Turning down a prospective client may be better for your organization. Yes, you read that correctly. What I’m suggesting may sound outrageous, but sometimes just the possibility of adding a new logo to your portfolio — especially if you’re a niche player — can leave you starstruck. And being starstruck can blind staffing providers, preventing them from thoroughly thinking through whether this business is really something they should pursue. On many occasions, the expectations and requirements of a potential blue-chip client far outweigh the benefits, especially for smaller, independent boutique staffing providers. Here are some recommendations.

What’s behind the break? Most contingent workforce programs have an established list of preferred suppliers, so they’ll usually consider adding new providers only when they have an issue. It’s critical that you understand what has prompted this opportunity, and even more vital to know what the expectations will be — or you could be setting up your company for failure. The last thing you want is to go from the preferred list to the “do not use” list.

Know the cost. Most program managers consider their staffing providers a reflection of their program. Their providers need to be just as committed to the success of the program as they are. As a result, they expect their program and its requirements to be a top priority for the provider. Requesting that their providers have dedicated resources/ recruiters that are focused on just their requirements is not uncommon. For a smaller boutique firm, understanding the cost associated with this type of requirement is imperative, as it can have a big impact on the financial overhead.

Review payment terms. This is important for all staffing providers, of course, but it can be extremely taxing on a smaller boutique firm. As the buyer organization dictates the payment terms, some staffing providers can find themselves having to accept payment terms of 60 or 90 days, or more. And as most contingent workers are paid weekly or biweekly, having to cover payroll and other business expenses for several months before payment is received can have a huge financial impact on a provider. Reviewing the terms with your financial officer, along with reviewing the potential investment that may be required, is critical. Is your organization financially able to afford this while you wait for your accounts receivables?

Insurance and indemnification. Some customers’ insurance requirements can be quite lofty. In addition, indemnification requests can put the provider and its organization at risk if an issue occurs. And incidents and the accompanying risk are often unavoidable. Recently, a program manager I know had an incident involving a contingent worker who stole critical company information/data and used it against the client. The client had to press legal charges against the contingent worker, and as the co-employer, the staffing provider was also involved. Legal fees piled up. The buyer noted that if this had been one of the smaller boutique firms they worked with, there’s no way the provider would be able to stay in business. Between the legal fees and the “hit” to the staffing company brand, the damage would have been considerable. It took the affected staffing company’s extensive resources, including its PR department, to mitigate the damage.

So often, small providers can get carried away with the idea of landing a blue-chip firm. And yes, on the fl ip side, this potential customer might work with the limitations of your firm; their business could catapult you into a new realm. It’s easy to be dazzled by the notion of landing a new “big” name, but tread carefully. Be sure to think through the possible outcomes. Don’t let the glitter of the brand blind you to the danger of accepting that company as a client. Not having their logo on your roster may actually be better for your organization, brand and financials.