White-label D365 engineering · for Microsoft partners
You keep your client's D365 go-live on schedule. We stay behind your brand unless you decide otherwise.
Microsoft partners bring us in when a D365 deal needs more engineering depth than the bench can staff in time: senior F&O and Power Platform engineers who work under your brand and your PM. If production is already failing, we start with a fixed-fee diagnostic that ends week one with a root-cause inventory, not a discovery workshop.
Start here
Which of these is your project right now?
- You won the deal, and it needs depth you can't staff in time. Embedded Pod
- A go-live is failing and the client is already escalating. Stabilization Sprint
- Performance has degraded: batch windows overrun and inquiry screens time out. Stabilization Sprint
- An update wave is landing and no one mapped the blast radius. Readiness Review
- You inherited an implementation you didn't build, and you're on the hook. Risk Audit
- A client on AX 2012 needs a D365 upgrade path, and an estimate that holds up. Upgrade Assessment
- F&O and Power Platform won't talk, and the seam is nobody's job. The seam
How it works
Three steps from a staffing gap to a shipped project.
-
1
Book a scoping call
30 minutes. You bring the project and the gap; we confirm fit, the right engagement shape, and the ramp.
-
2
We embed, white-label
Senior engineers join your delivery team under your brand and your PM, not surfaced to your client.
-
3
You deliver
The work ships under your name. You took the deal you would have had to turn down, and scaled without hiring.
Bench · what we put on a project
The engineers named in the SOW are the engineers on your code.
Every engagement is staffed from a named pod: no bench-rotation surprises, no junior-only delivery, no pretending we cover what we do not.
Pod 1
F&O Engineering
Senior X++ Architects / Developers. Pod up to several seniors per engagement, sized in scoping call.
- Extension design, performance tuning, batch + integration plumbing
- X++ code review, security-aware customization, release-safe patterns
- F&O migration engineering (entity design, package builds, cutover orchestration)
- Production stabilization, root-cause analysis, observability instrumentation
Pod 2
Power Platform
Solution Architect + Technical Architect, paired with the F&O pod.
- Power Platform architecture for D365 estates: Dataverse, model-driven apps, Canvas Apps
- Power Apps and automation tied to real business-process ownership
- D365 CE and Field Service, delivered alongside F&O
- Environment strategy, governance, support-model definition
Pod 3
DevOps + ALM
DevOps / Infrastructure specialists.
- Azure DevOps pipelines, branching strategy, build + deployment automation
- Environment management (sandbox refresh, tier-1/2/3 lifecycle, golden config)
- ALM hardening before go-live; pipeline rescue post-go-live
- Service-update preparation and post-update verification
The seam — F&O ↔ Power Platform
Dual-write drift, business events, virtual tables, Canvas-to-F&O round-trips, custom connectors. Where the two sides meet is where production breaks, and here it is one team's job, not a handoff between two vendors.
Where we look first when production is unstable: business-events delivery, batch retry + idempotency, dual-write drift, OData throttling, and service-update extension risk. Recent examples in the Proof section below.
Engagement shapes · how we contract
Five ways to contract, each with a defined end state.
Spotted yours in the list above? Here are the same engagements from the contracting side: scope, duration, and how each is delivered. Most partner work runs as ongoing capacity (the Embedded Engineering Pod) or a Production Stabilization sprint; the Risk Audit, Wave Review, and AX 2012 to D365 Upgrade Assessment are fixed-fee, productized scopes, for a partner's own decision or direct end-customer work.
Capacity
Embedded Engineering Pod
Quoted on the scoping call
Engagement
Production Stabilization Sprint
Fixed-fee — quoted on scoping
Engagement
Engineering Risk Audit
Fixed-fee — quoted on scoping
Engagement
Release-Wave Readiness Review
Fixed-fee — quoted on scoping
Engagement
AX 2012 to D365 Upgrade Assessment
Fixed-fee — quoted on scoping
Not sure which shape fits? Book a 30-minute scoping call and we will point you to the right one, or tell you if none of these is the fit.
Working with partners
Procurement-ready from the first call.
The questions your procurement team asks before scope (never-compete, white-label, contracts, data residency, and pricing), answered up front.
- We never go direct to your client. Ever. A non-solicit + no-direct clause in every engagement: we work under your badge, hand the keys back when we're done, and never approach, quote, or contract your customer, during the engagement or after. (Sister-brand Outbridge stays vendor-neutral too.)
- White-label by default. Engineers introduce as "from your team." Customer-facing materials are partner-branded. We do not surface to the end customer without partner approval. Customer and partner names stay confidential, anonymized in any future case copy.
- Contracts ready: MSA + per-engagement SOW. Partner standard or ours, both work. Two-party (MIWR ↔ Partner) or three-party with customer acknowledgement, depending on the pattern. Mutual NDA before scope discussion if your procurement requires it.
- EU-based, GDPR-compliant. EU operating entity. GDPR-ready contracting and data-residency terms per engagement.
