Fixed-price projects go wrong in a predictable way: the price gets set before anyone understands the work. Then the gap between what was imagined and what was needed becomes a fight about change requests, and both sides lose.
We price after discovery. The first phase of every engagement produces a written scope: the screens, the systems, the integrations, what's explicitly out, and what we'd cut first if budget gets tight. That document is the contract's spine. It exists so that six weeks in, 'is this in scope?' has a written answer.
Changes still happen — good projects learn as they go. When they do, the change is written down with its price and its effect on the timeline, and you decide. Nothing gets silently absorbed and nothing gets silently billed. The discipline exists to make every trade-off a decision you got to make.
Milestone billing keeps the incentives aligned. You pay a portion to start, a portion mid-build, and the rest at handover — and because you own the repository from the first commit, every payment buys something you already hold. If we stopped showing up, you'd have working code and every credential. That arrangement keeps us accountable in a way no testimonial could.
This is more work for us up front. It's also why every project is designed to end with a handover.
Building something this applies to?