# Contractor Msa And Task Order

> Contractor MSA and Task Order

- Skill: `ingridleiria/contractor-msa-and-task-order` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ingridleiria/contractor-msa-and-task-order`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ingridleiria/contractor-msa-and-task-order/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Productivity
- Author: ingridleiria (https://skillmd.com/u/ingridleiria)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ingridleiria/contractor-msa-and-task-order

---


# Contractor MSA and Task Order

A firm that places people onto client engagements needs two papers, in a fixed order. The master services agreement is signed once with the individual and holds everything that does not change between engagements: confidentiality, intellectual property assignment, non-solicitation, indemnity, liability, termination, governing law. The task order is issued per engagement and holds everything that does: role, client, dates, services, deliverables and money.

Issuing a task order without a signed master agreement is the failure this skill exists to prevent, and it happens for an entirely understandable reason. The client wants a start date, the contractor wants to know what they are being paid, and both of those live in the task order. So the task order goes out first, work begins, and the firm now has a live engagement with commercial terms and none of the protective ones. What that costs is specific: no assignment of intellectual property, so the firm cannot lawfully give the client the work product it has already invoiced for; no confidentiality obligation covering client information the contractor now holds; no non-solicitation, so the contractor may contract directly with the client at the end of the engagement, which is the single most common way a placement firm loses an account; and no liability cap, so a claim from the client has no ceiling on the way through. Each of those is free to fix before the work starts and expensive or impossible to fix afterwards, because the contractor's leverage is never higher than the day the client is expecting them on site.

## When to use this, and when not to

Use it for exactly two documents and the relationship they create: a master services agreement with an individual who will be placed onto client work, and the task orders issued under it. Use it when a new person joins the bench, when an existing contractor is put onto a named project, when a fractional executive is engaged, when a task order needs extending or amending, and when someone asks whether last time's paper can be reused.

Do not use it for the company's own commercial and corporate agreements. Equity and investment instruments, employment agreements, non-disclosure agreements, partnership and referral agreements, and vendor and technology contracts are `business-agreements-drafting`. The boundary is worth stating exactly, because a contractor agreement appears in both lists: `business-agreements-drafting` covers a contractor engaged to do work for the firm itself, and this skill covers a contractor placed onto a client engagement, which adds a third party and therefore adds flow-down obligations, a client name in the paper, and a margin.

Do not use it for the client-facing scope. What the client receives, the acceptance criteria, the exclusions, the assumptions and the change control belong to `sow-and-scope` in the chief-of-staff track. The client statement of work and the contractor task order frequently describe the same work and must never be the same file. The client document says what the firm owes the client. The task order says what this individual owes the firm, and its obligations have to be at least as strong as the firm's, or the firm is carrying the difference.

Do not use it where the person should be an employee. Where the firm controls hours, integrates the person into its own management line and supplies the tools, drafting an independent contractor agreement does not make them a contractor; it creates a misclassification exposure with a document attached. Raise it and route to counsel.

## What you need before starting

**Confirmation of the two gates set out below.** Missing: ask before anything else. It takes one message and it is the only step that cannot be repaired later.

**The client contract that governs the engagement.** This is the input teams forget and it changes the drafting. The firm's agreement with its client frequently imposes obligations that must flow down to the individual: insurance limits, background checks, data handling and location, security policies, a non-solicitation covering the client's staff, intellectual property assignment in a particular form, audit rights, notice periods. Missing: read it before drafting; where it genuinely cannot be obtained, draft to the firm's strictest standing terms and flag that the flow-down check was not run.

**Full legal name and details of the contractor.** Personal name or their limited company, entity form and number where applicable, address, jurisdiction, tax status. Missing: ask. Whether the counterparty is a person or their company changes the classification analysis, the tax position and the enforceability of several clauses.

**The firm's entity and signatory.** Missing: take from the standing terms file, never from a website footer.

**The commercial terms.** Day rate or monthly fee, days per week, term start and end, any split between full and part time, payment schedule by month or milestone, bonus or success participation with its trigger and calculation, expenses policy and approval threshold. Missing: visible brackets, in capitals. Never invent a rate, and never carry one across from a previous task order without confirming it.

**The role and the services.** What this person owns on the engagement, phrased so that work can be tested against it. Missing: take the client-facing scope and extract this individual's part, then have it confirmed. Do not paste the whole client scope into a task order for one person.

