Evaluating Timing Analysis Tools: A Procurement Checklist for Safety-Critical Projects

Cut through vendor noise: a procurement checklist & scoring rubric for timing analysis tools in safety-critical programs

Hook: You’re an engineering manager juggling safety standards, WCET claims, and a shrinking vendor landscape after major consolidations (hello, Vector + RocqStat). Procurement pressure is high: you must pick a timing analysis tool that proves accuracy, integrates with CI/CD, survives future M&A, and justifies ROI to stakeholders. This checklist and scoring rubric helps you evaluate candidates fast — with defensible scores you can present to architects and procurement.

Top-line summary (inverted pyramid)

In 2026, timing analysis is no longer a niche activity — it’s central to certifying software-defined safety cases across automotive, aerospace and industrial domains. Recent consolidations like Vector’s acquisition of StatInf’s RocqStat (announced January 16, 2026) signal a consolidation wave: vendors are combining WCET estimation with software testing and verification. That makes vendor lock-in, integration promises, and continuity risk procurement-critical.

This article gives you a practical, weighted scoring rubric and a step-by-step procurement checklist you can apply in RFIs, RFPs and POCs. Use it to compare tools, document tradeoffs, and quantify ROI and risk.

Why this matters in 2026: trends shaping timing tool procurement

• Vendor consolidation: The Vector + RocqStat integration (Automotive World, Jan 2026) is one of several late-2025/early-2026 deals that combine static WCET analysis with dynamic verification and testing. That improves unified workflows — but raises questions about long-term support and migration of existing licenses.
• Multicore complexity: Multicore WCET and interference analysis remains a top pain point as teams move to many-core ECUs and mixed-criticality deployments.
• Certification evidence: Safety standards (ISO 26262, DO-178C, EN 50128) increasingly expect tool qualification evidence and traceable artifacts. Timing tools must provide repeatable evidence chains.
• Automation-first procurement: Teams want tools that integrate into CI/CD, observability pipelines, and automated regression so WCET becomes part of daily verification rather than a milestone sprint task.

How to use this article

Apply the checklist during vendor evaluation and the rubric to score candidates objectively. Use the sample POC tasks and acceptance criteria to validate claims. Export the scoring as a spreadsheet for procurement reviews.

Procurement checklist: must-haves and deal-breakers

Split your due diligence into four phases: Discovery (RFI), Technical Validation (POC), Commercial Negotiation, and Onboarding & Qualification. For each phase, here are the concrete checkpoints.

Phase 1 — Discovery / RFI

• Request explicit support for safety standards: ISO 26262 (ASIL support), DO-178C (tool qualification), EN 50128.
• Ask for concrete WCET benchmark results on representative microarchitectures (ARM Cortex-R/M, TriCore, PowerPC, RISC-V) and multicore interference reports.
• Require a statement on planned product integrations (e.g., VectorCAST integration timeline) and a commitment to backward compatibility for existing customers.
• Request a public or shared validation dataset (or accepted NDA dataset) used for internal tool validation.
• Get a list of current large-scale customers and reference projects, plus contactable references.

Phase 2 — Technical Validation / POC

• Run a small, time-boxed POC: 2–4 representative tasks (unit, integration, and real-HW traces) with clear success criteria.
• Test static WCET estimates vs measured execution on target hardware under controlled interference. Document gaps and explain mitigation.
• Validate toolchain integration: CI/CD hooks, command-line interface, APIs, and IDE/plugin support (VectorCAST, Jenkins, GitLab CI, Conan, etc.).
• Check traceability: does the tool generate evidence artifacts (trace annotations, argumentation files) formatted for certification audits?
• Assess usability: time to first useful result, documentation quality, sample projects, training availability.

Phase 3 — Commercial Terms & Risk

• Licensing model: node-locked, floating, cloud-hosted SaaS. Map license cost against projected CI usage and number of engineers.
• Service-level agreement (SLA) and support hours. Include escalation paths and enterprise SLAs for safety-critical incidents.
• IP and continuity: source escrow, perpetual license clauses, and transition assistance in case of vendor exit or acquisition.
• Roadmap transparency: ask for a mapped integration plan (e.g., when RocqStat features will appear in VectorCAST) and commitment to maintain legacy workflows for X years.
• Training and knowledge transfer: number of seats, onsite workshops, and certification programs for your team.

