LMNT renewal — objections and responses
Proposal: RENEWAL_PROPOSAL_MAR_SEP_2026.md
Source of objections: Shivani conversation Feb 27, 2026; Slack follow-up (Shivani, Phil, Jason) same day.
Phil’s position (Slack, Feb 27)
- >3x = consider alternate vendors. “An increase beyond 3x in price is going to have to make us consider alternate vendors. We’re not going anywhere close to 3x the speed based on what they’ve put on paper.”
- Feels like mis-pricing is being passed through. “I feel like they’re pricing in some mis-pricing from their first engagement. I want to make sure this is actually last and best price from them when we evaluate it because it’s a very substantial jump.”
- Clarity before moving. “If they mis-priced the first phase, make that clear. I don’t want to slow things down but I think the wise thing would be me getting other RFPs to see what pricing would be elsewhere. Which delays things yes, but it just needs to be SUPER clear and it’s still a bit muddy.”
Implications: Our response must be (1) last and best price, (2) crystal clear (no muddiness), (3) if we under-priced discovery, say so explicitly so we’re not “pricing it in” as a surprise. If we’re above 3x (45k+), Phil is in “consider alternate vendors” territory; Option A at $68k is ~4.5x.
What Shivani told Phil and Jason (Slack, Feb 27)
- Having a hard time explaining the jump internally; gave feedback that we should have planted the seed for a price increase earlier, especially as we layered in additional resources at no added cost.
- “It’s difficult to reconcile the increase without clarity on what incremental time and output we’re actually getting (vs. just role additions).”
- If pricing is defensible, they need a clear breakdown or walkthrough they can share so the logic fully lands with the team.
- “If the expectation is that I negotiate this down, I’d rather we align on what’s genuinely fair and logically sound and anchor to that.” (No games; anchor to fair.)
Jason: FTE % per role (Slack, Feb 27)
- With Anatta they had FTE % for each role and it helped them “play with the roles” (e.g. Product Analyst at 50% FTE that they nixed).
- “Ultimately I just want to map where they would increase time and roles to meet the scope.”
Our move: Add a table: Role × Option with FTE % (or time allocation) so they can see where we’re adding time/roles by scope. Positions us as “last and best” and gives them something to share with Phil and to compare options.
Loom prep — deliverable framing (Shivani’s takeaways)
Shivani: “It’s less about hours and more about a deliverable being much more significant and more clearly defined.”
Discovery deliverable (then):
- Scope was narrow: select stack → ingest → model (ingest, model, repeat).
- Not something you can “roll forward” as-is—it was calibration, not a lasting outcome.
Full-engagement deliverable (now):
- Embedded in helping LMNT plan for 2027: more QA, socialization with the team, prioritization in BI, etc.
- So the step change is: deliverable is bigger and clearer (outcome and planning), not just “more people.”
Use this in the Loom: Discovery = ingest/model on select stack. Renewal = deliverable is 2027 planning readiness: QA, socialization, BI prioritization, clearly defined outcomes. That’s why the investment is different—not just role count.
Objections log (from Feb 27)
| # | Objection (quote or paraphrase) | Who / context | Our response (talking points) | Change to proposal? | Used |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pricing math doesn’t work. Back-of-envelope: 15k = Uttam + Wish. Add Robert + someone like Amber (or better) = ~30–40k. Add analytics engineer = ~50k. So Option A at 68k “I don’t get it.” Option B at **92k. “I want to be able to calculate it in my head and have it make sense to me versus negotiating.” | Shivani | We don’t price by FTE or by backing out from the discovery rate. We price by outcome and by the level of engagement (oversight, intentionality, OKRs, not just rote modeling). Discovery was entry-level to calibrate; full implementation is a different rate. Make the jump defensible: Loom or one-pager that shows: scope then vs. now; why oversight/caliber/complexity justify the step change. If we want the math to “math” for them, consider Option A ~70–75k as alternative bands, or keep numbers and double down on narrative. | Either (a) add “discovery vs. full engagement” narrative + Loom, or (b) offer adjusted Option A/B bands (e.g. A ~50k, B ~70–75k) with scope clarified. | |