**The firm's standing terms.** Governing law, forum, non-solicitation period, intellectual property position, liability cap, payment timing, invoice deadline. Missing: build the standing terms file now, because every future task order depends on it and it takes half an hour.

**Whether payment is back to back with the client.** Whether the contractor is paid only once the client has paid the firm. Missing: ask explicitly; it is a real commercial term with a real cost and it must never appear in a draft by default.

## The method

1. **Decide which document or documents to build**, using the table in the section below. Where the answer is both, say so before drafting, because it changes the timeline the client is being promised.

2. **Confirm the two gates in writing.** Qualification and signing order. Do not begin drafting on a verbal assurance about an executed agreement; ask for the date.

3. **Run the flow-down check against the client contract.** Read the client agreement and list every obligation that touches the individual. Then map each to a clause in the master agreement or the task order. Anything the firm owes the client that the contractor does not owe the firm is a gap the firm is carrying personally. Judgement call: what to do when the client's requirement is stricter than the firm's standing term, for example a twenty-four month non-solicitation against a standing twelve. Rule: flow the stricter term down for that engagement, in the task order rather than in the master agreement, so it binds where it is needed without permanently changing the terms of every future engagement.

4. **Intake, taking what the conversation already contains and asking only for the rest.** Never invent a commercial term. Every unknown stays as a visible bracket in capitals so the document cannot be signed by accident. Keep a blank intake template and one filled example beside the skill; the filled example is worth more than any instruction about tone.

5. **Apply the standing terms, marking deviations as you go.** Record clause, standing position, this draft, and what the change exposes. Before any restraint is drafted, run the jurisdiction check in the section below. A non-solicitation or non-compete that is void where the contractor works is not a weak clause, it is no clause, and drafting it anyway hides the exposure rather than covering it.

6. **Draft the master agreement in the fixed anatomy.** Do not reorder; the order is what makes two agreements comparable at a glance a year later.

7. **Draft the task order in the fixed anatomy**, referencing the master agreement by date in its first paragraph.

8. **Decide the payment basis explicitly.** Back to back, where the contractor is paid after the client pays, transfers the firm's credit risk to an individual, which is a real cost and should buy something: a higher rate, a longer engagement, or a longstop date after which the firm pays regardless. Rule: never use back to back silently, never on a fixed monthly retainer without a longstop of sixty or ninety days, and never with a first-time contractor, because the first engagement is where trust is built and a late payment they cannot chase destroys it.

9. **Write the flag list above the draft.** Deviations from standing terms, gaps found in the flow-down check, outstanding qualification items, and any mechanic that has not been worked through with numbers, such as a success bonus with an ambiguous trigger.

10. **Produce the file, validate it, and state the signing order in the message.** Formatted for signature to the firm's document standard, draft notice on every review copy, removed only for the signature version. For a new contractor, deliver both documents together and say in the message that the master agreement is signed first.

## The jurisdiction check, before any restraint is drafted

Non-solicitation, non-interference and non-compete clauses are not portable. They are enforceable in some places, narrowly enforceable in others, and void in several, and the differences are not marginal. California voids employee non-competes almost entirely and treats most customer non-solicitation as an unlawful restraint of trade; other United States states impose income thresholds, notice periods or mandatory consideration; several European jurisdictions require the restraint to be paid for during the restricted period; some require it to be in writing and time-limited on pain of being struck out whole rather than read down. Where the contractor works through their own company in one country while the firm and the client sit in another, three legal systems can touch the same clause.

Run four questions before drafting, and record the answers in the flag list.

Where does the individual actually perform the work, and where are they resident. That, not the governing law clause, is usually what decides enforceability of a restraint on a person.

Is a restraint of this kind enforceable there at all, and if so, on what conditions: maximum duration, geographic or customer scope, a payment during the restricted period, a minimum income, written notice before signature.

Is an over-broad clause read down or struck out. In a read-down jurisdiction an aggressive draft costs little; in a strike-out jurisdiction it costs the whole protection, which is why the narrowest version the firm would actually enforce is the right draft in both.

What protects the firm if the restraint fails. Confidentiality, intellectual property assignment and a direct contractual relationship with the client are usually enforceable where a restraint is not, so where the answer to question two is no, the protection has to be rebuilt from those and the flag list has to say so in plain words rather than leaving a void clause on the page.

