How to Evaluate a SharePoint Development Partner
Most SharePoint partner failures do not show up at go-live. They show up months later: a customization breaks at the first platform update, a solution cannot scale past its first use, or a routine change turns out to require unpicking a tangle nobody documented. Because the cost is delayed, evaluating a SharePoint development partner means predicting it before you sign. A handful of criteria predict it reliably: specific SharePoint depth, experience at your scale and compliance context, senior-led delivery, a partner that assesses before it builds, and a track record of work that survived.
The reason this matters is that the difference between a good partner and a poor one is invisible at delivery. Both hand over something that works on launch day. One of them also handed over an architecture that breaks at the next update, cannot grow, and resists change. Because that bill arrives later, the evaluation has to surface it now.
Depth in SharePoint specifically. SharePoint is its own discipline, with its own architecture, its own update model, and its own well-known ways to build things that last or break. A general web developer who treats SharePoint as a blank canvas tends to build customizations that fight the platform and shatter at the next update. The question is not whether someone can develop. It is whether they have deep, specific SharePoint experience and build with the platform’s grain rather than against it.
Experience at your scale and in your context. A developer who has built small departmental tools has not necessarily built anything that holds up at enterprise scale, and a developer who has never worked under compliance constraints has not met the failure modes that regulated environments punish. Ask for a track record that matches your scale and your compliance context specifically. The relevant experience is the one that resembles your situation, not the impressive project from a different world.
A senior-led delivery model. This is the criterion that quietly determines quality. A partner who sells a senior engagement and staffs it with juniors under thin supervision produces work that looks fine and ages badly, because the architecture decisions that are expensive to reverse get made by people who have not made enough of them yet. Ask who actually does the work, not who is in the pitch. A senior-led model costs more per hour, and the rework you never pay for later is where it earns the difference back.
Whether the partner assesses before it builds. The most valuable thing a SharePoint partner can tell you is sometimes that you should not build at all. A firm whose revenue depends on development hours has an incentive to recommend a custom build; a partner worth hiring runs the analysis first and says so when an off-the-shelf system or a configuration would serve you better, even when that means a smaller engagement for them. That willingness is not soft. It is where the money is. i3 ran an IT Systems Analysis for a federal housing agency that identified a fit off-the-shelf system in place of the custom build the agency had assumed it needed, which saved the agency over 1.5 million dollars and cut implementation time by more than a third. The criterion is simple to state and revealing to ask for: will this partner tell me when not to build, and can they show me a time they did?
A track record of work that survived. The most useful question is not what a partner has shipped but what is still running well years later. Anyone can demo a solution on launch day. The partner worth hiring can point to solutions that were still maintainable, still scaling, and still serving the business long after delivery, because they built for the second year and not just the first.
Two cautions about the evaluation itself. The cheapest developer is rarely the value, because cheap SharePoint work is usually done against the platform’s grain, and you pay the difference later in rework and breakage. A practical rule: when a fixed bid comes in far below the next one, treat the gap as a question to answer, not a discount to bank, and ask what was scoped out to reach it. And credentials are not relevant experience. Certifications confirm someone passed a test, not that they have built and maintained solutions like yours, at your scale, under your constraints. Weight a demonstrated, relevant track record above both price and paper.
SharePoint architecture decisions are expensive to reverse, so the partner who makes them is making commitments you will live with for years. Evaluate against the criteria that predict the second year, not against the rate card or the certification list, and bring a partner the actual thing you are planning to build so the conversation is about your situation rather than a generic capability pitch.
Key Takeaways
- The cost of the wrong SharePoint partner is delayed: customizations that break at the next update, solutions that cannot scale, tangles nobody documented. The evaluation has to predict it before you sign.
- Require genuine SharePoint-specific depth; a general web developer builds against the platform’s grain and shatters at updates.
- Require experience at your scale and compliance context, and insist on a senior-led model: ask who actually does the work, because the expensive-to-reverse decisions get made early.
