AXENTED — Blog Article
Slug: /blog-posts/evaluate-software-development-proposal |
Meta description: You don't need to be a developer to evaluate software proposals well. What to compare, what the red flags look like, and the questions to ask before signing. |
Target keywords: evaluate software development proposal, how to choose software vendor, software proposal review, hire software developer |
Most non-technical founders and executives have the same experience evaluating software development proposals: three vendors, three wildly different prices, and no obvious way to know which one is right. The cheapest quote is tempting. The most expensive sounds confident. The middle one seems like a reasonable compromise but nobody knows why.
You don't need to be a developer to evaluate these proposals well. You need to know what to look for.
Price is the last thing to evaluate, not the first. Two proposals at the same price can represent completely different projects — different scope assumptions, different risk allocations, different team seniority. Before comparing prices, compare approaches.
Does each proposal demonstrate an understanding of your actual problem, or does it describe a generic technical solution? Did the vendor ask clarifying questions, or did they accept every requirement as stated? A proposal that includes "we reviewed your requirements and have a few questions about X before we can commit to Y" is better than a proposal that commits to everything without qualification.
The people who will do the work matter more than the company you're hiring. Most software development firms have excellent senior engineers who sell the work and less experienced engineers who do it. That's not universally true, but it's common enough to ask about directly.
Request the resumes or LinkedIn profiles of the specific engineers who would be assigned to your project. Ask whether those engineers have availability for your timeline. If the answer is "we'll staff based on project needs," that's a signal that the people in the sales conversation are not the people who will write your code.
A proposal that pushes back on something in your requirements is a good sign. It means the vendor read carefully and has opinions — which is what you're paying for. A proposal that asks about your user research, your success metrics, or your existing technical constraints before scoping the work is thinking about your project, not just their process.
Phased proposals are often better than big-bang fixed-price proposals. A vendor who proposes a discovery phase, then a phase one, then a phase two with scope determined by phase one outcomes understands that requirements evolve and is building that reality into the contract. A vendor who proposes to build everything for a fixed price assumes the requirements are stable and correct, which is rarely true.
A price that's 40% lower than other proposals is almost never a better deal. It's usually a sign that the vendor underscoped, is planning to staff with junior engineers, or is buying the work at a loss to get the relationship. Any of those leads to a difficult project.
Proposals that don't mention testing, deployment, or maintenance are incomplete. Production software requires all three, and if they're not in the proposal, they're either not included in the scope or will be added as change orders.
If the contract doesn't include source code ownership language that explicitly assigns ownership to you upon payment, don't sign it. Your code should be yours.
Who specifically will work on this project and what are their recent projects? How do you handle scope changes mid-project? What does your quality assurance process look like? Can I speak with a past client from a project of similar scope? What happens if the project takes longer than estimated?
The vendor who answers these questions directly and specifically is the vendor who has been through enough real projects to know what can go wrong. That experience is the thing you're actually buying.
%20(1)-2.svg)
