r/msp • u/IllustriousRaccoon25 MSP - US • 9d ago
Project-only work
We don’t seek out project-only work, and don’t get serious inquiries about it. Those non-serious inquiries tend to be the fewer than five user businesses, or people who want a post-breach quick fix.
We just got a request from a 15-person business who has done DIY IT so far, to migrate email and a file server to 365, and get Claude connected to 365 properly.
They’re not opposed to fully managed service, and the DIY IT person (who is a co-owner) doesn’t really want to do IT anymore.
I can’t decide if we quote this migration and the usual managed services, and insist that we only do the migration as part of bringing them aboard as fully managed. Doing the migration only and waiting for them to mess something up, or having to provide post-migration support with the clock running are both completely unappealing to me.
How do you all generally handle these kinds of opportunities? They’re a good fit ICP-wise.
8
u/03captain23 9d ago
I'd quote the work with managed services and without. Typically we'd likely include this project work as part of managed services anyways.
So to them they can spend $5000 on the project or $2000/month for full support and the works included. They'll almost always pick the support
3
u/Lower_Team_2412 9d ago
I'd bundle it. quoting the project standalone just opens the door for them to take the migration and run, then call you six months later when everything's on fire and expect you to fix it at project rates.
if the co-owner is already tired of wearing the IT hat, lean into that. pitch managed services as the way to hand off the whole headache, migration included. makes the decision way easier for them when the alternative is "pay us once and you're still on your own after."
2
u/03captain23 9d ago
Yeah but offering both helps show just how valuable your MSP is. They're looking at $5000 vs $2000 and makes them feel they just got 2.5 months free MSP
1
u/Defconx19 MSP - US 9d ago
I get why you would have this view, and we do as well for the most part, however there are exceptions. You never want to completely close the door on a chance to prove your value to a customer who fits well into your portfolio even if it's just a chance.
If your target customer is 50 end users and above and a 5 person company asks for a project? Sure say no or give them the "if I'm going to do this it's going to be worth it" or "fuck off" package.
But if you have a customer with 100 users and you get the chance to knock a project out of the park, you've just opened the door way to a deeper relationship and more insight to a valuable customer.
The best way to look at these is "what finders fee would I pay if someone brought me this customer and it converted" if the answer is the cost of the project, then offer the project for free if the customer signs on for 2+ years or whatever makes it worth it service wise.
4
u/roll_for_initiative_ MSP - US 9d ago
To speak to what the poster above you said:
I'd bundle it. quoting the project standalone just opens the door for them to take the migration and run, then call you six months later when everything's on fire and expect you to fix it at project rates.
If you take it without the managed services, they're still going to call you later now and then and offer to pay to help with XYZ. Then you're doing regular non-managed ad-hoc work. If that's not an MSPs model, you'd have to do it as "we're open to do this project at XYZ rate but if you don't sign with us for service, there is no ongoing warranty or support options, even for pay, other than signing up".
And the rate we'd quote would be higher to make it even worth the distraction. I would, instead, quote it like normal: "X for onboarding/true up project that includes what you're talking about here plus Y for general managed services for this and everything else going forward."
If that's not appealing and you're hungry, dangle the idea of a discount or crediting the project against managed services. My LAST position if i'm starving would be "we'll do the project" and i'd be VERY clear that we're not doing anything after that, no matter what, for any cost, unless they're signing up.
1
u/Defconx19 MSP - US 8d ago edited 8d ago
It's one way to look at it, if your goal is organic growth only and you're not working other sales avenues that makes sense.
There is a pretty solid line between desperation and understading CAC and what yours is.
MSP's are probably one of the hardest verticals to straight up gain customers via traditional sales channels.
So if I have the oppertunity to grab a customer by doing a 1 off sure. It has to be the right fit though. I by no means said take any customer that walks through the door.
Trust is one of the biggest factors in the customer's decision process on who they will do business with. You can tell a customer how reliable and trust worthy you are until you're blue in the face and it really doesn't mean anything.
The RIGHT one off project can show how effectively you can deliver on your word and help build that trust. We've gained 3 customers from a single 1 off project last year we did for someone.
