A benchmarking clause is an option the buyer holds, and it can be priced before anyone knows whether it will trigger.
A price benchmarking clause is worth the expected saving across market scenarios: in each one, the contract price is reset where it exceeds the benchmark plus the tolerance band, and the savings are weighted by probability. On an illustrative 19.1 million, three-year agreement with a 3 per cent band, a single benchmark at month 13 is worth 278,100 and an annual one 494,400, 2.59 per cent of spend. Valued at the expected market alone, the single benchmark looks worth 116,184.
Worked in full in Contract Management by Julian R. Sterling, with every figure reproduced in a free workbook.See the book on Amazon →
A benchmarking clause lets the buyer compare the contract price with the market at set dates and, if the contract is out of line by more than an agreed band, reset it. It is the protection most often conceded in negotiation because it looks like a formality: nobody can say today whether it will ever trigger. That uncertainty is precisely what can be priced. The clause is an option held by the buyer, and an option has a value long before it is exercised.
| Input | Value |
|---|---|
| Contract price, year 1 | 100.00 |
| Contractual escalation each anniversary | 6% |
| Contract price, years 2 and 3 | 106.00 / 112.36 |
| Annual volume, units | 60,000 |
| Spend over the term | 19,101,600 |
| Tolerance band above the benchmark | 3% |
| Cost of each benchmarking exercise | 25,000 |
| Scenario | Probability | Market, year 2 | Market, year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soft | 0.25 | 96.0 | 94.0 |
| Base | 0.50 | 102.0 | 105.0 |
| Firm | 0.25 | 108.0 | 115.0 |
The clause as drafted: if the contract price exceeds the benchmark by more than 3 per cent, it is reset to the benchmark plus 3 per cent, and the 6 per cent escalation then continues from the reset price. The probabilities are the buyer's own judgment, and they are the input to argue about, which is better than arguing about nothing.
Trigger: contract price > benchmark × (1 + band)
Saving in a scenario = Σ (contract price − reset price) × volume, over the years after the benchmark
Clause value = Σ probability × saving, less the cost of running it
In Excel, per scenario and year: =IF(C2>M2*(1+Band),M2*(1+Band),C2) for the reset price, then =SUMPRODUCT(Prob,Saving) across scenarios.
Soft market. At month 13 the trigger is 96.0 × 1.03 = 98.88; the contract price of 106.00 is above it, so year 2 resets to 98.88 and year 3 escalates to 104.81. The saving is 7.12 a unit in year 2 and 7.55 in year 3: 880,032. With a second benchmark at month 25, year 3 is tested again against 94.0 × 1.03 = 96.82 and resets further, taking the saving to 1,359,600.
Base market. The trigger is 105.06, just below 106.00: year 2 resets to 105.06, year 3 to 111.36, a saving of 116,184. A second benchmark resets year 3 to 108.15, total 309,000.
Firm market. The trigger is 111.24, above the contract price. Nothing happens. The clause is one-sided: it never raises the price.
| Scenario | Probability | Single, month 13 | Annual, months 13 and 25 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soft | 0.25 | 880,032 | 1,359,600 |
| Base | 0.50 | 116,184 | 309,000 |
| Firm | 0.25 | 0 | 0 |
| Expected value | 278,100 | 494,400 | |
| Net of benchmarking cost | 253,100 | 444,400 |
The annual benchmark is worth 494,400 before costs, 4.12 a unit over the two years it can act on, and the second test adds 216,300 for another 25,000 of fees. Most of the value sits in the soft scenario, which is the scenario in which the buyer most needs it: a falling market is exactly when a contract escalating at 6 per cent a year becomes uncompetitive.
These figures are undiscounted and ignore the supplier's reaction. A supplier that expects to be benchmarked may price year 1 higher, so the clause should be valued in the bid comparison, against the price it comes with, rather than added afterwards as a free concession.
| Band | Single, reset to band | Annual, reset to band | Annual, reset to market |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0% | 556,200 | 766,200 | 766,200 |
| 3% | 278,100 | 494,400 | 672,600 |
| 5% | 160,680 | 346,200 | 646,200 |
| 10% | 12,360 | 140,400 | 309,000 |
The band does two jobs, and they are worth separating in negotiation. As a trigger it decides whether a reset happens; as a reset level it decides how far the price comes down. A supplier asking for a 5 per cent band to avoid nuisance triggers can be given it as a trigger while the reset goes to market: that version is worth 646,200, against 346,200 if the band is also the reset level. At 10 per cent with a single benchmark the clause is worth 12,360, less than the cost of running it.
The common mistake is to value the clause at the expected market. The probability-weighted market is 102.00 in year 2 and 104.75 in year 3. Run once at those prices, the single benchmark triggers just barely and is worth 116,184, which understates its real value by 58.2 per cent; the annual one shows 324,450, short by 34.4 per cent. A one-sided clause gains in the bad scenarios and loses nothing in the good ones, so its value at the average market can never be higher than its average value, and here is well below it. Pricing it on a single forecast is how it ends up traded away for less than it is worth.
The book prices every clause in two real bids as money, and the free workbook for this case on the Contract Management companion page runs a benchmark at month 13 on the book's own price path. The clause the benchmark most often sits beside is worked in how a price adjustment formula works, and the cost of leaving instead of benchmarking in how much it costs to terminate a supplier contract early.
At set dates the contract price is compared with a market benchmark for an equivalent product; if it is above the benchmark by more than an agreed band, it is reset. In the worked case a soft market at 96.0 gives a trigger of 98.88 against a contract price of 106.00, and the reset saves 880,032 over the last two years.
As narrow as can be negotiated, and the reset should go to the benchmark, not to the band. With annual benchmarks a 3 per cent band resetting to the band is worth 494,400; the same band resetting to market is worth 672,600; a 10 per cent band resetting to the band falls to 140,400.
Usually, because each test is another chance to reset in a falling market. Here the annual benchmark, at months 13 and 25, is worth 494,400 against 278,100 for one at month 13: the second test adds 216,300 for another 25,000 of benchmarking cost.
This article is one calculation from Contract Management. The book takes the same case from first principles to the decision, chapter by chapter, and every figure it prints is a live formula in the free companion workbooks.
Get the book on Amazon →Free companion files
Also on Amazon UK · Amazon Germany · Amazon France · Amazon Canada
Reading guide: business operations: cost, contracts, pricing and supply chain → · All 1340 articles →
If this book helped, or didn’t, a few lines on Amazon are worth more than they look: they are what the next reader goes on. Write a review. The workbook stays free either way.