--- Strategy Consulting
Strategy,
Engineered for Impact.
Building strategies that protect your position, optimise risk allocation, and create commercial relationships that deliver long-term value.
"We combine sharp thinking with commercial insight to craft strategies that don’t just look good on paper—they perform."
Aveont Consulting
Deal Structuring, Architecture & Framework
Most commercial problems do not arise because of badly written contracts. They arise because the deal itself was not structured properly in the first place.
Organizations often face issues such as:
- Commercial teams agreeing to business terms before legal and risk teams are involved
- Unclear scope, deliverables, and responsibility allocation
- Incorrect commercial models (fixed vs variable, milestone vs output based)
- Risk being transferred unintentionally or disproportionately
- Tax, regulatory, data, IP, and liability issues being discovered too late
- Contracts becoming overly complicated because the deal structure itself is unclear
- Long negotiation cycles due to poorly thought-out deal frameworks
- Revenue leakage, scope creep, and disputes post-signing
In many cases, the contract becomes an attempt to fix a poorly structured deal, which is never an ideal starting point.
Aveont gets involved before the contract is drafted and often before commercial terms are finalized. The focus is on structuring the deal correctly from legal, commercial, and risk perspectives.
Aveont typically assists with:
- Designing the overall deal structure and engagement model
- Defining scope, responsibilities, deliverables, and governance structures
- Structuring pricing models, payment mechanisms, milestones, and incentives
- Risk allocation strategy and liability positioning
- IP ownership and licensing framework
- Data protection and regulatory positioning
- Change management and variation frameworks
- Exit and transition structures
- Multi-party deal structures and subcontracting models
- Creating term sheets, deal frameworks, and commercial structures before contract drafting begins
In simple terms, Aveont helps design the deal before the lawyers start drafting the contract.
Once the deal is properly structured at the pre-deal stage, several things change significantly:
- Contracts become shorter, clearer, and easier to negotiate
- Negotiation cycles reduce significantly
- Commercial teams and legal teams work in alignment rather than in conflict
- Risks are consciously allocated instead of accidentally assumed
- Pricing and payment disputes reduce
- Scope creep and change disputes reduce
- Governance and escalation mechanisms are already defined
- Vendor and customer relationships become more stable
- The organization moves from reactive contracting to strategic deal structuring
- Disputes reduce because ambiguity reduces
- Contracts become implementation documents, not problem-solving documents
The organization moves from “Let’s draft a contract for this deal” to
“Let’s structure this deal properly and then document it.”
Contract, Term Sheet & LOI Advisory
Term Sheets and Letters of Intent are often treated as informal documents, prepared quickly to move the deal forward. But in reality, most negotiations are won or lost at the term sheet stage, not at the contract stage.
Common issues organizations face:
- Commercial teams agree to key terms without understanding legal or risk implications
- Important issues like liability, IP ownership, exit rights, exclusivity, and pricing adjustments are not addressed early
- Term sheets are vague, leading to renegotiation during contract drafting
- Parties believe the term sheet is non-binding, but certain clauses become binding unintentionally
- Misalignment between the term sheet and the final contract
- Deals collapsing during contract negotiations because expectations were never aligned
- Time lost in renegotiating commercial points that should have been settled at the LOI stage
- Poorly structured exclusivity and break-fee provisions
- Ambiguity on timelines, milestones, and responsibilities
In many transactions, if the term sheet is weak, the contract negotiation becomes long, difficult, and sometimes unsuccessful.
Aveont assists businesses in strategically structuring and negotiating Term Sheets and LOIs so that the deal framework is clear before detailed documentation begins.
Aveont typically supports with:
- Structuring the term sheet to cover all critical commercial and legal points
- Identifying which clauses should be binding vs non-binding
- Drafting and reviewing Term Sheets, MoUs, and LOIs
- Structuring exclusivity, break fees, and deal timelines
- Setting commercial frameworks: pricing, payment terms, milestones, volume commitments
- Risk allocation principles to be carried into the final contract
- IP ownership, data rights, confidentiality, and non-compete frameworks
- Exit rights, termination triggers, and transition principles
- Ensuring alignment between the term sheet and definitive agreements
- Supporting negotiations at the pre-contract stage
The objective is simple:
By the time the contract drafting starts, the deal should already be agreed in principle and structured properly.
When Term Sheets and LOIs are structured properly at the beginning:
- Contract negotiations become faster and more predictable
- Major commercial terms are not renegotiated repeatedly
- There is alignment between business, legal, and finance teams
- The final contract reflects the original deal intent
- Risk allocation is deliberate and negotiated early
- Deal uncertainty reduces significantly
- Fewer surprises during due diligence and contract drafting
- Negotiation costs and timelines reduce
- Deal closure rates improve
- Relationships between parties start on clearer and more transparent terms
Instead of using Term Sheets as informal placeholders,
they become strategic deal blueprints that guide the entire transaction.
Deal Risk Identification & Mitigation
Many organizations discover risk after the contract is signed, when the project starts going wrong, payments are delayed, scope increases, or liabilities arise. By then, the only option left is damage control.
