A logistics mobile app fails in ways that a vendor without logistics experience does not anticipate. Offline sync gaps that create holes in the delivery record. Dispatch architectures that work at 200 drivers and break at 800. Proof-of-delivery flows that fail in the environments where most urban deliveries happen. These are not generic mobile app problems - they are logistics-specific problems with logistics-specific solutions.
A vendor who has solved them before knows what they are. A vendor who has not will encounter them mid-project and solve them slowly, at your cost.
Key findings
The most reliable test of genuine logistics mobile experience is asking a vendor to describe a specific sync architecture decision they made on a past project and why. The offline-first vs. online-only decision, the polling vs. push-sync choice, and the conflict resolution model for route changes during connectivity gaps are problems every logistics app encounters. A vendor who answers with specifics has solved them. A vendor who answers with generalities has not.
Vendors without logistics experience consistently underscope offline-first architecture in their proposals. They describe offline capability as a feature - "the app will work offline" - without specifying the local database model, the sync queue design, or the conflict resolution logic. These are the components that take the most time to build correctly. A proposal that treats offline capability as a line item rather than an architecture discussion is a proposal from a vendor who has not built it before.
The dispatch communication architecture - how route updates reach driver devices in real time - is the second most commonly underscoped component. Vendors without logistics experience propose polling-based updates because they are simpler to build. Vendors with logistics experience propose push-based updates because they are the only architecture that scales to high driver counts without server congestion. The difference in the proposal is one line. The difference in production is visible at 500 concurrent drivers.
Why generic mobile vendors miss logistics
Logistics mobile apps have three requirements that are uncommon in other verticals: offline-first architecture for field operations in low-connectivity environments, real-time state synchronization for dispatch across hundreds of concurrent driver sessions, and proof-of-delivery data integrity under connectivity gaps. Each of these requires deliberate design decisions that are not default choices in general mobile development.
A vendor who has built consumer apps, e-commerce apps, or enterprise internal tools has not necessarily encountered any of these requirements. Consumer apps assume connectivity. E-commerce apps do not manage concurrent field sessions. Enterprise internal tools run on corporate WiFi.
The gap shows up in proposals: the scope does not mention conflict resolution, the timeline does not account for offline testing across connectivity profiles, and the architecture diagram shows a standard request-response API rather than a push-based sync model.
Asking the right questions before selecting a vendor is cheaper than discovering the gap three months into the build.
The five questions that separate vendors
Question 1: Describe your offline-first architecture on a past logistics project. The answer should include the local database choice, the sync queue design, the conflict resolution approach, and how they tested offline behavior across connectivity profiles. A vendor who has built this before will have specific answers. A vendor who has not will describe the concept without the implementation details.
Question 2: How did you handle route updates pushed to drivers who were offline at the time of the update? This is a specific logistics problem with a specific answer. The update should be queued on the server and delivered when the device reconnects, with a notification to the driver and a conflict resolution step if the driver has already completed actions that conflict with the update.
Question 3: What was your approach to dispatch-to-driver sync at peak driver counts? The answer should distinguish between polling and push-based sync and explain why the choice was made. A vendor who has not thought about this at the architecture level will not have an opinion.
Question 4: How did you handle proof-of-delivery submissions that were queued offline and arrived out of sequence? Offline submissions arrive in batches when the device reconnects. The backend needs to handle submissions that arrive hours after the delivery, with timestamps that may not match the sequence of submission arrival. A vendor who has built this knows it.
Question 5: Can you show us a past logistics app that is live in production? A verifiable live app in the relevant app store is the baseline credential. Everything else is portfolio material.
What past work actually tells you
A vendor's past logistics work tells you two things: whether they have encountered the specific problems your project will face, and whether they solved them well enough that the app is still running.
An app that launched and was replaced within 12 months is a signal. Ask what happened. The answer - performance degradation at scale, sync issues, driver complaints about reliability - tells you what the vendor did not solve on that project.
An app that has been running for two or more years at the scale your operation requires is a different signal. It means the architecture decisions held. The offline-first design worked. The dispatch sync did not break under load. The vendor earned the confidence their proposal is now claiming.
The question to ask is not "have you built a logistics app?" It is "is the last logistics app you built still running, at what scale, and can I speak with someone from that operation?"
The architecture conversation
Before signing a contract for a logistics mobile project above $150,000, have a technical architecture conversation with the vendor's lead engineer - not the account manager or the project manager. The conversation should cover four topics.
The offline-first data model. What database will the app use locally? How will records be structured to support sync? What happens to local records after they are confirmed by the backend?
The dispatch communication model. Push or polling? If push, what protocol? What happens to updates queued for devices that are offline for more than one hour?
The proof-of-delivery integrity model. How is the local POD record structured? What fields are captured locally vs. resolved at sync time? How are duplicate submissions prevented at the backend?
The backend scaling model. How many concurrent driver sessions is the backend designed for? What changes if that number doubles?
A vendor who can answer these four questions specifically and confidently has the architecture experience your project requires. A vendor who deflects to general principles or says they will figure it out during development has not built a production logistics system before.
Read more case studies at mobile.wednesday.is/work
Red flags in vendor proposals
"The app will work offline." This is a feature claim, not an architecture claim. A vendor with genuine offline-first experience will describe the local database model and the sync layer, not just assert the capability.
Timeline under 14 weeks for a full driver and dispatch platform. A driver app plus dispatch dashboard plus offline-first backend plus integration with an existing dispatch system cannot be built and tested in 14 weeks at production quality. A vendor proposing this timeline is either scoping a much simpler product or setting you up for a scope revision after the contract is signed.
No mention of conflict resolution. Route changes, stop reassignments, and delivery exceptions create state conflicts when drivers are offline. A proposal that does not address conflict resolution has not thought through the offline-first architecture.
A single technology recommendation without explanation. A vendor who says "we'll use React Native" without explaining why React Native is right for your driver fleet's device mix, connectivity profile, and deployment requirements is proposing a default choice, not an informed recommendation.
These flags do not disqualify a vendor. They are questions worth asking before the contract is signed, not after the build is underway.
Originally published at https://mobile.wednesday.is/writing/how-to-evaluate-mobile-vendor-logistics-operations-2026
