should designate the primary contracting service
provider in the contract. The contract should also specify that
the primary contracting service provider is responsible for the
services outlined in the contract regardless of which entity actually
conducts the operations. The institution should also consider including
notification and approval requirements regarding changes to the
service provider’s significant subcontractors.
|
Cost. The contract should fully describe the calculation
of fees for base services, including any development, conversion,
and recurring services, as well as any charges based upon volume
of activity or for special requests. Contracts should also address
the responsibility and additional cost for purchasing and maintaining
hardware and software. Any conditions under which the cost structure
may be changed should be addressed in detail including limits on
any cost increases. Also see the Pricing Methods and Bundling sections
in this booklet.
|
Ownership
and License. The contract should address the ownership,
rights to, and allowable use of the institution’s data,
equipment/hardware, system documentation, system and application
software, and other intellectual property rights. Ownership of
the institution’s data must rest clearly with the institution.
Other intellectual property rights may include the institution’s
name and logo, its trademark or copyrighted material, domain names,
web sites designs, and other work products developed by the service
provider for the institution. Additional information regarding
the development of customized software to support outsourced services
can be found in the IT Handbook’s “Development and
Acquisition Booklet.”
|
Duration. Institutions should consider the type of technology
and current state of the industry when negotiating the appropriate
length of the contract and its renewal periods. While there can
be benefits to long-term technology contracts, certain technologies
may be subject to rapid change and a shorter-term contract may prove
beneficial. Similarly, institutions should consider the appropriate
length of time required to notify the service provider of the institutions’
intent not to renew the contract prior to expiration. Institutions
should consider coordinating the expiration dates of contracts for
inter-related services (e.g., web site, telecommunications, programming,
network support) so that they coincide, where practical. Such coordination
can minimize the risk of terminating a contract early and incurring
penalties as a result of necessary termination of another related
service contract.
|
Dispute Resolution. The institution should consider including
a provision for a dispute resolution process that attempts to resolve
problems in an expeditious manner as well as a provision for continuation
of services during the dispute resolution period.
|
|
Indemnification. Indemnification provisions should require
the service provider to hold the financial institution harmless
from liability for the negligence of the service provider. Legal
counsel should review these provisions to ensure the institution
will not be held liable for claims arising as a result of the negligence
of the service provider.
|
Limitation of Liability. Some service provider standard
contracts may contain clauses limiting the amount of liability that
can be incurred by the service provider. If the institution is considering
such a contract, management should assess whether the damage limitation
bears an adequate relationship to the amount of loss the financial
institution might reasonably experience as a result of the service
provider’s failure to perform its obligations.
|
Termination. Management should assess the timeliness and
expense of contract termination provisions. The extent and flexibility
of termination rights can vary depending upon the service. Institutions
should consider including termination rights for a variety of conditions
including change in control (e.g., acquisitions and mergers), convenience,
substantial increase in cost, repeated failure to meet service levels,
failure to provide critical services, bankruptcy, company closure,
and insolvency. The contract should establish notification and timeframe
requirements and provide for the timely return of the institution’s
data and resources in a machine readable format upon termination.
Any costs associated with conversion assistance should also be clearly
stated.
|
Assignment. The institution should consider contract provisions
that prohibit assignment of the contract to a third party without
the institution’s consent. Assignment provisions should also
reflect notification requirements for any changes to material subcontractors.
|
Foreign-based service providers. Institutions entering
into contracts with foreign-based service providers should consider
a number of additional contract issues and provisions. See Appendix
C included in this booklet.
|
|
Regulatory Compliance. Financial institutions should ensure
that contracts with service providers include an agreement that
the service provider and its services will comply with applicable
regulatory guidance and requirements. The provision should also
indicate that the service provider agrees to provide accurate information
and timely access to the appropriate regulatory agencies based on
the type and level of service it provides to the financial institution.
|
SERVICE
LEVEL AGREEMENTS (SLAS)
Service level agreements are formal documents that outline the institution’s
pre-determined requirements for the service and establish incentives to
meet, or penalties for failure to meet, the requirements. Financial institutions
should link SLAs to provisions in the contract regarding incentives, penalties,
and contract cancellation in order to protect themselves against service
provider performance failures.
Management should develop SLAs by first identifying the significant elements
of the service. The elements can be related to tasks (i.e., processing
error rates, system up-time, etc.) or they can be organizational (i.e.,
employee turnover). Once it has identified the elements, management should
devise ways to measure the performance of those elements objectively.
Finally, institutions should determine the frequency of the measurements
and an acceptable range of results to determine when a service provider
violates the SLA benchmarks.
Although the specific performance standards may vary with the nature of
the service delivered, management should consider SLAs to address the
following issues:
| |
Availability
and timeliness of services; |
| |
Confidentiality
and integrity of data; |
| |
Change
control; |
| |
Security
standards compliance, including vulnerability and penetration management; |
| |
Business
continuity compliance; and |
| |
Help
desk support. |
SLAs
addressing business continuity should measure the service provider’s
or vendor’s contractual responsibility for backup, record retention,
data protection, and the maintenance of disaster recovery and contingency
plans. The SLAs can also test the contingency plan’s provisions
for business recovery timeframes or conducting periodic tests of the plan.
