Appendix: Q&A (LMNT renewal proposal)
Use this as the appendix to the proposal or Loom. Answers are written so you can share them with Shivani, Jason, and Phil as-is.
Pricing and scope
Q: Why such a big step change from 68k+? The math doesn’t work if I think in people added.
A: We don’t price by backing out from the discovery rate or by FTE count. We price by deliverable and level of engagement. Discovery was entry-level pricing for a narrow deliverable (select stack → ingest → model; calibration only). Full engagement is a different deliverable: 2027 planning readiness—QA, socialization with your team, prioritization in BI, clearly defined outcomes. The team and investment in the proposal match that scope. If we under-priced the first phase, we’re saying so explicitly so the step change isn’t a surprise.
Q: Is this your last and best price?
A: Yes. This proposal is our last and best price for the full engagement. We’re not expecting you to negotiate it down; we’d rather align on what’s fair and logically sound.
Q: How many FTEs is a “dedicated” FTE? What’s the delta in FTE from Option A to B?
A: We commit to deliverables, not FTE counts; we staff to the outcomes in the Gantt. “Dedicated” means that role is allocated to LMNT for the engagement (not shared across multiple clients at a fraction each). For context, we added an “FTE % by role and option” table in the proposal so you can see where we increase time and roles to meet scope; that table is for comparison only, not a commitment to headcount.
Leadership and oversight
Q: If the team is bigger, do we still get the same amount of Robert and Uttam’s time? I’m worried about a bigger team without as much oversight.
A: We’re each putting ~25% of our time on this client (opportunity cost; we’re saying no to other work). As the team grows, our management bandwidth grows accordingly—we’re not leaving a larger team without oversight. The Strategic Leadership line in the proposal reflects that commitment.
Gantt and timeline
Q: The Gantt shows an internal hire by April. Is that feasible? How would a hiring delay impact the team’s ability to deliver by September?
A: The April internal-hire timing is LMNT’s plan, not something Brainforge is committing you to. A later LMNT hire does not slow Brainforge delivery (ingestion, modeling, BI, supply chain). We deliver by September either way. A delay affects LMNT’s ability to maintain systems after we hand off: edge-case QA, ongoing revisions to base tables, and your own in-depth review of our work. If your hire slips, you have less internal capacity for maintenance and review until that person is in place.
Q: Where is the LMNT renewal project unclear on the Gantt? Is the renewal project additive to the existing project plan?
A: The renewal is the continuation and expansion of the original plan, not a separate project. Same three workstreams (Data Foundation & Governance, BI & Self-Service Enablement, Commercial Performance Visibility), with more depth and clearer outcomes; Option B/C add Supply Chain Visibility. When you crosswalk the original Gantt to the renewal one, the rows align—we’re extending the same plan through September and adding supply chain where chosen.
Q: How do we see where you’re adding time and roles to meet the scope?
A: We added a table in the proposal: “Where we add time and roles by option (FTE % for context).” It maps each role and approximate FTE % by option so you can see incremental time and output. We commit to deliverables; that table is for your planning and comparison (e.g. to other vendors who quote by FTE).
Process and expectations
Q: Why didn’t we get a heads up that renewal would be a step change?
A: We should have signaled at the start of February (or late January) that we were adding resources and that renewal would reflect a step change. Going forward, we’ll frame discovery as “intro rate; full implementation will be a different rate,” and when we add resources we’ll give a clear heads up that renewal will be an increase.
Source: Client feedback Feb 19 and Feb 27, 2026. For objection handling detail, see OBJECTIONS_AND_RESPONSES.md.