# Fixed-Price Engineering Scope Decision Brief

Use this working document before requesting, proposing, or signing a fixed-price software engagement. Replace every bracketed field. Do not mark the scope ready until each failed gate has an owner and treatment.

> This is a commercial and delivery-planning template, not legal advice. Have contract terms reviewed for the applicable jurisdiction.

## 1. Decision record

| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Project | [Name] |
| Buyer | [Organization and accountable owner] |
| Supplier | [Organization and accountable owner] |
| Decision date | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
| Proposed model | [Fixed project / fixed phase / capped T&M / T&M / dedicated team / hybrid] |
| Maximum approved exposure | [Amount and currency] |
| Target start / release | [Dates] |
| Decision | [Proceed / proceed with conditions / discovery first / reject] |
| Decision owner | [Name and role] |
| Evidence reviewed | [Links or attachments] |

## 2. Outcome contract

### User and problem

- Primary user or operator: [Who]
- Current problem: [Observable problem]
- Business capability to create: [Capability]
- Why now: [Trigger]

### Outcome statement

> For [user], enable [capability] so that [measurable result or leading indicator], while preserving [critical constraint].

### Acceptance boundary

- Supplier-controllable acceptance: [What delivery can prove]
- Downstream business target: [What will be measured but is not guaranteed by delivery]
- Explicit non-goals: [What this engagement does not promise]

## 3. Six priceability gates

Score each gate `PASS`, `CONDITIONAL`, or `FAIL`. A conditional or failed gate requires an action before a full-project fixed price is responsible.

| Gate | Status | Evidence | Gap / action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome is clear | [ ] | [Link] | [Action] | [Owner] | [Date] |
| System and journey boundary is drawn | [ ] | [Link] | [Action] | [Owner] | [Date] |
| Critical interfaces are inspected or tested | [ ] | [Link] | [Action] | [Owner] | [Date] |
| Quality is measurable | [ ] | [Link] | [Action] | [Owner] | [Date] |
| Buyer inputs and decisions are timed | [ ] | [Link] | [Action] | [Owner] | [Date] |
| Change rules are agreed | [ ] | [Link] | [Action] | [Owner] | [Date] |

### Gate decision

- All gates pass: [Yes / No]
- If no, next evidence purchase: [Discovery / prototype / technical spike / data sample / fixed phase / other]
- Maximum sensible commitment before that evidence exists: [Amount, phase, or stop rule]

## 4. Scope boundary

| Area | In scope | Out of scope | Source / attachment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Users and roles | [List] | [List] | [Link] |
| Journeys and states | [List, including errors and empty states] | [List] | [Link] |
| Routes / screens / templates | [Inventory] | [List] | [Link] |
| Content and languages | [Types, volume, locale] | [List] | [Link] |
| Data and migration | [Sources, volume, transformations] | [List] | [Link] |
| Integrations | [Systems, endpoints, auth] | [List] | [Link] |
| Environments | [Development, review, staging, production] | [List] | [Link] |
| Browser / device support | [Matrix] | [List] | [Link] |
| Infrastructure and operations | [Included work] | [List] | [Link] |
| Training and documentation | [Included work] | [List] | [Link] |
| Launch and post-launch support | [Included work] | [List] | [Link] |

## 5. Uncertainty register

Rank by potential effect on feasibility, architecture, price, schedule, or acceptance—not by how easy the question is to answer.

| Unknown | Current evidence | Potential impact | Reversible? | Test / spike | Treatment | Owner | Decision date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Unknown] | [Evidence] | [Low / medium / high + explanation] | [Yes / No] | [Test] | [Include / contingency / assumption / provisional / discovery / exclude] | [Owner] | [Date] |

### Stop conditions

- Stop or re-scope if: [Condition]
- Maximum discovery spend before decision: [Amount]
- Who can authorize continuation: [Name / role]