Where the answer is unclear, draft the narrowest version, flag it as untested in that jurisdiction, and route it to counsel before signature rather than after. This skill drafts documents and is not legal advice.

## Two gates, confirmed before drafting

**Qualification.** The contractor meets whatever standard the firm requires for the role: certification, licence, right to work, background check, insurance at the limits the client contract requires, references taken. Confirm it in writing before drafting, not after. Where the user has not confirmed it, ask. Where they confirm it is outstanding, draft, but put the outstanding item in the flag list and make the agreement conditional on it in the recitals rather than assuming it will arrive.

**Signing order.** A task order is issued under an executed master agreement and references it by date. Where no signed agreement exists, produce the master agreement first and state the order explicitly in the covering message, not only in the file. When a request jumps straight to the Exhibit A, ask one question: is the master agreement signed, and on what date. If the answer is no or unknown, produce both in the same pass, because the pressure that produced the shortcut will not have gone away by tomorrow.

## Which document to build

| The request | Build | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A new contractor joining the bench; a master agreement; a framework agreement | Master agreement | No client named, no dates, no money |
| Putting a contractor on a named project; a task order; an Exhibit A; an SOW for a person | Task order | Confirm the master agreement date first |
| A new contractor going onto their first project | Both, master agreement first | Deliver together, state the signing order |
| Extending or changing a live engagement | Task order amendment | References the original task order and states what it changes |
| A second concurrent engagement for the same contractor | Second task order | Under the same master agreement; check capacity conflicts |
| The standing terms have changed since the master agreement was signed | Addendum, then task order | Do not re-paper the whole agreement mid-relationship |

## The standing terms file

There are two files and only one of them is canonical. `business-agreements-drafting/party-defaults.md` is the canonical record of everything that is true of the firm whatever it is signing: entity and registration details, signatories and thresholds, governing law, forum, dispute resolution route, notices, payment terms, late payment, currency, expenses policy, liability cap and excluded losses, indemnity position, insurance held, confidentiality term, intellectual property position, and the never-accept-without-escalation list. Do not copy any of those into a second file. A duplicated governing law clause is the one that goes stale, and nobody finds out until two contracts signed in the same month disagree.

`standing-terms.md` beside this skill records only what is different because the counterparty is an individual placed onto a client engagement. Keep it to the list below, and have it state on its first line which file it inherits from. Every deviation from either file is flagged with what it exposes, never absorbed quietly.

```
# Standing terms: contractor engagements
Inherits everything not listed here from business-agreements-drafting/party-defaults.md
Last reviewed: [date]   Owner: [name]

## Restraints, which are engagement-specific and jurisdiction-specific
Non-solicitation: [period after the last task order ends; covers client staff, our staff,
  and direct contracting with any client the contractor was placed with]
Non-interference: [period, and what it covers]
Jurisdictions where a restraint is void, restricted or must be paid for, and the
  fallback protection used in each: [list, reviewed annually]

## Because the counterparty is an individual
Intellectual property: [work product assigned on creation; background IP retained by the
  contractor and licensed to us; moral rights waived where the jurisdiction allows;
  personal undertaking required where the counterparty is their own company]
Insurance required: [professional indemnity limit, public liability limit, evidence
  required before the first day, and who chases renewal]
Background checks: [what is required, who pays, how the result is recorded]
Subcontracting: [permitted or not; if permitted, with our prior written consent only]
Classification: [the control, integration and equipment tests we apply before drafting]

## Because there is a client behind the engagement
Flow-down defaults: [obligations we always carry through from a client contract]
Back-to-back payment: [our default position, and when it may be used]
Invoice submission deadline: [e.g. by the 5th of the following month]
Rate review: [when rates may be revisited]
Termination for convenience: [notice period each side]
Termination for cause: [what triggers it, and whether it is immediate]

## Never issue without
[Executed master agreement; evidence of insurance at the client-required limit;
 qualification confirmed; flow-down check run against the client contract;
 jurisdiction check run on every restraint.]
```

## Master agreement anatomy

Do not reorder. Title. Draft notice while under review. Preamble naming both parties with their full legal details. Recital stating the role and the qualification held. Then: term; services, stating that specific work is ordered by task order and that no task order creates an obligation to offer or accept further work; use of subcontractors; background checks; representations and warranties; change control; compensation and expenses, in general terms only, with amounts left to task orders; relationship of the parties, stating independent contractor status explicitly and disclaiming employment benefits; cooperation; tax responsibility; confidentiality, split into definition, exclusions and the non-disclosure obligation; inventions and assignment of intellectual property, including background IP and moral rights; return of documents on termination; non-solicitation with its duration and its scope, including direct contracting with clients; non-interference; indemnity; limitation of liability with its carve-outs; insurance; assignment; termination, for convenience and for cause; general provisions covering governing law, forum, dispute resolution, notices, severability, survival, and entire agreement; acknowledgement; signature block.

