Dedicated Development Team Services for US & EU Product Companies

Every candidate clears a four-stage process: CV and English screening, two technical interviews mapped to your stack, a paid trial task scored against your acceptance criteria, and a culture-fit interview with your team lead. You interview the shortlist and approve every hire — we never assign seats unilaterally. Failed trials are not billed. The same process applies to mid-level, senior, and lead roles, and we share scorecards on request.

You can request a replacement at any time with no penalty and no notice period beyond a two-week handover. We maintain a bench of pre-vetted candidates in matching stacks, so a replacement shortlist typically reaches you within five business days. Knowledge transfer is documented in your repository and runbooks during the overlap window, so the outgoing engineer is fully off-boarded before the new seat starts billing.

Delivery happens on CET hours from Yerevan, which gives a guaranteed four-hour synchronous overlap with US East Coast clients (9 AM–1 PM ET) and roughly seven hours of overlap with any EU office. That window covers daily standups, code reviews, design syncs, and incident response. For West Coast clients we shift two engineers per team to a late-CET schedule on request, at no extra rate.

We bill a flat monthly fee per named seat, fully loaded — salary, taxes, equipment, paid time off, management, and overhead are inside one line item. Pricing is fixed monthly and all-in in USD, tiered by squad size: a Mini team from $6,900 / month, a Standard team from $13,800 / month, and a Product team from $27,600 / month. There is no recruitment markup, no tool surcharges, and no minimum team size beyond one engineer. IP is transferred on day one, and cloud fees run on your own accounts, so you keep the cost lever. You see the line-item budget at the end of discovery and sign off before any code is written.

You do. The team works against your Jira, your sprint cadence, and your product owner. Our delivery lead reports into your engineering manager, not the other way around, and runs internal rituals — code review, pairing, demos — so you stay focused on the roadmap. We surface risks weekly through a written status note and a 30-minute review, and we do not push our own scope into your backlog.

All IP transfers to you on creation under the master services agreement; engineers sign individual IP assignment and NDA clauses. We are GDPR-aligned, ISO 27001 ready, HIPAA-capable for healthcare workloads, and SOC 2 Type II is in progress. Engineers work on managed endpoints with encrypted disks, SSO, MFA, and isolated repositories. CCPA notice obligations are acknowledged for US consumer data.

Yes. We support single-engineer engagements for codebases that need one strong generalist, or for clients who are validating the working relationship before committing to a larger team. The minimum billing unit is one seat at the hourly rate. The practical caveat is that a single engineer cannot safely cover vacation, sick leave and on-call simultaneously — for continuity we recommend a minimum of two engineers for any system that needs 24/7 reliability. When you are ready to scale, the process is the same as for new hires: a shortlist within five business days, your approval on every candidate, and a standard four-week ramp period that we reduce with documentation from the existing engineer.

We require a minimum three-month engagement. The first month is ramp, the second month is first full velocity, and the third month is the first meaningful throughput signal. Engagements shorter than three months rarely produce measurable output relative to the onboarding investment on both sides and are better served by a fixed-scope custom development project. Most engagements run 12 to 24 months; the longest active engagement at the time of writing is 38 months. We do not lock clients into annual contracts — billing is monthly with a 30-day termination notice after the initial three-month minimum.

Onboarding follows a four-week ramp checklist. Week one: access provisioning, architecture walkthrough, domain glossary review, read-only codebase exploration. Week two: first pair-programming session with your senior engineer, first PR (small, in a well-tested area). Week three: solo feature with code review from both sides. Week four: first cycle of ticket-to-merge-to-deploy independently, plus a ramp retro where we surface gaps. We do not bill week one at full capacity if the access provisioning is not ready on day one — the clock starts when the engineer can open the codebase, not when they join the Slack workspace.

We provide a delivery lead on every engagement. The delivery lead runs internal team rituals — daily standups, code review cadence, pairing sessions, sprint retrospectives — so you stay focused on the product rather than team hygiene. They also produce a weekly written status note covering velocity, blockers, risks and highlights, and they chair a 30-minute weekly review call with your product owner or engineering manager. You can choose to manage priorities and backlog directly (most clients do) or delegate that to us (we provide a PM for an additional seat). The delivery lead is not a project manager in the traditional sense — they do not generate Gantt charts or manage dependencies across teams; they are an engineering lead who also carries delivery accountability.

Yes. For greenfield products we run a one-week architecture workshop before the first sprint: your requirements, our recommended stack, alternatives considered, and a decision record documenting why we chose what we chose. The recommendation is driven by three criteria: fitness for the product's scale and performance requirements, maintainability by the largest pool of senior engineers you can hire into the stack in three years, and operational overhead given your team's likely DevOps maturity. We are not stack-agnostic in the sense of having no opinion — we have strong opinions backed by production experience — but we will always tell you when your existing stack preference is a reasonable one rather than pushing a preferred technology for its own sake.