This form ensures a smooth transition at the end of our engagement. Please complete all relevant sections to help us improve and close the project responsibly.
Project Code or Name
Client Organization Name
Project Start Date
Project End Date (Actual or Planned)
Current Project Status
Successfully Completed
Cancelled
Paused Indefinitely
Scope Reduced
Transferred to Another Provider
Was a formal project closure report already shared with the client?
List all key deliverables and their acceptance status
Deliverable Name | Deliverable Type | Status | Acceptance Date | Client Comments / Conditions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | ||||||
3 | ||||||
4 | ||||||
5 |
Are any deliverables still under warranty or support?
Warranty expiry date:
Select all formats in which final deliverables were provided
Editable Document (Word, Excel, etc.)
Source Code Repository Access
Physical Media
Cloud Drive Link
Printed Report
Video Recording
Other:
Financial Summary
Cost Category | Budgeted Amount | Actual Amount | Variance | Variance Reason | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Professional Services | $100,000.00 | $98,000.00 | -$2,000.00 | Efficiency gains | |
Software Licensing | $15,000.00 | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | ||
Travel & Accommodation | $8,000.00 | $3,000.00 | -$5,000.00 | Virtual meetings adopted | |
$0.00 | |||||
$0.00 | |||||
Have all invoices been issued and paid in full?
Were there any change orders approved during the project?
Team Members Released
Name | Role | Release Date | Knowledge Transfer Completed? | Handover Notes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | ||||||
3 | ||||||
4 | ||||||
5 |
How complete is the project documentation?
Fully documented and archived
Mostly documented (≥80%)
Partially documented (50-79%)
Minimally documented (<50%)
Not documented
Is there a dedicated knowledge repository (wiki, SharePoint, Confluence, etc.)?
Which knowledge transfer methods were used?
Formal handover sessions
Pairing/Shadowing
Recorded video demos
Written guides/SOPs
Interactive workshops
Other:
Please rate the following aspects of our engagement
Very Dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Neutral | Satisfied | Very Satisfied | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall project outcome quality | |||||
Adherence to schedule | |||||
Budget control | |||||
Communication effectiveness | |||||
Problem resolution speed | |||||
Team professionalism | |||||
Likelihood to recommend us |
Rate your overall experience
What went particularly well during this engagement?
What could we improve for future projects?
Would you like to receive a detailed feedback summary?
Open Risks/Issues Log
Risk/Issue ID | Description | Status | Owner After Closure | Target Closure Date | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | ||||||
3 | ||||||
4 | ||||||
5 |
Are there any legal or compliance issues still pending?
Is there a need for post-project insurance coverage?
Assets to be Returned or Transferred
Asset Description | Type | Action | Action Date | Recipient / Location | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | ||||||
3 | ||||||
4 | ||||||
5 |
Are any proprietary tools or libraries retained by us?
Has all personal data been deleted or anonymized as required?
What type of post-project support is agreed?
None
Warranty Only
Ad-hoc Time & Materials
Dedicated Support Contract
Transition to Internal Team
Other:
Is there a Service Level Agreement (SLA) in place?
Support contact email/portal URL:
Support end date:
Has the support team been introduced to the client?
Upload the signed support agreement or statement of work:
Capturing insights now helps future projects succeed. Please be candid and specific.
Rate the effectiveness of our processes
Ineffective | Barely Effective | Moderately Effective | Mostly Effective | Highly Effective | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project initiation | |||||
Requirements gathering | |||||
Change management | |||||
Quality assurance | |||||
Communication with stakeholders | |||||
Risk identification | |||||
Issue resolution | |||||
Project reporting |
Describe one situation where the team adapted quickly to change:
What risks were identified early and how did mitigation help?
Was a formal retrospective session held?
Select improvement areas for our methodology
Estimation accuracy
Stakeholder engagement
Technical documentation
Testing strategy
Communication frequency
Tooling/automation
Knowledge management
Other:
All project emails and correspondence archived
Final version of deliverables stored in the designated repository
Meeting minutes and decisions log preserved
Financial records and invoices archived per policy
Signed contracts and change orders filed
Client acceptance emails or sign-off documents saved
Is there a need for long-term retention of any physical documents?