Two clauses are worth extra care because they are the ones that are litigated. The non-solicitation must name direct contracting with the client, not only the poaching of staff, since that is the actual risk. And the survival clause must list which obligations continue after termination, because a confidentiality term that does not survive is decoration.

## Task order anatomy

Title, naming it as Exhibit A with the task order number. Draft notice while under review. Incorporation preamble, referencing the master agreement by its execution date and stating that its terms govern. Effective dates. Role. Description of services, as bullets a reader can test work against. Key deliverables and activities, with dates or milestone triggers. Compensation: a short introduction, then the schedule as a table, then payment terms including any back-to-back condition and its longstop. Bonus or success participation, if any, with the trigger and the calculation shown with numbers. Expenses, with the approval rule and the invoicing deadline. Any engagement-specific flow-down terms taken from the client contract. Incorporation and priority, stating which document wins on conflict, which is normally the master agreement except on the commercial terms this task order sets. Acknowledgement. Signature block.

## Worked example

**Situation.** Halden Ridge Advisory, an eleven-person operations firm, needed to place a fractional operations lead onto a six-month engagement with Northgate Dairy starting the following Monday. The contractor was known to the firm socially but had never worked for it. Terms discussed verbally: three days a week for six months, about 78 working days, at 1,150 US dollars a day against a client rate of 1,850 a day. All figures in this example are in US dollars. Both parties and the client were in New York, and the firm's standing terms were drafted to New York law, which is why the restraint below was worth drafting at all; the same clause would have been void had the contractor been resident and working in California, and the jurisdiction check is in the method for that reason.

**Task.** Paper the placement before the Monday start, with the firm protected and the contractor comfortable enough to sign in two days rather than negotiate for a week.

**Action.** The wrong turn came first and it cost real money. Under time pressure, the account lead sent the Exhibit A alone on the Thursday, reasoning that the master agreement was administrative and could follow. The contractor signed it the same day and started on Monday.

On the Wednesday of week two, the flow-down check was finally run against the client contract, and it found three obligations with nothing behind them. The client required professional indemnity insurance of five million for anyone on site; the contractor held two million. The client contract carried a twenty-four month non-solicitation covering its staff and any direct engagement of personnel introduced through the firm; the firm's standing non-solicitation was twelve months, enforceable on the facts here but checked rather than assumed, and the contractor had signed nothing at all. And the client required all work product to be assigned to it, which the firm could not deliver, because it had no assignment from the contractor and therefore owned nothing to assign.

Repairing this after the start was materially harder. The contractor was now working, had leverage, and had a reasonable objection to the twenty-four month term because they held an existing relationship with a competitor of the client. The negotiation took nine days and settled at twenty-four months limited to Northgate Dairy and its named subsidiaries rather than the client's whole sector, plus a rate increase to 1,250 a day in exchange, which cut the margin on the engagement from 700 a day, or 38 percent, to 600 a day, or 32 percent. Across about 78 working days that is 100 a day of margin given up, which is 7,800 over the six months. The insurance was upgraded at the firm's cost, 780 US dollars for the year, because the contractor would not carry a limit they only needed for one client.

The rebuild produced both documents properly. The master agreement carried the standing twelve-month non-solicitation, the full intellectual property assignment with background IP retained and licensed, a liability cap at fees paid in the preceding twelve months with carve-outs for confidentiality and IP infringement, and an insurance clause requiring evidence before the first day of any task order. The engagement-specific twenty-four month restriction and the five million insurance limit went into the task order as flow-down terms, so they bound this engagement without permanently changing the terms of every future one.

Payment was not made back to back. The rule applied: never with a first-time contractor. The firm paid on thirty days from a valid invoice submitted by the fifth of the following month, and carried the client's sixty-day terms itself, which was a deliberate cost of roughly one month of working capital in exchange for a contractor who would take the next engagement.

