The questions we are actually asked.

Send an enquiry or book a call. A senior engineer replies within one business day, we talk for about 45 minutes about the problem, and within a week you have a written approach with a cost and time range. Nothing is committed until you sign a fixed scope, and plenty of those first conversations end with advice rather than a proposal.

The engineers building it, plus a technical lead who is accountable for delivery. There is no account manager layer relaying messages between you and the people doing the work, because that arrangement makes everything slower and less accurate.

Sized to the work rather than to the invoice, and named in the written approach so you know who is on it before you commit. Very large teams on a single product mostly create coordination cost, and we would rather run two capable teams than one crowded one.

Anything from a focused review of an existing system to a large platform build. What we do not do well is a few scattered hours a month, and we will tell you that rather than take it on and do it badly.

Our team works from Denver and Lahore, which between them overlap with US and European working hours. Tell us where your team sits and we will tell you exactly what daily contact would look like.

Yes. We can take a defined component, embed engineers into your existing teams, or provide the senior capability a team is missing. We work in your repositories, your pipeline and your process.

That is normal, and it is a good reason to start with a short review rather than a build. You get a written recommendation you own, and you are free to take it to your own team or another supplier.

AI writes a large share of the first draft. Senior engineers decide the architecture, review everything that ships, and own the result. The work AI is genuinely good at is the patterned, repetitive majority of a codebase: endpoints, validation, tests, migrations, component states, infrastructure definitions. The decisions that determine whether the system survives contact with production are made by people.

It should not be, and the reason is review. Every change is approved by a named engineer who is accountable for it. The time AI saves goes into review, testing and the failure modes that fixed-fee projects usually skip because the budget ran out.

We are, exactly as we would be otherwise. There is no clause anywhere in our contracts that treats AI-assisted code as a lesser warranty. If it breaks, we fix it, and how it was authored is our problem rather than yours.

No. We use enterprise tooling with training explicitly disabled, and where a client requires it we work in an isolated environment with no third-party model access at all. For regulated clients we document precisely which tools touched which repositories, and that document forms part of the engagement.

Treat them as indicative, not a guarantee. The gain is largest where AI removes repetitive engineering work, and smaller where the pace is set by decisions, data access or third-party approvals. The test that matters is your project: send us a quote you already have or your own internal estimate, and we will come back with a like-for-like scope, price and timeline. If we cannot beat your number meaningfully, we will say so rather than shave the scope until it fits.

Neither. It comes out of hours that no longer need to be spent. A conventional estimate prices the time it takes a person to type, test and document patterned code. When that time falls by a large factor, either the client keeps the saving or the supplier does. We would rather win more work at an honest price.

The same thing that happens when a person does: review catches it, tests catch it, or it reaches production and we fix it and write up why. Generated code fails differently to human code, usually confidently and plausibly, which is precisely why the review discipline matters more rather than less.

Honestly, partly yes, and some clients should. The tools are available to everyone. What is harder to acquire quickly is the review discipline, the architecture judgement and knowing which generated output to throw away. If your team is close to that already, we will tell you so and offer advisory rather than delivery.

Fixed price against a defined scope wherever the scope can be defined, which is most of the time. For genuinely exploratory work we use a monthly team rate with a fixed capacity. Either way the number is agreed in writing before anything starts and we do not bill for work you did not agree to.

On a fixed price engagement, that is our problem rather than yours. If the scope changes because you want something different, we price the change and you decide. If it takes longer because we estimated badly, we absorb it. That distinction is agreed in writing before work starts rather than left to goodwill.

No. Retained work has no minimum term: thirty days’ notice, and we help you move. We would rather you stayed because the work is good than because leaving is difficult.

It depends on scope, so we will not quote a number blind. Within a week of the first call you get a written approach with a cost and time range and the assumptions behind it, plainly enough to forward to a board.

No. The first conversation is 45 minutes with a senior engineer about your problem, and it is a real conversation rather than a sales call. What we do not do is unpaid discovery work, because a proper assessment takes real senior time and pretending otherwise leads to shallow advice.

Against the milestones agreed in your proposal, with the payment terms written into it. We do not design payment schedules to make walking away expensive.

Working software deployed to an environment you can open, a short written update on what moved and what is blocked, and a call if there is a decision to make. You have access to the repository from day one, not a summary of it.

As soon as there is something to run, in an environment you can open, and deliberately something you can use rather than a prototype that gets thrown away. Long stretches with nothing to look at are where projects quietly go wrong.

Expected rather than resisted. Requirements change because you learn things, and a process that punishes that produces the wrong software on time. Changes are priced and sequenced, and you decide what to trade.

Automated tests are written with the code and run on every change. That includes the cases that get skipped under deadline pressure: partial failures, timeouts, malformed input and the states a user hits when something is already going wrong.

Tell us and we will stop cleanly at a sensible point, with the work in a state you could hand to anyone. We would rather pause well than keep billing through a period when your priorities have changed.

You do. Code and IP transfer to you on final payment, including the infrastructure definitions and documentation, with the repository history intact. You have repository access from day one. There is no licence back to us and nothing you would need our permission to change.

Yes, routinely, and we can sign yours before the first call rather than after it. We will also sign your data processing agreement and security schedules, and we read them properly rather than returning them unchanged.

Least privilege and time-bounded access, in your environment under your controls rather than copied into ours. Everything we do is logged where you can see it, and access is revoked at the end of the engagement with written confirmation.

We build to SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA and GDPR requirements as engineering controls that actually run, and we produce the evidence as we go rather than assembling it the month before an audit. We are not an auditor and we work alongside whichever one you appoint.

Tell us what cover your procurement process requires and we will confirm in writing what we hold, with certificates. We complete security questionnaires as part of procurement.

We do not subcontract client work to third parties. Everyone who touches your systems is part of our team, named, and covered by the same agreements. If that ever needed to change we would ask you first.

Yes, with 24/7 support coverage and agreed response times written into the contract rather than described vaguely. That covers monitoring, incident response, security patching and the small changes that keep a system healthy.

That is a normal and welcome outcome. Everything is already in your accounts and repositories under standard tooling, documented, and we run a handover period with your team rather than sending a document and disappearing.

You can, with thirty days’ notice, and we hand over cleanly. We do not hold deployment keys, undocumented environments or anything else that would make leaving painful. A supplier who has to trap clients has already lost the argument about quality.

Yes. If it shipped broken, that is ours to fix, and how it was written is not a mitigation. The warranty period after handover is set out in writing in your proposal.

Yes, and it is some of the most useful work we do. We start by reading the code and the incident history and giving you an honest assessment of what is there, before proposing anything be changed.