Typical challenges include:
- Risks are not identified at the deal stage but only during disputes
- Commercial teams focus on revenue and timelines, not risk allocation
- Contracts contain standard clauses that do not reflect the actual risk profile of the deal
- Liability is accepted without understanding financial exposure
- Indemnities, SLAs, service credits, and penalties are not properly evaluated
- Data protection, IP, regulatory, and operational risks are overlooked
- Unlimited or disproportionate liability exposure
- Poorly structured limitation of liability and indemnity clauses
- No clear risk ownership internally within the organization
- Risk registers are not maintained for large deals or projects
- Contracts are signed without understanding worst-case scenarios
In many organizations, risk review is treated as a legal formality rather than a business decision.
Aveont approaches risk from commercial, legal, operational, and financial perspectives, not just from a legal drafting perspective.
Aveont typically assists with:
- Identifying legal, commercial, financial, operational, and regulatory risks in deals and contracts
- Creating deal-specific risk matrices and risk allocation frameworks
- Structuring limitation of liability, indemnities, and risk allocation clauses
- Evaluating exposure under worst-case scenarios
- Advising on risk transfer mechanisms (insurance, subcontracting, back-to-back arrangements)
- Creating risk mitigation strategies before contract execution
- Supporting negotiation of risk-related clauses
- Developing internal risk review frameworks and approval matrices
- Creating risk registers for large contracts and projects
- Aligning risk allocation with pricing and commercial strategy
- Advising when to accept, mitigate, transfer, or avoid a particular risk
The idea is not to eliminate all risk, which is impossible, but to ensure risk is understood, priced, allocated, and managed consciously.
Once a structured risk identification and mitigation approach is implemented:
- The organization knows its maximum exposure before signing a deal
- Liability clauses are negotiated strategically, not accepted by default
- Pricing decisions start factoring risk exposure
- Contracts reflect actual risk allocation instead of boilerplate language
- Fewer disputes arise from unclear responsibilities and risk allocation
- Senior management gets visibility into high-risk deals
- Insurance and risk transfer mechanisms are used more effectively
- Internal approval processes become risk-based rather than value-only based
- The organization moves from reactive risk management to proactive risk strategy
- Legal teams are seen as business enablers rather than deal blockers
- Contracting becomes more predictable and controlled
The organization moves from “Sign the deal and manage problems later” to
“Understand the risk, structure the deal accordingly, and then sign.”
Negotiation Strategy & Support
Many organizations enter negotiations well prepared on commercials but not on negotiation strategy. As a result, negotiations become reactive, slow, and often driven by the other party’s draft and structure.
Common challenges include:
- Negotiations start without a defined strategy, walk-away position, or priority matrix
- Teams negotiate clause by clause instead of negotiating the overall risk and commercial structure
- Legal and commercial teams negotiate separately, leading to inconsistent positions
- Too many issues are conceded early in the negotiation
- Negotiations become document-focused instead of deal-focused
- Counterparty drafts set the entire negotiation framework
- Teams do not distinguish between negotiable, non-negotiable, and tradeable positions
- Excessive time spent negotiating low-risk clauses while high-risk clauses are ignored
- Poor documentation of negotiation positions and concessions
- Deal fatigue leading to acceptance of unfavorable terms just to close the deal
In many cases, organizations do not lose deals in negotiation, they lose value.
Aveont supports organizations by bringing structure, strategy, and clarity to negotiations, rather than just reviewing documents and marking changes.
Aveont typically assists with:
- Developing overall negotiation strategy and approach
- Identifying key risk and commercial positions
- Creating negotiation playbooks and fallback positions
- Preparing issue lists and priority matrices before negotiations begin
- Advising on what to concede, what to trade, and what to hold firm on
- Supporting live negotiations and strategy discussions
- Structuring negotiation positions around risk allocation and commercial outcomes
- Aligning legal, commercial, finance, and management teams on negotiation positions
- Drafting and reviewing negotiation mark-ups strategically rather than mechanically
- Helping teams move negotiations from clause-by-clause discussions to issue-based negotiations
- Supporting high-value, strategic, or complex contract negotiations
The focus is not just what to change in the contract, but how to negotiate the deal.
When negotiations are approached strategically rather than tactically:
- Negotiations become faster and more structured
- Teams enter negotiations with clear positions and fallback options
- The organization concedes less on high-risk clauses
- Negotiations move from document mark-ups to commercial discussions
- Internal alignment improves between legal, commercial, and finance teams
- Deal outcomes improve in terms of risk allocation and commercial protection
- Negotiation timelines reduce significantly
- Counterparties recognize a structured and professional negotiation approach
- Fewer issues are reopened repeatedly during negotiations
- The organization builds a repeatable negotiation framework for future deals
- Contract negotiations become strategy-led rather than document-led
The organization moves from reacting to the other party’s draft to
leading the negotiation and shaping the deal structure.