| 2 | No heads up on the step change. “I would have loved a heads up like two weeks ago … by the way, we’re bringing in Robert and Amber.” Goal was to align on proposal by Feb 14. Instead she was surprised: 15k → then “huge step change” to ~95k (Option B). She now looks like she’s going from 15k to 95k without having set Phil’s expectations. | Shivani | Acknowledge: we should have said at start of Feb (or late Jan) that we’re adding resources and that renewal would reflect a step change. Process for next time: Frame discovery as “intro rate; full implementation will be a different rate.” When adding resources, give a 2-week heads up: “We’re adding X; we’re not changing rate this month, but if we continue at this clip, renewal will be an increase.” | Add to context narrative or a short “How we think about discovery vs. renewal” so it’s explicit for future. | |
| 3 | Leadership time confusion. If team is bigger, is it still 0.25 of Robert + Uttam each? Uttam said “still 0.25 regardless.” Then “the math doesn’t math” and she worries about “bigger team without as much oversight.” | Shivani (relaying Uttam) | We’re putting ~25% of each of our time on this client (opportunity cost; we’re saying no to other work). As the team grows, management bandwidth grows—we’re not leaving a bigger team without oversight. The Strategic Leadership line reflects that commitment. Clarify with Uttam so we’re aligned: either “still 0.25 each” or “we scale management with team size” and say it consistently. | One line in proposal: “As the team grows, our management bandwidth grows so LMNT gets coordinated support.” (Already there; reinforce in Loom.) | |
| 4 | “Current team” framing undermines the sell. Saying “current team” implies they were already getting more than 15k worth; they were beefing up without charging. So the sell for the new price gets weaker. | Shivani | Avoid language that suggests the prior period was undercharged or that “current team” was already worth the new number. Frame as: “Discovery scope and deliverables were X; full engagement scope and deliverables are Y; here’s the team and investment that match Y.” | In proposal and Loom, use “discovery phase” vs. “full engagement” and avoid “current team” in a way that undercuts the step change. | |
| 5 | Jason: Gantt shows internal hire by April. Is that feasible? How would a hiring delay impact the team’s ability to deliver by September? | Jason (via Shivani) | Feasibility: We’re not committing LMNT to an April hire; that’s LMNT’s internal plan. Impact of delay: A later LMNT hire doesn’t slow Brainforge delivery (ingestion, modeling, BI, supply chain work). It affects LMNT’s ability to maintain systems after we hand off: edge-case QA, ongoing revisions to base tables, and their own in-depth review of our work. So: we deliver by Sep; if their hire slips, they have less internal capacity for maintenance and review until the hire is in place. | Add 1–2 sentences to proposal or a short “LMNT internal hire” note: BF delivery timeline is independent; LMNT hire timing affects their maintenance/review capacity. | |
| 6 | Jason: Where is the LMNT renewal project unclear on the Gantt? Is the renewal project additive to the existing project plan? He’s crosswalking the first Gantt with the recent one. | Jason (via Shivani) | Renewal scope is additive to what was in the original Gantt (same three workstreams, more depth + Supply Chain in B/C). We should provide a clear crosswalk: original Gantt rows vs. renewal Gantt rows, and a one-liner that “renewal project = continuation and expansion of existing plan, not a separate project.” | Add a short “Gantt crosswalk” or “Renewal vs. original plan” subsection to the proposal or a one-pager. | |
| 7 | Jason: How many FTEs is a “dedicated” FTE? What’s the delta in FTE from Option A? They think in FTE counts. | Jason (via Shivani) | We don’t sell or staff by FTE; we staff by deliverables and commit to outcomes. “Dedicated” here means that role is allocated to LMNT for the engagement (not shared across multiple clients at 0.2 each). For their mental model: we can add a table or footnote that translates option → approximate full-time-equivalent for context only, with a clear line: “We commit to deliverables; we staff accordingly; this is to give you a feel for the team.” | Optional: add “Approximate FTE by option (for context)” with a disclaimer that we commit to deliverables, not FTE. | |
| 8 | Sticker shock / can’t defend the numbers to Phil. She doesn’t like feeling surprised as the key vendor contact; she wants to be able to say she completely knew the price was going to change. | Shivani | Give her (and Jason) something they can use: Loom or voiceover that (1) frames discovery vs. full engagement, (2) shows scope then vs. now, (3) explains why the step change (oversight, OKRs, complexity, caliber). Send before first week of sprint (e.g. March 10) so she can “enjoy India” and not feel she has to explain unprepared. | Deliverable: Loom (or voiceover) + one-pager for Shivani and Jason before March 10. | |
