Summary
When the audit notice arrives, most SPLA hosting providers call their SPLA reseller first. It’s a natural instinct. They sold you the SPLA agreement. They process your monthly reports. Surely they can help you navigate this.
They can, to a point. Knowing where that point ends matters more than most providers realise. The problem isn’t unique to SPLA audits. It’s a recognised problem across professional services, procurement, and financial advice.
The Problem with “Free” Advice from Interested Parties
As Elite Business Magazine observed, “Free isn’t really free, there’s always a catch. In business, free advice usually serves as bait for something else.”
The principle applies across industries. When you receive “free” advice from someone who profits from the transaction you’re making decisions about, you’re not getting independent counsel. You’re getting sales support dressed as guidance.
Frank Scavo, an independent IT consultant and former analyst, writes about this dynamic in enterprise software consulting: “No one can serve two masters. Avoiding conflicts of interest is much easier if the consulting firm can decide which it wants to be. Do you want to serve buyers or sellers? And don’t say both. Pick a side.”
He uses a telling analogy: “When you are looking for a financial advisor, you want someone that is independent from financial services firms.” Software audits costing hundreds of thousands of pounds work the same way.
How Vendor Relationships Create Structural Conflicts
Research on supply chain consulting identifies the core problem with vendor-affiliated advisors: “Recommendations may prioritise vendor relationships over objective analysis. Limited technology scope means they may push solutions from their partner ecosystem rather than considering all available options. Hidden costs arise through equipment pricing that includes embedded commissions and markups.”
Canadian procurement expert Stephen Bauld documented how this works in IT specifically. Writing about procurement conflicts, he notes: “Some suppliers (particularly in the IT area) have taken up the practice of salting the market with former employees, who act as ‘independent’ consultants. Such consultants retain strong ties with those suppliers, and as a result tend to recommend the supplier’s products whether or not they are necessarily best suited to the needs of the customer.”
Even in heavily regulated financial services, conflicts persist. Commission-based advisors under the suitability standard can recommend higher-commission products that are merely “not unsuitable” rather than truly optimal for clients. The products just need to clear a minimum bar, not be the best choice.
The Partner’s Position in SPLA Audits
Your Microsoft partner processes your SPLA transactions and monthly reports. They understand SPLA licensing rules. When an audit notice arrives, they can clarify your reporting obligations, answer licensing questions, and explain what the auditor will be looking for to the extent of their practical knowledge.
Your SPLA partner can clarify licensing rules — but can’t defend you in an audit.
They’re also your administrative route to Microsoft. They can facilitate conversations, help you interpret correspondence, and ensure you’re meeting procedural requirements. Partner support costs nothing extra. It’s part of the partner relationship.
But their role has clear boundaries built into the partner agreement.
Where the Boundaries Sit
Partners can’t represent you in the audit. They’re Microsoft partners with contractual obligations to Microsoft, not to you. That’s not a criticism of their integrity. It’s their business model. The partner agreement doesn’t permit them to act as your advocate in an audit defence.
They can’t negotiate your settlement. Microsoft won’t allow it. The audit process operates outside the partner relationship entirely.
Resellers operate under Microsoft’s contract. They can’t negotiate your settlement.
Perhaps most significantly, their expertise is transactional rather than consultative. The typical SPLA reseller knows how to sell licences and process monthly reports. They don’t specialise in audit defence strategy, settlement negotiation mechanics, or which evidence Microsoft’s auditors will accept versus challenge when findings reach six figures.
Frank Scavo’s observation about IT consulting generally applies here: consultants who receive revenue from both buyers and tech providers face temptation to let vendor relationships influence their recommendations. SPLA resellers have ongoing commercial relationships with Microsoft. That’s the core of their business model. Audit defence is a different arena.
The Economics of Expertise
When findings reach hundreds of thousands of pounds, the knowledge gap becomes expensive. Audit defence requires different expertise: understanding negotiation dynamics, knowing which processes can reduce findings, preparing evidence that satisfies auditors, managing the timeline strategically.
Specialists who work in this area charge professional fees for their work. Their commercial interest is reducing your liability rather than selling you licences. They don’t have obligations to Microsoft. They bring knowledge from handling multiple SPLA audits rather than transactional licensing.
The economic model differs from your partner relationship. Your partner earns the same whether your settlement is £100,000 or £1 million. A specialist’s fee typically remains constant regardless of settlement size, which changes the incentive structure.
Audit defence is about liability, not licence volume. Different incentives — different outcomes.
Independent consultants across industries describe their model similarly. As IT advisory firms note, independence means providing “unbiased advice based on what’s best for your business, free from internal politics or vendor bias.”
Why the Free Support Has Limits
In financial services, there’s a concept called fiduciary duty. Independent, fee-only advisors are legally bound to act solely in clients’ best interests. Commission-based advisors under the suitability standard face different obligations. Their recommendations must be suitable, but they’re allowed to recommend higher-commission products when lower-cost alternatives exist.
SPLA resellers aren’t fiduciaries. They’re transactional partners. The support you receive is part of the partner programme economics. It covers normal business operations, monthly reporting, and licensing queries. Audit defence is a different activity entirely.
When Wealth Analytics discusses hidden agendas in financial advice, they note: “Sales reps are paid to do one thing: sell products, whether it’s in your best interest or not. Incentives are always aligned for corporate benefits, not yours.”
Your partner’s incentive structure is built around maintaining their Microsoft relationship and growing licence sales. Your audit defence incentive is minimising liability. These aren’t necessarily in conflict, but they’re not automatically aligned either.
Making the Decision
Most SPLA providers either handle audits themselves or bring in specialist support. Both approaches can work, depending on the complexity of the findings and your internal expertise.
For straightforward audits with limited findings, your partner’s administrative support combined with your own understanding of your infrastructure may be sufficient. For more complex situations with significant potential liability, the inherent limitations of the partner relationship become relevant.
The question isn’t whether your partner wants to help. It’s whether the help you need falls within their contractual ability to provide it, given their Microsoft partnerships and expertise. As Frank Scavo concluded in his analysis: “When we are negotiating with vendors on your behalf, we are not straddling the table. We sit on your side of the table only.”
Effective audit defence begins where your partner’s role ends.
Clarity about where partner support ends and independent representation begins helps you make informed decisions when the audit notice arrives. The audit process sits alongside your partner relationship, not within it.