Engagement Model
SOW Delivery.
Statement of Work engagements where you commit to milestones and acceptance criteria, and we commit to deliverables. Built for the mid-market enterprise sweet spot: defined scope, owned outcomes.
Statement of Work engagements where you commit to milestones and acceptance criteria, and we commit to deliverables. Built for the mid-market enterprise sweet spot: defined scope, owned outcomes.
SOW is the most under-used commercial model in workforce solutions. It's also the one that creates the most accountability, and the most leverage when used well.
SOW done well looks like a focused project; SOW done poorly looks like loose contractors with extra contract overhead. Five disciplines that distinguish them.
A structured workshop with your program lead and our delivery lead before the SOW is signed. We pressure-test the scope, surface the assumptions, and write acceptance criteria that are objectively testable. The SOWs that fail are the ones where this conversation never happened.
Every SOW has a senior partner who personally owns the outcome. The partner you pitch to is the one who runs it, from kickoff through acceptance, no handoff to a delivery team you've never met. Measured on whether your milestones get hit.
Payments are tied to milestones, not hours. We bear the overrun risk on fixed-bid SOWs; you bear it on time-and-materials. We're transparent about which structure shifts which risk, and recommend the one right for your program, not our margin.
Every SOW defines work-product ownership, IP assignment, and source-code/data handling at signature. Custom work product is assigned to you on milestone acceptance; pre-existing IP is licensed; confidentiality survives close. The ambiguity others resolve in legal at month nine, we resolve at week one.
Status reports that name the risks, not the activities. The activities are obvious from the work product. The risks are what your program lead needs to know. Programs that over-report activities and under-report risks are programs hiding problems until they explode.
Every milestone has a defined acceptance owner who signs off in writing and triggers payment. We invest in the documentation and knowledge transfer that makes acceptance straightforward: AI-augmented docs and structured runbooks cut the handoff burden and close engagements cleanly.
The right structure depends on scope stability, risk tolerance, and how much you value predictable cost vs. flexibility on changes. We'll recommend the structure that fits the work, not the one that protects our margin.
One price, defined deliverables, agreed milestones. We bear effort overrun risk. Best for well-scoped engagements where requirements are stable and acceptance criteria are clean.
Hourly billing against named team members. You bear effort overrun risk. Best when scope is genuinely fluid or the work is exploratory and you want flexibility on direction.
T&M billing against a not-to-exceed ceiling. You get flexibility on direction within an agreed cap; we bear the risk of effort overruns above it. The most-asked-for hybrid by mid-market enterprise buyers who want flexibility with bounded downside.
Combines fixed and variable: fixed-bid for the well-defined deliverables, T&M for the exploratory or change-order work. The most balanced structure for multi-phase enterprise programs.
A national self-storage REIT needed IT Service Desk capacity during a confidential $1B+ acquisition. The constraint was cadence, not speed. We delivered 45 Tier 1 Service Desk Analysts in 60 days on a six-month SOW, staged in batches of 15 to match onboarding throughput.
Read the case study →Compare Contingent, SOW, Managed Services, Direct Hire, and RPO side by side: what each is, when to use it, and how to choose. One page to forward to your team.
Tell us the deliverable, the timeline, and the constraints. We'll come back with a scope, a structure, and a price, and we'll be honest about which risks we're taking and which we're not.