Loading…
Loading…
A colocation invoice bundles space, power, connectivity and support into one line. Here is how to split it and how to defend the basis you used.
Finding an agreement that contains a schedule is the easy half. The hard half arrives immediately afterwards: one contract, one monthly invoice, one number, and two very different things inside it.
A colocation agreement bundles space, power, connectivity, remote hands, and monitoring. Some of that is a right to use an identified asset. Some of it is plainly a service. The supplier has no reason to price those separately, and usually has not.
This is a systems problem before it is anything else. What the split should be is your accounting policy. Being able to produce it, apply it consistently, and show where the numbers came from is the work.
Suppliers price to win deals, not to support your schedule. A colocation quote typically arrives as a single monthly rate, sometimes with power metered separately and everything else rolled in. A managed hardware agreement arrives as a per-device fee that includes the device, the software, the support, and the replacement commitment.
Nothing in that pricing is designed to tell you which portion relates to an identified asset. Asking the supplier to break it out is worth doing, and their answer is worth having, but it is a negotiating artifact rather than an independent measure. Suppliers will happily allocate more to service if they think it helps you, which is precisely why an unexamined supplier split is weak evidence.
Observable standalone prices. The strongest basis, and the rarest. The supplier sells the components separately to other customers, or you can price the same thing in the market. Reserved capacity, connectivity, and remote hands often have observable rates. If you can find them, use them and keep the evidence.
Cost plus a margin. Where the supplier's cost structure is visible, or where you can construct it. Rack space and power have well-understood cost drivers. This is defensible when documented, and it is often the only route available.
A residual. Price the components you can, and treat the rest as the remainder. Acceptable when the residual is the smaller piece and you can say why. Weak when the residual is most of the contract, because at that point you have not allocated anything, you have just labelled it.
Take an infrastructure capacity agreement at $50,000 a month for 36 months. Total consideration $1,800,000.
Suppose you can observe market rates for the connectivity and the support element, and they come to $20,000 a month. The remainder, $30,000, relates to the dedicated capacity.
Total consideration $1,800,000 $50,000 / month
Lease component $1,080,000 $30,000 / month
Non-lease component $720,000 $20,000 / month
----------
Components tie to total $1,800,000
Two things about that.
The components tie. They have to. If your split does not sum back to the contract, you have created a reconciling item that will follow you every period until somebody fixes it.
The lease component is an input, not an answer. The right-of-use asset and the liability are measured at the present value of those payments, using the discount rate your policy specifies. That rate is yours. It is one of the few places where the number genuinely cannot come from a system without a policy decision behind it.
The split itself is a one-time calculation. What breaks is everything after it.
The agreement changes. A power commitment increases, a cage is added, the term extends. Now both components change, the ratio may change, and the schedule has to be rebuilt from a new basis.
The invoice changes shape. The supplier reorganises their billing, and the line you were using to derive the service element disappears. Your allocation basis silently stops matching what you are actually paying.
The person leaves. The basis lived in their head and in a tab. The next person reverse-engineers it, gets a slightly different answer, and now two periods are not comparable.
Volume. One agreement is a spreadsheet. Forty agreements, each with its own basis and its own renewal date, is a standing operation that nobody owns.
For each agreement: the components, the basis used for each, the source of every price, the date the basis was set, and who set it. Then, for each change: what changed, what the new basis is, and why it changed.
That is a small amount of structured data. The reason it is worth holding as data rather than as a document is that the questions arrive one agreement at a time, usually under time pressure, usually about a period that closed months ago. A register answers those in a lookup. A folder of workbooks answers them in an afternoon each.
The split is where the effort is. Keeping it current, across a portfolio, through modifications, is where the cost is.
Not sure where your process sits?
Five questions. Find the capacity and colocation agreements that carry a schedule you did not expect.