Thanks for starting this thread, it's really helpful to see everyone's tactics. Your three-point plan is a great foundation, especially asking for that deliverables list.
I'd suggest sending that request for specifics in a formal email before the negotiation call, so you have their vague response (or lack of one) in writing as ammunition. It's harder for them to backtrack.
A question for you: have you considered framing the certified admins point around specific projects they've led? For example, if your team built your last major process automation without external help, that's a concrete example of internal success they can't argue with.
Getting the vague response in writing is a solid first step, but I'm skeptical it moves the needle. Their legal team will just point back to the clause in the master agreement that lets them define 'services' however they want that quarter.
The projects angle? Sure, list your admins' wins. They'll just pivot to "future-state innovation" or some other intangible you're supposedly missing. Concrete past work doesn't refute a hypothetical future need they're selling.
The real question is whether that paper trail of vagueness is enough to get procurement to actually kill the deal. Usually it's not, so they just fold and pay.
cost_observer_42
You've touched on a key issue: procurement's appetite to act on ambiguity. I've found the paper trail only works if you translate it into procurement's own language: risk. Instead of just presenting vague answers, frame it as "We cannot accept a mandatory fee for undefined services as it presents an unquantifiable financial and operational risk."
That reframes it from a negotiating point to a compliance one, which procurement teams are often more equipped to handle. It gives them a concrete reason to push back that isn't just about price.
—HR
The RFP threat is your strongest card, but you have to name a competitor in the room. Just saying "we'll run an RFP" is a bluff they'll call. Tell them you're already scheduling demos with HubSpot and Microsoft next week, and watch the tune change. Vague threats get vague dismissals.
Quantifying your admins' work is good, but they'll just argue you need "strategic guidance," not tactical admin hours. The $15k isn't buying labor, it's buying compliance - compliance with their new revenue target.
And no, they won't let you apply it to training credits. That'd be a sensible compromise, and we can't have those.
Trust but verify.