Consulting Pricing Model Template
Four documents and three sheets that price a new engagement from what your own closed engagements actually took, not from a fresh guess.
Free download · No account needed
Effort Model
[Practice name] — by engagement type
| Engagement type | Bottom-up plan | Closed | P50 | P75 | P90 | Share over plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Engagement type] | [Days] | [Count] | — | — | — | — |
| [Engagement type] | [Days] | [Count] | — | — | — | — |
| [Engagement type] | [Days] | [Count] | — | — | — | — |
Percentiles are computed from actual closed-engagement days, never from a fresh re-estimate.
Every consulting pricing template in this category does the same thing: list the tasks, put a day estimate on each, add them up, quote the total as the fee. That total is somebody's honest judgment of what the work should take. It is not a record of what the same type of work has actually taken before, and the gap between the two is exactly where a fixed fee starts losing money. This pack's Effort Model runs the check most independent consultants skip: what every closed engagement of this type actually took.
HM Treasury's Green Book guidance on optimism bias states plainly that project appraisers are proven to be over-optimistic about cost, benefits and duration. Its own generic uplift tables are meant for use only in the absence of more robust primary data. A practice with several closed engagements of the same type already holds data more robust than any generic table. The Effort Model turns that history into a number: the type's own median, 75th and 90th percentile actual days, computed from what happened rather than from a fresh estimate.
Northolme Advisory, a fictional three-person operations consultancy, bids every process improvement diagnostic off the same ten-day plan. Eleven closed engagements actually ran from 9 to 22 days, 73% over that plan, so pricing all eleven at the plan would have lost $77,000 against the type. FAR 16.103(b) states that a firm-fixed-price contract belongs where a reasonable basis for firm pricing exists, and that another contract type should be considered otherwise. The Scenario Comparison decides between a fixed fee and a capped structure before the number reaches the proposal.
What's in the pack
Effort Model
Every tracked engagement type's actual closed-engagement days, with the median, 75th and 90th percentile computed from history rather than a fresh guess.
Margin by Engagement Type
A retrospective backtest across every closed engagement, comparing what pricing at the bottom-up plan actually returned against pricing at the type's own 75th percentile.
Scenario Comparison
Tests a candidate fee structure against the type's own median, 90th percentile and worst-case actual days before the number ships.
Why the Reference Class Beats the Bottom-Up Plan
The mechanism note: a task list prices the work as briefed, and a practice's own closed history prices it as it has actually gone.
Pricing Approach
The internal working note behind one specific quote, tracing the chosen fee structure back to the type's own Effort Model before the number is signed into the statement of work.
Fee Structure Options
Three structures in the order to try them, and the one number from the Effort Model, how wide the type's own range runs, that actually chooses between them.
Rate Rationale
Where the day rate itself comes from. This pack holds it constant and takes it as a given input from a rate card built on the practice's own realized yield.
How to use it
- 1
Open in River, or take it blank
Open the pack and send your closed engagements by type, or download the Word documents and CSV sheets and run the percentiles yourself.
- 2
Log actual days, not a guess
Every closed engagement of a type gets its real day count, sourced from the calendar or the invoice dates rather than remembered as typical.
- 3
Build the type's own percentiles
Sort the actual days and take the median, 75th and 90th percentile, rounded up to a whole day before either one prices anything.
- 4
Test the fee before you quote
Run the candidate structure against the type's own median, 90th percentile and worst case, so the number is checked before it reaches the client.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. The zip is Word documents and CSV sheets, no account and no card. Edit with AI is the optional half: send your closed engagements by type and the agent builds the Effort Model and tests a fee structure against it. The rest sit in the template library.
What format are the downloaded files?
Four Word documents and three CSV sheets in one zip. The Effort Model, Margin by Engagement Type and Scenario Comparison sheets open in Excel, Numbers or Google Sheets with every column intact, no conversion needed.
How many past engagements do I need before this works?
More than three of the same type. Three or fewer is not enough to support a real percentile, and the pack says so rather than computing one anyway. Price the next one or two conservatively and log the actual days the moment each closes.
Does this set my day rate?
No. The day rate is an input here, not an output. The rate card and positioning pack sets it from a practice's own realized yield by engagement type, and this pack takes that rate and prices the day count around it.
A new engagement seems easier than the ones behind the type. Can I price it lower?
Only with a specific, stated reason the scope is narrower, such as one plant instead of the two or three most closed engagements covered. Feeling straightforward going in is the exact optimism the Effort Model exists to correct.
What happens after the fee structure is decided?
The number goes into the proposal as the priced days, then into the statement of work as an agreed term. If the scope grows mid-engagement, the change order pack prices the addition the same way.
Price it from what it actually took
Take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank, or send River your closed engagements and get a fee structure tested against your own history.
Edit with AI