PERM for Consulting & Staffing: Third-Party Worksite Evidence, End-Client Letters, and Audit-File Discipline
PERM cases in consulting, staffing, and any model where the employee works at an end-client site tend to draw extra scrutiny not because the model is automatically disallowed, but because it creates two predictable risk points: location inconsistency across the PERM chain, and weak proof that the job is a real, permanent, full-time opportunity at a real worksite. If a case reads like “the worker can be placed anywhere,” it invites questions about what location the labor market was actually tested for.
Goal of this page: give you a practical, audit-ready framework for third-party worksites: what must be consistent in PWD, ads, NOF, and ETA-9089; what makes an end-client letter persuasive without overreaching; how to define travel boundaries and “known worksites” logic; and how to build an audit file that explains the story fast.
Disclaimer: this content is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Rules, government practices, and processing approaches can change. There are no guarantees of outcome. Consider consulting a qualified professional for guidance tailored to your facts.
1) Why third-party worksites get higher scrutiny
A “standard” PERM case is easy for a reviewer to read: one employer, one primary location, a clean PWD, ads that match the location, a NOF posted where workers can see it, and an ETA-9089 that repeats the same story. Consulting and staffing models add complexity: the employee may be placed at an end-client facility, projects can rotate, and business teams often want broad language to stay flexible. PERM, however, rewards specificity and consistency.
Risk 1 Real job, real worksite. Third-party cases are more likely to be questioned on whether the position is a real, ongoing, full-time role tied to real business needs, or whether it reads like a contingent placement.
Risk 2 Location drift. PWD points to one city, ads mention another, NOF is posted at the employer’s office, and ETA-9089 introduces a broader “various client sites” statement. Even small mismatches can trigger a bigger question: what location was the labor market actually tested for?
Trigger “Anywhere in the U.S.” style language. In PERM, that can read as an attempt to keep the worksite indefinite. Indefinite geography is the fastest way to invite follow-up.
Risk 3 Who controls the work. Even though PERM is not an H-1B itinerary exercise, reviewers still want the employment relationship to be coherent: the employer remains responsible for pay, supervision, performance management, and core employment terms.
Core discipline: pick a single “location storyline” and keep it consistent across every PERM artifact. If there are client sites, either list “known worksites” with support, or define measured travel boundaries. Avoid using travel or client-site references as a catch-all that expands geography without control.
The next step is to make PWD, ads, NOF, and ETA-9089 speak the same language about location, work mode, and travel. This is where many third-party cases either become clean and defensible, or quietly set themselves up for avoidable trouble.
2) What must be consistent in PWD, ads, NOF, and ETA-9089
Most third-party PERM failures are not one “big mistake.” They are a chain of small inconsistencies that add up to a bigger doubt: the employer itself appears uncertain about where the job is. A clean case treats location like a spine that runs through every document. PWD anchors the wage geography, recruitment tests that same geography, NOF fits the employment location logic, and ETA-9089 becomes the single source of truth that matches what was tested.
Alignment map: one story across four artifacts
| Artifact | What must be fixed | How to talk about client sites or travel | Common failure pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| PWD | Primary worksite location and the intended employment geography used for prevailing wage. Work mode should be coherent with the job reality. | If client sites are part of performance, treat them as known sites with support or define measured travel boundaries. | PWD ties the job to a narrow location, while later documents expand into “various sites” with no limits. |
| Recruitment ads | Same location logic and work mode that will appear on ETA-9089. | Avoid “flexibility language” that quietly expands geography. Travel must be measurable and limited. | Ads say “multiple locations” or “remote anywhere” while PWD and ETA-9089 are narrower. |
| NOF | Posting logic connected to the place of employment and well-documented proof of posting. | If the primary worksite is at a client facility, the NOF logic should be explainable and evidence-backed. | NOF is posted somewhere “convenient,” not where the worksite story says the job exists. |
| ETA-9089 | The definitive version: primary worksite, any known worksites, and travel boundaries consistent with recruitment. | Use either listed known worksites or limited travel boundaries. Avoid “anywhere” phrasing. | ETA-9089 introduces new geography that was never tested in recruitment. |
Pre-recruitment self-check
Primary worksite is described the same way everywhere, including work mode.
