# How to tell a client work is out of scope
Source: https://korrel.ai/blog/tell-client-work-out-of-scope
Published: 2026-10-28
Updated: 2026-10-26
Topic: tell a client work is out of scope
Tags: change-control, scope-creep
---
## Tell a client work is out of scope with evidence

To tell a client work is out of scope, show the agreed boundary and explain how their request changes the deliverable. Then offer a decision with clear consequences rather than sending a refusal or an unexpected bill.

Use a short client decision note. It connects the request to the client's goal, names the difference, and compares practical options. Keep your internal commercial calculations separate from the message unless you have agreed to share them.

This is one communication task within [agency change control](/blog/topics/change-control), not a replacement for your agreed approval method. A request can be worthwhile and still need a different fee or delivery date.

## Is it new work, a defect or an unclear requirement?

Check the evidence before you use the phrase “out of scope”. Read the accepted proposal alongside the client's request, including any later agreed changes.

If your agency delivered something that fails an agreed requirement, treat it as a defect to correct under the applicable terms. Do not present your own correction as a paid addition. An explanation of an included feature can also be normal clarification rather than new work.

Ambiguity needs a question. Ask which agreed outcome the client believes covers the request, then compare that understanding with the written description. Where the wording supports different readings, acknowledge the gap before proposing a way forward.

For example, “campaign assets” does not establish whether the client expected animation. “Six static social images supplied as PNG files” gives you something specific to compare. The guide to [defining deliverables clients cannot expand](/blog/define-deliverables-clients-cannot-expand) explains how to make these boundaries testable.

An additional review of an existing output is a different problem from adding a new output. Use the guide to [charging for extra revision rounds](/blog/how-to-charge-for-extra-revision-rounds) when the disputed boundary concerns feedback rounds. The example below concerns new production work instead.

## Build one current forecast before offering a swap

Consider an invented agency campaign. All figures exclude VAT, and all dates and capacity assumptions are illustrative, not delivery promises.

The accepted project contains a landing page, six static social images and a downloadable campaign guide. Its fixed fee is £12,000, with delivery planned for 20 November 2026. The original internal delivery cost estimate was £8,000, leaving £4,000 before any costs outside that estimate.

At the review, recorded cost is £5,000. The team now forecasts another £3,500 to finish the agreed work, taking total forecast cost to £8,500. The £500 increase comes from the agency's own estimating error, not the client's request.

The client now wants a short animated advertisement using supplied brand assets. The request includes a storyboard, animation and two named export formats, with one consolidated review. Its forecast additional delivery cost is £1,800; the agency proposes an additional fee of £2,700.

Define the addition before offering it. Here, the animation lasts fifteen seconds, with square and portrait MP4 exports and no voice recording. Acceptance means the approved storyboard plays correctly in both formats using the supplied brand assets. New filming is excluded. Without that boundary, the note simply creates another unclear deliverable.

To make room, the client suggests removing the campaign guide. That guide originally carried £1,400 of internal cost, but the agency has already spent £500 on planning. Only £900 of future cost remains avoidable if both parties agree to remove it now.

These are cost estimates, not interchangeable fee credits. Removing the guide does not recover the £500 already spent. Agree any refund or fee adjustment separately rather than equating it with the delivery cost saving.

## What does each choice do to the money?

Use the current forecast as the comparison, not the more favourable original estimate. Otherwise, the client's addition appears to cause an overrun that already existed.

| Internal comparison | Total fee | Forecast total cost | Fee less forecast cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Original estimate | £12,000 | £8,000 | £4,000 |
| Current forecast, no change | £12,000 | £8,500 | £3,500 |
| Add animation, retain guide | £14,700 | £10,300 | £4,400 |
| Add animation, remove guide | £13,500 | £9,400 | £4,100 |

The swap calculation is £8,500 + £1,800 − £900 = £9,400. It still adds £900 of forecast cost because the removed work costs less than the requested addition. Equal numbers of deliverables do not make an equal-cost exchange.

For this example, the agency offers a negotiated £1,200 fee reduction against the £2,700 addition, giving a net increase of £1,500. That proposed concession is a commercial choice, not a formula derived from sunk cost. It requires agreement and does not establish a general credit policy.

Keep the table internal unless sharing this detail serves an agreed purpose. The last column is not net profit if you have omitted overhead or other business costs. Use one consistent cost basis when comparing options or calculating margin.

Before sending the offer, confirm that the £900 really can be avoided. Check unstarted tasks and supplier commitments rather than assuming that every remaining budget line disappears when an output is removed.

## Send a decision note the client can act on

The [APM explanation of change control](https://www.apm.org.uk/blog/the-basics-of-change-control-and-its-importance/) describes evaluating budget and timeline effects before recommending a decision. Apply that principle to the decision note without copying a full project procedure into an email.

Here is neutral operational wording for the invented campaign. It is not a contract or legal template.

> The animation would give you a moving asset for the campaign launch. The accepted scope covers the landing page, six static images and campaign guide; it does not include animation production.
>
> We have assessed the addition and the option to remove the guide. Removing its remaining production does not offset the full animation cost. These are the options for your review.

| Option | Scope | Proposed fee consequence | Illustrative delivery consequence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Keep plan | Landing page, six static images and guide; no animation | No change: £12,000 total | Existing plan: 20 November |
| Add | All agreed outputs plus the defined animation | Add £2,700: £14,700 total | Revised plan: 25 November |
| Swap | Landing page, six static images and animation; remove guide | Add £1,500 net: £13,500 total | Revised plan: 23 November |
| Defer | Complete agreed outputs; assess animation for a later phase | Current project stays £12,000; later fee not agreed | Current plan: 20 November; later date unbooked |

Delivery on the proposed dates assumes a decision by 6 November 2026 and usable assets already supplied. It also assumes available specialist capacity and feedback within two working days. Removing guide production does not remove the animation specialist's scheduling constraint, which is why the swap still moves delivery.

> If the launch date is fixed, we recommend keeping the current plan and assessing animation separately. Please tell us which option you prefer. We will confirm the revised scope and commercial terms through the agreed approval method before changing the work.

Give the note a request reference and name the person who can answer questions. Keep the defined animation specification attached to every option that includes it. If the client combines parts of different options, assess that combination before confirming it. A preference is not yet an approved instruction.

## Resolve disagreement without treating silence as approval

If the client says animation was included, return to the disputed requirement rather than repeating the price. A useful response is: “Please point us to the requirement you understood to include animation, so we can review the difference together.”

Keep unaffected agreed work moving where practical. Identify any dependent task that needs a decision, and explain the consequence of delay without inventing an approval deadline. Do not treat silence as approval for a new fee or removal of the guide.

The [government Teal Book guidance on change control](https://projectdelivery.gov.uk/teal-book/home/part-e-planning-and-control/chapter-22-change-control/) calls for decisions by people with appropriate authority and updates to affected plans after approval. It applies to government delivery; it does not set binding terms for an agency contract.

Korrel supports internal change request previews of financial impact, including cost and margin. Your team must still prepare the client message and obtain agreement through the appropriate channel. [Start a Korrel trial](https://app.korrel.ai/signup) to assess the commercial effect before you offer a change.