Most of our work comes from other language companies. Three things about how we do it, before anything else, because they are the three things a vendor manager needs settled.
One — your clients are yours
We work under your name, in your tooling, in your process. We do not contact your clients, we do not market to them, we do not accept work from them directly if we know it came to us through you. This is in our contract, not just on this page.
Two — we can be a review-only vendor
You do not have to attach a translation job to send us checking work. If your systems currently only allow that, tell us and we will tell you what we need in order to be set up the other way — it is usually a vendor category, not a negotiation.
Three — our people are named, and we document them
For every linguist we put on your work we build a one-page record: degrees, certifications, subject expertise, years in each field, and samples we have checked ourselves. We build it when we assign the work, not after somebody asks.
That third point matters more than it looks if you hold ISO 18587. The standard requires post-editors with documented subject expertise. When you subcontract post-editing, your subcontractor's people need to be documented too, or there is a gap in your own audit. Most small subcontractors cannot produce those records at all.
What we are useful for
A region rather than a language list
We do not claim global coverage. We commit pairs individually and we would rather tell you what we cannot staff than find out on the job that matters.
How we price for partners
By the hour, the sample, the segment, the document or the test piece. Per word only on translation from source. The full table is on our services page.
We price quality work by time or by sample rather than by word because per-word pricing assumes machine output quality is constant across a file, and it is not. It is a reason, not a policy, and we are happy to discuss it.
On post-editing we ask for one clause: below a defined quality level, a segment reverts to translation rates. When machine output needs rewriting rather than editing, the work is translation. Without that clause, one of us is silently absorbing the cost of an engine choice neither of us made.
The one question we would ask you
Not "do you have more work". This one:
Which languages do you get asked for that you have to scramble to cover?
If the answer includes anything we staff, that is the conversation worth having. If it does not, we will say so and stop taking your time.
Where we will not act
We do not independently review or certify output that we produced ourselves. If we translated or post-edited a file, an impartial assessment of it has to come from somebody else. On accounts where we do both kinds of work, we separate them at project level and tell you which side of the line a piece of work sits on.