Bridge Technology Partners LLC

Please accept this response to the complaint lodged by *** *** relating to the services performed by Bridge Technology Partners, LLC (“Bridge”) for The Friend Connection, LLC (“TFC”) Preliminarily, Bridge would like to point out that it was extremely responsive with TFC, as shown by the following: - Bridge’s project coordinator met with TFC on a weekly basis and demonstrated work as it was completed- Bridge responded to all calls and complaints within the same business day- Although contractually TFC was to work with a project coordinator, complaints were escalated to Bridge’s founder, Rob ***- Mr*** took phone calls after business hours and took the time to resolve issues for TFC- Mr*** responded to emails promptly, even after business hours- Mr*** voluntarily joined the weekly project status meetings to help ensure the project was completed successfully- Mr*** took calls with Mr***’s parents after hours to resolve issues second hand- Several Bridge team members worked exhaustively during business hours and after business hours in an effort to please TFC Unfortunately, TFC became irate because Bridge refused to continue to provide out of scope work for free Specifically, after the *** version of TFC’s app was published on the *** Store on 12/7/2016, TFC requested a change to the sign up requirements for the service. Bridge modified the API, the website, the iOS app, and the Android app as requested TFC approved the changes and paid for them Only the iOS app was rejected by *** when submitted for review, citing the changes to the sign up requirement - not a technical reason such as bugs ***'s review also rejected some previously accepted aspects of TFC’s business model (*** is at the liberty to do this for arbitrary reasons since its ***etplace is private) TFC declined to promote the release of the updated website, API, and the Android app without the iOS app update Four months later, TFC followed ***’s review escalation process and was able to get the app approved without any code changes However, when releasing the next version of the *** app, *** rejected the app againWe are unsure if TFC followed ***’s process and asked for a discussion with *** to get the app approved TFCTFC did, however, then contact Bridge with a threat that, if we didn’t change his software to add features *** suggested, that he would ruin our business through bad reviews online The following discusses each specific claim made by Mr***: Claim: "I needed to pay a deposit up front and stage payments before starting each work orderThe problem was that they started the next stage without completing the first“ This is false. There was a deposit of 5.5% of the total project that was collected in advanceThe “stage payments” mentioned were actually not paid at the startThe stage payments were actually Milestone payments Per the contract (page of our standard contract, see attachment), Milestone payments are due upon *completion* of each milestone Milestones were completed Every functional detail required to satisfy each contract milestone was demonstrated to TFC, and approved by TFC before TFC made payments by wire-transfer TFC was in control of the payments throughout the process At the request of TFC to make the project go faster, we did work on more than one milestone at a time; however it is very important to correct TFC’s claim that we were paid at the start of the milestones We were not paid for milestones at the start We were paid milestone payments after the work was completed, demonstrated, and approved by TFC At any time if TFC did not accept the work, Mr*** could have simply disapproved the work withhold payment, which did happen from time to time TFC did not have to pay for any milestone if he did not approve of it There were milestones in the original contractTFC paid for milestones, and the last two milestones were replaced with change orders that TFC initiated Accordingly, TFC had chances to reject any work and simply not pay for it until he was satisfied with the work Yet TFC approved and paid for all the work in the original contract, and continued to buy more services in the form of three more contracts of change orders In the event that TFC found a bug after the payment was made, we fixed it for free Claim: "Whenever I complained, Rob told me that everyone releases their apps even with many big bugs because there will always be something to fix." This is known as a Beta Release, which is a universally accepted standard practice for software companiesVirtually all software companies have Beta Releases to give a small group of users access to the system to give feedback about their application - not only to find more bugs, but to give feedback on what features they would like changed or added In clear and unambiguous language, we explained to Mr*** the nature of a beta release (for reference: https://beta.***.com/sp/betaprogram/welcome ). Therefore, bugs will and did occur, as is standard in virtually all apps during Beta Release. Mr*** does not provide the accurate context of the Beta Release in his claim, and therefore it is inaccurate, misleading, and does not demonstrate any type of substandard service by Bridge Claim: "The bottom line is that little is in working order and I have paid over $130,000.” As mentioned above, TFC approved the milestones of work as being in working order before payingAdditionally, two independent 3rd parties, *** and Google, both rigorously reviewed and accepted the completed mobile applicationsThese third parties have rigorous requirements for mobile apps that are distributed on their platforms, including privacy, security, proper functionality, complying with respective terms of service, and applicable laws and regulations(see: Google: https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy-print/ and ***: https://developer.***.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ ) *** first accepted the application Bridge prepared for TFC on 12/7/2016, and Google did so on 12/9/ Accordingly, the claim that “little is in working order” is simply untrue Claim: "At this point, Bridge Technology Partners are over months late from the maximum estimated time of the change order and more than months from the original agreement." This claim is not accurate. The project commenced on 1/19/ As mentioned above, versions of the application were released on both platforms: *** on 12/7/2016, and Google on 12/9/ These versions of TFC’s application, as well as the updated versions of the application, are still available to the public The original project ran ahead of scheduleChange orders TFC added toward the end of the original contract caused the timeline to expand past the original deadlineWhile there were some delays, the major causes of delay were the changes and additionsOne issue Bridge faced is that TFC’s opinion of “done” does not correlate with the scope of work in the contract In some cases Bridge gave TFC free services as a gesture to try to wrap things up, but Mr*** would keep finding more and more free out of scope work he wanted Bridge to do Claim: "I left bad reviews on many websites and several of their clients contacted me and mentioned they went through the same circumstances down to a T" While it is true that TFC has left bad reviews on many websites (reviews that we contend contain and misleading information), we find it unlikely that any other clients have contacted him or made these statements, for these reasons: 1.) For the six years Bridge have been in business, we have always been able to resolve issues reasonably with any clients who had them 2.) TFC doesn’t mention his company name or personal full name in any of the reviews, and does not provide any contact information which other clients could possibly use to contact him with Although we attempted for a significant period of time to work with Mr*** and TFC in order to satisfy their requests for additional out of scope work, and even did a substantial amount of work for free in this effort, their continuing demands in this regard were unreasonable. We ultimately had to hire an attorney to inform Mr*** and TFC that the services Bridge agreed to do were complete and we could not perform any more services under these circumstances. We believe our position in this regard, based on the above-referenced facts, is more than reasonable and that Mr***’s claims are without justification. Thank you very much for considering this response