Client sites are not used as an open-ended concept; they are either known sites with support or bounded travel.
Travel is measurable and limited, never a substitute for unknown worksites.
NOF logic is documented so an outside reviewer can immediately understand why and where it was posted.
Once the location story is clean, the next high-impact piece is the end-client letter. It should not read like a contract, and it should not attempt to solve every future scenario. It should answer the practical questions a reviewer will ask: where is the work performed, what is the work, and why is it real and ongoing in the stated geography?
3) End-client letter: must-have components and what to avoid
A strong end-client letter is not a “support letter” and not a contract. Its job is simpler and more valuable: provide verifiable facts about the worksite, the nature of the work, and the expected reality of the assignment in the stated geography. If it is too vague, it adds little. If it is too aggressive or overly legalistic, it can create new issues. The best letters stay factual, specific, and consistent with the PERM location story.
Quality map for end-client letters
| Component | What to include strengthens | What to avoid weakens |
|---|---|---|
| Worksite identification | A specific client-site address where work is performed; department/team; signer name, title, and contact. | “Various locations,” “anywhere,” or no address at all. |
| Role and deliverables | A short project context and clear responsibilities expressed as outcomes, not generic fluff. | Empty statements like “assists IT team,” with no project context or concrete tasks. |
| Work mode and time commitment | Confirmation of full-time need and the expected mode (onsite/hybrid cadence) consistent with PERM docs. | “As needed,” “on call,” or language that reads like a contingent, temporary placement. |
| Travel boundaries | If travel exists: measured percentage or frequency plus limited geography; primary location remains clear. | “Travel anywhere in the U.S.” or travel language with no numbers and no boundary. |
| Relationship framing | End-client confirms access to the facility and work needs; employer remains employer for pay and supervision. | Unnecessary language implying the end-client is the employer of record. |
Practical letter skeleton (fact-focused, not a universal template)
End-client letterhead (or company identification)
Date: write the date
To: Employer name, PERM team
Subject: Confirmation of project need and worksite location
This letter confirms that the employee will perform services for the end-client on the following client-site:
Client-site address: street, city, state, ZIP
Department or team: team name
Authorized contact: signer name, title, email, phone
Project context:
One short paragraph describing the initiative or business function supported.
Role summary and core responsibilities:
- responsibility expressed as an outcome
- responsibility expressed as an outcome
- responsibility expressed as an outcome
- responsibility expressed as an outcome
- responsibility expressed as an outcome
Work mode and time commitment:
Full-time need: yes
Mode: onsite or hybrid with a clear cadence
Primary work location: the address listed above
Travel, if applicable:
Typical travel: measurable percentage or frequency
Geography: limited territory
Purpose: short explanation
This letter confirms the existence of the work need and the expectation that services are performed at the stated location.
The employer remains responsible for pay, supervision, and employment terms.
Signature:
Signer name
Signer title
End-client legal name
Even a strong letter cannot compensate for vague travel or inconsistent location statements. That is why the next section focuses on “known worksites” logic and travel boundaries that preserve business flexibility without turning the job into “anywhere.”
4) Itinerary, travel boundaries, and “known worksites” logic
Business teams often want language that preserves maximum flexibility. In PERM, flexibility must be expressed as boundaries. The common trap is using travel or client sites as a blank check: “various client locations” or “as assigned.” That is where the “anywhere” problem shows up, and location consistency starts to unravel.
How to think about known worksites
Known worksites are not “every possible future address.” They are the sites you can support at the time of filing with credible evidence, such as an end-client letter, a statement of work, a purchase order, a project plan, or other internal documentation that ties the role to a real location.
- If the employer office is primary: treat client visits as bounded travel or limited additional sites, not an unlimited placement model.
- If the client facility is primary: document the site and the project need more deeply, because that facility anchors the case.
- If multiple sites are regular: list the sites or define a narrow territory; do not “widen to the whole country” for convenience.
