3 ms·
I'm on a T&M contract right now where we are having the stupidest of disputes. T&M with a SOW full of deliverables. Client asks us to do a ton of work outside
by Consultant32452 4y ago
I'm on a T&M contract right now where we are having the stupidest of disputes.
T&M with a SOW full of deliverables. Client asks us to do a ton of work outside of scope. We inform the client it's out of scope, but that we are happy to perform the work as part of the T&M. Can't get anyone to push through a CR "because it's T&M so it doesn't matter." Client has been paying all along. Getting to the end, client doesn't want to sign off on completion of the project because we didn't do the SOW deliverables (per our previous alignment). They already paid so I don't actually care if they sign off on the work, but it's stupid for everyone involved.
- ncallaway 4y agoMy favorite protection for this kind of situation is having a Single Point of Contact clause, that basically says: "ultimately, we take direction from X person and only X person". This helps in a couple of different ways. Occasionally, you'll get conflicting requests or instructions from a client. When that happens, I usually just push it to the single point of contact and ask how they want to proceed. But it also helps in the scenario you outlined, because I make sure any approvals for "outside the scope of SOW work" gets approved to be worked by the single point of contact, along with any relevant disclaimers about total project budget and estimate. Then, when you come to time to evaluate the project progress the single point of contact has clear language that they've approved with whatever associated cost warnings.