Tony: Hello, I’m Tony Mangino from TC2, and this is Staying Connected—the podcast where we talk about what really matters to enterprise buyers navigating today’s technology and sourcing decisions.

Today we’re talking about a problem that can create a lot of frustration inside large IT organizations: invoices that don’t seem to match the contract.

It sounds simple. The customer negotiated a deal, the supplier sends an invoice, and the invoice should reflect the agreement. But in enterprise technology environments, that connection can break down quickly. Contracts are complex. Inventories change. Services are added, disconnected, moved, or upgraded. Pricing schedules get amended. Supplier billing systems use codes and structures that do not always map cleanly to the deal the customer negotiated.

The result is familiar: recurring disputes, unresolved credits, internal spreadsheets, long email chains, and a growing lack of confidence in the baseline.

Today I’m joined by my colleagues Theresa Knutson and Jaime Hansen.  Theresa heads up our IT Cost management practice and Jaime recently joined TC2 after 25 years of pricing and compliance experience at Verizon.

Jaime, lets start with you…when an enterprise customer says, “This invoice does not match our contract,” where should they start?

Jaime: They should start by slowing the problem down and turning it into a fact-based review.

A lot of organizations jump straight into disputing individual charges. That may be necessary, but it can also create a perpetual fire drill. The better first step is to establish the facts: what services are actually being used and where, what the customer is entitled to under the contract, and what the supplier is billing.  When do you your fact-based review, keep in mind to gather complete details such as account number, circuit #, service address, billed rates, contractual rates with contract reference documents and details of when errors began.

If those things do not line up, you need to find out why before you can fix the problem.

Why It Matters for Enterprise Customers

Tony: That is important because invoice problems are rarely just accounting issues.

TK: Exactly. They are commercial, operational, and contractual issues.

For sourcing teams, invoice errors can mean the negotiated value is not being realized. For IT teams, they may indicate that inventory and service records are not accurate. For finance, they undermine confidence in the numbers. For legal and vendor management, they may raise questions about rights, remedies, and supplier accountability.

And for the broader enterprise, the impact can be material. If recurring billing issues are not resolved on a timely basis, the company may overpay for months or years. Companies typically have a set timeframe for which they can dispute charges—some as short as 3 months, and some at 24 months but most are limited to 6-12 months.   If you fail to dispute a charge on a timely basis, your recovery period is limited by the contractual language.  Which can also impact the financial ramifications.  For example—if you find a billing error that goes back 15 months and you have a 6 month audit dispute period limit, you will only get credit for 6 of those 15 months!

Tony: So the invoice becomes more than an invoice. It becomes the record the business is using to budget, plan, negotiate, and make decisions.

TK: That’s right. If the baseline is wrong, the decisions built on that baseline are at risk.

Main Discussion

Tony: Let’s talk about the first step and what it takes to do the “fact-based review”.

Jaime: It means understanding the full contract, including the master agreement, amendments, pricing schedules, service orders, product attachments, credits, discounts, waived charges, minimum commitments, recovery periods and service-specific terms.

Many enterprises have years of amendments and ordering activity. The correct answer may not be in one document. It may be spread across multiple exhibits, schedules, and change records.

Before challenging the invoice, the customer needs to know what the supplier was supposed to bill.

Tony: And then you need to compare that to what is actually being used.

Jaime: Exactly. The second step is service inventory validation.

The customer needs to know what services are active, where they are located, the business owner, whether they are still needed, and which contract terms apply. If a circuit was disconnected but is still billing, that is one kind of problem. If a service is active but billed under the wrong rate plan, that is another. If a site closed and charges continued to bill, that is another.   Sometimes supplier invoices are vague on all of these details—and to their advantage, if you don’t know the details, you won’t challenge them.   Getting to these details may require some digging and coordination with your supplier account teams.  Everyone has likely seen an invoice that just says “monthly charges” with no details.

The inventory gives context to the invoice.

Tony: So you cannot validate billing in isolation.

Jaime: Correct. Billing has to be validated against both the contract and the environment. If you only look at the invoice, you may miss whether the charge is needed. If you only look at the contract, you may miss whether the service actually exists or should have been disconnected.

Tony: Theresa, what are some common patterns you see?

TK: Several show up repeatedly.