## 6. Dependency and interface evidence

| Dependency | Owner | Access available? | Evidence inspected | Constraint | Failure treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [API / vendor / data / platform / review body] | [Buyer / supplier / third party] | [Yes / No] | [Docs, sandbox, sample, test result] | [Rate, SLA, format, date] | [Schedule move / workaround / change / stop] |

## 7. Non-functional requirements

Use only applicable rows. Every included row needs a method, environment, and threshold.

| Quality area | Requirement | Method / tool | Test environment | Threshold | Evidence owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | [Requirement] | [Method] | [Environment] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |
| Accessibility | [Standard and level] | [Automated + manual method] | [Environment] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |
| Security | [Controls / test] | [Method] | [Environment] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |
| Privacy / consent | [Requirement] | [Method] | [Environment] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |
| SEO / crawlability | [Requirement] | [Crawl / render / validation] | [Environment] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |
| Analytics | [Events and properties] | [Validation method] | [Environment] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |
| Observability | [Logs, metrics, alerts] | [Method] | [Environment] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |
| Resilience / recovery | [RTO, RPO, rollback, backup] | [Exercise] | [Environment] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |
| Maintainability | [Code, tests, docs] | [Review / checks] | [Repository] | [Threshold] | [Owner] |

## 8. Acceptance evidence matrix

| Deliverable | Written criterion | Test / demonstration | Evidence artifact | Reviewer | Review window | Blocking severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Deliverable] | [Criterion] | [Method] | [Report, recording, test output, URL] | [Role] | [Business days] | [Definition] |

### Acceptance mechanics

- Authorized acceptor: [Name / role]
- Review window: [Number of business days]
- Rejection must cite: [Written requirement / threshold]
- Partial acceptance: [Allowed / not allowed + rule]
- Silence is acceptance: [Yes / No + exact rule]
- Blocking defect severities: [Definitions]
- Non-blocking defect treatment: [Warranty / backlog / credit / other]

## 9. Buyer obligations

| Required input or decision | Buyer owner | Due / response window | Required format / quality | Supplier dependency | Delay treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Content / data / access / credential / approval / fee / review] | [Owner] | [Date or hours] | [Definition] | [Affected work] | [Schedule, cost, assumption, pause] |

## 10. Assumptions, exclusions, and provisions

### Assumptions

| ID | Estimate relies on | Evidence | If false | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-01 | [Assumption] | [Evidence] | [Change / provisional / re-scope / stop] | [Owner] |

### Exclusions

| ID | Excluded item | Why it is outside the outcome | Optional route |
|---|---|---|---|
| E-01 | [Exclusion] | [Reason] | [Future phase / separate quote / buyer-owned] |

### Provisional items

| ID | Item | Allowance / cap | Validation event | Reconciliation rule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-01 | [Item] | [Amount / effort] | [Event] | [Rule] |

## 11. Risk allocation

| Risk | Evidence | Controlling party | Mitigation | Commercial treatment | Residual risk accepted by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Risk] | [Evidence] | [Buyer / supplier / third party / shared] | [Action] | [Base price / contingency / assumption / provisional / exclude] | [Role] |

Check the logic:

- [ ] The assigned party can materially influence the risk.
- [ ] The treatment is visible in price or scope.
- [ ] No party is implicitly accepting unlimited unknowns.
- [ ] Contingency is tied to identified risk, not a hidden blanket percentage.
- [ ] A failed dependency has an operational and commercial response.