- The most revealing criterion is whether a partner assesses before it builds and will tell you when not to custom-build. (i3’s IT Systems Analysis for a federal housing agency found a fit off-the-shelf system in place of an assumed custom build, saving over 1.5 million dollars and cutting implementation time by more than a third.)
- Weight a track record of solutions that survived above price and certifications; maintainability is invisible at delivery and decisive afterward.
The five evaluation criteria, and what a strong answer sounds like
| Criterion | What to ask | What a strong answer looks like |
|---|---|---|
| SharePoint-specific depth | Show me SharePoint work, not general web work, that is still running. | Deep, platform-specific experience; builds with the update model, not against it. |
| Scale and compliance fit | Where have you delivered at our scale and under our compliance regime? | A track record that resembles your situation, not an impressive project from a different world. |
| Senior-led delivery | Who actually does the work, day to day? | Senior engineers make the architecture decisions; no one learns on your project. |
| Assesses before it builds | Show me a time you told a client not to build custom. | Runs the analysis first; recommends off-the-shelf or configuration when it serves you better. |
| Track record that survived | What have you built that is still maintainable and scaling years later? | Named solutions still serving the business long after delivery, not just demos. |
Green flags and red flags when you evaluate
Green flags
- Recommends against a custom build when an off-the-shelf system fits.
- Names the senior engineers who will actually do the work.
- Points to SharePoint solutions still running and maintainable years later.
- Asks about your compliance context before it quotes.
- Scopes for the second year, not just launch day.
Red flags
- Treats SharePoint as a generic web project.
- Sells senior, then staffs junior under thin supervision.
- Recommends a custom build by default, before any analysis.
- Leads with certifications instead of relevant delivery.
- A fixed bid far below the next one, with no account of what was scoped out.
Assess-first partner versus build-first vendor
- Runs an IT systems analysis first
- Weighs custom against off-the-shelf and configuration
- Recommends the right-sized option, even a smaller engagement
- Recommends a custom build by default
- Bills development hours from day one
- Finds the mismatch in production
A de-risking sequence for the evaluation
- 1Ask for SharePoint-specific references at your scaleNot general web work, and not a smaller or simpler environment than yours.
- 2Ask who actually does the workGet the senior engineers named, not just the people in the pitch.
- 3Ask for a time they recommended not buildingA partner that tells you when not to custom-build is the one protecting your budget.
- 4Ask what is still running years laterMaintainability is invisible at delivery and decisive afterward.
- 5Weight track record over price and paperA demonstrated, relevant track record beats the lowest bid and the longest certification list.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should I look for in a SharePoint development partner?
Genuine SharePoint-specific depth, experience at your scale and within your compliance context, a senior-led delivery model, a partner that assesses before it builds and will tell you when not to custom-build, and a track record of solutions that stayed maintainable and scaled years after delivery, not just shipped on launch day.
Why does SharePoint-specific experience matter so much?
Because SharePoint has its own architecture and update model, and there are well-known ways to build that last versus ways that break. A general web developer who treats it as a blank canvas tends to build customizations that fight the platform and break at the next update.
Why is the delivery model important?
Because a partner who sells senior expertise but delivers with junior staff under thin supervision produces work that looks fine and ages badly. The expensive-to-reverse architecture decisions get made by people who have not made enough of them yet. Ask who actually does the work.
Is the cheapest SharePoint developer a good deal?
Rarely. Cheap SharePoint work is usually built against the platform’s grain, and you pay the difference later in rework and breakage, often exceeding the savings. Weight demonstrated, relevant track record above price.
Are certifications enough to judge a developer?
No. Certifications confirm someone passed a test, not that they have built and maintained solutions like yours at your scale under your constraints. Relevant, demonstrated experience matters more than paper.
About the Author
Michael Branson, Founder and COO, i3solutions. LinkedIn
If you are choosing who should build or modernize your SharePoint environment, bring us the actual thing you are planning to build. We will walk it against these criteria for your scale, your compliance context, and your existing estate in a short scoping conversation, so you are choosing for the outcome two years out rather than the one that looks good at the demo.
Leave a Comment
