You see one number before we start. Scope protections live in the contract, not in surprise invoices.
Hourly T&M hands the buyer all the risk and hands me a metre. I’d rather take the risk myself, quote what I think the work is worth, and protect both of us with named scope.
What I do
- Quote a single number that covers the work as scoped.
- Document scope in writing: what’s in, what’s out, what’s deferred.
- Name how change orders work before we begin. New requests get quoted as fixed-price addenda, not added quietly to a running bill.
- Build a 15% complexity buffer for the unknowns I can predict (legacy plugin surprises, broken DNS, missing access). Charge nothing for the unknowns I caused.
- Phase-gate large engagements at 33%, 66%, and 100% of scope so you can decide whether to proceed at each milestone, not just at the end.
What I decline
- Open-ended hourly engagements where you carry the metre risk and I carry none.
- Retainers as the default delivery vehicle. Retainers are for ongoing partnerships after the build, not for the build itself.
- Engagements where “we’ll figure out scope as we go” is the plan. That’s a fee structure, not a project.
- Verbal scope changes that don’t get documented before the work starts.
Why this is the position
People deserve to know what they’re buying.
A fixed price forces me to think clearly about the work before I quote it. Vague quotes produce vague work. If I can’t price it, I can’t deliver it well. If I can price it, you should know the price.
Scope creep is a real risk. The fix isn’t a metre that runs while we figure things out. The fix is a clear scope, a named change-order process, and the senior judgement to know when something’s drifted before the bill does.
See also
- $275/hr CAD. Same number for everyone.. The rate side of the same conversation — what the hours cost when the engagement is sized hourly.
- I disclose every use of AI in your project. Sister stance on the transparency side of the buyer relationship.
- What a $275/hr consultant costs over three years. The three-year math behind why a fixed-price quote can be defended at the procurement level.