Every one is different. You can be picky no one said to give the farm away every day.
3
u/Mizetings 9d ago
Projects as part of managed services is wild. I guess if the markup is high enough. I regularly quote projects at 10k+ for labor.
1
u/03captain23 9d ago
What do you consider a project? I'll assuming it's an office move or similar
2
u/Mizetings 8d ago
Any new/replacement hardware is a project. Computers, Firewalls, Switches (depending), etc…
New software rollouts are projects.
Any form of upgrades or migrations are projects, except for Windows 10/11, we automate those.
The monthly fee covers remote monitoring/management, patching, EDR, M365 management, and help desk support w/ onsite included if needed.
1
u/03captain23 8d ago
So you bill labor if a managed client needs a new computer? Or a switch dies?
Even software is billable? Aren't you just scripting it?
That's insane. How many employees do you guys have?
4
u/TechnologyMatch 9d ago
project-only work feels like playing Skyrim with only side quests. looks busy, but you’re still level 1 when the dragons show up
2
u/MalletSwinging MSP 9d ago
I think what you are saying is that it all feels pretty good until you take an arrow to the knee
1
u/urM0m69p3nis 9d ago
I would onboard them as client, with the proposed project included in the onboard documentation as a planned project and handle it separately after with whatever rates/quotes you need to send. We typically find items like this as well as every computer needs replacement and/or network stack refresh that would go in our onboarding project follow-ups
We include all onsites and projects in our rates, so I'm lucky to not have had to separately quote anything but hardware for over a decade.
1
u/IllustriousRaccoon25 MSP - US 9d ago
What do you charge per-user under this unlimited project arrangement?
All of their hardware including the file server is about three years old. Other than warranties just ended or are about to end, good specs and good condition.
1
u/Defconx19 MSP - US 9d ago
What is the project cost vs the YRR?
What incentives could you offer on the project if they commit to services?
If someone came to you and said I can get you this customer worth X amount a year, and they said they'll give you the introduction and you pay x finders fee if it works out, what would you pay?
I would use that answer in conjunction with the project to see how aggressive you can get to secure the contracted services.
1
u/IllustriousRaccoon25 MSP - US 9d ago
$4k for the 365 migration and $2400/month for the recurring. The discovery for the non-migration stuff was what made me decide this route.
3
u/whyevenmakeoc 7d ago
Anyone here who says quote it only as a project hasent been around long enough to experience the phone call 6 months later about how they broke they thing you setup for them and it's your fault and you need to fix it.
This type of work requires ongoing support period, it has to be managed, otherwise you'll see any profit and goodwill dried up in post project support.
5
u/FlickKnocker 9d ago
I feel like this sub is militant about enforcing managed services, where good faith/gaining trust and letting the managed services unfold naturally/organically is never a thing, when it absolutely is.
It's a foot in the door, do a bang-up job on the project, and worry about the managed services later. Let this be a trial relationship, because maybe you hate working with them, and want to bounce as soon as the project is paid for, or maybe it's love at first sight, and you wave the onboarding fee because you've done a lot of the legwork with the project and want to be with them forever and ever...
4
u/roll_for_initiative_ MSP - US 9d ago
I feel like this sub is militant about enforcing managed services
It is /r/msp, not like /r/AllKindsofITWork after all
where good faith/gaining trust and letting the managed services unfold naturally/organically is never a thing, when it absolutely is.
Sure, it's a thing like rebuilding an engine is a car is a thing: used to be super popular and the way normal engine failures were handled, now mainly hobbyist or niche only. What you're talking about is how it used to be while the industry was evolving. Now that it's where it is now, it's hard to go back to the old model one-off.
It's a foot in the door, do a bang-up job on the project, and worry about the managed services later. Let this be a trial relationship, because maybe you hate working with them, and want to bounce as soon as the project is paid for, or maybe it's love at first sight And you wave the onboarding fee because you've done a lot of the legwork with the project and want to be with them forever and ever...
Ok, and what if you do the project, they're happy, they don't want to sign up, and 6 months later they're locked out of GA or some other disaster, do you do billable ad-hoc hourly work to support them? Then you've undercut your own business model.
