Questions Buyers Actually Ask

Most of our engineers are in India and Mexico, and we are not coy about that. But "offshore outsourcing" describes how work is delivered and priced, not what you buy. What you buy is a quality function you don't have to build, run by one organization that is accountable for the outcome.

The distinction matters because the two models behave differently. A staffing arrangement sends you people and bills for their time. We take ownership of validation, work inside your pipeline, commit assets to your repository, and report evidence on what is safe to release.

Staff augmentation gives you headcount and leaves the management, the method, and the accountability with you. We give you a function with a named engineering director who is accountable when something goes wrong, scoped to your change volume rather than to a number of seats.

The practical test: ask any vendor what happens when your developers double their output. A staffing model asks you to double the headcount. Ours scales the model.

You do, entirely. Every script, harness, dataset, and document is committed to your repositories, in your framework, and in your language. If you end the engagement, you keep all of it, and it keeps running. Nothing is held in a QASource tool that you lose access to.

Because a QASource engineer reviews every generated case and script for correctness and intent before it is committed. Nothing unverified enters your suite.

That step is the entire point. Unverified generated tests have the same failure mode as unverified generated code—they look complete and confirm what the author assumed. The machine supplies speed; the engineer supplies judgment.

No client data is used to train or prompt external models. Generation runs in controlled environments under client-defined access, and where a client requires it, engineers work entirely inside the client's own environment.

No. QASIP is internal and stays that way. You buy the outcome of the services it powers—migration, test and script creation, and suite maintenance—delivered and verified by our engineers.

We think that keeps the incentives right. A tool vendor's obligation ends when you have the license; ours ends when your release is safe.

No, and this is the one place we are absolute. AI Assurance will not assess a system QASource built. The team that built an agent knows what it is supposed to do, and the failures live in what nobody thought to ask.

We do development for many clients. We do not do it for a system we are validating.

ISO 27001:2022 (certificate IS 791318) and ISO 9001:2015 (certificate Q-9130084915), both verifiable by certificate number in the IAF public register, and an Intertek Certificate of Conformance for HIPAA, verifiable through Intertek certificate validation.

We do not submit our internal control documentation to third-party attestation programs, so there is no badge beyond those. Fortune 100 clients audit our delivery centers on-site regularly, and those engagements continue. Your security team is welcome to do the same.

The certificates are held by bebo Technologies, the entity that operates our India delivery centers—the certificate should sit with the organization doing the work rather than the one selling it. The links are on our security page →

Our delivery centers are also audited on-site by Fortune 100 clients regularly. That is the assurance we would point to first, because we didn't write it. More on security and infrastructure →

You tell us what's going wrong. We research your company and product before we speak, listen, and say the problem back to you in our own words so you can correct us. Within two business days of that conversation, you have a proposal: scope, approach, team, and price. References if you want them.

If you'd rather see us work before committing, there are scoped assessments that produce a written finding you keep either way. Some teams want that, and it's a reasonable instinct.

On cost: we don't compete on price, and we will tell you that early rather than late. Engagements are sized to the amount and risk of change you produce, not to an hourly rate.

Yes—including clients in their second decade with us and ones in your industry. Seventeen clients have also put their names to public reviews on Clutch, which you can read without asking us for anything. They're collected here →

Yes—about 40% of our work is development, release engineering, DevOps, and in some cases, whole products. Not one of those engagements started that way: every client came to us for quality first and asked us to build later. Why that order matters →

Yes, and that is how many engagements start—a dedicated team, working only on your product, who do not get rotated onto someone else's account next quarter. That much is exactly what it sounds like.

What we would rather sell you is the same team with the accountability attached: a named engineering director, an agreed definition of what "safe to release" means for your product, and a written finding on each release candidate. The people are the same either way. The difference is whether you are managing them or holding us to an outcome.

You keep everything we built because it is already in your repositories. If a first delivery doesn't meet the agreed coverage, you don't pay for it.

And for what it is worth, we have refunded an engagement in full when we delivered something a client could no longer use. That story is on our About page, written by the founder, because a company with twenty-four years of history has failures, and the ones worth telling are the ones it paid for.