We need your guidance here 1. In actual fact, our company has a business to business relationship with a company called ***
*** *** *** - of which the we believe *** *** is a part owner. Our company has never had a business relationship with *** *** directly The complaint contains statements that are not trueThis matter is in the hands of our both our lawyers, as we have exhausted all other means to settle the matter I would like the chance to outline the many steps we took to resolve differences, including meetings with all steak-holders, and discounted and free services as a token of good faith However, we will need the approval of our attorney to share the specifics I can assure you that you would appreciate the efforts we took to try to resolve any issues with our client After being in business for years, we have never had any other complaints against our company with the Revdex.com or any other similar organization, and any disputes were resolved to the satisfaction of our clients How should we proceed?

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below[This
is in response to Bridge Technology Partners messageThroughout
the entire process Bridge Technology Partners was very good at speakingThe
kept on delaying me and mentioning that the work would be done within a few days
Those few days went on for over year nowI have already paid more than $130,
to themInstead of going back and forward I have attached screenshots of how
my apps are working todayThey still are not workingThey act a nice design but
do not load any information and therefore, are unusable.]
Regards,
*** ***

It is impossible to tell from the screen captures provided whether The Friend Connection, LLC (“TFC”) is using the correct versions of the various components of their software as a service platform It is also impossible to tell if TFC has resolved it's dispute with *** - as stated in the previous reply, *** rejected the latest version of the TFC app for non-technical reasons. The TFC needs to use the correct version of the app with the correct version of the back end database. The components work together and trying to use different versions of the components together will not work properly. We are also unaware if TFC has gained the skillset or hired qualified technical staff to manage the software as a service platform that was built for TFC while our business relationship was active. All versions of source code were handed over to TFC at their requestIt is not possible to tell from the screen captures if TFC is using the latest version of the source code that Bridge built, or if their new technical resource has the qualifications and capability to maintain a software as a service platform in the ever changing Internet environment. At best, the screen captures show a potential consumer experience with TFC would possibly be like, not with Bridge - depending on what versions of the software TFC decided to make public to their users - or if the company lacked the qualified staff to manage a software publishing process. The screen captures do not address the business to business relationship between Bridge and TFC. There in no mention of software versions, or reference to the contract and what the software was supposed to do per the contractTFC has not provided any proof that Bridge was informed of these specific potential issues with the software before today, and no proof that Bridge refused to address any issues covered under the contract, prior to TFC ending the business relationship in a hostile fashion Information such as versions, contract scope and acceptance criteria exists, however TFC has not provided any of this information