Vendor & Supplier Contract Management
Many organizations invest significant time in negotiating vendor and supplier contracts, but once the contract is signed, it is rarely actively managed. Over time, this leads to cost leakages, performance issues, unmanaged risks, and missed contractual rights.
Common challenges include:
- Contracts are stored but not actively monitored or managed
- Vendor obligations, service levels, and deliverables are not tracked
- Renewal and termination dates are missed, leading to auto-renewals
- Pricing revisions, benchmarking, and rate cards are not reviewed periodically
- Change requests and scope variations are not properly documented
- Service credits and performance penalties are not enforced
- Vendor dependencies increase without contractual control
- No structured vendor governance or performance review mechanisms
- Risk and compliance obligations of vendors are not monitored
- Disputes arise due to unclear scope, service levels, or change management
- Contracts differ across vendors with no standardization
- Procurement, legal, and business teams operate in silos
In many organizations, vendor contracts are negotiated once and then forgotten until something goes wrong.
Aveont helps organizations move from passive contract storage to active vendor contract management and governance.
Aveont typically supports with:
- Reviewing existing vendor and supplier contracts and identifying risk and commercial gaps
- Creating vendor contract management frameworks and governance structures
- Developing contract summaries, obligation matrices, and responsibility trackers
- Setting up renewal trackers, termination notice trackers, and milestone trackers
- Standardizing vendor contract templates and commercial terms
- Structuring service levels, KPIs, service credits, and performance mechanisms
- Creating change management and variation frameworks
- Supporting vendor negotiations and contract amendments
- Developing vendor performance review and governance frameworks
- Creating contract management dashboards and reporting structures
- Aligning procurement, finance, operations, and legal teams in vendor management
- Supporting vendor rationalization and consolidation initiatives
The focus is on managing vendor contracts as commercial relationships, not just legal documents.
When vendor and supplier contracts are actively managed and structured:
- Auto-renewals and unwanted contract extensions reduce
- Vendor performance becomes measurable and enforceable
- Service levels, KPIs, and service credits are monitored and enforced
- Cost leakages and uncontrolled scope increases reduce
- Contract obligations are tracked and fulfilled by both parties
- Vendor governance and review meetings become structured
- Procurement and business teams get better visibility into vendor commitments
- Vendor risks and compliance obligations are monitored
- Contract templates become standardized across vendors
- Vendor relationships become more structured and predictable
- Disputes reduce because expectations and performance are monitored continuously
- The organization moves from contract storage to contract management and vendor governance
The organization moves from “We signed the vendor contract” to
“We actively manage the vendor relationship through the contract.”
CLM System Identification & Implementation
Many organizations implement a Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) system expecting efficiency and visibility, but technology alone does not fix a broken contracting process. Without proper process design, ownership, templates, and governance, CLM systems often become document repositories instead of management tools.
Common challenges include:
- Contracts stored across emails, shared drives, and multiple systems
- No visibility into contract status, obligations, renewals, and risks
- Contract approval workflows are unclear or inconsistent
- Templates are not standardized across the organization
- Negotiation versions and changes are not tracked properly
- Renewal dates, termination notices, and milestones are missed
- Contract obligations are not tracked post-signing
- Procurement, legal, sales, and finance teams use different processes
- CLM tools implemented without process redesign
- Low user adoption because the system is complex or not aligned with business workflows
- Data inside contracts is not structured or searchable
- Reporting and dashboards are not available for management
In many cases, the problem is not lack of a CLM tool, but lack of a structured contracting process that the tool can support.
Aveont supports organizations not just in implementing a CLM tool, but in designing the contracting process, governance, templates, and workflows that make the CLM system effective.
Aveont typically assists with:
- Assessing current contracting processes and identifying gaps
- Designing end-to-end contract lifecycle workflows (request to execution to management to renewal)
- Defining approval matrices, authority levels, and workflow structures
- Standardizing contract templates, clause libraries, and fallback positions
- Designing contract intake and request processes
- Creating obligation tracking and contract management frameworks
- Defining metadata, contract data fields, and reporting requirements
- Supporting CLM tool selection and implementation strategy
- Supporting system configuration aligned with business workflows
- Developing playbooks, SOPs, and user guidelines
- Training business, procurement, sales, and legal teams
- Creating dashboards, reporting structures, and contract visibility frameworks
- Establishing contract governance and ownership models
The focus is on process, governance, and structure first, and technology implementation second.
Once a CLM system is implemented with the right processes and governance:
- Contracts are centralized and easily searchable
- Contract status and approval stages are visible across teams
- Approval workflows become structured and faster
- Standard templates and clauses improve consistency
- Negotiation timelines reduce
- Renewal, termination, and milestone dates are tracked
- Contract obligations are monitored post-signing
- Management gets dashboards and visibility into contract risks and commitments
- Procurement, sales, legal, and finance teams work on a common platform and process
- Contract data becomes structured and usable for business insights
- The organization moves from document storage to contract lifecycle management
- Contracting becomes faster, more controlled, and more predictable
The organization moves from “Where is the contract?” to
“We can see every contract, its status, risks, obligations, and renewals in one system.”
