Agency and Contingency Search Intake Coordination
Working with external agencies on contingency roles means fielding candidate submissions from multiple firms at once, each expecting credit and a fee if their candidate gets hired — and without a clear, timestamped intake process, two agencies can end up claiming the same candidate, or a submitted candidate turns out to already be in the pipeline from a direct application, triggering a fee dispute the company didn't need. Exclusivity windows, replacement guarantees and submission terms differ by agency agreement, and tracking all of it manually across a spreadsheet means terms get missed until an invoice arrives that doesn't match what was agreed.
STARTING PRICE
From €299
Standard tier · Multi-step workflow with AI extraction/decisioning and 2-3 integrations.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 3-4 hrs/week for a recruiter managing multiple agency relationships.
How the automation works
We log every agency candidate submission with a timestamp and source agency the moment it arrives, checking it against the existing candidate database before anything advances — a candidate already in an active pipeline from a direct application or another agency gets flagged immediately, not after an offer creates a dispute. Submission terms, exclusivity windows and replacement guarantee periods are tracked per agency agreement, and a candidate's ownership stays attached to the record through hire so fee calculation at payout time has a clear, defensible trail. Agencies get automated status updates on their submissions without a recruiter fielding individual check-in emails, and submission volume and quality get tracked per agency to inform which relationships are actually worth keeping.
Process flow
- 01
Agency submits candidate trigger
A candidate submission from an external agency is logged with a timestamp and source agency the moment it's received.
- 02
Check for prior-known-candidate conflict ai
The submission is checked against the existing candidate database for a match from a direct application or a different agency before it advances, surfacing a conflict immediately rather than after an offer.
- 03
Apply agreement terms integration
Submission is tagged with the specific agency's exclusivity window, fee percentage and replacement guarantee period, pulled from the current signed agreement rather than a recruiter's memory of the terms.
- 04
Route to recruiter for review output
Conflict-free submissions route to the recruiter for standard pipeline review, with the ownership record already attached for later fee calculation.
- 05
Send agency status updates output
Agencies receive automated pipeline-stage updates on their submissions, reducing individual check-in emails without leaving them uninformed.
- 06
Track submission quality per agency ai
Submission-to-hire conversion and time-in-pipeline are tracked per agency over time, surfacing which relationships are actually producing hires.
Inputs
- Incoming agency candidate submissions
- Existing candidate database across all sources
- Signed agency agreement terms (fee %, exclusivity, guarantee period)
- Submission timestamp and source metadata
Outputs
- Timestamped, conflict-checked submission log
- Candidate ownership record for fee calculation
- Automated agency status updates
- Submission quality report by agency
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- A candidate submitted by an agency who is already in the pipeline from a direct application, or was submitted earlier by a different agency, is the single most common source of fee disputes — the conflict check has to run at submission time against the full candidate history, not just the current open requisition's pipeline.
- Exclusivity and replacement guarantee windows differ by agency and sometimes by individual agreement amendment — applying a default term set instead of the specific agency's current signed terms produces incorrect fee calculations that surface as disputes months after the hire.
- Timestamping submissions loosely, such as logging the date a recruiter got around to reviewing the submission rather than the date the agency actually sent it, creates an unreliable ownership record exactly when it matters most — in a dispute between two agencies claiming the same candidate.
- Automated status updates sent to an agency without filtering for compensation-sensitive or confidential search details risk exposing information — like why a candidate was rejected, or internal salary band data — that shouldn't leave the company's systems in a routine status message.
Frequently asked questions
How does this prevent two agencies from claiming the same candidate?
Every submission is checked against the full candidate database, including submissions from other agencies and direct applications, at the moment it arrives — a conflict is flagged immediately rather than surfacing as a dispute after an offer.
Does this handle different fee and exclusivity terms for different agencies?
Yes, terms are pulled per agency from the current signed agreement rather than a single default, since exclusivity windows and fee percentages genuinely differ across relationships.
What information do agencies see in their automated status updates?
Updates are limited to pipeline-stage status; confidential details like rejection reasoning or internal salary bands are filtered out of anything sent externally.
Can this show us which agencies are actually worth the relationship?
Submission volume, conflict rate and submission-to-hire conversion are tracked per agency over time, giving a factual basis for renewing or ending a given agency relationship.