| 9 | Phil: >3x = consider alternate vendors; last and best price; may get RFPs. Increase beyond 3x forces them to consider other vendors; they’re not 3x the speed. Wants this to be last and best; if we mis-priced phase 1, say so. May get other RFPs; things need to be SUPER clear or it stays muddy. | Phil (via Shivani) | Position our number as last and best (no expectation they negotiate down). If we under-priced discovery, say it explicitly in the narrative so we’re not “pricing in” a surprise. Clarity over speed: one clear breakdown/walkthrough they can share. Note: 3x from 45k; Option A at $68k is ~4.5x—so we’re in the zone where Phil is weighing alternatives unless we make the case or adjust. | Narrative: “Discovery was entry-level pricing to calibrate; this is our last and best for full engagement.” Optional: bring Option A into a range Phil can stomach (e.g. cap at 3x or just above) or make the value case so 4x+ is justified. | |
| 10 | Jason: FTE % per role. With Anatta, FTE % per role let them “play with” roles (e.g. nixed 50% Product Analyst). Wants to map where we increase time and roles to meet the scope. | Jason (Slack) | Add Role × Option table with FTE % (or time allocation) so they can see exactly where we’re adding time/roles by scope. Delivers “incremental time and output” clarity Shivani asked for and gives Jason something comparable to Anatta. | Add “FTE % by role and option” table to proposal or one-pager. |
What Shivani asked us to do (direct asks)
- Make a Loom (or similar) that explains: outcomes from discovery phase (ABC) vs. outcomes we’re now targeting (DEF); why the level of oversight, intentionality, and caliber of people is different. Send to Shivani and Jason. “Good practice for you guys.”
- Make the story defensible: “We’re embedding ourselves so much more in the business now; we’re thinking about your OKRs, not just rote modeling/cleaning.” Tell that story clearly.
- Async handoff: “Shivani’s out, you have rest and assess, we can’t meet until March 10 — here’s a voiceover, we’re happy to answer questions, we think about deliverables not FTE, this is to give you a feel; our commitment is to the deliverable.”
- Set expectations for next time: When adding resources for a client, say: “We’re adding resources; we’re not changing your rate this month, but if we continue at this clip, renewal will be an increase.” And frame discovery as “intro rate; full implementation will be a different rate.”
Summary of requested changes
| Area | Requested change | Our move |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Option A at ~70–75k would “make sense” to their math; Phil: >3x = consider alternate vendors; wants last and best; if we mis-priced phase 1, say so. | Position as last and best; either adjust bands (e.g. keep Option A at or near 3x if possible) or make the value case so 4x+ is justified. Explicit “discovery was entry-level; this is our last and best for full engagement.” |
| Scope / narrative | Show “scope then vs. now”; deliverable is bigger and clearer (2027 planning, QA, socialization, BI prioritization), not just more people. Avoid “current team” framing. | Loom + one-pager: discovery = ingest/model on select stack; renewal = 2027 planning readiness (QA, socialization, BI, defined outcomes). |
| Incremental time and output | Shivani: clarity on what incremental time and output they’re getting (vs. just role additions). Jason: FTE % per role to map where we increase time/roles to meet scope. | FTE % by role × option table so they can see where we add time/roles; supports “last and best” and comparability to Anatta. |
| Timeline | Phil might say Option A but timeline December not September. Shivani open to “slow down the goalpost, 40k, figure out what that looks like.” | No change to proposal yet; have the conversation when we’re in the room. |
| Jason’s questions | Internal hire impact; Gantt clarity (renewal = additive); FTE % per role. | FAQ or appendix; Gantt crosswalk; FTE % by role table. |
| Process | Heads up when adding resources; frame discovery as intro rate. | Document for future clients; optionally one line in proposal. |
Deliverables to create
- Loom (or voiceover) for Shivani and Jason: deliverable framing (discovery = ingest/model, select stack; renewal = 2027 planning readiness: QA, socialization, BI prioritization, defined outcomes). Why the step change; we think in deliverables. Send before first week of sprint (e.g. March 10).
- One-pager or short doc: Same narrative; FTE % by role × option table (where we increase time/roles to meet scope); optional Gantt crosswalk and LMNT internal-hire note. Last and best language.
- Proposal edits: Discovery vs. full engagement in context narrative; “last and best” and, if true, “we under-priced discovery” stated clearly; remove/reframe “current team”; FTE % by role table; optional pricing bands to stay at or near 3x if we adjust.
Updated from Feb 27, 2026 (Shivani call + Slack: Phil, Jason, Shivani). Add new rows to the table as more objections come in.