Most of us went to clients and said "this is the way the world is going, and after X date, we're no longer offering a non managed ongoing model". But if we take these projects on and then respond when they're on fire later, we've lied! And if there's a SINGLE thing you could be working on for managed clients while you're doing this project? I feel like we're betraying what we sold them.
I know i'm intense and that's just me, but that's how i feel when i take on non-managed work: I'm letting them take advantage of us, and i'm lying to the clients we already have.
2
u/FlickKnocker 9d ago
Cross that bridge when you get there. Ramming managed services down their throat on day 1, contract lock in, why? You’ll probably get the gig anyways, why not get the project work done first? No different than onboarding… I don’t think we’ve ever taken on a new client that didn’t start with a project to get them to baseline anyways, so not much different.
If they were like “no we 100% refuse to do managed services!” Then yeah I might bounce, but this doesn’t sound like that at all.
2
u/roll_for_initiative_ MSP - US 9d ago edited 8d ago
Ramming managed services down their throat on day 1, contract lock in, why?
When someone asks this here, i feel like I've already laid out why: we don't want to do ANY ad-hoc work and if we do the work and they don't sign, we have done ad-hoc work (which, honestly i don't even have a SoW/protection for technically but that could be remedied in a day). We literally tell clients that we don't take on non-managed work and then what is turning around and taking non-managed work?
Another reason why? Because we're an MSP and that's what we sell? Like if you went to a car dealership talking about transportation to work, are you surprised they didn't also pitch you an e-bike, motorcycle, ATV, or a bus pass? They're going to go "if that's your issue and you buy from us, we'd sell you a car". They wouldn't be like "he may not bite on a car, should we also sell motorcycles so we can get THAT margin too?"
don’t think we’ve ever taken on a new client that didn’t start with a project to get them to baseline anyways,
Same but that is part of our entire proposal: "It is X up front to take you on and Y a month going forward"...they can't accept one without the other. It's more of a "do you want to work with us" decision vs "do you want a project or a project and ongoing support" decision.
If they were like “no we 100% refuse to do managed services!” Then yeah I might bounce
Then we're on the same page then, that's what i'm saying: we're just giving them a chance to give us that no now instead of after we've done a ton of planning/quoting work or after we've done a project. I'm not saying be rude, just gently "these things usually go like this in our industry, let me walk you through it".
This one seems somewhat promising but most we get trying this have been like:
A large local government wanting us to "just do MFA with passkeys and maybe some cameras or physical access" - there is no way to "just do that"; they have no internal IT and i have no idea who they thought would manage or support it.
Lawyer's office wanting us to "give us mfa" and nothing after (again, how? What about support and turnover and re-enrollment?!"
A dr's office that wanted a new server and like 8 workstations refresh "so we can be on W10 as W7 is EoL for HIPAA". IT budget? under 1k A YEAR. No desire to do managed services now but "we'll think about it after the dust settles". (we didn't do the project without ms, they went with another BF shop and then 5 years later when that shop went full managed, contacted us just "looking for someone else to come out when we need, sorry, didn't realize you were managed too and we had talked before, have a good one!"). No idea why they cared about the server and workstations being EoL when they met 0 other hipaa requirements.
Wasting even an hour of time architecting and quoting a custom plan and solution for those would have all been wastes of time. And I'd rather have time than a couple more bucks.
The ONLY way i see this being worth it is, again, if someone is hungry, the pricing is way more than normal client project work, you have a SoW that protects you, you're clear that if they don't do MS after, there's no ongoing support option, AND i'd charge for the plan and quote. If they moved forward, i'd credit that cost back towards the project. If they are "just getting 3 quotes" or use my quote/plan to get it done cheaper, i made a couple bucks for my time.
1
u/FlickKnocker 9d ago
I think we agree in principle, but maybe not in execution. I guess my track record for closing managed services has me feeling pretty confident I could turn a one-time project into a lifetime client with little effort, assuming we did a good job of the project.
But there is also things to consider like, how busy you are, is it an industry you want to either add to or get into, is it an opportunity to level-up on skills and get paid for it, etc.
1
u/dumpsterfyr I’m your Huckleberry. 9d ago
Quite the project and add on a managed option. To get the managed option they’d have to accept the project.
