A top-25 European bank used the audit cycle as the trigger to reopen its RISE with SAP contract mid-term, exit an unused premium tier, and secure measurement-cap protection.
Every result on this site is anonymised at the client's request. Specific figures are real and verifiable through a confidentiality-protected reference call arranged on request.
The bank had signed RISE with SAP at the Premium Plus tier two years prior. The contract was a five-year commitment with a Full Use Equivalent metric, premium support entitlements, and a bundle of SAP BTP services. The signing took place under time pressure during a previous CFO's tenure, on a deal architecture that was not fully modelled against actual usage.
Two years into the term, several things had become clear. The premium support tier was being used at a fraction of its entitled level. The BTP service bundle included three services the bank had never adopted and would not adopt within the contract horizon. And a recent USMM-equivalent measurement under RISE rules had produced a Full Use Equivalent figure approximately twenty per cent below the contracted floor — meaning the bank was paying for entitlement it could not consume.
Then the audit notification arrived. Under RISE, audit cycles still apply, and the notification identified a small additional Named User over-consumption alongside a question on indirect-use exposure through a customer self-service portal. The total opening claim was modest, but the audit created a contract reopener — an opportunity to address the much larger commercial misalignment in the original deal.
The bank's procurement leadership engaged us to defend the audit and, simultaneously, to negotiate a structural reset of the RISE commitment.
We separated the two workstreams in our engagement letter: an audit-defence track on the Named User and indirect-use questions, and a commercial-reset track on the RISE structure. SAP was informed in writing that both tracks would close together, as a single settlement package.
On the audit-defence track, we requalified the indirect-use exposure on the customer self-service portal. The contract definitions for RISE indirect use are different from classic ECC indirect use, and the SAP audit team had applied the classic definitions. We documented the correct DAE-equivalent treatment under the RISE Master Subscription Agreement, and reduced the claim by approximately seventy per cent. The Named User over-consumption was real but small and was addressed through reclassification rather than purchase.
On the commercial-reset track, we built a usage-vs-entitlement model across the full RISE bundle. We demonstrated, with twenty-four months of consumption data, that the Premium Plus tier was not consumed at Premium Plus levels, that the BTP service inclusions had no adoption pathway in the remaining term, and that the Full Use Equivalent floor was twenty per cent above realised consumption. We proposed a contract amendment that exchanged the Premium Plus tier for Premium standard, removed three BTP services, reset the FUE floor to the realised consumption baseline, and added a measurement-cap clause for the remaining three years.
SAP's account team resisted the structural reset for several rounds. We held the position and used the audit-settlement timing as the lever for both tracks closing together. The eventual amendment was approved through SAP's internal commercial review and signed alongside the audit settlement.
Total commercial recovery was seven million three hundred thousand dollars over the remaining three years of the RISE term, comprising the tier downgrade, the removal of three BTP services, the reset FUE floor, and the avoided over-consumption charges. The audit settlement itself was modest in cash terms but unlocked the much larger structural recovery.
Contract changes included a Premium-tier downgrade with documented exit conditions, a reset Full Use Equivalent baseline tied to the realised consumption methodology, a measurement-cap clause for indirect use, and an audit-rights clause aligned with the RISE Master Subscription Agreement rather than the legacy ECC audit framework.
Total elapsed time from the audit notification to signed contract amendment was twenty-two weeks. The bank's audit committee was able to record the recovery in the year-end disclosures.
The audit was the lever. The real win was the contract amendment that followed it — that is the part nobody else would have known to ask for.
Post-audit settlement and renewal restructure. We rewrite the order form, the schedules, and the audit-rights clause. Price is one of seventeen levers we negotiate.
Read the brief →Reclassify users. Retire shelfware. Right-size engine metrics. The continuous reduction programme that runs between the audit cycles, year after year.
Read the brief →FUE methodology, audit clauses under the MSA, and the seven levers most clients miss at renewal.
Beyond discount. The schedule clauses, definitions, and measurement protections that decide the next three years.
How a Tier-1 insurer reset its Named User band assignments and saved $5.6M on the next renewal.
It is the opening position of a negotiation. Speak with a specialist before responding. The first conversation is at no cost and under privilege.
Contact Us →Every Wednesday. Field reports from active matters, decoded SAP communications, and what to look for in the next audit cycle. Work email only.