Phase 4 — Onboarding, Qualification & Long-term Maintenance

• Tool qualification kit: test protocols, documented assumptions, and artifacts required to qualify the tool under relevant standards.
• Regression strategy: automated regression tests for timing across software changes and tool upgrades.
• Maintenance windows and compatibility guarantees with new hardware and compiler versions.
• Escrow & exit plan: detailed migration plan and exportability of findings and intermediate files to neutral formats.

Scoring rubric: objective comparison you can present to stakeholders

Use this weighted rubric to score each vendor. Scores are 0–5 (0 = fails, 5 = exceeds expectations). Multiply by weight, sum to 100. Document evidence for each score.

Rubric criteria and weights

• Accuracy & WCET Soundness — Weight: 22% (score 0–5)
  • Quality of static WCET analysis, correctness on single-core and multicore, confidence intervals, and explicit assumptions.
• Standards & Tool Qualification Evidence — Weight: 16%
  • Deliverables and artifacts for ISO 26262 / DO-178C qualification, documented validation suites, and certification references.
• Integration & Automation — Weight: 14%
  • CI/CD support, APIs, plugin ecosystem (VectorCAST, compilers, trace tools), and automation primitives for nightly/regression runs.
• Scalability & Performance — Weight: 10%
  • Ability to handle large codebases, parallelized analysis, cloud or cluster support, and runtime for full-system analyses.
• Usability & Onboarding — Weight: 8%
  • Documentation, sample projects, GUI/CLI quality, learning curve, and available training.
• Vendor Stability & Roadmap — Weight: 10%
  • Company financial health, acquisition risk, roadmap transparency, and commitments post-consolidation.
• Commercial Terms & TCO / ROI — Weight: 10%
  • License model fairness, overall TCO, ROI payback timeline and quantifiable savings (reduced certification time, fewer late defects).
• Support & Professional Services — Weight: 6%
  • Response SLAs, onsite support options, and availability of expert services for tool qualification and custom integrations.
• Open Interfaces & Exportability — Weight: 4%
  • Open file formats, ability to extract artifacts, and API stability for future migration.

How to score (quick guide)

1. For each criterion, assign 0–5 based on evidence collected (POC reports, benchmarks, references).
2. Multiply the score by the criterion weight (convert weight to decimal, e.g., 22% = 0.22).
3. Sum weighted scores to get a 0–5 normalized result, then multiply by 20 to convert to a 0–100 scale.

Example calculation (simplified)

Vendor A sample scores: Accuracy 4, Standards 5, Integration 3, Scalability 4, Usability 3, Stability 4, TCO 3, Support 4, Open Interfaces 2.

Weighted sum = (4*0.22)+(5*0.16)+(3*0.14)+(4*0.10)+(3*0.08)+(4*0.10)+(3*0.10)+(4*0.06)+(2*0.04) = 0.88+0.80+0.42+0.40+0.24+0.40+0.30+0.24+0.08 = 3.76 (out of 5). Final score = 3.76*20 = 75.2/100.

POC playbook: tests that reveal real capability

Keep POCs short and measurable. Focus less on feature tours and more on repeatable results and evidence artifacts.

• POC duration: 2–4 weeks with defined checkpoints each week.
• POC inputs: minimal set of representative source files, compiler toolchain versions, and at least one hardware trace capture.
• POC tasks:
  1. Run static WCET analysis on a representative module. Compare with measured worst-case on target hardware (under baseline and injected interference).
  2. Integrate tool into CI pipeline: add a failing test if WCET exceeds threshold, verify run times and artifacts are produced without manual steps.
  3. Export traceability artifacts for a certification audit and verify readability and mapping to source code and requirements.
  4. Measure runtime and resource usage of analysis on your codebase (memory, licenses used, wall time).
• Acceptance criteria: defined numeric pass/fail (example: static WCET <= measured WCET + 15% margin on at least 2/3 modules; CI integration success; artifacts exportable and traceable).

