An AI SOW review agent reads the statement of work and extracts scope, deliverables, milestones, roles, assumptions, fees and acceptance criteria.
The statement of work arrives with a project request.
The agent lists deliverables, milestones and acceptance criteria.
The SOW is checked against its governing MSA.
Undefined deliverables and open-ended fees are marked.
The business owner and legal agree what to clarify.
Agreed milestones are logged for later invoice checks.
It checks those against the parent master agreement and any rate card, so conflicts and gaps are visible before approval.
It prepares a short note for the requester and reviewer on what is unclear, what is missing and what to ask the supplier.
Statements of work are where services spend becomes concrete, and where ambiguity costs the most. They are often written by the project team and the supplier with little contract input.
Phrases like 'as needed' leave room for extra fees later.
Without clear criteria, nobody can say when a deliverable is done and payable.
The SOW may use rates or roles that differ from the MSA or rate card.
A supplier assumption about access or dependencies can shift risk to you.
Scope changes outside a formal process leave no record to check invoices against.
Find the MSA or framework the SOW sits under and load its rates, term and change rules.
Pull the scope statement, deliverables, milestones, dependencies and named roles.
Compare fees, rates, expense terms and payment triggers with the parent agreement and rate card.
Flag missing acceptance criteria, undefined terms, open-ended assumptions and unclear ownership of outputs.
List issues in priority order with the source text and a suggested question for each.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Scope clarity | Vague deliverables are noticed only when work starts. | Undefined or subjective deliverables are flagged before signature. |
| Fee basis | Reviewers work out whether fees are fixed or time-based. | The agent states the fee basis and any cap or lack of one. |
| Acceptance | Acceptance criteria are buried in prose. | Acceptance wording and timing are extracted and shown clearly. |
| Link to MSA | Conflicts with the parent agreement surface late. | Conflicts with the governing MSA are listed with both clauses. |
| Later checks | Milestones live in a project plan, not in procurement. | Milestones are recorded so invoices can be compared later. |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| a deliverable has no acceptance criteria | flag and suggest a measurable wording for the owner to confirm | Business owner |
| fees are time-and-materials with no cap | mark as needs discussion | Business owner and finance |
| the SOW conflicts with the governing MSA | list both clauses and note the precedence rule | Legal counsel |
| the SOW names individuals as key personnel | note the clause on substitution and replacement | Business owner |
| expenses are billable without a stated limit | flag and note the travel or expense policy | Procurement lead |
| the SOW creates new intellectual property terms | flag for legal since the MSA may not cover them | Legal counsel |
The vendor treats an email as scope change. The agent flags the SOW's change clause and the owner decides how to document changes.
A payment milestone has no date. The agent marks it as unclear and the owner proposes a date.
No master agreement exists yet. The agent notes the gap and legal decides whether to proceed.
Later phases are described but unpriced. The agent lists them as open items for the owner to price or drop.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Start with consulting or implementation SOWs, where scope disputes are most common.
Turn on the parent-terms check once the SOW read is trusted.
Feed agreed milestones into invoice checking.
Look back at disputes and tighten the flags.
This shows how often scope was unclear enough to need a later change. A high rate points to weak upfront scoping or loose wording.
Quick answers to what people ask most about SOW review.
Book a demoIt is the check of a SOW for clear scope, deliverables, acceptance, fees and consistency with the governing agreement. The aim is to remove ambiguity before work and billing begin.
It looks for vague scope language, missing acceptance criteria, rates that differ from the MSA, open assumptions and unclear payment triggers.
No. It reports what it found. The requester, budget owner and legal reviewer decide, and an authorised person signs.
The MSA often holds the rates, liability and change rules. A SOW that contradicts it can create disputes about which terms apply.
MSA review is the examination of a master services agreement, the framework contract that governs every later order or statement of work with a supplier.
→Order form review is the check of the document that records a specific purchase, including products, quantities, price, term and renewal, before it is signed.
→NDA review is the check of a non-disclosure agreement against your confidentiality position before anyone shares sensitive information.
→Amendment review is the check of a document that changes an existing contract, such as an added scope, a new price or an extended term.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
