What enterprise procurement actually needs
Enterprise procurement teams aren't blocking on price. They're blocking on:
- IP assignment that's unambiguous before code access. Not at engagement end. Not at deliverable acceptance. Before the first commit.
- Security questionnaire turnaround that doesn't blow up the deal cycle. If SIG or CAIQ takes 4 weeks to come back, the engagement is dead.
- Standardized MSA + SOW structure that matches your legal team's templates or can adopt yours as the starting point.
- Honest disclosure on certifications. Procurement teams have been burned by vendors claiming SOC 2 status that turned out to be "in progress for 18 months." Honesty about where the certification stands today is more important than the claim itself.
- Replacement and exit terms in writing. If the engineer doesn't fit, what happens? How fast? Whose risk?
Most embedded-staffing platforms get one or two of these right. The combination is what determines whether the engagement clears procurement in one round or three.
Our posture — six items, honest
Posture against each procurement gate:
1. NDA on day 1 — standard. Mutual NDA + standard contractor IP assignment terms before any code or repo access. Applies pre-engagement (any candidate exposed to materials during evaluation) and at engagement start.
2. MSA + SOW on request. We sign your MSA, or provide ours as a starting point. SOW scoped per engagement — single engineer or team of 3+. Procurement-friendly invoicing, net 30 standard. Wire, ACH, or AP portal accepted.
3. SOC 2 Type II — in progress, target Q4 2026. We are actively working toward certification. Ahead of that, engineers operate inside your security policies and tools — we do not store client code or credentials on FutureProofing.dev-owned infrastructure. If your buyer requires SOC 2 as a hard gate today, we'll tell you upfront and re-engage post-certification.
4. Engagement model — embedded. Engineers operate inside your tools: your repo, your Linear/Jira, your Slack, your Vercel or AWS. No middleman platforms. No time-tracking surveillance. Direct PR review with your team leads.
5. IP assignment — day 1, all to client. 100% of work product assigned to client on commit. FutureProofing.dev retains zero rights — no derivative rights, no training-data rights, no portfolio rights.
6. Security review — async, 3–5 business days. We respond to SIG, CAIQ, or custom questionnaires within 3–5 business days. Most procurement teams get what they need in one round.
Engagement model — what shipping looks like
An enterprise engagement at FutureProofing.dev looks like this:
Week 0. Written brief routes to Jess Mah and Andrea Barrica directly. Reply within 24 business hours. Mutual NDA signed.
Week 1. Security questionnaire returned (3–5 business days, async). Up to 3 candidate profiles intro'd with stack-match notes, prior receipts, and availability date.
Week 2. Client selects candidate. MSA + SOW finalized in parallel. Engineer signs your contractor + IP assignment paperwork. Repo access granted.
Week 3. First PR shipped. Embedded inside your Slack, Linear/Jira, and CI. Direct PR review with your team leads — no FutureProofing.dev middle layer.
Ongoing. Flat $13.5K/mo per engineer, all-in. Net-30 invoicing. Monthly contract, cancel anytime. Most clients elect the 20x Claude Code Max seat sponsorship — pays for itself in the first sprint via productivity multiplier on eval harnesses, CI scripts, type definitions, and test fixtures.
If fit fails. Submit replacement request to gabe@futureproofing.dev. Up to 3 candidates within 7 business days at no extra cost. Replacement onboarded within 7 business days of acceptance. If none of the 3 fit your stack or culture within 14 calendar days, you exit with a pro-rata refund — no fees, no clawback, no notice period.
How we work with your security team
Three concrete patterns for the security review:
Pattern A — SIG or CAIQ async. We complete your standard questionnaire in 3–5 business days. Most enterprise teams use SIG (full or lite); we've completed both. If you use a custom internal questionnaire, we'll complete it on the same turnaround.
Pattern B — Engineer-side controls inside your tooling. Because engineers operate inside your repo, your IAM, your secrets manager, and your monitoring, the surface area to audit is your own existing posture. We don't introduce a new attack surface — we introduce a contractor who works inside the one you've already hardened.
Pattern C — SOC 2 honest disclosure. SOC 2 Type II is in progress with a Q4 2026 target. If your procurement team requires it as a hard gate today, we'll tell you upfront. Some clients can engage now with a contractual provision that the engagement transitions to a SOC 2-attested vendor at certification. Others need to wait — we'll tell you which bucket you're in.
Inbound briefs route to Jess + Andrea. Replacement requests + ongoing engagement ops route to Gabe Murillo (gabe@futureproofing.dev). The triad shape is part of the SLA's reliability.
Comparison anchor for your CFO
The math your CFO will run anyway:
| Path | Year-1 loaded cost | Time to first PR | Replacement | Procurement complexity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US senior AI engineer in-house (FTE) | $568K | 6+ months | PIP + months | HR + payroll + benefits |
| FutureProofing.dev embedded engineer | $162K | 2 weeks median | 7 business days, no cost | One MSA + SOW |
Headline: $162K with FutureProofing.dev vs $288K+ in-house for the same shipped year of work — and the procurement cycle is one MSA, not a multi-month hiring pipeline. Source: FutureProofing.dev's TCO calculator, anchored to Levels.fyi 2026 senior AI engineer band.
Collection · Enterprise AI Talent Strategy (landing)