As new distribution models, technology-focused booking solutions and hybrid service providers redraw the map of managed travel, travel management companies are finding that RFPs and commercial negotiations no longer follow a predictable script. Fee structures are being reexamined. NDC economics are reshaping airline content discussions. Pilot programs with emerging platforms are entering the mix alongside traditional full-service arrangements. 

For many travel management companies, contracts are no longer static agreements meant to endure untouched for three to five years, but evolving frameworks designed to flex with innovation while preserving stability and trust.

“The market has expanded in ways that make traditional comparison harder,” says Chloe Carver, corporate travel practice leader at Acquis Consulting. “Buyers are now evaluating traditional TMCs alongside tech-forward platforms and hybrid models, which is not an apples-to-apples comparison.”

Carver says her team increasingly works with clients to determine which operating model fits their needs before an RFP is even issued. In cases where buyers want to explore multiple paths simultaneously, Acquis has adjusted its approach. “We’ve never been fans of lengthy RFPs, but we’ve become even more disciplined about what goes in them,” Carver says. “Every question has to earn its place and actually help clients compare options, gather pricing and commercial terms, and narrow the field in a thoughtful way. If a question isn’t doing one of these things, it shouldn’t be there.”

Yet, she adds, the most significant shift often occurs after the proposal is submitted. “While the proposal is important, it is not the main decision-maker. Demos of the reporting suite, discussions of the service model, and an honest dialogue between the buyer and the TMC bring the proposal off the page,” Carver says. “As the use of AI and tech continues to increase, human connection matters more than ever. The RFP opens the door, the proposal enables the TMC to walk through the door, but what happens during the presentation stage is what seals the deal.”

Kim Hamer, chief travel advisory officer at Navan, says that today, RFPs pull in a massive cross-section of internal teams. “You’ve got legal, data privacy, risk, cybersecurity, and now AI leaders all requiring a seat at the table,” says Hamer. “When you combine all of that into a scope of work, trying to nail down content distribution and service details in a market constantly disrupted by New Distribution Capability and AI, you end up with agreements that are dense, complicated and subject to change.”

Contracts can no longer be static endpoints, she notes. They have to be flexible, evolving frameworks. “The industry needs to shift toward simple, transparent pricing and collaborative agreements that enable innovation rather than stifle it,” Hamer adds. 

In the past few years, rather than static statements of work, contracts are evolving into structured governance and SOW (statement of work) documents that define assumptions, service boundaries, innovation scopes and change-control mechanisms, says Jean-Michel Kadaner, partner at Areka Consulting

Kadaner explains that buyers are asking for pricing transparency by component because traditional all-in fee models no longer align with modern cost drivers, particularly in an NDC- and AI-influenced environment.

The emphasis is less on headline pricing and more on economic sustainability and risk allocation and measurement. “Corporate travel RFPs have shifted from price negotiations to operating-model design,” Kadaner says. “Buyers are no longer just asking what a transaction costs; they are asking how content is sourced, how disruption is handled, and how risk is shared. Contracts are becoming governance frameworks, not static fee-and-services schedules, and take a much longer time to finalize.”

Kadaner notes that the largest source of complexity today is economic causality; i.e., understanding who generates cost and who absorbs it. With new distribution models, AI, automation layers, and servicing variability, cost structures have become less linear.

“For example, exchanges, refunds, schedule changes, and hybrid content environments can materially alter cost-to-serve,” he says. “Yet many contracts still assume stable servicing assumptions. Additionally, multi-platform ecosystems introduce multiple processors, API dependencies and heightened compliance requirements. More tech equals much more complexity and safeguards.”

Will Tate, a partner with GoldSpring Consulting, says corporate travel RFPs and TMC contracts have been moving away from tactical to more strategic, with a focus on key technologies that enhance both the traveler experience and cost management.  

“Larger buyers require more runway to evaluate options due to wide variance of available technology and operational deployment by region and country,” Tate says. “These gaps create stress on the buying organization to compromise many ‘nice to haves’ that are not universally available.”

