FKINP For a US B2B finance team needing people to run routine accounts receivable, compare managed process delivery with staff who work inside your existing process. Auxis Grant Thornton publishes nearshore AR operations; Connext publishes dedicated receivables staffing. These are two relevant service models, with scope and authority to settle in the contract.[1][2]
Compare the human operating coverage
- Auxis Grant Thornton — Published model: Latin American delivery teams with technology and process governance across order to cash, including billing, collections, disputes, cash application and reporting.[1]; Best proposal question: Which processes will the provider manage, who supervises them and which service-level measures will it accept?
- Connext — Published model: Dedicated offshore receivables professionals working with the client’s processes and systems. Published roles include AR specialists, billing coordinators, payment-application specialists, dispute and reconciliation staff, and reporting support.[2]; Best proposal question: Which named roles and working hours are included, and how much daily direction remains with the client’s finance manager?
Provider descriptions do not establish identical responsibilities. One proposal may price process ownership while another prices a staffed role. Confirm the US customer portfolio, languages, time-zone coverage and actual reporting line before comparing totals.
Separate routine AR from other products
Define the work as invoice preparation or dispatch, aging maintenance, courteous payment follow-up, payment matching, reconciliation, dispute coordination and reporting where required. Ask each bidder to mark each task as included, optional or retained by the client.
If you also need a collection agency for escalated debts, receivables funding or an automation platform, procure that scope separately and identify the handover. Funding terms and legal recovery are different commercial decisions from buying staff for routine AR. A software demo alone does not establish that humans will perform the work.
Keep cash ownership and permissions explicit
The FBI describes business-email compromise involving altered payment instructions and recommends verifying payment or account changes directly, using a known contact method. Build that independent check into the AR workflow rather than relying on the same email that requested the change. (FBI, Business Email Compromise; reviewed 12 October 2026).
Write down where customers pay, who owns each receiving account and how payment changes are authorised. For a routine operating arrangement, ask why any change from the business’s approved remittance account would be necessary. Do not give staff broader access simply because cash application is in scope.
- Define read, entry and approval rights in the ERP and banking systems separately.
- Require internal approval for credits, payment plans, settlements, write-offs and customer master-data changes.
- Assign responsibility for matching receipts, investigating unapplied cash and reconciling AR to the ledger.
- Set an independent review for exceptions and changes to payment instructions.
- Name the internal person who can revoke access and approve emergency action.
These are requested controls rather than assertions that either provider’s standard contract already contains them. Auxis describes a customised SLA framework; obtain the actual measures and responsibilities for your engagement.[1]
Design dispute handback before go-live
Use a common issue log with invoice number, customer, balance, dispute reason, evidence, last contact, next action, owner and deadline. Ask staff to separate a disputed invoice from an overdue undisputed balance. Confirm who can discuss commercial concessions and when an account returns to sales, operations, the controller or legal counsel.
For an illustrative pilot, choose a defined customer group and run the proposed follow-up and reconciliation workflow before expanding it. Review a sample of customer communications, payment matches and unresolved disputes. Set pilot acceptance criteria in advance; the example is a planning option, not a promise of faster collection.
Compare workload-based prices
Request a quote based on the same invoice volume, customer count, aging profile, dispute rate, ERP, hours and reporting requirements. Ask whether charges follow headcount, hours, transactions or a managed process. Separately identify onboarding, training, software, overtime, supervision, replacement cover and minimum commitment.
No verified market-wide cost range or guaranteed DSO improvement is established here. Do not compare a contingency charge for difficult debt recovery with a staffing fee for daily AR. Where a provider proposes performance measures, fix the baseline, customer cohort, exclusions and treatment of write-offs before interpreting the result.
Make exit deliverables part of the agreement
Agree how the business receives current aging, open disputes, contact history, reconciliation work, process notes and authorised data exports at termination. State the notice period, transition support, final charges, access-removal process and data-retention terms. Confirm continuity if a key assigned person leaves.
Choose Auxis or Connext only after the proposal resolves who manages the work, who controls consequential decisions and what the internal finance team must still do. The service should have a measurable operating scope, rather than an assumed collection or financing outcome.
References
- Accounts Receivable Outsourcing — Auxis Grant Thornton (auxis.com)
- Outsourced Receivables Staffing — Connext (connextglobal.com)
