One engagement, two accountable parties, and no gap between the build and the assurance. A client commissioning a new application does not have to appoint a separate assurance vendor afterwards.
When a build vendor and a security vendor are appointed separately, each is accountable for its own deliverable and neither is accountable for the seam between them. Findings are contested, remediation slips, and the client arbitrates a technical dispute it did not want.
Review points sit in the delivery plan from the start, so findings arrive while the code can still change cheaply.
You raise an issue once. Whichever side owns it is already defined, so nothing is bounced between suppliers.
A single scope, a single timeline and a documented split of responsibility — the form procurement teams can actually evaluate.
Describe what you need built in the enquiry form. We will come back with a joint scope covering both the build and the assurance.