The success bonus was worked through with numbers before it was drafted. As discussed verbally it was "5,000 on successful delivery", which had no trigger anyone could test. It was drafted as 5,000 payable on the client's written acceptance of the phase two operating review, with a fallback of deemed acceptance after fifteen business days, because without the fallback the trigger depended on a client action nobody could compel.

**Result.** Both documents were executed at the end of week three, backdated in effect by an acknowledgement clause covering the period already worked rather than by falsifying the date, and the whole matter went to counsel who accepted them with one change to the survival clause. The engagement ran its six months and the contractor took two further task orders under the same master agreement, each of which took about forty minutes to produce.

The lasting change was procedural. The firm added the flow-down check to its intake, and added a single line to its engagement checklist: no start date is confirmed with a client until the master agreement is executed. The cost of learning it was 7,800 in margin plus 780 for the insurance upgrade, so about 8,600 in total, and nine days of a partner's attention.

### A second scenario, where it goes differently

Fourteen months later the same firm needed the same contractor for a one-week specialist piece with a different client, starting in four days. The master agreement was executed and live. Two things had changed in the meantime: the firm had raised its standard liability cap and added a data protection annex to its standing terms after a client audit.

The temptation was to re-paper the master agreement to bring it up to date. That was rejected, on the reasoning that reopening a signed agreement for a one-week engagement invites a renegotiation of everything in it, and the contractor would reasonably ask what else had changed. Instead a two-page addendum was issued, limited to the two changed items, signed alongside the new task order and referencing the master agreement by date.

The rest of the method compressed rather than changed. The flow-down check still ran and took twenty minutes, finding one obligation, a requirement that no client data leave the client's own systems, which went into the task order as a services constraint rather than into the addendum. Qualification was already on file. The task order itself took half an hour from the template.

Back-to-back payment was raised by the account lead, because this client paid on ninety days. It was refused for a different reason from the first scenario: a one-week engagement with a payment tail of ninety days is not a credit risk the individual can absorb or price, and the total exposure to the firm was 5,750 US dollars, being five days at 1,150, which is a working capital question rather than a contractual one.

What changed: with an executed master agreement in place, the work moved from drafting to checking, and the judgement shifted from what to draft to what not to reopen. The whole placement was papered in about ninety minutes against roughly nine hours for the first one.

## Output

Deliver in this order, in one message.

```
FOR REVIEW: NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Contractor:       [full legal name, entity if applicable]
Engagement:       [client, role]        Term: [dates, days per week]
Master agreement: [executed on DATE / attached, sign first]
Task order:       [number]              Flow-down check: [run against client contract dated X / not run, flagged]
Signing order:    Master agreement, then task order. Do not counter-sign out of order.
```

**Flags.**

| # | Issue | Standing position | This draft | What it exposes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

**Outstanding items.** Qualification, insurance evidence, unknown commercial terms, each with a bracket reference and an owner.

**Compensation schedule**, as it appears in the task order:

| Period or milestone | Basis | Amount | Invoice due | Payment due |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

**The documents**, formatted for signature to the firm's document standard, draft notice present on every review copy, validated to open cleanly before delivery.

## Failure modes

**The task order sent first.** The defining failure. Recognise it by asking for the master agreement's execution date and getting a description instead of a date. Stop, produce the master agreement, and hold the start date. A start date is easier to move than a signed contractor's leverage is to reduce.

**Skipping the flow-down check.** Recognise it when nobody has opened the client contract. The gap is invisible until a claim, an audit or an offboarding, and by then the firm is carrying it alone. Twenty minutes, every time.

**Reusing last time's task order without reading it.** Recognise it by a client name or a date that belongs to a different engagement, which appears in more real documents than anyone admits. Rebuild from the template and the intake, never by editing the previous file.

**Inventing a rate.** Recognise it when a figure appears that nobody can attribute to a conversation. Brackets in capitals until confirmed.

**A bonus with no testable trigger.** "On successful delivery" depends on a judgement nobody has defined. Recognise it by asking who decides and when. Tie it to a written acceptance with a deemed-acceptance fallback.

**Back-to-back payment inserted by default.** Recognise it when nobody discussed it and it appears anyway. It transfers the firm's credit risk to an individual and it should buy something. Never on a first engagement, never on a retainer without a longstop.

