Mariel Desailly

A number produced without questions counts as a red flag rather than good service. A competent team returns a list of questions: about integrations. A provider that commits to a figure before understanding the scope is simply pricing a guess, and that guess resurfaces as a change order — and you will pay for it.

Be wary of a gap between the team in the pitch and those who eventually appear in the repository. Request specific people rather than roles in the statement of work, with wording covering replacement. A team that only offers roles and refuses to name people is keeping the right to assign anyone it likes.

Ask for commit-level visibility from the first week. A provider that delivers a build only at the end of each phase is asking you to take delivery on faith. Daily commits show you the actual pace far better than a weekly report. The same applies to the automated test suite: if it does not exist, quality claims are nothing more than words.

Ambiguous phrasing around code ownership is rarely an oversight. The agreement needs to state explicitly that all deliverables become the property of your business as they are paid for. Look too at the governing law and how payments are structured: a large upfront payment with no deliverable attached eliminates any leverage you would otherwise keep.

Last, examine how much does custom software cost they communicate. Confirm what overlap you will share each day, nearshore software development which named person is expected to answer your questions and within what time. A few hours of overlap generally works; no overlap converts each small question into a day of delay. Sloppy written English in the proposal rarely improves under delivery pressure.