Archive location/reference code:
By signing below, you confirm that all critical activities are complete or assigned, and that the project may be formally closed.
Project Manager Signature
Client Approver Signature
I confirm that all provided information is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Analysis for Client Offboarding & Project Closure Form
Important Note: This analysis provides strategic insights to help you get the most from your form's submission data for powerful follow-up actions and better outcomes. Please remove this content before publishing the form to the public.
This Client Offboarding & Project Closure Form is a best-practice example of a lifecycle-ending governance document. It systematically converts an engagement’s residual loose ends into a structured, auditable data set that protects both provider and client. By forcing explicit confirmation of deliverables, finances, resources, risks, and knowledge transfer, the form becomes the single source of truth that finance, legal, delivery, and account management can all reference after the team has disbanded.
The form’s greatest strength is its completeness: it covers technical, financial, legal, and experiential dimensions in one flow. The progressive structure—starting with hard facts (dates, budgets) and moving toward subjective feedback—mirrors how project managers actually close work, so cognitive load is low. Built-in variance formulas, conditional follow-ups, and pre-seeded table rows reduce typing and error rates, while matrix ratings produce quantified sentiment that can be benchmarked across projects. Finally, the optional/mandatory blend respects the reality that some data (e.g., client signature) may be gathered later without blocking internal closure.
Purpose: This field is the master key that links every downstream record—timesheets, invoices, Jira boards, GitHub repos—to a unique engagement. Without it, the form cannot be matched to contract files or financial systems, making the entire offboarding exercise useless.
Effective Design: A single-line open text with a concrete placeholder (“Phoenix CRM Migration”) nudges users toward consistent naming conventions, while still accommodating legacy codes that may pre-date current taxonomy. Mandatory status guarantees that every submission can be indexed and retrieved.
Data Quality Implications: Free text always risks typos; however, the short length and immediate visibility (first question after the intro) make it easy to validate against the PSA or CRM auto-suggest. Storing this value as a unique composite key in the back-end prevents duplicate offboarding records for the same engagement.
Privacy Considerations: Project names sometimes contain client trademarks; the form mitigates exposure by keeping the rest of the payload inside a secure, access-controlled repository rather than embedding identifiable names in file names.
User Experience: Because the field is auto-completed from existing project records, most users merely confirm the suggestion, keeping friction near zero.
Purpose: Provides the legal entity name that appears on the contract, ensuring that invoices, NDAs, and IP transfer documents all reference the correct counter-party.
Effective Design: Mandatory single-line text prevents ambiguous abbreviations; when paired with back-end validation against Salesforce Accounts, it guarantees exact spelling for downstream DocuSign routing.
Data Collection Implications: Accurate client names feed into churn analytics and account health dashboards, enabling account directors to spot systemic issues across subsidiaries of the same parent company.
User Experience: No dropdown is used because new legal entities can be created mid-project; free text plus validation strikes the right balance between flexibility and data integrity.
Purpose: Creates the official project duration used for earned-value calculations, employee utilization metrics, and revenue recognition cut-offs.
Effective Design: Native HTML5 date pickers eliminate locale ambiguity (MM/DD vs DD/MM) and automatically validate that end ≥ start. Mandatory status ensures that finance can compute final backlog without manual follow-up.
Data Quality: Date fields are stored as UTC timestamps, so global teams can generate consistent financial reports regardless of office time-zone.
User Experience: Default values auto-populate from the PSA, so most project managers simply tab through, reducing completion time to seconds.
Purpose: Captures the terminal state of the engagement, which drives radically different downstream workflows (e.g., “Successfully Completed” triggers reference-selling requests, whereas “Cancelled” triggers credit-note processing).
Effective Design: Single-choice radio buttons with mutually exclusive options remove ambiguity; the mandatory constraint guarantees that portfolio dashboards always reflect a clean state rather than “Unknown.”
Data Collection Implications: Because the field is reportable, executives can run roll-up views to see what percentage of work exits in a healthy state, enabling targeted process improvements.
