Scope Creep Examples — Web development
A request for repo access the contract doesn't include
The engagement was priced as a hosted, managed build. The client asks for full source code and repo ownership — a different deal than what was signed.
The SOW scoped a managed application: the agency builds, hosts, and maintains it, and the client pays a monthly fee for that. The pricing reflects an ongoing managed-service relationship, not a handover of full source ownership. The client then asks for admin access to the code repository "in case we ever want to switch providers" — a legitimate concern, but a different arrangement (source code escrow or outright transfer) than the managed-service deal that was priced.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Intellectual property clause→ — Managed-service engagements often retain source ownership with the agency by design — worth confirming what this specific agreement actually says before responding either way.
Suggested change-order wording
Suggested change-order wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
Our current agreement is structured as a managed service, where we host and maintain the application and retain the source repository as part of that model. If you'd like the ability to switch providers in the future, we can set up a source-code escrow arrangement, or discuss a different contract structure with full source transfer — either would need its own pricing conversation. Which would be more useful to explore?
How this usually resolves
Escrow is often the option that actually addresses the client's underlying concern (protection if the agency disappears) without requiring a full contract restructure — worth offering as a middle path before assuming the client wants full ownership outright.
Related reading