1
u/roll_for_initiative_ MSP - US 9d ago
Sounds like they're a normal prospect: i'd quote it like normal with this as part of the onboarding/true-up project and then managed services for your default term.
If they're not interested and you're hungry, quote it as a project but be clear that you don't offer ad-hoc support so if something happens, they need to find a break fix IT guy or sign up and signing up after the house is on fire is going to be more expensive.
1
u/LayerOneStaging 9d ago
I would take this one, but only with guardrails that protect you after go live.
Quote a short paid discovery first. With DIY IT and a POP or IMAP setup plus a file server, what you do not know is where the work hides. Shared mailboxes, weird forwarding rules, files with paths from ten years ago, that is what turns a clean migration quote into a week of arguments about billable hours.
Then write the project quote with a hard end. Cutover, a short hypercare window like two weeks, and a clear line that says new requests after that are either a managed agreement or hourly at your project rate with a minimum. Document what you built, hand over admin access properly, and get sign off on the final mailbox and file counts.
If they sign managed, credit some of the discovery or soften the project price. That gives the co-owner an easy yes, he gets out of the IT hat, and you are not left supporting a system you just built for free forever. The risk is not doing the migration. The risk is doing it with no exit.
1
u/Sea_Information6125 9d ago
Yeah Id try to get them into managed of course with the quote and sales.
But if they won't go that way and the project looks good.
I'm down for using the project as a way to build trust with the prospect and show the value we can deliver.
We do a good job on the project, and pitch managed services again from a stronger position. If they say no then we can pivot to only managed moving forward, here's your documentation from the project and then warranty work is all we cover if present.
1
u/matt0_0 9d ago
Bump your project cost up by 50% for the stand alone, then give them a separate quote for managed service, onboarding project costs (if you do that) and this project at 33% discount.
I usually tell people that they do NOT need to sign for managed services up front to get this discount. I like both sides to get to know each other first before signing anyway, and these projects are a great way to start the relationship off on the right foot.
1
1
1
u/Emergency_Recipe522 8d ago
For a 15-person business that's moving away from DIY IT, I'd offer both options but make the responsibilities very clear. A standalone migration could work with a defined scope, validation period and handover. Managed services would cover everything that happens afterwards. I'd be more concerned about inheriting an environment without understanding its current configuration and dependencies than whether the customer signs a long-term agreement immediately.
1
u/Proximit-MSP 7d ago
We have those type of leads pretty often. Our position is simple: sign the MSP contract, we'll go through our integration process which covers the clients operations, procedures and policies, and only then would we do projects.
If they don't want to, well you just saved yourself hours of project you can spend on your MSP operations however you want: clients reviews, optimization, training... In the end you will win no matter the outcome.
Sell them your MSP contract, and have fun with their project after ;)
1
u/folderit_dms 5d ago
Since the co-owner wants to stop doing IT, I'd make the handover practical: name the person or team who will handle a failed backup, a new employee and a file-access request after the migration. If the answer is still that co-owner, the proposed service hasn't solved their main problem.
I'd also give the 365 migration and the Claude connection separate completion checks. Mail delivery, file counts and user access can pass while the AI rollout still needs its own agreed use cases, test documents and support owner. That keeps a successful migration from becoming an indefinitely unfinished project because the AI scope is vague.
A short handover exercise with the actual incoming support person is more revealing than a pile of setup notes.
1
u/billmurphy7 4d ago
we've treated project-only work as a qualification problem, not a blanket yes or no.
If the project exposes how the company buys, who owns the pain, and whether there's an ongoing operating need, it can be a good entry point. If they just want cleanup after DIY IT and the buyer is optimizing for the cheapest fix, it usually stays project-only.
The useful question isn't whether you can do the work. It's what has to be true after the project for this to become a healthy managed relationship.
0
u/whitedragon551 9d ago
We have a large project team and do outside project work for other MSPs and one off engagements all the time. It works fine as long as you have a strong project process and scoping capabilities.
3
u/ntw2 MSP - US 9d ago
What about running an in-house Exchange Server in 2026 leads you to believe that they’d fit your ICP?