Select Existing Contracts in Workflow Forms

A simple configuration setting to build Workflows for ongoing contract reviews.



In this article:


How to Configure

How this looks to users

Use Cases




Most Request Form-based Workflow Forms in Gatekeeper are for the initiation of New Contract or Vendor processes - as this is where a lot of effort is expended by Legal and Procurement teams.

Such Workflows cover off different stages of a contract's lifecycle, including requests, risk and budget assessments, negotiations, approvals and signatures.

Commonly though, once a contract or vendor is created in Gatekeeper, reviews and updates only take place at fixed intervals. These reviews are therefore not Request Form-based but automatically "Triggered".

A typical example being the End Date of a contract which triggers a review around terminating or renegotiating/extending the Contract

These are not the only times a review needs to take place, though!

Oftentimes, an ad-hoc review, action or update needs to take place and this can occur at any point in a contract lifecycle - not just around key renewal dates...


Our "Associate Contract with the card" function allows you to construct a Workflow for the purpose of facilitating these reviews, while still leveraging the structured and collaborative aspect of Gatekeeper Workflows.

Screenshot at Oct 26 11-30-42


How to Configure

When configuring a Workflow Form, after adding the Predefined Contract Core Metadata as a form section, you may edit the Contract Name field:

See Building a Workflow Form for guidance on adding this as a form section.

While editing, you have 2 options to select:

  • To allow users to select an existing agreement in this field, change the Type from Freetext to Select Existing Dropdown Values Only
  • To allow updates to be made to the Contract metadata record later in the workflow, you must tick "Associate Contract with the card"
    • This will mean actions later on the Workflow (like Update Contract) will successfully be able to publish changes from the form back to the "associated" record in the repository




How this looks in action!

When entering a value in the Contract Name field, a dropdown list of contracts will be visible.

Typing is still technically possible, but only as a means for filtering the list. A value cannot be selected which does not match the name of an existing agreement

To differentiate Contracts of identical/similar names, you will see that the Supplier Name will be included in brackets:

In an Employee Portal form

Once a user selects an existing contract, the form will also populate all visible metadata fields from the repository.

In a Public Form

To avoid the sharing of confidential contract metadata to non-authenticated users, the automatic population of other metadata fields based on a contract selection is excluded from Public Form URLs (except for Supplier Name).


Use Cases

  • Contract variation - add, correct or delete specific terms of a contract
  • Early termination - terminate a contract before the term has concluded
  • Logging new events e.g. payment of PO based on deliverables


NB. If you want to create this Contract Association for a process which does not require the contract metadata to be updated (e.g. for attaching & approving/signing a document) you can create a custom field for the Contract to be linked without adding the whole predefined Contract metadata form section

See Adding Fields to an Existing Form for more guidance





Q: Can we enable this functionality with AutoActions?

A:  Yes! Once a workflow has been initiated, all existing actions can be utilised on later phases of the workflow.

It is of course advisable to configure reviews/approvals to take place before AutoActions publish any metadata updates from the Form back to the Repository.


Q: If my form also has Supplier metadata fields, will these populate from repository data too?

A: Yes!

But - like with pulling in existing Contract metadata - this only works for Employee Portal authenticated forms.


Q: What happens if I lock form fields when selecting existing contracts?

A: Locked fields will still work as expected; they will not be changed by any values pulled in from the Contract metadata record. That is, they will overwrite the value contained in the Contract!

(This should therefore be used with caution)


Q: What happens if I change the Contract Type and some dependent fields become hidden?

A: These fields will retain their values but will become hidden from all aspects of the UI - including the Workflow Form and (after an Update Action) the Contracts Repository

It is advisable to avoid this (either by hiding the Contract Type field or by ensuring users are aware of the changes they are permitted to request)

If a user attempts this, Gatekeeper warns:

"Changing this Contract type will remove all data from the dependent sections"


Q: Can these workflows also have triggers to serve as both ad-hoc reviews AND scheduled review workflows?

A: Technically yes, if using an Employee Portal authenticated form.

However, due to to the differing nature of these processes and confusion which could be caused by notifications, it would be safer to enable a separate request-form-workflow for this feature.

NB. If you still want to configure this functionality in an existing workflow on your tenant, you will need to delete & re-add the Contract Name field in your workflow form so that the new functionality is pulled through!


Q: If some contract metadata fields are in the request form are hidden, will their values still be pulled onto the form when the Contract is selected?

A: Yes! If the fields are visible on other phases of the workflow, all values will have pulled through to the form 'behind the scenes' just fine 👍


Q: Which Contracts will appear for selection in forms?

A: Only Contracts with a status of Live or Pipeline will appear

(Archived records are  excluded from the list to avoid clutter!)


Q: What happens if I change the Vendor name in the form once it has pre-populated with Contract data?

A - If you do this before submitting the form (i.e. RIGHT at the start): 

The new vendor name can successfully be linked ("associated") to the card and will pull through its metadata values

A - If you do this at any other point in the workflow: 

Values will not change. Only the Vendor name field. i.e. any other vendor metadata which was pulled into the form when the contract (& Vendor) were initially linked will not be replaced with that of the new vendor which is selected...

Therefore you should use caution if you intend to use any Update Supplier actions on your workflow since you may inadvertently end up updating the original vendor record with the new vendor's data!


Q: Will this allow users to see contracts details outside their profile permissions?

A: Technically yes, if a user has access to the Employee Portal form, they can select names of contracts outside their current repository permission level

Therefore, if you have metadata fields used for storing what you would consider confidential information, you should use caution when adding these to the workflow form

Users with access to a Public URL form will only be able to see Contract Names, no other metadata will be visible to them in the form


Q: Can this be used with eNegotiate actions?

A: Yes!

However, if the existing contract already has a Master Record file from a previous eNegotiate workflow, this cannot be replaced. You would need to first use the "Clone Contract" action to create a new metadata record to which a new Master Record can be linked


Q: What other workflows features should I use to get the most from a workflow like this?

A: Recommended functionality to use alongside this feature: