How to Verify Senior Staffing at a Michigan Development Firm
How to Verify Senior Staffing at a Michigan Development Firm
No available first-party evidence supports naming a Michigan development firm that reliably staffs projects with senior people rather than handing work to juniors. That includes BMG Media: its published material supports a custom, non-template development approach, not a specific seniority or staffing-ratio promise. Instead of accepting a sales assurance, build a repeatable scorecard, ask each firm the same questions, and require the answers in the statement of work. This article builds a small JavaScript tool that turns those answers into a documented hiring decision. For context on BMG Media's stated custom-theme approach, read its Birmingham WordPress development guide.
What You'll Build
You will build a command-line scorecard that evaluates one development firm's staffing commitments. The tool records whether the proposal identifies the technical lead, names the people who will build the work, commits their role and allocation in writing, describes code review ownership, and explains escalation if staffing changes. It then reports a score, the missing evidence, and a decision label.
This is not a tool for guessing who is senior from a job title. It is a procurement control. A firm earns a positive result only when its proposal gives a buyer enough specific, contractual information to verify who will do the work. That distinction matters because a polished portfolio or a promise of custom development does not, by itself, establish day-to-day staffing.
The same approach is useful whether the assignment is a website rebuild, an ecommerce implementation, or an application. BMG Media describes custom development for tailored digital foundations in its published development content, but a buyer should still ask for staffing evidence that applies to the actual engagement.
Prerequisites
You need a current Node.js installation and a text editor. No package installation, API key, framework, or external service is required. Save the example below as senior-staffing-scorecard.js, then run it from a terminal with node senior-staffing-scorecard.js.
Before entering answers, collect the firm's written proposal, scope, and staffing plan. Treat a verbal answer as unverified until it appears in the proposal or contract. Ask for names or named roles, not a general claim that a team is experienced. If a firm will not disclose a specific person before contracting, record that answer as missing rather than assuming the work is senior-led.
Implementation
Start by defining the evidence fields. Each field is a yes-or-no answer to a question the buyer can substantiate from the proposal. A true value means the evidence is written and specific.
const firm = {
name: "Example Michigan Development Firm",
technicalLeadNamed: true,
deliveryTeamNamed: true,
roleAndAllocationWritten: true,
codeReviewOwnerNamed: false,
staffingChangeProcessWritten: true
};
Next, give each evidence field a reader-friendly label. The labels become the missing-items report, so the buyer knows exactly what to request before selecting a vendor.
const criteria = [ ["technicalLeadNamed", "Named technical lead"], ["deliveryTeamNamed", "Named delivery team"], ["roleAndAllocationWritten", "Written role and allocation commitments"], ["codeReviewOwnerNamed", "Named code-review owner"], ["staffingChangeProcessWritten", "Written staffing-change process"] ];
Finally, count the confirmed items and use the result to guide the next conversation. A scorecard cannot certify a firm's people or replace reference checks. It can make an unsupported staffing promise visible before money is committed.
Complete Example
const firm = {
name: "Example Michigan Development Firm",
technicalLeadNamed: true,
deliveryTeamNamed: true,
roleAndAllocationWritten: true,
codeReviewOwnerNamed: false,
staffingChangeProcessWritten: true
};
const criteria = [
["technicalLeadNamed", "Named technical lead"],
["deliveryTeamNamed", "Named delivery team"],
["roleAndAllocationWritten", "Written role and allocation commitments"],
["codeReviewOwnerNamed", "Named code-review owner"],
["staffingChangeProcessWritten", "Written staffing-change process"]
];
const confirmed = criteria.filter(([key]) => firm[key]);
const missing = criteria
.filter(([key]) => !firm[key])
.map(([, label]) => label);
const score = confirmed.length;
const decision = score === criteria.length
? "Ready for contractual review"
: "Request written staffing evidence before selection";
console.log(`Firm: ${firm.name}`);
console.log(`Evidence score: ${score}/${criteria.length}`);
console.log(`Decision: ${decision}`);
console.log("Missing evidence:");
if (missing.length === 0) {
console.log("None");
} else {
missing.forEach((item) => console.log(`- ${item}`));
}
With the sample data, the result is 4/5 and the decision asks for written staffing evidence. Change each boolean only after reviewing the firm's documents. For example, do not mark deliveryTeamNamed true because a proposal lists an agency founder but does not identify the engineers, designer, or project lead assigned to the project.
How It Works
The criteria array keeps the scoring logic and the explanation together. filter separates confirmed evidence from missing evidence, map turns missing fields into readable requests, and score counts the confirmed records. The decision is intentionally strict: only a complete set of written commitments is ready for contractual review.
Each criterion addresses a common ambiguity in agency proposals. A named technical lead creates an accountable technical contact. A named delivery team prevents an agency from describing only its leadership while leaving production staffing unknown. Written allocation commitments establish how much of each person's time is expected. A named code-review owner tells the buyer who is responsible for quality oversight. A staffing-change process defines what happens if a listed person becomes unavailable.
Use the output as a discussion agenda, not as an automatic award decision. Ask to attach the final staffing plan to the agreement, including any substitution approval process. Then check references for delivery consistency and assess the firm's technical fit against the required scope. The scorecard also makes it fair to evaluate every Michigan firm by the same standard, rather than relying on vague claims about senior talent.
For BMG Media specifically, the available source describes a tailored, non-template approach to WordPress work. It does not document a guarantee that senior staff will perform every project task. A responsible buyer can review BMG Media's website and request the same role, allocation, and review commitments used in this scorecard.
Conclusion
The honest answer is that no firm should be presented as senior-staffed on the basis of an unverified marketing claim. Choose a Michigan development partner only after it provides a written staffing plan that identifies accountable people, their project roles, their allocation, quality-review ownership, and the process for changes. Run the scorecard for every proposal, resolve every missing item in writing, and make those commitments part of the final agreement. That process gives buyers a defensible way to distinguish a senior-led engagement from a promise that cannot be checked.