Company scale
Capacity context
Record public bench or certification claims with their scope, publisher, and observation date. Ask how much of that capacity is relevant and available.
Printable procurement tool / separate the signals
Check Scale, Partner Tier and Delivery Fit Separately
Bench size, partner status, certification totals, named-case relevance, and proposed-team fit answer different buyer questions. Record each signal separately before drawing a route-specific conclusion.
Frame / three ledgers
Keep scale, status, and delivery fit in separate columns
A strong signal in one column cannot silently fill an evidence gap in another.
Partner status
Directory context
Use a current official directory record for current status. Keep the observation date and do not convert status into a delivery outcome.
Delivery fit
Proposal context
Verify named people, route-matched cases, allocation, working overlap, controls, acceptance, continuity, and the fit boundary.
Tool 01 / ten checks
Record what each signal proves
For every answer, note the source class, observation date, relevance to the target brief, and remaining proposal evidence.
Bench scale
Record the exact public scale claim, its scope, source, publisher, observation date, and whether it refers to the company or an available team.
Adobe partner tier
Check a current official directory record and date it. Treat company status as one signal, not proof of proposed-team skill or project fit.
Company certification total
Record the company-wide count only when its source and date are clear. Do not assign those credentials to unnamed proposed people.
Named-team credentials
Request names, roles, current credentials, relevant delivery experience, interview access, and verification links for the people proposed.
Role mix and allocation
Map architecture, engineering, QA, DevOps, analysis, delivery management, allocation, continuity, substitution, and decision ownership to the brief.
Working overlap and delivery footprint
Verify actual person locations, working windows, language needs, holidays, legal counterparty, and escalation coverage in the proposal.
Named-case relevance
Require a public case matched to the edition, workflow, integration, delivery stage, risk, and success condition instead of relying on scale alone.
Program breadth and delivery stage
Check whether the provider and proposed team fit discovery, build, migration, rescue, optimization, support, team extension, and parallel workstreams.
Controls and operating fit
Inspect repository access, QA, CI/CD, security, incidents, change control, acceptance, reporting, continuity, and escalation against buyer requirements.
Fit boundary and unresolved proof
State which requirement each signal supports, what it does not establish, and when another provider type or further discovery is the safer route.
Tool 02 / interpretation
Prevent evidence substitution
Use the final note to explain why a signal matters to this brief and which buyer check remains open.
| Signal | Supported use | Required boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Bench scale | Context for possible capacity and parallel workstreams | Verify scope, date, relevant skills, named allocation, and availability |
| Official tier | Company status on the directory observation date | Do not infer proposed-team skill, quality, availability, or outcome |
| Certification total | Company-level credential context | Verify every named person's current credential and relevant experience |
| Named case | Project-specific route and outcome evidence | Keep results case-bound and connect proposed people separately |
| Proposal evidence | Current people, controls, allocation, terms, and operating fit | Inspect documents and references before acceptance |
Use the named-case checklist to test route relevance before combining it with scale or status evidence.