Singlebrook Technology, Inc.

Re: Revdex.com Complaint ID: [redacted]([redacted])Dear [redacted]:I represent Singlebrook Technologies, Inc. and have received the complaint submittedagainst my client to the Revdex.com. Singlebrook denies that it did not fulfill itscontractual obligations and submits that the failure to satisfy the...

customer was entirely due to theactions of the customer.I am in possession of the original contract between the parties and, contrary to theassertion of the customer, Singlebrook was not hired in October 2013. The contract was datedDecember 30, 2013.More significantly, the contract contained an Addendum A describing the scope of theproject. In Addendum A, it was specifically stated that certain work was out of scope for thisproject.Before the contract was entered into, the customer had sent to my client a documentdescribing what the customer wanted the project scope to include. Before the contract wassigned, my client discussed that project scope with the customer and clarified that, for the pricethe customer wanted to pay, that entire scope of work could not be done. Accordingly, thecontract contained a description of what was to be done, and what items were outside the scopeof the project.Almost immediately after the contract was entered into, the client beganrequesting/demanding that work outside the scope of the project be accomplished. On numerousoccasions, my client advised that this was outside the scope of the project. My client attempted,as best my client could, to incorporate what the client wanted, but some items the client wantedwere not only outside the scope of the contract, but so significant that they could not beaccomplished for the contract price. For example, in the letter to the Revdex.com, thecustomer complained that PCI compliance was part of the original contract. Addendum A to thecontract, which defines the scope of the project, lists under items that are "out of the scope forthis project," "PCI compliance for on-site payments." This is but one example.The customer was requesting that my client design a website. When doing this work,there are two phases involved. First, there is design work. After the design work is done, thenthere is development work. This client gave us contact information of one individual who, myclient was told, was to be the contact person. Time after time my client submitted design plansto this individual. My client was told by this individual that the design work was acceptable.My client then began development work on that design. Then, sometimes significantly later, myclient was advised by the customer that the design work was not acceptable. This caused manyproblems.In the first place, the development work which was done on the design which we hadbeen told was acceptable and later were told it was not acceptable became almost worthless.Instead, we had to go back to the drawing board and go back to doing design work.The customer was not only asking that the scope of the project be expanded to includethings which were clearly outside the scope of the project but, in addition, the customer wascontinually modifying what they wanted so that we were always going back to the design phase.These changes in the project resulted in us not being able to do the work in as timely manner aswe wanted and as the customer wanted, but also in us spending significantly more time than hadever been anticipated. Instead of designing and developing, we were designing, redesigning,redesigning, and then redesigning again.The customer complains that the contract provided work would be done in approximatelyninety days. Actually, the contract contained no such time period. We acknowledge that worktook much longer than anyone anticipated. This, however, was 100% due to the customercontinually changing what they wanted and/or delaying responding to our questions about whatthey wanted.By October 2014, it is acknowledged that everyone was extremely frustrated. My cllenthad put in approximately three times the number of hours which my cllent was billing under thefixed price contract. That work was required because of continual changes in the project by thecustomer. The customer was frustrated because they did not have a website ready to launch.In October 2014, an agreement was reached that my client would do eight additionalweeks of work at no additional cost to the customer with the aim of launching the site during theweek of December 15, 2015. From October 27 to December 19, an eight-week period, my clientagreed to have one or two developers working on the project. The intention was to get as manyfeatures completed during that period so that the website could be launched. The customeragreed that this was a fair resolution of the dispute and it would accept eight additional weeks ofwork with one Of two developers, at no additional cost to customer, as a satisfactory resolution ofall disputes.During that eight week period, my client put one or two developers on the project at alltimes. Unfortunately, they could not follow the projected time line because, even in the fall of2014, the customer was still making changes to the basic design. Accordingly, by midDecember2014, the website was still not ready to launch.After the eight weeks had elapsed, my client advised the customer that they were unableto continue working for the customer. My client came to the conclusion that the customer wouldnever be satisfied with what was being done.At that time, three employees of my client left the employment of my client and fOffiledtheir own company. The customer then agreed to hire this company to complete the design anddevelopment and to launch the website. The original contract contains a provision that if a clientdirectly or indirectly retains the services of any employee of my client, my client would bedamaged. It was agreed that the customer be responsible for $25,000 of liquidated damages. Myclient agreed that one of these three individuals could work for the customer. There was neverany request or agreement that the other two employees would be allowed to do this. To date, myclient has not sought any damages for that breach of the contract.The customer complains about the work done by these three individuals after they left theemployment of my client. I do not understand how customer can allege that actions done bypeople who are no longer employees of my client are the responsibility of my client.If you need anything further from us with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate tocontact me.Very Truly Yours,Charles G[redacted]