## 12. Work classification and change control

| Class | Definition for this project | Commercial treatment | Approval needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defect | [Behavior misses agreed criterion] | [Included correction / warranty] | [Role] |
| Clarification | [No material effect on behavior, effort, architecture, dependency, or risk] | [Record only] | [Role] |
| Scope swap | [Comparable effort, risk, and dependency impact] | [Inside envelope] | [Role] |
| Change | [Material new or altered requirement] | [Impact assessment + baseline update] | [Role] |
| Discovery | [Evidence reveals an explicitly unresolved condition] | [Pre-agreed provisional / re-scope / stop] | [Role] |

### Change request

- Request ID / date: [ID / YYYY-MM-DD]
- Requested behavior: [Description]
- Business reason: [Reason]
- Current baseline affected: [Reference]
- Price effect: [Amount / none]
- Schedule effect: [Days / milestone / none]
- Quality, architecture, dependency, and risk effect: [Analysis]
- Options: [Defer / simplify / swap / add / reject]
- Revised acceptance evidence: [Criteria]
- Decision: [Approved / rejected / deferred]
- Authorized by / date: [Role / date]

## 13. Milestones and payments

| Milestone | Demonstrable deliverable | Acceptance evidence | Amount / percentage | Target date | Exit option |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Milestone] | [Result, not ceremony] | [Evidence] | [Value] | [Date] | [Continue / revise / stop] |

Avoid milestones based only on elapsed time, document delivery, or sprint count when the intended value can be demonstrated directly.

## 14. Handover and warranty

- [ ] Source repositories and history transferred or accessible.
- [ ] Infrastructure, domains, DNS, analytics, vendor, and deployment accounts are buyer-controlled as agreed.
- [ ] Credentials are transferred securely and rotated.
- [ ] Licenses, recurring costs, and renewal owners are documented.
- [ ] Architecture, runbook, data model, integration, and release documentation are complete.
- [ ] Monitoring, alerting, backup, rollback, and incident ownership are demonstrated.
- [ ] Open defects and residual risks are recorded with owner and treatment.
- [ ] Warranty duration, coverage, exclusions, severity, and response targets are explicit.
- [ ] Data export and supplier exit procedure are tested or documented.

## 15. Commercial model comparison

Score `1` (poor fit) to `5` (strong fit).

| Criterion | Fixed project | Fixed phase | Capped T&M | T&M | Dedicated team |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Scope maturity | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Interface evidence | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Need for backlog change | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Budget ceiling need | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Buyer governance capacity | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Outcome measurability | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Stop / exit optionality | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| **Total** | **[ ]** | **[ ]** | **[ ]** | **[ ]** | **[ ]** |

Scores inform the decision; they do not replace the evidence and risk review.

## 16. Final go / no-go

- [ ] The six priceability gates pass or have explicit preconditions.
- [ ] Estimate-changing unknowns have been tested or isolated.
- [ ] Scope, assumptions, exclusions, and provisional items reconcile.
- [ ] Functional and non-functional acceptance is testable.
- [ ] Buyer obligations have owners and time limits.
- [ ] Risk is assigned to parties that can influence it.
- [ ] Defect, clarification, scope swap, change, and discovery are distinguishable.
- [ ] Payments follow accepted evidence and preserve sensible exit options.
- [ ] Handover leaves the buyer with the agreed operational control.
- [ ] Legal and procurement review is complete where required.

### Signed decision

| Role | Name | Decision | Conditions | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buyer sponsor | [Name] | [Go / no-go] | [Conditions] | [Date] |
| Product / delivery owner | [Name] | [Go / no-go] | [Conditions] | [Date] |
| Engineering owner | [Name] | [Go / no-go] | [Conditions] | [Date] |
| Commercial / procurement | [Name] | [Go / no-go] | [Conditions] | [Date] |
| Supplier owner | [Name] | [Go / no-go] | [Conditions] | [Date] |

## 17. Review rhythm

| Review | Question | Evidence | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase / sprint review | Does the increment pass and what changed? | [Evidence] | [Accept / correct / change / stop] |
| Risk review | Which assumptions changed? | [Register] | [Mitigate / reallocate / discover] |
| 30-day outcome review | Is the capability being used and measured? | [Data] | [Maintain / improve] |
| 60-day outcome review | Are defects, costs, and dependencies stable? | [Data] | [Correct / optimize] |
| 90-day outcome review | Did the engagement create the intended capability and control? | [Data] | [Close / next phase / change model] |