Neither contracts nor SLAs should contain any extraordinary provisions
that would excuse the vendor or service provider from implementing its
contingency plans (outsourcing contracts should include clauses that discuss
unforeseen events for which the institution would not be able to adequately
prepare).
PRICING METHODS
Financial institutions should have several choices when it comes to pricing
an outsourcing venture. Management should consider all available pricing
options and choose the most appropriate for the specific contract. Examples
of different pricing methods include:
| |
Cost
plus—The service provider receives payment for its actual costs,
plus a predetermined profit margin or markup (usually percentage of
actual costs). For example, the service provider builds a website
at a cost of $5,000 plus a 10% markup; the institution pays $5,500. |
| |
Fixed
price—The service provider price is the same for each billing
cycle for the entire contract period. The advantage of this approach
is that institutions know exactly what the provider will bill each
month. Problems may arise if the institution does not adequately define
the scope or the process. Often, with the fixed price method, the
service provider labels services beyond the defined scope as additional
or premium services. For example, if a service provider bills an institution
$500 per month for maintaining a website, and the institution decides
it wants to add another link, the service provider may charge more
for that service if it is not clearly defined in the original contract. |
| |
Unit
pricing—The service provider sets a rate for a particular level
of service, and the institution pays based on usage. For example,
if an institution pays $.10 per hit on a website, and the site has
5,000 hits for the month, the institution pays $500 for the month. |
| |
Variable
pricing—The service provider establishes the price of the service
based on a variable such as system availability. For example, the
provider bills the institution $500, $600, or $800 per month for service
levels of 99.00, 99.50, or 99.75 percent system availability, respectively.
If a website was available 99.80 percent of the time in a billing
period, the institution would pay $800. |
| |
Incentive-based
pricing—Incentives encourage the service provider to perform
at peak level by offering a bonus if the provider performs well. This
plan can also require the provider to pay a penalty for not performing
at an acceptable level. For example, the institution wants a service
provider to build a website. The service provider agrees to do so
within 90 days for $5,000. The institution offers the provider $6,500
if the website is ready within 45 days, but states that it will only
pay $3,500 if the provider fails to meet its 90 day deadline. |
| |
Future
price changes—Service providers typically include a provision
that will increase costs in the future either by a specified percentage
or per unit. Some institutions may also identify circumstances under
which price reductions might be warranted (i.e., reduction in equipment
costs). |
BUNDLING
The provider may entice the institution to purchase more than one system,
process, or service for a single price – referred to as “bundling.”
This practice may result in the institution getting a single consolidated
bill that may not provide information relating to pricing for each specific
system, process, or service. Although the bundled services may appear
to be cheaper, the institution cannot analyze the costs of the individual
services. Bundles may include processes and services that the institution
does not want or need. It also may not allow the institution to discontinue
a specific system, process, or service without having to renegotiate the
contract for all remaining services.
CONTRACT INDUCEMENT CONCERNS
Financial institutions should not sign servicing contracts that contain
provisions or inducements that may adversely affect the institution. Such
contract provisions may include extended terms (up to 10 years), significant
increases in costs after the first few years, and/or substantial cancellation
penalties. In addition, some service contracts improperly offer inducements
that allow an institution to retain or increase capital by deferring losses
on the disposition of assets or avoiding expense recognition. These inducements
may attract institutions wanting to mask capital problems.
Inducements can take several forms including the following examples:
| |
The
service provider purchases certain assets (e.g., computer equipment
or foreclosed real estate) at book value (which exceeds market value)
or purchases capital stock from the institution. |
| |
The
service provider offers cash bonuses to the institution upon completion
of the conversion. |
| |
The
service provider offers up-front cash to the institution. The provider
states that the institution acquires the right to future cost savings
or profit enhancements that will accrue to the institution because
of greater operational efficiencies. These improvements are usually
without measurable benchmarks. |
| |
The
institution defers expenses for conversion costs or processing fees
under the terms of the contract. |
| |
Low
installation and conversion costs in exchange for higher future systems
support and maintenance costs. |
These
inducements may offer a short-term benefit to the institution. However,
the provider usually recoups the costs by charging a premium for the processing
services. These excessive fees may adversely affect an institution's financial
condition over the long-term. Furthermore, institutions should account
for such inducements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP) and regulatory reporting requirements.
Accordingly, when negotiating contracts, an institution should ensure
the provider furnishes a level of service that meets the needs of the
institution over the life of the contract. The institution must ensure
it accounts for contracts in accordance with GAAP. Contracting for excessive
servicing fees and/or failing to account properly for such transactions
is an unsafe and unsound practice. In entering into service agreements,
institutions must ensure accounting under such agreements reflects the
substance of the transaction and not merely the form.
|