Emerging Platforms, New Partners

If the front end of the RFP is becoming more disciplined, the back end of the deal is becoming more nuanced. Industry experts say one of the most visible pressure points is pricing structure itself, as new platforms and partnership models introduce alternatives to the long-standing transaction or management fee approach. That shift is forcing buyers and TMCs alike to scrutinize not just the numbers on the page, but the logic behind how value is packaged and delivered.

Lora Ellis, head of consulting at Festive Road, says emerging entrants are reshaping how her team frames those conversations with clients. “Emerging platforms are influencing contracting strategy by simplifying traditional transaction/management fee based pricing and introducing trip-fee models, which can add complexity when TMCs in a sourcing exercise present different commercial structures, including transaction fees, management fees, hybrid models, or trip fees,” she cautions. 

“Each approach has its own distinct advantages and trade-offs, and no single model is exactly right for every buyer,” Ellis says. “Our advice focuses on aligning the commercial structure to the strategic priorities of the future program, recognizing that the best outcomes will vary depending on factors such as where travel sits within the organization, how travel costs are funded, and the overall governance and operating model.”

Contracts today are less about fixed structures and more about aligned incentives and flexibility. The goal is to create an operating framework that supports innovation while maintaining transparency and trust.

“Emerging platforms and new partnerships are pushing the ecosystem to become more open and more complex,” says Hamer. “Forward-looking TMCs recognize that the legacy commercial model is evolving. That changes how we advise on contracting. We start with outcomes.”

Some contracts are becoming more fluid by offering pilots, says Carver, adding that “The risk in a pilot is assuming that what works for one region or department will scale cleanly across the organization. Making sure you have the right plan in place for your larger rollout, including a detailed change management plan, can make or break the larger rollout.”

Hidden Costs and Tradeoffs 

One key piece of advice experts agree on: It is vitally important for buyers to go through every detail of contracts in order to avoid hidden costs. “Some fees can be buried in places buyers don’t think to look,” notes Carver. “Things like a per-PNR reporting fee, charges for services assumed to be standard, or costs that only surface once the relationship is live. Buyers also might not have a clear picture of which TMC services they’ll actually use, resulting in higher than expected TMC invoices. It is important to go through contracts line-by-line so there aren’t any surprises.”

Another common gap is a lack of complete data regarding traveler habits and preferences, she says. Understanding things like online versus offline booking patterns, hotel attachment rates, special reporting needs, and other components that impact the way a program operates today will enable a travel buyer to build a more accurate financial model reflecting the total cost of ownership that comes with the TMC partnership.

“The deeper tradeoff is in the actual mindset during the negotiation,” Carver says. “Haggling over every line item will not set either party up for success once the relationship is established. Neither side can predict exactly what will happen in the coming year, much less over a multi-year term. While financial models can help identify negotiation elements that will likely be the most impactful, building a flexible, trust-based partnership will go a lot further in the long run. We encourage both buyers and TMCs to negotiate for alignment rather than trying to win every line item.”

Behind the headline fee structures and headline savings targets, Areka Consulting’s Kadaner says that the real financial risks often hide in the operational fine print. “The hidden costs today live in the grey zones: exchanges, refunds, data normalization, pilot overhead, and volume dilution,” he advises. “Modernization often looks efficient on paper but introduces operational variability. The role of contracting is to price that variability transparently before it erodes program economics.”

Beyond identifying hidden costs, Ellis says Festive Road also advises clients on less visible revenue streams that can materially affect a commercial offer. “The industry money flow is often opaque, and we are seeing increasing frustration from buyers as a result,” she warns. 

“Our role is to help both sides reach a genuine win–win outcome,” Ellis explains. “The TMC must be fairly compensated for the value it brings to the program as a strategic partner, while buyers benefit most when they clearly rank their future priorities, whether that is customer experience, cost efficiency or traveler care. Establishing these priorities early makes trade-offs more transparent and far easier to navigate during commercial negotiations.”