Is it okay not to get paid.

qualis · 02-23-2006, 06:14 PM

Interested in opinion/thoughts/advice on following.

I have never been stiffed on a consulting contract, I"ve been engaged in mainstream software development (Java, c++, other common languages).

I recently finished a contract, during which there were three different project plans, a number of different project managers, change in direction, and to increase the risk, development using early or just released production developmen tools.

My client has indicated that they are not satisfied and want credit for 160 hrs. They introduced a fundamental change request in software functionality 1 week prior to going live.

What should I do? I'll let responses drive further information exposure, must remain anon however.

Is this an ethical problem? Client has history of stiffing vendors.

Oh, and client is a billion dollar company.

**crazijoe** · 02-23-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qualis

My client has indicated that they are not satisfied and want credit for 160 hrs. They introduced a fundamental change request in software functionality 1 week prior to going live.

If the contract was fill to the original agreement, it is a done deal. Any added changes should be drawn up in a new contract.
It sounds to me like they don't like their original concept, that was contracted for you to create, and trying to put the blame on you when they decided to change it. They want you to change it for free.

If you did what the contract stated, and they don't pay, you could take this to court. However, the company being as big as you state, they probably have a big legal team.

Good Luck.

buckleytech · 03-14-2006, 10:21 PM

I guess I'd have the following input.

First off- please tell me you had a contract- not just an understanding. The bigger the biz you're dealing with, the more you have to worry about the legalities... If you read the contract, did you fulfill it? If so, then push a little harder to get paid. You'll never win in court, no matter how right you are, but making things uncomfortable for the right people can do a world of good.

As a former employee (workin' for the man... yuck!) of a couple of Fortune 100s, I've seen how things work in different corp cultures. You need to figure out where the dissatisfaction is coming from- If the low level manager of the specific project you are working on is the problem, it may be as simple as going to the purchasing agent and explaining that the dissatisfaction is merely the result of him over-selling his concept to the mid-level managers. The contract is very useful in this situation.

If you were the one that oversold the flexibility or actual application of the project, feel lucky you'll get paid at all.

If the problem is upper management or a purchasing agent, you may do well enlisting the guys in the trenches to your cause. While they may not be able to do anything directly, their support will prove invaluable in negotiating your credit.

Another thing to consider is why 160 hours? Is that 100% of what you billed? A single stage of the project? Was there an event 160 hours before completion? That may enlighten you to the thinking they are using behind demanding the credit.

Scope creep can be horrible. I have renegotiated and/or declined to take on some huge "this is going to solve my monthly cash flow" type projects because of scope creep. In the future, every bit of a pain you can afford to be during the sales stage will work for you. I learned the hard way that customers like to get the contract 99% signed before they give you the real scoop- it motivates you to make concessions you might not otherwise make.

Until the contract is signed, and the contract contains the full project scope, consider it 0% sold.

02-23-2006, 06:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
qualis Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1 OS: XP	Is it okay not to get paid. Interested in opinion/thoughts/advice on following. I have never been stiffed on a consulting contract, I"ve been engaged in mainstream software development (Java, c++, other common languages). I recently finished a contract, during which there were three different project plans, a number of different project managers, change in direction, and to increase the risk, development using early or just released production developmen tools. My client has indicated that they are not satisfied and want credit for 160 hrs. They introduced a fundamental change request in software functionality 1 week prior to going live. What should I do? I'll let responses drive further information exposure, must remain anon however. Is this an ethical problem? Client has history of stiffing vendors. Oh, and client is a billion dollar company.

03-14-2006, 10:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
buckleytech Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 10 OS: One of each Win/*ix	Depends.... I guess I'd have the following input. First off- please tell me you had a contract- not just an understanding. The bigger the biz you're dealing with, the more you have to worry about the legalities... If you read the contract, did you fulfill it? If so, then push a little harder to get paid. You'll never win in court, no matter how right you are, but making things uncomfortable for the right people can do a world of good. As a former employee (workin' for the man... yuck!) of a couple of Fortune 100s, I've seen how things work in different corp cultures. You need to figure out where the dissatisfaction is coming from- If the low level manager of the specific project you are working on is the problem, it may be as simple as going to the purchasing agent and explaining that the dissatisfaction is merely the result of him over-selling his concept to the mid-level managers. The contract is very useful in this situation. If you were the one that oversold the flexibility or actual application of the project, feel lucky you'll get paid at all. If the problem is upper management or a purchasing agent, you may do well enlisting the guys in the trenches to your cause. While they may not be able to do anything directly, their support will prove invaluable in negotiating your credit. Another thing to consider is why 160 hours? Is that 100% of what you billed? A single stage of the project? Was there an event 160 hours before completion? That may enlighten you to the thinking they are using behind demanding the credit. Scope creep can be horrible. I have renegotiated and/or declined to take on some huge "this is going to solve my monthly cash flow" type projects because of scope creep. In the future, every bit of a pain you can afford to be during the sales stage will work for you. I learned the hard way that customers like to get the contract 99% signed before they give you the real scoop- it motivates you to make concessions you might not otherwise make. Until the contract is signed, and the contract contains the full project scope, consider it 0% sold.