- Remote delivery to North America. EU afternoons overlap the NA East-Coast morning, a daily live window. English-fluent senior engineers. Documented async handoff cadence.
- Pricing + ramp, quoted on the scoping call. Day rate or monthly capacity block, depending on role mix, duration, and white-label needs. We quote after a 30-minute scope review. ~2-week ramp from MSA sign to first engineer billing; 4–6 weeks for new partners (legal + onboarding).
- Sister-brand Outbridge: vendor-neutral. When an integration architecture surfaces our sister-brand product Outbridge as a candidate, it appears alongside native Microsoft, iPaaS, and custom-build alternatives. Partner controls whether and when Outbridge is surfaced to the end customer. Evaluation method is published.
Want the white-label SOW template, sample MSA, or a sample scoping-call agenda? Ask on the scoping call.
Proof · recent engineering
Both sides of D365, recently shipped.
Anonymized examples from recent Dynamics engineering. Most delivery runs through prime-partner clients; customer and partner names stay confidential. What matters here is the engagement shape.
F&O ↔ Power Platform
Warehouse stock counts went from paper to real-time F&O updates.
A mobile Canvas App integrated directly with D365 F&O: staff scan barcodes with smartphones or industrial laser scanners, and counts land in F&O as they happen.
F&O + Field Service + multi-source
Technicians see real stock across every location before they dispatch.
An inventory tracking extension for D365 Field Service: stock data from multiple physical locations and disparate source systems, aggregated into a single operational view.
F&O migration ↔ Power Platform
The settings a D365 F&O migration depends on, managed in one place.
A Power Platform model-driven application centralizing source-system mappings, transformation rules, sequencing, and cutover orchestration: app-design depth plus F&O migration domain expertise.
Partner-channel rescue (white-label)
An at-risk D365 implementation went back on plan.
A last-second handoff from the prime partner: we stepped in mid-flight, stabilized delivery, and returned the engagement to schedule.
How we work
Architecture before tools.
Microsoft keeps pulling ERP, CRM, and Power Platform workloads closer together, which makes weak architecture more expensive to own over time. These four practices are how we keep that cost from reaching your go-live date or your support rota.
-
1
Architecture before tooling
Start with operating reality (ownership, latency tolerance, support model, business-process boundaries, long-term change cost) before picking the tool. Tool choice should fall out of the architecture.
-
2
Extension discipline
Release-safe extension patterns, clean design boundaries, code-quality decisions that hold up in production. Most service-update breakage is rooted in extension choices made 18 months earlier.
-
3
Controlled data movement
Integrations, migrations, and platform connections explicit, supportable, and appropriate for the real workload shape. The pattern that won the demo is not always the pattern that survives production.
-
4
Operational readiness
Every engagement shaped around supportability, diagnosis speed, and a practical post-go-live operating model. Working software in week 5 with clear ownership beats elegant architecture nobody can run on their own.
FAQ
Common questions before we start.
Most partner engagements are white-label or embedded augmentation. We sign an MSA with the partner, embed in the delivery team, and stay behind the partner brand unless you decide otherwise. Under a partner engagement we never approach your client directly; your customer stays yours (the never-compete covenant).
Yes, for customers who come to us directly, with no partner in the middle. The /offers/ pages above are the entry point. It never cuts across the partner channel: we never take a partner's client direct. If an incumbent partner's work is in scope for review, we assess architecture and evidence, not partner performance; details on the scoping call.
Deep F&O X++ and deep Power Platform rarely live on one team; the skill pools barely overlap. But the seam between them is where a lot of production pain lives, and diagnosing it first-hand needs both sides at once. Our bench pairs senior F&O X++ engineers with Power Platform architecture and DevOps, sized for exactly that work.
We deliver D365 CE and Field Service in connection with F&O, primarily through the X++ + Power Platform combination (see the Field Service proof above). Standalone CE-only engagements without an F&O connection are not our depth; we will refer.
Engagement-shaped: day rate, monthly capacity block, or productized fixed price depending on the shape. Quoted after the scoping call. We do not publish rates because the delivery-quality conversation that earns the engagement happens in scoping, not on a rate sheet.
Outbridge is a sister-brand ISV product (D365 F&O integration platform). Same engineering team, same legal entity, separate brand. When MIWR evaluates an integration architecture, Outbridge is a candidate alongside native Microsoft tools, custom builds, and iPaaS. We publish the evaluation method so the recommendation is inspectable: see the Outbridge evaluation rubric. Disclosed in writing on every engagement where Outbridge could be a candidate. Partner controls whether and when Outbridge is surfaced to the end customer.
Yes. Many engagements are advisory or embedded technical-leadership roles where we review architecture, unblock delivery, improve quality, or own a difficult technical workstream without replacing the wider program team.
Take the deal you would have had to turn down.
The good version: your project ships, your client never knew we existed, and your bench scaled without a single hire. The bad version is the one you already know: juniors you did not agree to, a seam that breaks in production, and your name on it. A 30-minute scoping call is where you find out which one you are buying.