Brannigan Wolfe

Brannigan Wolfe has three documents, all read: a security questionnaire, a draft proposal and a final proposal for the Growth tier at £50k a year plus £12k implementation. None is executed, so no contracted price or terms exist on file.

Executed: no Brannigan Wolfe document has the stored status executed, so there are no contracted price, dates or service levels on file. The final proposal of 7 Apr 2026 still asks the customer to sign the standard order form under the Master Service Agreement.

Open items: the Proposal v1 of 31 Mar 2026 is a draft from Jordan Pike marked awaiting feedback. It prices the Growth tier at £50k a year plus £12k implementation, £62k for the first year.

The Proposal of 7 Apr 2026 is filed as final but unsigned. It repeats the same prices and adds terms: 99.5% availability, 1 business hour critical response, refresh by 07:00, data live within 14 days of kickoff, a term of 12 months from go-live and annual invoicing in advance.

Contradictions: prices agree across both proposals. The 31 Mar 2026 draft states no service levels, connector go-live or payment terms, while the 7 Apr 2026 proposal does, so the customer may hold two versions with different scope.

Within the 7 Apr 2026 proposal, data live within 14 days of kickoff sits inside an 8-week implementation, and the term runs from go-live rather than signature. Both need settling in any order form.

Commitments: there are no live obligations, because nothing is executed. The security questionnaire of 19 Mar 2026, by Hannah Lowe, quotes the standard Growth terms of 99.5 per cent availability and P1 first response within one business hour; it is not a contract.

Gaps: the documents do not show a signatory at Brannigan Wolfe, a start date, any customer reply or whether an order form followed. Before quoting any figure as contracted, confirm whether an executed order form exists.

AI · claude-opus-5-5 · as at Fri 9 Oct 2026