User Experience: The option order mirrors the frequency of occurrence (success first), reducing cognitive load for the common case while still surfacing edge cases like “Transferred to Another Provider.”
Purpose: These three fields collectively create a legally enforceable attestation that the manager has reviewed all sections and that the project is ready for capital closure.
Effective Design: By making the signature mandatory only for the internal manager, the form remains actionable even when client approvers are slow, avoiding a bottleneck that would otherwise keep revenue in “unbilled” status.
Data Quality: Digital signature capture with IP and timestamp metadata provides non-repudiation, satisfying most SOX and ISO-9001 audit requirements without paper.
User Experience: Auto-filling the manager’s name from SSO reduces typing, while the date defaults to today, allowing completion in two clicks.
Purpose: Serves as a final cognitive checkpoint, forcing the submitter to pause and verify that no critical row was left blank.
Effective Design: A single mandatory checkbox is the lightest-weight method to obtain explicit consent, compliant with most internal control frameworks.
Data Collection Implications: The timestamp of the check is stored in the audit trail, providing a defensible record if discrepancies emerge months later.
User Experience: Placed immediately above the submit button, it acts as a gateway control without adding an extra screen.
Mandatory Question Analysis for Client Offboarding & Project Closure Form
Please remove this mandatory questions recommendation before publishing.
Project Code or Name
Justification: This identifier is the primary key linking the offboarding record to time-tracking, invoicing, and repository systems. Without it, the form cannot be matched to any contract or financial ledger, rendering the entire closure process untraceable and non-auditable.
Client Organization Name
Justification: The legal entity name determines which corporate entity receives IP transfers, warranty obligations, and future support contracts. A missing or misspelled name could invalidate insurance coverage or create compliance gaps under data-processing clauses that are entity-specific.
Project Start Date
Justification: Finance teams rely on this date to lock revenue recognition periods and to calculate final employee utilization. Omitting it would force accountants to manually hunt through contracts, delaying month-end close and potentially misstating earnings.
Project End Date (Actual or Planned)
Justification: This date sets the official boundary for warranty, support SLAs, and resource re-allocation. Without it, there is no authoritative way to know when post-project costs should stop accruing or when staff should roll off to new engagements.
Current Project Status
Justification: The terminal state triggers fundamentally different legal and financial workflows—success enables reference-selling, cancellation may require credit notes, and transfer initiates IP hand-offs. Leaving this blank would leave the organization unable to report accurate portfolio health or to initiate the correct downstream process.
Project Manager Name
Justification: A named individual creates accountability and provides a point of contact for future audits or client queries. Without this attribution, it would be impossible to verify who certified the accuracy of the closure data, undermining internal control standards such as ISO-9001 or SOX.
Closure Form Completion Date
Justification: This date establishes the official timestamp for project closure in the PSA and ERP systems, ensuring that no further time entries or expenses can be posted against the project code, which is essential for accurate profitability analysis.
Project Manager Signature
Justification: A digital signature with metadata provides non-repudiable evidence that the manager has reviewed all financial figures, deliverable acceptances, and risk logs. This satisfies most governance frameworks and protects the company if discrepancies arise later.
Accuracy Confirmation Checkbox
Justification: This explicit attestation is required by most internal audit teams to demonstrate that the submitter consciously verified the data, closing the loop on the control environment and reducing the risk of fraudulent or negligent submissions.
The current mandatory set is appropriately lean—only nine fields—striking a balance between data integrity and completion velocity. All chosen fields are either legal/accounting triggers or unique identifiers, meaning the cost of non-collection is higher than the friction of collection. To further optimize, consider auto-inheritance: project code, client name, start date, and manager name can be pre-filled from the PSA so that users perceive only five “active” mandatory inputs.
For organizations struggling with client signature delays, keep the internal signature mandatory but make the client signature conditionally required only when contractual language demands dual sign-off; this prevents the form from stalling revenue recognition. Finally, introduce real-time validation feedback (red outline plus helper text) on the two date fields to ensure end ≥ start without a page reload, shaving another 15–20 seconds off completion time while preserving data quality.