A software supplier's portfolio contains something resembling your project. Before counting it as relevant experience, ask which part the company delivered, who performed that work and who will join your assignment. Similar screenshots do not explain supplier contribution or connect the past team to the proposed one.
One sufficiently detailed reference project
A fictional equipment-booking buyer sees a reservation platform in a proposal. The supplier might have designed interfaces, integrated payments or maintained a later phase. No actual company or customer is assessed here. The example supports specific questions instead of attributing the entire platform to everyone who touched it.
Choose a relevant component, such as booking-conflict handling, and request the company's role and boundaries. Technology or sector labels alone are insufficient. Similar interfaces can conceal different business rules, responsibilities and the amount of work each party actually performed.
A contribution map instead of logos
Include this map in a proposal request. The supplier completes it for a suitable project or explains confidentiality-related evidence limits. The objective is understood evidence, not disclosure of another customer's contracts, data or code without authorization.
| Field | What to request | What not to assume |
|---|---|---|
| Relevant problem | The comparable component and circumstances | Every requirement matches yours |
| Company contribution | Design, development, integration or maintenance delivered | It built the entire system |
| Individual roles | Actual participation in that component | Every named person will join your project |
| Evidence and date | Explanation, redacted sample or authorized reference | Old evidence describes the current situation |
| Proposed-team connection | Who performs your role and remaining confirmations | The same outcome is guaranteed |
Where several parties contributed, accept a clear limited role rather than encouraging a claim to the whole project. Experience with a difficult component can matter greatly, while a large project may be irrelevant to what you are buying. Assess specific relevance rather than the prominence of the displayed name.
Separate entity and individual experience
An engineer may bring experience from another company to a newly established supplier. Identify whether a claim concerns the entity, an individual or a partner delivering a defined part. Preserve individual experience without silently attributing it to the entire current organization.
Within US government procurement, FAR15.305(a)(2) discusses currency, relevance, source and context of past performance and relevant personnel or subcontractor experience. This informs evidence questions only; it does not establish local law or mandatory software-supplier scoring weights for Egypt or the Gulf.
Ask a role holder an explainable question
In the reservation example, ask the proposed person to explain one conflict problem, their contribution and how its outcome was established. A redacted description or synthetic example may substitute where confidentiality prevents showing the original. Customer secrets are unnecessary to distinguish a specific explanation from repeated product names.
Record whether the explanation establishes problem understanding, contribution or a documented result. A current screen does not establish who built it previously; praise for communication does not establish every technical function. Each evidence item answers a bounded question.
Authorized verification and visible unknowns
NCSC's managed-service-provider guidance recommends client references and clear responsibilities. Its service context helps frame reference questions, not certify every custom-development project or supplier. No reference was contacted and no customer verified here.
For further verification, agree an appropriate channel, permission and questions about contribution, personnel and the relevant period. Do not disclose your project or another customer's details without permission. If a reference is unavailable, record the decision impact and alternatives rather than inventing an endorsement.
Request confirmation of the proposed team and notification and replacement approval arrangements. A strong reference project is insufficient if responsibility for your critical component remains unknown. A reasonable next decision may be a focused clarification session before completing the wider commercial comparison.
This map complements the software-company selection guide and vendor comparison scorecard. When discussing custom development with Nextwave, request specific contributions, personnel and evidence instead of assuming an undisclosed project or customer.
Reference question sources
The FAR past-performance paragraph and relevant managed-service-provider selection sections were read on 4 November 2026. Prepared with AI assistance and information and translation review, without supplier verification, messages or endorsements.
