SaaS AP Case Study: Close in 6 Days

SaaS accounts payable: month-end close fell to 6 days

Primary outcome (Actigy BPO-reported)

Actigy BPO reports a SaaS accounts payable engagement covering more than 4,500 monthly invoices. Cost per invoice fell from $14.50 to $5.05, about 65%. Month-end close fell from 10 to 6 business days, a 40% reduction. The client retained payment release. These are results from one anonymized engagement.

Results come from anonymized client engagements, are reported by Actigy BPO and are not independently audited. Results depend on scope.

Scope and evidence: The SaaS finance team prepared invoices and reconciliations; the client retained payment release. The public case does not identify the measurement period or reconciliation sample.

By Actigy BPO Editorial Team Published June 14, 2026 · Last updated October 29, 2026

65%

Cost Reduction

40%

Accelerated Month-End Close

99.9%

Reconciliation Accuracy

Based on a real engagement. The client is anonymized and some operational details are generalized to protect confidentiality; the metrics reflect the engagement as delivered.

Engagement summary

The finance team ran accounts payable, reconciliation and month-end close support for an anonymized mid-market B2B SaaS company.

Delivery model: Managed operations team
Client Segment: Mid-Market B2B SaaS (Series C, $45M ARR)
Core Systems Intersected: NetSuite, Bill.com, Expensify, Actigy BPO AutoFlow (AI Ledger Matcher)
Scope delivered: Accounts payable, reconciliation and month-end close support

The challenge: a 10-day close and rising invoice volume

Rapid international expansion drove a 300% surge in the client's vendor invoices and multi-currency expense reports. Manual three-way matching errors, missing line-item categories and a bank reconciliation backlog slowed the internal finance team. The month-end close stretched to 10 business days. Board financial reporting slipped, and the client risked compliance penalties.

Workflow and monthly volume

The finance team took over end-to-end execution of the accounts payable and reconciliation pipeline from a delivery team in Romania.

Process volume

The team handled these volumes:

Invoices processed: 4,500+ vendor invoices per month.
Expense reports: 1,200+ multi-currency line items monthly.
Bank reconciliations: 14 global corporate accounts handled daily.

Team

Dedicated delivery team: 1 account team lead, 1 senior quality assurance (QA) specialist and 4 dedicated finance operations associates.

Workflow

The team ran four workflow steps:

Ingestion: Monitoring financial inboxes and extracting metadata from unstructured PDF invoices.
Three-way matching: Verifying line items across purchase orders (POs), receipts and invoices.
Exception triage: Flagging discrepancies over $50 for client executive approval.
Ledger coding: Categorizing expenses to the client's NetSuite chart of accounts.

Quality assurance model

The QA team deployed a human-in-the-loop (HITL) dual-verification framework. A custom validation script pre-screened ledger entries for anomalies. The senior QA specialist reviewed 100% of high-value transactions (over $5,000) and a randomized 20% sample of standard transactions. Only then did the team batch them for client approval.

Tools

Client stack: NetSuite, Bill.com, Expensify, Slack.
Proprietary workflow tools: Actigy BPO AutoFlow, a proprietary document parser driven by a large language model (LLM). The team also used custom robotic process automation (RPA) scrapers for vendor portal extraction.

What stayed with the client

The client kept full control over financial strategy and assets. The delivery team held no disbursement authority. Banking tokens were restricted to "View/Draft Only" in NetSuite and Bill.com. The client's VP of Finance kept final digital signature approval on all outbound wire batches and payment releases.

Results

The figures below describe this anonymized engagement, not a forecast for another scope.

Finance operations results: client baseline and engagement outcome (Actigy BPO-reported)
Operational Metric	Legacy Client State	Engagement outcome	Performance Delta
Month-End Close Time	10 Business Days	6 Business Days	40% shorter close cycle
Invoice Processing Cost	$14.50 per invoice	$5.05 per invoice	65% Cost Reduction
Matching & Reconciliation	91.2% Accuracy	99.9% Accuracy	+8.7 percentage points in accuracy

Additional before-and-after key performance indicators (KPIs) (Actigy BPO-reported):

Invoice processing throughput: The finance team raised throughput from 12 to 38 invoices per hour per full-time equivalent (FTE).
Error rate: The team cut the error rate from 8.8% (duplicate payments, wrong ledger codes) to less than 0.1%.
Service-level agreement (SLA) adherence: The engagement achieved 99.4% adherence to a strict 24-hour invoice turnaround time.

How the pilot worked

The delivery lead documented the close calendar and proved reconciliation accuracy on a pilot cycle before it took on full month-end volume.

Timeline to pilot

9 days: The team completed process mapping and secure credential provisioning, then deployed the pilot on a 10% volume slice.

Timeline to scale

24 days: The team took over 100% of global accounts payable and reconciliation processes.

Services used

For a different workload, read the logistics accounts payable case study. Its carrier, invoice and matching measures belong to a separate engagement.

This engagement used accounts payable outsourcing for invoice intake and matching, and accounting outsourcing for reconciliations and the month-end close.

Actigy BPO also scopes procure-to-pay outsourcing for upstream purchasing administration. That wider scope is not a result established by this case.

Engagement outcomes (Actigy BPO-reported)

This engagement combined accounts-payable execution, reconciliation checks, and client-held treasury authority. Its reported close time and cost changes are case results, not standard terms for a new team.

Romania-based finance team

The finance team worked from Romania. The relevant controls are the stated access limits, review thresholds, and client approvals; geography does not substitute for those checks.

Pilot first, scale on SLA proof

The delivery lead documented the close calendar and proved reconciliation accuracy on a pilot cycle before taking on full month-end volume.

You keep the decisions

The client kept financial strategy and cash; the delivery team held no disbursement authority. Banking access stayed View/Draft Only.

Reported close and reconciliation results

The case records a 65% invoice-cost reduction and 99.9% reconciliation accuracy for this client. No like-for-like comparison with other providers or every in-house team is established.

Frequently asked questions

How did the managed team cut finance cost 65% and accelerate month-end close 40%?

The managed finance team took over accounts payable and reconciliations with maker-checker controls and a documented close calendar. The team cut cost by 65%, sped up the month-end close by 40% and reached 99.9% reconciliation accuracy. (Actigy BPO-reported)

Was the finance team offshore or nearshore?

The finance team was based in Romania. Nearshore and offshore are relative to the buyer's location. Confirm actual working hours, access restrictions, and approval ownership instead of treating the location as proof of controls.

Did the company keep control of cash and strategy?

Yes. The delivery team held no disbursement authority. The client kept absolute control of financial strategy and assets, and banking tokens stayed View/Draft Only for the delivery team.

How did reconciliation accuracy reach 99.9%?

The reconciliation team ran every close through maker-checker reconciliation against a documented calendar, with exceptions escalated to a delivery lead. The team held reconciliation accuracy at 99.9% as volume grew. (Actigy BPO-reported)