Opening page…

Before shortlisting or appointment

Compare the work, team and terms.

Use the same questions for a freelancer, specialist consultancy, dedicated team or internal route. The result gives you a repeatable shortlist and a copyable follow-up list.

Free buyer diagnostic · no account

BIM delivery-partner evaluation

Score evidence and delivery controls before selecting a freelancer, specialist consultancy, dedicated team or internal route. Your answers stay in this browser.

01Relevant evidence · 15%Does the candidate show work comparable to the required output—not only a polished portfolio?
02Scope comprehension · 15%Can the candidate restate the purpose, inputs, outputs, exclusions and unknowns?
03QA + acceptance · 20%Are checks, reviewers, evidence and acceptance criteria defined for the actual output?
04Information + coordination control · 15%Are versions, coordinates, issues, dependencies, exchanges and approvals controlled?
05Responsibility + change · 15%Are design authority, client dependencies, included revisions and change triggers explicit?
06Capacity + communication · 10%Is the proposed team, availability, review cadence and escalation route credible?
07Security + continuity · 10%Are confidentiality, access, storage, retention, IP and service continuity addressed?
Evidence score0/100

Organizing aid—not approval

Non-compensable decision gate

Security clarification required—do not share sensitive files

The total score cannot compensate for missing access, confidentiality, retention, IP or continuity controls.

Programme gate: capacity and continuity are unverified; do not make a programme commitment.

Every zero-rated criterion

  1. Relevant evidenceRequest one redacted example that matches the discipline, stage and deliverable, with the candidate’s contribution clearly stated.
  2. Scope comprehensionAsk for a written scope restatement and clarification list before comparing fee or programme.
  3. QA + acceptanceAsk who checks what, against which rule, on which model version, and what record proves closure.
  4. Information + coordination controlConfirm the authoritative file route, model/version record, issue ownership, approval status and reissue process.
  5. Responsibility + changeSeparate production responsibility from design approval and agree how late inputs, rework and revised instructions are handled.
  6. Capacity + communicationConfirm named roles, working overlap, response route, planned reviews, substitutions and competing commitments.
  7. Security + continuityAgree approved systems, least-privilege access, subcontractor rules, retention/deletion, ownership and continuity before sharing sensitive files.

7 criteria currently have no evidence. Scores organize questions; security, QA, responsibility and capacity gates cannot be averaged away.

A fair comparison

One package. One practical test.

Use one representative input, one intended output and the same acceptance criteria for every serious candidate.

Check references, confidentiality, responsibilities and commercial terms separately before appointment.

Current release · 1.1Reviewed 31 August 2026

We review each tool against the decision it helps someone make, the clarity of its assumptions and how people use the result. Tell our team what would make this tool more useful.

Start with the deliverable

Want to compare ZX Collabs on the same basis?

Send one representative input, the output standard, software version and review date. We will explain how we would approach the package.

Send your project scope Message on WhatsApp