One MGA, two policy admin systems, one capacity deadline
An acquisitive MGA runs Acturis and an inherited legacy PAS. The new capacity agreement starts in ten weeks and expects one bordereaux feed.
The situation
A specialty MGA, ~£80m GWP, acquired a smaller book two years ago and never consolidated systems. Underwriters swivel-chair between Acturis and the inherited PAS; monthly bordereaux are assembled by hand from both; and the incoming capacity provider — who priced partly on data quality — expects a single clean feed from month one. The start date is contractual.
Week 0–2: Migration Readiness Assessment (£8k fixed)
Both books profiled: policy counts, premium totals, claims linkage, and the risk-code taxonomies — which never agree between PAS implementations. The findings report prices the taxonomy mapping (a judgement exercise requiring underwriter sign-off) separately from the mechanical migration, and flags the legacy book's ~2% unlinked claims records for disposition.
Week 3–8: Migration Delivery (fixed per interface and book; typical band £35–55k)
The legacy book maps into Acturis under a risk-code translation signed by the head of underwriting. Premium and claims totals reconcile to the penny per binder. In parallel — this is the Integration Sprint pattern — a single bordereaux pipeline is built from Acturis to the capacity provider's template, monitored, documented, and handed over.
The evidence pack
What could go wrong — and how it's handled
The capacity provider's template always differs from its documentation. The bordereaux dry run goes to them in week six, not week ten — while there's still time to argue about column semantics. Deadline risk is managed by sequencing, not heroics.
Recognise your situation? Tell us the source system, the target, and the deadline — we'll tell you within 48 hours whether we can hit it and what the Assessment will cost.
freddie@godwit.uk