**Re-papering a live master agreement for a small change.** Recognise it when a one-week engagement has produced a twelve-page redline. Use an addendum limited to what changed.

**Drafting an independent contractor agreement for what is really employment.** Recognise it by the substance: fixed hours, integration into the firm's management line, firm-supplied equipment, no other clients. The label does not decide it. Raise it and route to counsel.

## Edge cases

**The contractor works through their own limited company.** The counterparty is the company, and the agreement needs a key person clause naming the individual, a substitution position stated one way or the other, and a personal undertaking on confidentiality and intellectual property from the individual as well as the company. Without that, the protective terms bind an entity that can be dissolved.

**The client wants to contract the individual directly.** This is the situation the non-solicitation exists for, and it is a commercial conversation, not a drafting one. Draft nothing until the firm has decided its position. Where the firm agrees, the exit is papered as a release with a fee, not by ignoring the clause.

**Work has already started with nothing signed.** Do not backdate. Draft both documents with an acknowledgement clause stating the parties began performance on a stated date and agree the terms apply from it. Flag the exposure for the elapsed period plainly, because it is real and it is not repaired by paperwork.

**The contractor refuses the non-solicitation.** Establish which part. Refusal of the whole clause usually means an existing relationship with the client or a competitor, which needs to be disclosed and may disqualify them for this engagement. Refusal of the duration or the geographic reach is ordinary and negotiable. Narrow the clause to the named client and its subsidiaries before shortening the period, because scope is worth more than length.

**Two concurrent task orders for the same person.** Check total committed days against the calendar and against any exclusivity in either client contract. State in the second task order that it does not vary the first, and confirm the contractor's total commitment in writing.

**A task order needs to change mid-engagement.** Issue an amendment referencing the original by number and date, stating exactly what changes and what continues unchanged. Do not reissue a corrected task order with the same number, which leaves two documents with equal claim to being the agreement.

**The client contract cannot be obtained.** Draft to the strictest standing terms, note in the flag list that the flow-down check was not run and what that means, and make running it a named action with an owner and a date rather than an intention.

## Quality bar

- The qualification gate and the signing order are confirmed in writing before drafting begins.
- The flow-down check has been run against the client contract, and every client obligation touching the individual maps to a clause, or appears in the flag list as a gap.
- No commercial term is invented; every unknown is a visible bracket in capitals and appears again in the outstanding items list.
- Clause order follows the anatomy, and the task order references the master agreement by execution date in its first paragraph.
- Engagement-specific stricter terms sit in the task order, not in the master agreement.
- Standing terms match the recorded file, and every deviation is flagged with what it exposes.
- Any bonus or success payment has a testable trigger with a fallback that does not depend on a third party acting.
- The draft notice is present on every review copy, the file opens cleanly, and the signing order is stated in the covering message as well as in the documents.

## Adapting this to your context

This assumes a small placement or advisory firm with a bench, a client contract above each engagement, enforceable restraints, and one individual per task order. Three of those four vary a great deal.

- **Enforceable restraints.** The twelve-month non-solicitation is a New York-style default. Run the jurisdiction check every time, and where a restraint is void or must be paid for, rebuild the protection from confidentiality, intellectual property and the client relationship, and say so in the flag list.
- **Worker classification.** The contractor form assumes a control and integration test. Where a statutory test applies, an ABC test or a deemed-employment rule for public sector clients among them, answer the classification question before drafting; the answer may be that this skill does not apply.
- **Currency and day rates.** The rates here are illustrative US dollar day rates. Take yours from the last four task orders, convert once at a stated rate where contractor and client are paid differently, and state the currency in the schedule.
- **One person per task order.** A firm placing a team needs a key person clause per individual and a substitution position stated one way or the other.

- **What not to change.** The master agreement is signed before the task order, and the flow-down check runs against the client contract every time.

## Related skills

`business-agreements-drafting` covers the firm's own commercial and corporate paper: equity and investment, employment, non-disclosure, partnership and referral, vendor and technology. `sow-and-scope` in the chief-of-staff track covers the client-facing scope, whose obligations this skill flows down into the task order. `pricing-and-resourcing-model` sets the client rate and the margin that make a contractor rate viable before any task order is drafted. `hiring-scorecard-and-interview-kit` handles the assessment that the qualification gate records. `vendor-evaluation` applies where the counterparty is a supplier organisation rather than an individual placed onto client work.