A master services agreement (MSA) with statements of work (SOWs) underneath it is the standard way to structure an ongoing services relationship. The MSA sets the legal terms once, and each SOW describes a specific piece of work. Getting the split right keeps new work fast to start while keeping the protections stable.
The MSA carries the terms that should not change from project to project: liability, indemnities, intellectual property, confidentiality, data protection, insurance and termination. Each SOW carries the specifics: scope, deliverables, timeline, acceptance criteria and price. A common and avoidable problem is putting commercial detail in the MSA or legal terms in the SOW, which leads to conflict between the two. A clear order of precedence clause says which document wins if they disagree.
The central question in any services contract is who owns what is created. The two common models are assignment, where the customer owns the deliverables outright, and licence-back, where the provider keeps ownership of its underlying tools and grants the customer a licence to use the result. Pre-existing materials and general know-how should be carved out and kept by the provider, so the customer gets what it paid for without inadvertently acquiring, or losing, the provider's reusable toolkit.
This is where the money is. A liability cap limits total exposure, usually by reference to fees paid, with certain categories often carved out. Indemnities shift specific risks, such as third-party intellectual property infringement, to the party best placed to manage them. Warranties set the quality standard the services must meet. These three clauses, read together, decide who carries the cost when something fails.
Where the provider processes personal data for the customer, GDPR Article 28 requires a written data processing agreement with specific content, and the provider must not bring in subprocessors without the customer's authorisation. This sits alongside the MSA rather than inside it, and is covered in our data processing agreements work and the article on records of processing.
Work evolves, so the MSA needs a change-control mechanism that lets the parties vary a SOW in writing without reopening the whole agreement. Watch the renewal terms too: automatic renewal with a long notice period can lock you in longer than intended.
The MSA model is part of our commercial contracts and transactions service. For the wider context, see the map of commercial agreements, and for technology engagements the related notes on SaaS agreements and AI clauses in vendor contracts. Drafting and review run through our Contract Studio and Clause Library and Risk Review technology.
For a single, well-defined project, yes. The MSA-plus-SOW model earns its value when there will be several engagements over time, because it removes the need to renegotiate the legal terms each time.
Whichever the order of precedence clause says. Most MSAs provide that the MSA governs on legal terms while the SOW governs on scope and commercial detail. Setting this out explicitly avoids arguments later.
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
%402x.svg){kind=small}
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
