A quote that comes back within a day should be treated as a warning, not a service level. An experienced provider returns clarifying questions before any number: about integrations. A supplier that quotes with no clarification is simply working from a template, and the gap becomes a change request later — and you will pay for it.
Watch for economic development software for government a gap between the people you meet and those who eventually appear in the repository. Insist on named engineers in the statement of work, with a clause that requires notice before anyone is swapped. A team that only offers abstract roles and refuses to name people is preserving the option to staff you with whoever is free.
Ask for commit-level visibility from day one. A provider that hands over a build only at the end of each phase expects you to accept a black box. Regular commits and pull requests tell you who is really on the project far better than any status report. This extends to the automated test suite: application support services if it does not exist, assurances about quality remain nothing more than words.
Loose contract language around IP is never an accident. The document needs to state in plain terms that all outputs produced under it belong to your business upon settlement of the relevant invoice. Also check the jurisdiction and how payments are structured: a request for most of the money up front with no deliverable attached removes the only leverage you have.
Lastly, look at how they communicate. Establish what overlap there will be with your working day, who handles day-to-day questions and on what response times. Some genuine overlap is normally sufficient; no overlap turns a five-minute question into a day of delay. Sloppy written English in the early emails does not improve once the work starts.
Recent Comments