Contract addenda and negotiation levers

• Request a migration commitment clause for customers impacted by consolidation. Ask for phased integration timelines and compatibility guarantees.
• Negotiate an escrow and emergency support window triggered by ownership changes (automatic extended support for 24 months post-acquisition).
• Include benchmarked SLAs for support response on safety-critical issues and guaranteed turnaround for qualification artifacts.
• Ask for a performance warranty on WCET claims as an addendum to commercial terms—limited liability but useful leverage.

ROI and TCO: make the business case

Engineers care about correctness; procurement wants dollars. Translate timing tool benefits into financial terms:

• Estimate reduction in certification labor hours (e.g., fewer manual timing tests, reduced rework). Multiply by average engineer loaded cost.
• Estimate time-to-market improvements from faster regression (e.g., nightly WCET checks prevent long debugging cycles).
• Include hard savings: fewer late-stage defects, reduced warranty risk, and potential insurance/policy advantages when using qualified tools.
• Compare license & support costs across scenarios: on-prem vs cloud, floating vs per-seat, long-term maintenance uplift from consolidation.

Red flags and mitigations

• Vague WCET claims: if the vendor cannot provide reproducible benchmarks, treat as fail. Mitigation: insist on third-party benchmark or independent validation.
• Closed artifacts: proprietary formats with no export are risky. Mitigation: require exportability and API access in contract.
• Single-vendor lock-in after acquisition: require a transition plan or escrow to protect projects that depend on legacy tools.
• Roadmap uncertainty: consolidation announcements often shift priorities. Mitigation: get written commitments for legacy support and integration timelines.

Practical examples & case notes (experience-driven)

Teams we’ve consulted with in late-2025 and early-2026 faced similar decisions after consolidation announcements. Successful programs shared these practices:

• They performed a short, aggressive POC focusing on reproducibility rather than feature breadth — this often exposed gaps in multicore interference modeling within 1–2 weeks.
• They required a test harness that could be automated in CI and used the rubric to quantify vendor claims during procurement reviews.
• For programs with long certification tails, they negotiated multi-year support windows post-acquisition to avoid re-certification costs.

“Timing safety is becoming a critical capability” — paraphrase of vendor signals after the Vector + RocqStat acquisition (Automotive World, Jan 2026).

Checklist quick reference (printable)

1. Request WCET benchmark on representative targets and multicore interference tests.
2. Run a 2–4 week POC with defined acceptance criteria.
3. Score vendors using the weighted rubric and document evidence.
4. Negotiate migration, escrow, and SLA clauses tied to consolidation risk.
5. Include tool qualification artifacts in contract deliverables.
6. Quantify ROI: certification hour savings + reduced time-to-market.

Final takeaways — what to do this quarter

• If you’re mid-project and a vendor consolidation is announced: pause major migrations, start an emergency POC on critical modules, and negotiate extended support.
• If you’re procuring now: use the rubric to shortlist 2–3 vendors and run side-by-side POCs with identical inputs and acceptance criteria.
• Document every claim — if a vendor promises feature X in an integration (e.g., RocqStat features in VectorCAST), get timelines and compatibility guarantees in writing.

Call to action

Ready to apply this checklist to your next procurement? Download our blank scoring spreadsheet and a POC template (customized for automotive and aerospace) to speed vendor comparisons and lock defensible scores. Contact our team for a 30-minute vendor evaluation workshop tailored to your codebase and target hardware — we’ll help you run an objective POC and produce procurement-ready evidence.

Sources & further reading: Vector’s acquisition of RocqStat / StatInf reported by Automotive World (Jan 16, 2026); industry consolidation trends late 2025 — internal analysis and vendor roadmaps. For specific references during procurement, request vendor-provided benchmark datasets and third-party validation reports.

Related Reading

• 10 Practical Sleep Habits for Gamers: Reclaim Sleep Without Quitting the Game
• Gimmick or Game-Changer? A Foodie’s Guide to Evaluating ‘Placebo’ Pizza Gadgets
• Gift Ideas Under $100 from Today’s Top Deals: Books, Speakers, and Movie Bundles
• From Mountain to Shore: Adding a Beach Extension to Your Drakensberg Trek
• What Streamers Need to Know About Promoting Casino Offers on New Social Networks