Rates that do not match the pricing schedule. Discounts that were negotiated but not applied. Services billed after disconnect dates. Duplicate charges created by ordering activity. Charges assigned to locations that are unclear, closed, or misclassified. Credits that were promised but never applied or mis-applied. Fees and surcharges that are not treated consistently with the agreement.  Getting these details right is complicated and also can impact assessed taxes and regulatory fees which can compound any billing issue.

The key is to identify patterns, not just isolated errors. If one invoice line item is wrong, there may be dozens or hundreds of similar line items with the same root cause.  Focus your reviews by supplier.  Review all services by supplier and you will then know if there are patterns that need to be resolved.

From Dispute to Remediation

Tony: This is where many customers get stuck. They identify a problem, open a dispute and there can be delays in getting corrections and credits.

TK: That happens all the time. Suppliers take months to resolve issues now, so you have to be diligent in following up and escalating when things fail to progress.

The goal should be remediation. That means fixing the root cause. It may require rate table correction, billing system updates, inventory cleanup, disconnect confirmation, revised ordering controls, or escalation with the supplier’s billing and commercial teams.

The customer should be asking: did we just get money back, or did we fix the problem?

Tony: And the supplier conversation changes when the customer has evidence.

TK: Yes. Suppliers often default to “our system is correct.” To move beyond that, the customer needs a clear chain of evidence: here is the governing term, here is the service record, here is the invoice charge, here is the variance, here is the financial impact, and here is the correction required. And in many times, showing the supplier their contract that has the supporting rates/discounts/credits.   Seems ironic but this is a necessary step.

That is what turns a billing dispute into a defensible remediation effort.

Key Questions & Actionable Takeaways

Tony: If a listener is dealing with recurring invoice disputes, what questions should they ask first?

Jaime: They should ask:

Do we know which contract terms apply to the charges in question?
Do we have a reliable inventory of the services being billed?
Can we tie each charge to a site, service, owner, and contract vehicle?
Are we seeing isolated errors or a recurring pattern?
Have credits been issued without root-cause correction?
Are invoices being reviewed against the contract, or just against prior-month spend?
And do we have enough evidence to support a supplier-level remediation plan?

Those questions help the customer move from frustration to structure.

Tony: What should they avoid?

Jaime: Avoid chasing every invoice line without prioritizing materiality. Avoid accepting a one-time credit if the underlying billing condition remains. Avoid assuming the supplier’s billing system reflects the contract. And avoid entering a renewal without resolving major baseline issues.

If the invoice does not match the contract today, that gap can weaken the next negotiation.

What Good Looks Like

Tony: What does good look like after the customer gets this under control?

Jaime: Good looks like an inventory the enterprise can trust.

The inventory has complete details to know what was purchased, where it is, who owns it, what it should cost, and which agreement governs it. Invoice exceptions are tracked to closure. Recurring errors are corrected at the source. Credits and recoveries are documented. Disconnects are confirmed. Contract terms are connected to invoice review.

Just as important, governance becomes repeatable. The customer is not rebuilding the same spreadsheet every month. There is a process, ownership, and a cadence for keeping billing aligned with the contract and the environment.

Tony: And that creates value beyond billing.

TK: Absolutely. It improves cost management, renewal readiness, supplier accountability, and internal confidence. When the enterprise has clean facts, it can negotiate more effectively, budget more accurately, and make better sourcing decisions.

Closing Remarks

Tony: The key takeaway is that invoice disputes should not become a permanent operating model. If the invoice does not match the contract, the starting point is not just another dispute ticket. It is a structured review of contracts, billing, and service inventory.

Theresa, any final thoughts?

TK: The organizations that handle this well do not treat billing issues as random noise. They look for patterns, quantify impact, build evidence, and push for root-cause remediation. That is how you move from recurring disputes to spend integrity.  And be ready to escalate when corrections are not made in a timely fashion.

Tony: That is a great place to leave it.

To our listeners, if you would like to discuss billing integrity, contract compliance, service inventory validation, or fact-based remediation with your suppliers, or if you’d like to discuss other technology strategy, sourcing and cost reduction needs with Theresa, Jaime, me, or any of our TC2 and LB3 colleagues, please give us a call or shoot us an email.

You can also stay current by subscribing to Staying Connected, by checking out our websites, and by following us on LinkedIn.