Check that the proposal answers your brief.
Look for the actual app, priority audience and problem in the reasoning. A generic list of services can be useful background, but it does not explain why this engagement fits.
Use a consistent brief so proposals can be compared. Ask what assumptions were made and what missing evidence might change the plan.
Convert deliverables into acceptance questions.
For each output, ask what it contains and how your team will use it. “Keyword research” should explain the market, source context and prioritisation logic. “Screenshot work” should distinguish a message brief from designed assets.
The visual shows how to convert vague labels into reviewable outputs. It is not a contract template; it helps you identify questions to resolve in the written scope.
Name the people and dependencies.
Clarify delivery roles, review responsibilities and publishing ownership. Record which information your team must provide and when. An ambitious schedule with unnamed approvals can be difficult to execute.
Read provider comparisons for the staffing questions. Judge the actual proposed arrangement rather than assuming every firm uses the same model.
Inspect evaluation and change control.
Ask how progress will be assessed and how uncertainty will be reported. Separate work delivered from observed results. Define how additional markets, production requests or revisions change the scope.
Use KPI guidance to challenge undefined success claims. A ranking guarantee is not a substitute for a sensible evaluation plan.
Compare fit before choosing the lowest total.
Put scope differences beside the fees and identify the internal work each option leaves behind. Request clarification on material gaps before deciding. Avoid a numerical score that hides a non-negotiable requirement.
Use cost guidance and red flags. Preserve the final agreed version so delivery can be reviewed against the same expectations.
