A vendor walked away. Five engineers started in two weeks.
A US agricultural technology company had spent about a year with a development vendor and still had no production release. Five Aalam engineers started inside two weeks, worked alongside the outgoing team, and the product reached production.
Sector | Agricultural technology |
Markets | United States |
Engagement | Started June 2025, still running, 1+ year |
Team placed | 5 engineers: 1 team lead, 1 BI, 2 full stack, 1 mobile |
Tech stack | React, Express, React Native, AWS, managed Postgres |
Overlap | About 5 hours a day with the client's team |
The problem
The client had been with a development vendor for close to a year. The web application was still in an MVP environment, the mobile application their end users needed had not been started, and a planned product launch was already slipping.
Then the vendor exited.
The usual price of a vendor change is a stall of three or four weeks in which nobody owns the codebase. The outgoing team has gone and the incoming one is still reading. For a launch that was already late, that gap was the risk, not the rate.
What we did
They approached us in June 2025. Our engineers started within the same month, beginning with a couple of proofs of concept to establish the right approach before taking ownership.
The team worked alongside the outgoing vendor during the transition rather than after it. Daily standups with the client's team, regular code reviews, ongoing technical discussion, and roughly five hours of daily overlap with US hours, which is what made real-time handover possible at all.
They then took ownership of development and deployment. The web application moved from an MVP environment into production on AWS. A mobile application was built that gives farmers access to their own farming information and lets them manage it from their phones.
What was hard
Taking over a codebase from a departing vendor inside a short window, with enough knowledge transferred to keep development moving. There was no handover document. There rarely is. Our engineers worked through the existing code, captured what the outgoing team knew while they were still reachable, documented it as they went, and took ownership progressively rather than in one handover meeting. That is what avoided the stall.
The result
Time to start | Under two weeks from first conversation to engineers working |
Web application | Deployed to production on AWS |
Mobile application | Built and shipped for end users |
Retention | The same engineers are still on the engagement, over a year on |
Expansion | The client has added engineers to the team since |
Delivery | Client reports improved ticket throughput and release frequency |
The strongest number here is the simplest one. A client who is unhappy does not keep the same team for over a year and then add to it.
Note: delivery improvements are the client's own assessment. Formal metrics were not captured on this engagement.
How our engineers used AI on this codebase
We publish this because buyers now ask, and most vendors cannot answer it.
Tools used | AI coding assistance for code suggestions, troubleshooting and development support |
Client policy | The client had an AI and data-security policy. We followed it. |
Client data | No real client data or sensitive information was put into AI chat tools |
Review | Every AI-assisted change was reviewed by an engineer before it was committed |
Security | Repository security checks plus the client's normal review, testing and quality gates, the same checks as any other code |