What measured travel boundaries look like
- Measurable frequency: a percentage, cadence, or typical frequency that does not read like permanent multi-state placement.
- Limited geography: a state, a defined region, or a reasonable radius tied to business reality.
- Primary location stays primary: make clear where the job is performed most of the time.
- Change triggers: if geography expands or a new regular site becomes primary, re-sync the PERM chain rather than patching language.
Diagram: a practical scale for third-party worksite evidence strength
This is a practical internal rubric, not a government metric. The point is simple: the more concrete and consistent your location story is, the less room there is for doubt.
A simple internal “assignment memo” often beats vague external language
You do not need to predict every future project address. You do need a coherent file that explains what is known and what is bounded. A short internal memo helps keep PWD, recruitment language, and ETA-9089 aligned and gives the audit file a clear spine.
Assignment and Worksite Memo
Primary worksite: street, city, state, ZIP
Work mode: onsite or hybrid with a clear cadence
Known client worksites, if regular and supportable:
- address, notes on expected cadence or period
- address, notes on expected cadence or period
Travel boundaries, if applicable:
- typical travel: measured percentage or frequency
- geography: limited territory
- purpose: short explanation
Change triggers:
- new regular worksite, expanded geography, primary worksite shift, or mode change
- when triggered: re-check PWD, recruitment language, NOF logic, and ETA-9089 consistency
With the location storyline and travel logic in place, the final layer is audit-file discipline: what to store so you do not rebuild evidence under pressure, and how to avoid common failure patterns that appear “minor” until they become the core issue in a review.
5) Audit file: how to store client-site proof and avoid common failure patterns
The costliest scenario is receiving a document request and realizing that the “worksite story” exists only in scattered emails and informal notes. In third-party worksite cases, your audit file should read like an organized explanation: what the job is, where it is performed, how the geography was tested, and what evidence supports the end-client site and the employment reality.
A practical audit-file structure that scales
Location spine: internal assignment memo, primary worksite statement, assumed work mode, known worksites list, travel boundaries, and change triggers.
PWD packet: PWD request and response, plus a short note explaining why the location chosen matches the real worksite story.
Recruitment packet: copies of ads as published, posting proofs, recruitment report, resumes, and consistent disposition reasons.
NOF packet: posting evidence and a clear explanation of why the posting location matches the place of employment logic.
End-client proof: end-client letter, worksite confirmation, and relevant excerpts from SOW or PO as appropriate.
Employer control snapshot: internal supervision structure, timekeeping, evaluation, onboarding, and assignment change process.
Common failure patterns to catch early
- Unlimited geography language that effectively turns the job into “anywhere.”
- Location mismatch across PWD, ads, NOF, and ETA-9089, even if each mismatch seems small.
- Weak end-client letter with no address, no clear work expectation, no real signer, or “as needed” phrasing.
- NOF logic that does not map to where the job is actually performed.
- Travel used as a loophole instead of a measured boundary, followed by regular multi-site placement in practice.
Related pages
6) FAQ + primary sources
1) Can you file PERM when the employee works at an end-client site?
2) What should be identical across PWD, ads, NOF, and ETA-9089?
3) What makes an end-client letter actually useful?
4) What language should you avoid in end-client letters?
5) Do you need an itinerary if you cannot list all future sites?
6) What if the client worksite changes before filing ETA-9089?
7) What is the minimum “real worksite” proof to keep in the audit file?
Primary sources
-
DOL ETA/OFLC Foreign Labor Forms
Official forms hub, including ETA-9089 and related materials.
-
DOL ETA-9089 Instructions PDF
Field-by-field instructions and required attestations for ETA-9089.
-
eCFR 20 CFR Part 656
Current consolidated PERM regulation with navigable sections.
-
eCFR 20 CFR 656.20
Audit procedures section used as a baseline reference for document requests.
-
eCFR 20 CFR 656.21
Supervised recruitment section, relevant when recruitment is ordered or required.
-
DOL FLAG portal
Government gateway for OFLC filings and program access information.
